/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250221.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, February 21, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 38 Headlines 7-ELEVEN INC: Fernandez Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Calls ABBY UNITED: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Vanmatre Alleges ADITI CONSULTING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Trammell Alleges AG BELLS II: Aigner Sues Over Unlawful Sloping Conditions ALABAMA: Faces Murphree Suit Over Officers' Excessive Use of Force ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Officers Face Class Suit Amid DWI Scandal ALLSTATE FIRE: Parties Can File Class Cert Docs Under Seal AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Brown Extended to June 16 AMAZON.COM INC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Floyd Due May. 14 AMAZON.COM INC: June 16 Class Cert. Bid Deadline Sought AMAZON.COM INC: Maxwell Sues Over Data Privacy Violations AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Class Cert Bid Filing in Li Suit Due July 1 AMERICAN RENAL: May Face Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit APHRIA INC: CAD30MM Class Settlement to be Heard on March 26 APPLE INC: Affinity Credit Suit Seeks to Seal Class Cert Docs APPLE INC: Costa Wins Bid for Class Certification APPLE INC: Suit over RSUs in OT Pay Wins Class Status ARGENTINA: President Milei Faces Fraud Claims Over Cryptocurrency AT&T INC: Austin et al. Sues Over Basic Data Security Failure BERMAN & RABIN: Carlington Files Suit in D. Kansas BLVD MANAGEMENT: Pepi Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BOKF NA: Marquez Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to D. Colo. CARE.COM INC: Licea Suit Removed to S.D. California CARRUTH COMPLIANCE: Hogue Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII CASCADES HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Thompson Says CASTLEGATE BUILDING: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages CERENCE INC: Freshour Files Bid to Compel Production of Documents CERTUS HEALTHCARE: Class Certification Bids in Wesel Due August 22 CHAMPION ELEVATOR: Ibragimchayev Sues Over Unpaid Compensations CHAMPIONS HOUSTON: Piedilato Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Misuses Plan's Assets, O'Donnell Suit Says CHELSEA GRAND: Faces Swartz Suit Over Disabled's Access to Property CHURCH & DWIGHT: Settles Zicam False Advertising Class Action CLARENCE CARTER: Class Cert Bid Hearing in Bull Suit Due April 3 CLINT MILLER: Refuses to Refund Hunt Fee, Iasella Suit Alleges COAST ENVIRONMENTAL: Teng Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. COLGATE PALMOLIVE: Fails to Investigate Water Quality, Foreman Says COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: White Sues Over Mislabeled Toothpaste COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER: McCarthy Files Suit in D. Connecticut CONCEPTIONS REPRODUCTIVE: Gibson Suit Removed to D. Colorado CONSTELLATION BRANDS: Shah Seeks to Confirm Arbitral Award COOPERSURGICAL INC: Class certification Bid Due March 20, 2026 CVS HEALTH: Hall Suit Removed to E.D. California DATACAMP INC: Cai Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Private Info DIRECT DIGITAL: Thompson Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California DOMINO'S PIZZA: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by August 25 DRAFTKINGS INC: Beyer Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois E TRADE: Faces Class Suit Over Undisclosed Account Transfers EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Cole Sues Over Website Inaccessibility ENPHASE ENERGY: Continues to Defend Hayes Putative Class Suit ENPHASE ENERGY: Continues to Defend Pension Fund Class Suit ESSA BANCORP: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit ESSA PHARMA: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Wisconsin EVERGREEN CORP: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Forekast EXPEDIA INC: Overcharges Consumers' Credit Accounts, Rozen Claims EXPRESS SCRIPTS: 4th Cir. Halts Remand Order of Martinsville Case EXXON MOBIL: Completion of Class Certification Discovery Due June 6 F21 OPCO: Faces Cantu Class Suit Over Invasive Surveillance FEDERAL EXPRESS: Smith Sues Over Unlawful Employment Practices FOOD EXPRESS INC: Barnes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FOREST RIVER: Nelson Suit Seeks to Certify Class FOREVER 21 INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FRANCHISE WORLD: Ussery Seeks to Confirm Arbitral Award FURNITURE MART USA: Hilmar Files Suit in D. South Dakota FURNITURE MART USA: Schaffer Files Suit in D. South Dakota GAS EXPRESS: Brown Sues Over Private Data Breach GEICO GENERAL: Seeks to Seal Class Cert. Confidential Info GOODRX INC: Gus' Pharmacy Sues Over Reimbursement Rate Suppression GRAB HOLDINGS: Proposes Class Settlement, Hearing Set May 15 GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT: Miles Suit Removed to D. Nevada GYMSHARK USA: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Manier Suit Claims HAYWARD, CA: Ghali et al. Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages HEATONIST LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Trippett Says HOSPITAL SISTERS: Fails to Secure Private Info, Hedding Alleges ICON PLC: Artificially Inflated Ordinary Share Price, Shing Says INSOMNIA COOKIES: Sumlin Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website INTELLIA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Gonzalez Suit Over Market Price Drop J.M. SMUCKER: Ringler Sues Over Fruit Spreads' Misleading Labels JACKSON HOLE: Riley Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind JAIME S. SCHWARTZ: Faces Does Suit Over Data Breach JERUSALEN PRODUCTOS: Faces Martin Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Fla. JOHNSON CITY, TN: Settles Sean Williams Class Suit for $28-Mil. JPMORGAN CHASE: Retains Vehicles After Payments, Jalalian Alleges JUSTIN FRENCH: Plaintiffs Seek to File Certain Docs Under Seal KLARNA INC: Thompson Sues Over Conversion of Content Creators' Pay KOD ATLANTA: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, OT Under FLSA, Bishop Says MARTIAN SALES: Faces Class Suit Over OPMS-brand Kratom Powder MEERMIN USA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Andrews Suit Claims MERCK & CO: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set April 14 MOUNT AIRY: Mak Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Table Games Dealers MPC INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA, Garibay Says NEW CHAPTER: Gummy Has Deceptive Prebiotic Fiber Label, Suit Says NEW YORK BLOOD: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, De Leon-Wallin Says NEW YORK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Vitale Suit Alleges NORTH RESTAURANTS: Underpays Restaurant Staff, McLellan Alleges NOVO NORDISK: Judge Narrows Claims in Griffin Hospital Suit O'CONNOR CORP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Fleming Suit Says OMAHASTEAKS.COM INC: Fagnani Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit Over Honey Browser Extension PBI INTERNATIONAL: Caballero Suit Alleges FLSA Violations PINNACLE PARKING: Lepage Seeks Parking Attendants' Unpaid Overtime POT-O-GOLD RENTALS: West Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Noble Says POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Spicuzza Sues Over Data Privacy Violations PURPLE INNOVATION: Thompson Sues Over Rights Plan Provisions RECON PROTECTION: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Crumwell Says SNEAKER CITY: Vega Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store SOUTH CAROLINA: Seeks to File Unredacted Versions of Sur-Reply TAHOE FRESH: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, OT, Buyukliyski Says TOPPERS PIZZA: Cole Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users TRANSMEDICS GROUP: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit TRANSOCEAN LTD: Matteson Sues Over 8% Decline of Securities Price TTEC SERVICES: Alvarez Seeks to Stay Briefing on Arbitration Bid ULTIMATE FITNESS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Montez Suit Claims UNITED STATES: Davis Wins Renewed Bid for Cass Certification VGW HOLDINGS: Knapp Suit Transferred to D. Delaware VIRTUA HEALTH: Molnar Sues Over Mismanagement of 401(k) Plan Funds WEIGHTED SLEEP: Bids for Class Certification Due March 10, 2026 WORKDAY INC: Derek Mobley Expands AI Employment Discrimination Suit YARDI SYSTEMS: LaFleur Placeholder Class Cert Bid Tossed as Moot YETI COOLERS: ADR & Class Certification Deadlines Extended ZILLOW GROUP: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Class Suit Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Faces 990 Active Cases as of Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has 4,808 Pending Claims at Dec. 31 ********* 7-ELEVEN INC: Fernandez Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Calls ---------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDER FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 7-ELEVEN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-20502-CMA (S.D. Fla., February 3, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On or about May 30, 2024, October 31, 2024, and December 2, 2024, the Defendant made telephone solicitations to Plaintiff's cellular telephone. However, the telephone solicitations were initiated at approximately 9:40 PM in Plaintiff's time zone. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct of engaging telemarketing texts at unlawful times. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Headquartered in Irving, TX, 7-Eleven, Inc. operates as convenience store chain. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faaris K. Uddin, Esq. . Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (813) 340-8838 E-mail: zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com faaris@jibraellaw.com ABBY UNITED: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Vanmatre Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW VANMATRE and TYLER BENOIT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ABBY UNITED LLC; and ANGIE LIN, Defendants, Case No. 8:25-cv-00302 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 6, 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. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as door installers. Abby United LLC sells porcelain tile, glass mosaics, natural stone, and setting materials. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq. Troy E. Longman, II, Esq. FLORIN | GRAY 16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100 Lutz, FL 33558 Telephone: (727) 254-5255 Facsimile: (727) 483-7942 Email: wolfgang@floringray.com tlongman@floringray.com ADITI CONSULTING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Trammell Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- JEREMY TRAMMELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADITI CONSULTING LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00243 (W.D. Wash., Feb. 6, 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 Trammell was employed by the Defendant as a manufacturing engineer. Aditi Consulting LLC is a digital engineering services company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael C. Subit, Esq. FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS, LLP 705 Second Ave., Suite 1200 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 682-6711 Email: msubit@frankfreed.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, Texas 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com AG BELLS II: Aigner Sues Over Unlawful Sloping Conditions --------------------------------------------------------- Kimberly Aigner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AG BELLS II LLC; AG BELLS, LLC; and DOES 1 to 25, Case No. 1:25-cv-01287 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 6, 2025), is brought against Defendants, asserting violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"), and its implementing regulations due to unlawful sloping conditions. The Plaintiff visited Defendants' facilities located at 3143 North Milwaukee Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60618, where she experienced unnecessary difficulty and risk of physical harm exiting and entering her vehicle and navigating the facilities due to the unlawful sloping conditions in Defendants' purportedly accessible Parking Areas. Specifically, the parking facilities featured excessive sloping conditions which violated federal regulations. The Defendants collectively own, lease, and/or operate at least 90 Taco Bell restaurants in the states of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia. The Plaintiff's claims arise from her own experience with excessive sloping conditions in purportedly accessible parking spaces, access aisles, and curb ramps ("Parking Area" or "Parking Areas") at places of public accommodation owned, operated, controlled, and/or leased by Defendants ("Defendants' facilities"), and from site investigations at 7 of Defendants' facilities also finding excessive sloping conditions. The Plaintiff asserts that these excessive sloping conditions persist in part as a result of Defendants' existing but inadequate internal maintenance policies, practices and/or procedures, which fail to ensure compliance with the sloping requirements of the ADA's implementing regulations. Based on the extensive factual investigation performed by the Plaintiff's investigators, she believes and therefore asserts that numerous additional facilities owned, controlled, and/or operated by Defendants have Parking Areas that are, or have become, inaccessible to individuals who rely on wheelchairs for mobility due to excessive sloping, demonstrating that Defendants' existing internal maintenance policies, practices and/or procedures are inadequate and must be modified, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a person with a mobility disability. AG Bells II LLC is a Nebraska limited liability company, doing business in Illinois as the owner, lessee, and/or operator of dozens of Taco Bell restaurants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. Jonathan D. Miller, Esq. NYE, STIRLING, HALE, MILLER & SWEET, LLP 101 Pennsylvania Boulevard, Suite 2 Pittsburgh, PA 15228 Phone: 412-857-5350 Email: ben@nshmlaw.com - and - Jordan T. Porter, Esq. NYE, STIRLING, HALE, MILLER & SWEET, LLP 33 West Mission Street, Suite 201 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Phone: 805-963-2345 Email: jordan@nshmlaw.com ALABAMA: Faces Murphree Suit Over Officers' Excessive Use of Force ------------------------------------------------------------------ KATELYN MURPHREE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DANIEL KING, (FIRST NAME UNKNOWN) JOHNSON and RICHARD MOATS, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-00206-MHH (N.D. Ala., February 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, injunctive relief, battery, assault, and negligence. According to the complaint, the Defendants, correctional officers, violated the Plaintiff's constitutional rights by using excessive force under the color of law in violation of the Eighth Amendment and depriving of her rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Fifth and Eighth Amendments. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiff suffered injuries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric J. Artrip, Esq. MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC 301 Holmes Ave. NE., Suite 100 Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 532-2222 Facsimile: (256) 513-7489 Email: artrip@mastandoartrip.com ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Officers Face Class Suit Amid DWI Scandal ---------------------------------------------------------- KOAT 7 Action News reports that a 48-page class action lawsuit has been filed against the city of Albuquerque, Bernalillo County Board of Commissioners, New Mexico Department of Public Safety, Albuquerque police Chief Harold Medina, 14 law enforcement officers, Attorney Thomas Clear III, Clear's private investigator Ricardo "Rick" Mendez and others in connection to "The DWI Enterprise." The lawsuit was filed by The Law Offices of Frances Crockett Carpenter, The Soto Law Office and Smith & Marjanovic Law on behalf of alleged victims of the DWI scandal, including one other victim that was arrested and charged for aggravated DWI, resisting, evading or obstructing an officer, negligent use of a deadly weapon, speeding and open container by former APD officers, Honorio Alba Jr. and Nelson Ortiz on Sept. 27, 2020. In 2021, the victim retained a criminal defense attorney and proceeded to trial. The criminal charges against the defendant were dismissed except for the speeding charge. According to the court documents, the defendant was not guilty of aggravated DWI. According to the lawsuit, officers began referring additional cases to Clear, increasing payments and expanding the reach of the scheme. Officers frequently retained MVD paperwork, driver's licenses and other property from the alleged DWI offenders, while providing them to intermediaries. They contacted the individuals and offered legal representation under the scheme's terms. 14 Law Enforcement Officers named in suit -- Honorio Alba, Jr. Target letter| Resigned 2/29/2024 (Charged) -- Joshua Montaño Target Letter| Resigned 3/20/2024 (Charged) -- Harvey Johnson Target Letter| Resigned 3/13/2024 -- Nelson Ortiz Target Letter| Resigned 3/15/2024 -- Lt. Justin Hunt Target Letter| Resigned 2/7/2024 -- Cmdr. Mark Landavazo On Leave, Terminated 8/1/2024 -- Daren DeAguero Target Letter| Resigned 4/30/2024 -- Matthew Trahan Target Letter| Retired Effective 10/19/24 -- Neill Elsman On Leave| Resigned 6/31/2024 (Charged) -- Deputy Cmdr. Gustavo Gomez On Leave 10/16/2024 -- Matthew Chavez Target Letter| On Leave 01/24/25 -- Kyle Curtis, Target letter| On Leave 1/24/25; Retired 1/27/25 -- Tim McCarson, Retired in 2022| Placed on Giglio List 1/25/25 According to APD, McCarson retired in 2022, but is now implicated. He retired before the investigation came to light. -- BCSO Deputy Jeff Hammerel, Administrative Leave 01/23/2025 As of Feb. 14,2025, five people have been charged in the case -- "Private Investigator" Ricardo "Rick" Mendez -- Former APD officers Joshua Montaño and Honorio Alba Jr. -- Former APD officer Neill Elsman -- Attorney Thomas Clear According to the New Mexico Regulations and Licensing Department, Mendez does not hold a license with the Private Investigations Advisory Board. Additionally, their records indicate there isn't an individual with the name Ricardo "Rick" Mendez who has held a license with the board in the past. Albuquerque Police Department statement KOAT reached out to the Albuquerque Police Department regarding the lawsuit. A spokesperson for the department stated they will respond to the lawsuit in court. [GN] ALLSTATE FIRE: Parties Can File Class Cert Docs Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brian Dorazio, v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-00017-KML (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Krissa Lanham entered an order granting the parties' motion to file under seal various portions of their filings related to the motion to certify class. The portions the parties seek to seal include information regarding minors as well as the personal information of non-parties, such as their home addresses and dates of birth. Compelling reasons exist to allow the sealing of this information. Allstate offers auto, home, renters, condo, motorcycle, life, and roadside insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aHpK70 at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Brown Extended to June 16 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER BROWN, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-00965-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Chun entered an order regarding class certification briefing schedule: 1. Amazon shall provide the Plaintiffs an update on the feasibility of preparing the requested crosswalk by March 3, 2025. 2. The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their class certification motion is extended to June 16, 2025. 3. The deadline for Amazon to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion is Sept. 15, 2025. 4. The deadline for the Plaintiffs' reply brief is Nov. 17, 2025. Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p5ZEdK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq. Anne F. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com barbaram@hbsslaw.com annej@hbsslaw.com - and - Zina G. Bash, Esq. Warren D. Postman, Esq. Albert Y. Pak, Esq. Roseann Romano, Esq. Derek W. Loeser, Esq. Jessica Beringer, Esq. Shane Kelly, Esq. Alex Dravillas, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500 Austin, TX, 78701 Telephone: (512) 690-0990 E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com ajd@kellerpostman.com dloeser@kellerrohrback.com wdp@kellerpostman.com albert.pak@kellerpostman.com roseann.romano@kellerpostman.com - and - Alicia Cobb, Esq. Steig D. Olson, Esq. David D. LeRay, Esq. Nic V. Siebert, Esq. Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Esq. Adam B. Wolfson, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 1109 First Avenue, Suite 210 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 905-7000 E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com steigolson@quinnemanuel.com davidleray@quinnemanuel.com nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com The Defendant is represented by: John A. Goldmark, Esq. MaryAnn Almeida, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com JohnGoldmark@dwt.com MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com - and - Karen L. Dunn, Esq. William A. Isaacson, Esq. Amy J. Mauser, Esq. Martha L. Goodman, Esq. Kyle Smith, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1047 Telephone: (202) 223-7300 Facsimile: (202) 223-7420 E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com wisaacson@paulweiss.com amauser@paulweiss.com ksmith@paulweiss.com mgoodman@paulweiss.com AMAZON.COM INC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Floyd Due May. 14 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN FLOYD, JOLENE FURDEK, and JONATHAN RYAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC. and APPLE INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-01599-KKE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Kymberly Evanson entered a class certification schedule order as follows: Event Deadline Fact discovery cutoff: Apr. 14, 2025 Class-certification motion and supporting May. 14, 2025 reports: Class-certification opposition and Aug. 14, 2025 supporting reports: Class-certification reply and reply reports: Nov. 14, 2025 Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pbYDhI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq. Ben Harrington, Esq. Benjamin Siegel, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com barbaram@hbsslaw.com benh@hbsslaw.com bens@hbsslaw.com The Defendants are represented by: John Goldmark, Esq. MaryAnn Almeida, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA, 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: johngoldmark@dwt.com maryannalmeida@dwt.com - and - Mark D. Hopson, Esq. Jonathan E. Nuechterlein, Esq. Benjamin M. Mundel, Esq. Jacquelyn E. Fradette, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 736-8000 Facsimile: (202) 736-8711 E-mail: jnuechterlein@sidley.com bmundel@sidley.com - and - Mark S. Parris, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 401 Union Street, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 839-4300 Facsimile: (206) 839-4301 E-mail: mparris@orrick.com - and - Mark A. Perry, Esq. Brian G. Liegel, Esq. Morgan D. MacBride, Esq. WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES, LLP 2001 M. Street NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 682-7000 E-mail: mark.perry@weil.com brian.liegel@weil.com morgan.macbride@weil.com AMAZON.COM INC: June 16 Class Cert. Bid Deadline Sought ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER BROWN, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-00965-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order that: 1. Amazon shall provide the Plaintiffs an update on the feasibility of preparing the requested crosswalk by March 3, 2025. 2. The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their class certification motion is extended to June 16, 2025. 3. The deadline for Amazon to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion is Sept. 15, 2025. 4. The deadline for the Plaintiffs' reply brief is Nov. 17, 2025. Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nRIW8E at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq. Anne F. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com barbaram@hbsslaw.com annej@hbsslaw.com - and - Zina G. Bash, Esq. Warren D. Postman, Esq. Albert Y. Pak, Esq. Roseann Romano, Esq. Derek W. Loeser, Esq. Jessica Beringer, Esq. Shane Kelly, Esq. Alex Dravillas, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500 Austin, TX, 78701 Telephone: (512) 690-0990 E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com ajd@kellerpostman.com dloeser@kellerrohrback.com wdp@kellerpostman.com albert.pak@kellerpostman.com roseann.romano@kellerpostman.com - and - Alicia Cobb, Esq. Steig D. Olson, Esq. David D. LeRay, Esq. Nic V. Siebert, Esq. Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Esq. Adam B. Wolfson, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 1109 First Avenue, Suite 210 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 905-7000 E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com steigolson@quinnemanuel.com davidleray@quinnemanuel.com nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com The Defendant is represented by: John A. Goldmark, Esq. MaryAnn Almeida, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com JohnGoldmark@dwt.com MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com - and - Karen L. Dunn, Esq. William A. Isaacson, Esq. Amy J. Mauser, Esq. Martha L. Goodman, Esq. Kyle Smith, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1047 Telephone: (202) 223-7300 Facsimile: (202) 223-7420 E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com wisaacson@paulweiss.com amauser@paulweiss.com ksmith@paulweiss.com mgoodman@paulweiss.com AMAZON.COM INC: Maxwell Sues Over Data Privacy Violations --------------------------------------------------------- CASSAUNDRA MAXWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC.; and AMAZON ADVERTISING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00261 (W.D. Wash., Feb. 10, 2025) alleges violation of the Federal Wiretap Act as amended by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that Amazon unlawfully obtained this location data without consumers' knowledge by licensing Amazon's software development kit ("SDK") to a variety of mobile applications. The Amazon Ads SDK operates in the background of many third-party applications, thereby enabling Amazon to collect sensitive location data directly from consumers' mobile devices. Having harvested that data, Amazon then used it for profit—both for its own targeted advertising methods and by selling the data to others looking to help their own bottom line. Amazon's practice of unlawfully tracking, collecting, and profiting from mobile users' location data has violated federal and state law and constitutes unjust enrichment, says the suit. Amazon.com, Inc. is an online retailer that offers a wide range of products. The Company products include books, music, computers, electronics, and numerous other products. Amazon offers personalized shopping services, Web-based credit card payment, and direct shipping to customers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Derek W. Loeser, Esq. Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101-3268 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 Email: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com - and - Christopher L. Springer, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 801 Garden Street, Suite 301 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 456-1496 Facsimile: (805) 456-1497 Email: cspringer@kellerrohrback.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Class Cert Bid Filing in Li Suit Due July 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC LI, et al., v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01975-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Chun entered Rule 16(b) scheduling order regarding class certification motion: Deadline to complete discovery on class June 1, 2025 certification (not to be construed as a bifurcation of discovery): Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion for July 1, 2025 class certification: Deadline for response to motion for class Aug. 1, 2025 certification Deadline for reply in support of motion Aug. 22, 2025 for class certification: The Court will set further case schedule deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) after ruling on the motion for class certification. Counsel for Plaintiffs shall inform the Court immediately should Plaintiffs at any time decide not to seek class certification. Amazon.com Services retails books, diamond jewelry, electronics, appliances, apparels, and accessories. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pHbEKA at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN RENAL: May Face Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- -American Renal Management LLC, operating as Innovative Renal Care, has confirmed a data breach that may have exposed sensitive patient information. The company, which operates a nationwide network of dialysis centers, has begun notifying affected individuals and reported the breach to law enforcement and regulatory authorities, including the Maine Attorney General. Although no evidence of data misuse has been confirmed, Innovative Renal Care is informing affected individuals and implementing measures to mitigate potential risks. Impacted individuals are urged to remain vigilant by monitoring financial statements, updating passwords, and staying alert to phishing attempts. For more information, visit our guide on how to protect your information after a data breach and minimize potential harm. Innovative Renal Care Data Breach Details According to the company's statement, suspicious activity was first detected on February 29, 2024. A subsequent investigation revealed that an unauthorized party accessed certain computer systems between February 21 and March 1, 2024. During this time, files containing patient data were copied from internal systems. In response, Innovative Renal Care immediately secured its network and launched a comprehensive review to assess the full impact of the breach. Officials confirmed that sensitive patient information, including names and other undisclosed details, was compromised. To strengthen security, the company has implemented enhanced safeguards, updated its data protection policies, and continues working with authorities. Affected individuals are being offered up to 24 months of free credit monitoring and identity restoration services through IDX. Due to privacy regulations, those impacted must complete the enrollment process themselves. What Information Was Involved? The breached data may include personal information such as: Full Name Date of Birth Social Security Number Health Information How to Know if You Were Affected If you received a data breach notification from Innovative Renal Care, your personal information may have been compromised. While most victims are officially notified through a "Notice of Data Breach" in the mail, the consequences—such as fraudulent transactions and identity theft—can begin long before the notice arrives. Steps to Take If You Were Affected by Innovative Renal Care Data Breach Stay Alert for Phishing Scams Scammers may exploit the data breach by posing as Innovative Renal Care. Be cautious of unexpected emails, texts, or calls requesting personal information. When in doubt, verify communications directly with the company through official channels. Monitor Your Credit and Financial Accounts Regularly check your bank statements, credit card activity, and credit reports for unauthorized transactions. Set up account alerts to detect suspicious activity early. Take advantage of free credit reports and review them carefully for unfamiliar accounts or discrepancies. Consider Freezing Your Credit For added security, request a credit freeze from all three major credit bureaus. This prevents new accounts from being opened in your name while still allowing you to use existing credit. You can temporarily lift the freeze when necessary if applying for credit. Class Action U, in partnership with KO Lawyers, is assisting individuals impacted by the Innovative Renal Care data breach. If your information was exposed, you may be eligible to join a class action lawsuit. How Innovative Renal Care Class Action Lawsuits Help Victims Seek Compensation Class action lawsuits enable individuals affected by large-scale data breaches, like the Innovative Renal Care incident, to pursue compensation collectively. This approach offers a more efficient and cost-effective way to hold companies accountable for failing to protect personal information. By joining a class action lawsuit, you may seek compensation for: Loss of privacy Time spent addressing the breach Out-of-pocket expenses Emotional distress A successful lawsuit could also compel Innovative Renal Care to strengthen its security measures and prevent future breaches. Contact Class Action U today to determine your eligibility for a data breach class action lawsuit and explore the compensation that may be available to you. [GN] APHRIA INC: CAD30MM Class Settlement to be Heard on March 26 ------------------------------------------------------------ Rochon Genova LLP announced that a Settlement has been reached in the global class action (the "Class Action") against Aphria and certain of its former officers and directors ("Individual Defendants"). The Settlement requires Court approval at an upcoming hearing. The Class Action alleges that, between January 29, 2018 and December 3, 2018, Aphria and the Individual Defendants made public misrepresentations to the capital markets, including in an Aphria Prospectus Offering in June 2018, in connection with two significant international business acquisitions made by Aphria during 2018, namely: (i) Aphria's acquisition of a company called Nuuvera Inc. which was publicly announced on January 29, 2018; and (ii) Aphria's acquisition of a company called LATAM Holdings Inc. which was publicly announced on July 17, 2018. The Class Action alleges that the substantial drop in Aphria's share price following certain public disclosures about Aphria's business on March 22 and on December 3, 2018, amounted to a public correction of misrepresentations about Aphria's business. Aphria and the Individual Defendants deny all allegations pleaded against them in the Class Action. The Settlement, if approved by the Court, provides for the payment by the Defendants of the total amount of CAD30,000,000 to resolve the Class Action. The Settlement is a compromise of disputed claims and is not an admission of liability or wrongdoing by Aphria or the Individual Defendants. The Settlement will be considered for approval by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice at a Settlement Approval Hearing which has been set for March 26, 2025 in Toronto at 11:30 am. At the Hearing, the Court will also address a motion to approve Class Counsel's fees, which will not exceed 30% of the settlement amount plus reimbursement for expenses incurred in the Class Action. Persons who purchased Aphria shares on or after January 29, 2018 and held them on March 23 and/or December 3, 2018 ("Class Members") may object to or support the Settlement, by making a submission in writing prior to March 14, 2025. Class Members may also attend the Settlement Approval Hearing in person or remotely via Zoom. For more information about your rights and how to speak to the Settlement, please see the Long-Form Notice available online at www.AphriaSettlement.com or call toll-free: 1-888-700-9930. APPLE INC: Affinity Credit Suit Seeks to Seal Class Cert Docs ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AFFINITY CREDIT UNION, et al., v. APPLE INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-04174-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting administrative motion to consider whether another party's materials should be sealed. A public redacted version of Plaintiffs' motion was filed as required by this Court's Civil Local Rules. Given the extent to which Apple-designated material is interwoven in the Expert Report of Christopher Vellturo, Ph.D., and to avoid inadvertent disclosure of protected information, the Plaintiffs are provisionally filing that report entirely under seal. The Plaintiffs will promptly meet and confer with Apple regarding necessary redactions so that public version of the report can be submitted. Subsection (f) of Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth procedures that apply when a party seeks to file information designated as confidential by another party or non-party. This administrative motion is based on Apple's designation of information in the Motion as Confidential, Highly Confidential or otherwise protected from public disclosure. Pursuant to subsection (f)(3) of Local Rule 79-5, Apple has seven days to file a declaration identifying the designated material they contend is "sealable". The Plaintiffs do not take at this time any position on whether the relevant Apple information meets the standard for sealing and reserve the right to respond to Apple's declaration regarding the material they contend is sealable. Apple is a manufacturer of personal computers, smartphones, and tablet computers. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qS8cXi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Ben M. Harrington, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Ave., Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com benh@hbsslaw.com - and - Eamon P. Kelly, Esq. Joseph M. Vanek, Esq. Jeffrey H. Bergman, Esq. Phillip F. Cramer, Esq. SPERLING KENNY NACHWALTER, LLC 321 N. Clark St., 25th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 641-3200 Facsimile: (312) 641-6492 E-mail: ekelly@sperlingkenny.com jvanek@sperlingkenny.com jbergman@sperlingkenny.com pcramer@ sperlingkenny.com APPLE INC: Costa Wins Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCIS COSTA, v. APPLE, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-01353-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Orrick entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and denying the Defendant's motion to decertify the FLSA collective. Judge Orrick excludes from the collective those opt-in plaintiffs who have signed binding arbitration agreements from the FLSA collective. The Named plaintiffs Francis Costa, Amanda Hoffman, and Olivia McIlravy-Ackert bring this putative class action against the Defendant, alleging that Apple violated California and New York overtime laws by omitting the value of vested restricted stock units ("RSUs") from the regular rate when it calculated class members' overtime pay. Apple admits that it maintains this common pay practice for all class members. Common questions of law and fact will drive the resolution of this case and predominate over individualized inquiries. If plaintiffs prevail, damages will be calculated using data in Apple's possession, according to the standards set forth by the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), California, and New York state law for calculating missing overtime pay. On June 14, 2023, the plaintiffs added California state law claims via the named plaintiff Amanda Hoffman as California class representative. On Aug. 11, 2023, the plaintiffs amended once again to add Olivia McIlravy-Ackert as another California class representative. The plaintiffs now move for certification of the following two classes: The California Class "All current and former California employees who Apple, Inc. classified as non-exempt/overtime eligible who received restricted stock units that vested on or after June 14, 2019, and recorded more than 40 hours of work in a workweek or more than eight hours of work in a workday after receiving an RSU but before the RSU vested." This excludes those who signed an arbitration agreement. The New York Class "All current and former New York employees who Apple, Inc. classified as non-exempt/overtime eligible who received restricted stock units that vested on or after Aug. 11, 2017, and recorded more than 40 hours of work in a workweek after receiving an RSU but before the RSU vested. This excludes those who signed an arbitration agreement. Apple designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal computers, tablets, wearables, and accessories worldwide. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4x1hy7 at no extra charge.[CC] APPLE INC: Suit over RSUs in OT Pay Wins Class Status ----------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted class certification to a lawsuit against Apple Inc., alleging that the tech company wrongly excluded restricted stock units (RSUs) from overtime pay calculations. The ruling, issued on February 10, 2025, by Judge William H. Orrick, denies Apple's request to decertify the collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act while excluding employees who had signed arbitration agreements. Judge Orrick noted, "This case presents a common legal issue that applies to all class members: whether Apple's practice of excluding RSUs from regular rate calculations violates state and federal wage laws." The lawsuit, styled as Francis Costa et al. v. Apple Inc., was filed in March 2023 by former and current hourly Apple employees Francis Costa, Amanda Hoffman, and Olivia McIlravy-Ackert. The plaintiffs claim that Apple's exclusion of vested RSUs from overtime calculations violates California and New York state labor laws, as well as the FLSA. Apple admits to the pay practice but contends that RSUs fall under legally permissible exclusions. The plaintiffs have sought class certification for non-exempt employees in California and New York who received RSUs that vested after specific dates—June 14, 2019, for California employees and August 11, 2017, for New York employees. They argue that Apple's exclusion of RSUs led to underpaid overtime wages, violating 29 U.S.C. Sec. 207(a)(1) and state wage laws. The lawsuit also includes claims under California's Private Attorneys General Act. Apple opposed class certification, asserting that some employees may be exempt from overtime based on their job roles. The company also argued that RSUs are excluded from the FLSA's overtime pay provisions, much like discretionary bonuses and stock options, and that employees who signed arbitration agreements should be excluded from the class action. Judge Orrick ruled that common legal and factual questions outweigh individual concerns, making class certification appropriate. He rejected Apple's argument that individualized issues, such as job classifications and RSU structures, would complicate the case. The court also excluded employees with arbitration agreements, following established legal precedent. The Plaintiffs and Others Similarly Situated are represented by: Daniel S. Brome, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, LLP 235 Montgomery St., Suite 810 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 277-7235 Facsimile: (415) 277-7238 E-mail: dbrome@nka.com - and - Michele R. Fisher, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 E-mail: fisher@nka.com - and - Loren B. Donnell, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Rd. Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 E-mail: ldonnell@shavitzlaw.com Apple Inc. is represented by: Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq. Theane Evangelis, Esq. Cynthia Chen McTernan, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 E-mail: TBoutrous@gibsondunn.com TEvangelis@gibsondunn.com CMcTernan@gibsondunn.com - and - Megan Cooney, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP E-mail: MCooney@gibsondunn.com 3161 Michelson Drive Irvine, CA 92612-4412 Telephone: (949) 451-3800 Facsimile: (949) 451-4220 ARGENTINA: President Milei Faces Fraud Claims Over Cryptocurrency ----------------------------------------------------------------- Argentine lawyers have reportedly filed charges against Argentina's president, Javier Milei, in a criminal court for promoting a cryptocurrency that briefly pumped and then tanked over the weekend. The Libertad project's native Solana token, Libra (LIBRA), rallied to a market capitalization of $4.56 billion on Feb. 14, after Milei posted about the token on X. It then fell over 94% after he deleted the post, prompting accusations of a pump and dump scheme. Lawyers Marcos Zelaya and Jonatan Baldiviezo, along with engineer María Eva Koutsovitis and economist Claudio Lozano, have filed a criminal complaint that alleges Milei was complicit in fraud by promoting Libra, according to a Feb. 17 Associated Press report. Baldiviezo also accused Milei of violating the Public Ethics Law, which is Argentina's framework for public officials, requiring them to declare asset holdings and conflicts of interest. "Within this illicit association, the crime of fraud was committed, in which the president's actions were essential," Baldiviezo said. A judge will be assigned to the case, or it will be referred to a prosecutor for further investigation on Feb. 17, according to the Associated Press report. Meanwhile, Argentine lawyer Agustín Rombola, founder and associate of Rombola Mangione law firm, has filed a separate legal complaint about Milei promoting Libra. In a Feb. 16 statement to X, Rombola, who is also a member of the Argentine political party Unión Cívica Radical, said he had reported Milei for alleged "fraud, negotiations incompatible with public office, price manipulation and financial crimes." [GN] AT&T INC: Austin et al. Sues Over Basic Data Security Failure ------------------------------------------------------------- Latosha Austin, Natasha McIntosh, Roscoe Eldridge, and Debby Worley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AT&T, INC., and AT&T MOBILITY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00272-L (N.D. Tex., February 3, 2025) arises from Defendants' and Snowflake's basic data security failure that resulted in a private data breach. Earlier in 2024, data of over 70 million AT&T customers -- including encrypted passcodes for accessing AT&T customer accounts -- was published on a cybercrime forum. The breached data includes names, phone numbers, postal addresses, and Social Security numbers. Based on AT&T's preliminary analysis, the data appears to be from 2019 or earlier, impacting approximately 7.6 million current AT&T account holders and approximately 65.4 million former account holders. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now assert claims for negligence and for violations of applicable consumer protection statutes. AT&T, Inc. is a telecommunications company headquartered in Dallas, TX. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shana Khader, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 E-mail: skhader@tzlegal.com - and - Jason S. Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H St NE, Suite 302 Washington DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com - and - John Heenan, Esq. HEENAN & COOK 1631 Zimmerman Trail Billings, MT 59102 Telephone: (406) 839-9091 E-mail: john@lawmontana.com - and - Amy Keller, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP Ten North Dearborn, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: akeller@dicellolevitt.com - and - J. Devlan Geddes, Esq. GOETZ, GEDDES & GARDNER P.C. 35 N. Grand Ave. Bozeman, MT 59715 Telephone: (406) 587-0618 E-mail: devlan@goetzlawfirm.com - and - Raphael Graybill, Esq. GRAYBILL LAW FIRM, PC 300 4th Street North Great Falls, MT 59401 Telephone: (406) 452-8566 E-mail: raph@graybilllawfirm.com BERMAN & RABIN: Carlington Files Suit in D. Kansas -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Berman & Rabin, P.A. The case is styled as Stacy Carlington, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Berman & Rabin, P.A., Case No. 2:25-cv-02060-TC-TJJ (D. Kan., Feb. 6, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Berman & Rabin, P.A. -- https://www.bermanrabin.com/ -- was founded in 1983 for the purpose of specializing in creditor representation, and it has never wavered from this purpose.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maureen M. Brady, Esq. MCSHANE AND BRADY LLC 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Phone: (816) 888-8010 Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com BLVD MANAGEMENT: Pepi Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BLVD Management LLC. The case is styled as Anthony Pepi, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BLVD Management LLC d/b/a BLVD STEAK, Case No. 25STCV03349 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 6, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." BLVD Management LLC doing business as BLVD Steak -- https://www.blvdsteak.com/ -- is The Valley's premier steakhouse & bar.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-438-5555 Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com - and - Henry G. Glitz, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Blvd., Fl. 1 Los Angeles, CA 90024-4973 Phone: 310-438-5555 BOKF NA: Marquez Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to D. Colo. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JENNIFER MARQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BOKF, NA, Case No. 2025CV30083, was removed from the District Court of Denver County in the State of Colorado to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on February 7, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the District of Colorado assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00419 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Colorado Wage Claim Act and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act. BOKF, NA is a commercial bank and subsidiary of BOK Financial Corporation, headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jessica G. Scott, Esq. WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP 370 Seventeenth Street, Suite 4500 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 244-1800 Facsimile: (303) 244-1879 Email: scott@wtotrial.com - and - Erica A. Dorwart, Esq. FREDERIC DORWART LAWYERS PLLC 124 E. Fourth Street Tulsa, OK 74103 Telephone: (918) 583-9922 Email: edorwart@fdlaw.com CARE.COM INC: Licea Suit Removed to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jose Licea, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CARE.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a WWW.CARE.COM, Case No. 25CU000304C was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, in and for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on Feb. 6, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00266-AJB-JLB. The Plaintiff contends that Care.com violates the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA") by allegedly deploying TikTok Software on its website "to capture the phone number, email, routing, addressing and other signaling information of website visitors" without obtaining its customers' consent.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Michael Bleicher, Esq. ZWILLGEN PLLC 1900 M Street NW, Suite 250 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 706-5251 Email: michael.bleicher@zwillgen.com CARRUTH COMPLIANCE: Hogue Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ------------------------------------------------------------ Justin Hogue, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. CARRUTH COMPLIANCE CONSULTING, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00214 (D. Ore., Feb. 7, 2025), is brought against Carruth for its negligent failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and the Class's highly sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII"). As a result of Carruth's negligence and insufficient data security, cybercriminals easily infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network and stole the PII of Plaintiff and the Class (the "Data Breach" or "Breach"). Now, Plaintiff's and the Class's PII is in the hands of cybercriminals who will undoubtedly use their PII for nefarious purposes for the rest of their lives. The types of PII stolen in the Data Breach included names, Social Security numbers, financial account information, driver's license numbers, W-2 information, medical billing information (but not medical records), and tax filings (collectively, "Private Information"). Due to Defendant's negligence, cybercriminals have stolen and obtained everything they need to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of thousands of individuals. Now, and for the rest of their lives, Plaintiff and the Class Members will have to deal with the danger of identity thieves possessing and misusing their Private Information. Even those Class Members who have yet to experience identity theft have to spend time responding to the Breach and are at an immediate and heightened risk of all manners of identity theft as a direct and proximate result of the Data Breach. Plaintiff and Class Members have incurred and will continue to incur damages in the form of, among other things, identity theft, attempted identity theft, lost time and expenses mitigating harms, increased risk of harm, damaged credit, deprivation of the value of their Private Information, loss of privacy, and/or additional damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a victim of the Data Breach and had his PII stolen in the Data Breach. Carruth provides third-party administrative services to public school districts and non-profit organizations for their 403(b) and 457(b) retirement savings plans.[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 Phone: 206-682-5600 Facsimile: 206-682-2992 Email: kstephens@tousley.com kboyd@tousley.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Kennedy M. Brian, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Fax: (405) 239-2112 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com kpb@federmanlaw.com CASCADES HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Thompson Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CASCADES HEALTHCARE OF TEXAS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00032 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 7, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Thompson was employed by the Defendant as a nurse. Cascades Healthcare Of Texas, LLC is engaged in providing employment services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75254 Telephone: (214) 489-7653 Facsimile: (469) 319-0317 Email: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com CASTLEGATE BUILDING: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Andres Hernandez Hernandez, and all others similarly situated v. CASTLEGATE BUILDING CORPORATION, Case No. 0:25-cv-60236-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 10, 2025), is brought for overtime compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended (the "FLSA" or the "Act"). The Defendant refused to pay Plaintiff, and other similarly situated employees earned overtime throughout their respective employment periods. By failing to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and all others similarly situated persons as detailed herein, Defendant has violated the FLSA. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated are entitled to be paid time and one-half of their regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours per work week. The Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees of Defendant are owed their overtime rate for each overtime hour they worked and were not properly paid. The Defendant knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated employees at time and one half of their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan S. Minick, Esq. JONATHAN S. MINICK, P.A. 169 E. Flagler St., Suite 1600 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (786) 441-8909 Email: jminick@jsmlawpa.com CERENCE INC: Freshour Files Bid to Compel Production of Documents ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the case captioned as Randolph Freshour and Vincenzo Allan, each individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. CERENCE INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-10304 (D. Mass., Feb. 7, 2025), by and through their undersigned counsel of record, respectfully move the Court, pursuant to Rules 45 and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an order compelling nonparty Nuance Communications, Inc. to produce documents in compliance with the third-party subpoena issued to and duly served upon it, to which Nuance has failed to respond. The Plaintiffs have been unable to confer with Nuance prior to bringing this motion, because Nuance has failed to respond to Plaintiffs' subpoena or contact Plaintiffs' counsel to confer about its noncompliance. This motion is supported by the Memorandum and Exhibits filed contemporaneously herewith.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Pastor, Esq. PASTOR LAW OFFICE PC 63 Atlantic Avenue, 3d Floor Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 742-9700 Fax: (617) 742-9701 Email: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com - and - Myles McGuire, Esq. Paul T. Geske, Esq. Colin Primo Buscarini, Esq. Aidan Kingsford, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 893-7002 Fax: (312) 275-7895 Email: mmcguire@mcgpc.com pgeske@mcgpc.com cbuscarini@mcgpc.com akingsford@mcgpc.com CERTUS HEALTHCARE: Class Certification Bids in Wesel Due August 22 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARGIE WESEL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CERTUS HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01479-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Kimberly Jolson entered a case schedule order as follows: -- The parties will mediate this case in: April 2025 -- Joint Status Report Due: April 30, 2025 -- Motions to Amend or Join Additional June 6, 2025 Parties Due: -- Motions for Class Certification Due: Aug. 22, 2025 -- Discovery Due: Within 90 days of the Court's ruling on the motion for class certification -- Primary Expert Reports Due: Within 120 days of the Court's ruling on the motion for class certification. -- Rebuttal Expert Reports Due: Within 30 days of the production of primary expert reports. -- Dispositive Motions Due: Within 150 days of the Court's ruling on the motion for class certification On Oct. 22, 2024, the Court entered an amended case schedule, setting the deadline for class certification motions to May 2, 2025. The Court also ordered the parties to mediate this matter in December 2024. Then, on Jan. 15, 2025, the Court ordered the parties to file a status report to update the Court on the outcome of that mediation. In that status report, the parties said they had not attended mediation and would not be able to meet the previously set deadlines due to "technical difficulties" with the exchange of certain data. Certus is a provider of rehabilitation and long term care. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8QYg9X at no extra charge.[CC] CHAMPION ELEVATOR: Ibragimchayev Sues Over Unpaid Compensations --------------------------------------------------------------- Mayer Ibragimchayev, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. CHAMPION ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTION CORP., Case No. 1:25-cv-01138 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 7, 2025), is brought against the Defendant who willfully violated the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by failing to pay overtime, failing to provide the Notice and Acknowledgement of Payrate and Payday under the NYLL, and failing to provide an accurate wage statement under the NYLL with every wage payment. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees regularly were unable to take their 30-minute lunch break, resulting in them working more than 40 hours per week. However, despite this, Defendant failed to pay them any wages when they worked through lunch. With the exception of when the Plaintiff worked as a mechanic, he was unable to take lunch breaks during his workday, which means that he worked over 40 hours in those weeks. For instance, in some weeks, the Plaintiff skipped all five lunches, resulting in him working 42.5 hour that week, but Defendant still paid him only for 40 hours, failing to pay him overtime. When the Plaintiff worked in the Repair Department and Violations Department, he also observed other coworkers regularly work through their lunch breaks, working over 40 hours per week. Despite being scheduled and working these hours, Defendants only paid the Plaintiff and his coworkers for 40 hours each week. Defendants failed to pay The Plaintiff and his coworkers overtime hours when they worked through their lunch breaks, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant, as an elevator mechanic helper and an elevator mechanic, from April 17, 2023 to May 3, 2024, when he was wrongfully terminated. The Defendant is business providing full-service elevator maintenance, repair, violation removal, commercial & residential elevator installation and testing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. Milana Dostanitch, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170-1830 Phone: 212.392.4772 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com milana@lipskylowe.com CHAMPIONS HOUSTON: Piedilato Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Piedilato, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Champions Houston LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00582 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 10, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"), seeking damages for Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff all minimum wages owed while working for Defendant paid on a hybrid sub minimum wage and tips basis. The Defendant's practice of failing to pay tipped employees violates the FLSA's minimum wage provision. As a result, Defendant loses the right to rely on the tip credit and must compensate Plaintiff at the applicable federal minimum wage rate. Additionally, Plaintiff is entitled to any tips Defendant misappropriated, says the complaint. The Plaintiff began working for Defendant on or about April 29, 2023 as a Dealer. Champions operates a poker club that includes poker rooms, a hotel, and a bar and lounge, known as Champions Club Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75254 Phone: (214) 489-7653 Facsimile: (469) 319-0317 Email: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Misuses Plan's Assets, O'Donnell Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ PATRICK O'DONNELL, WAYNE SAFFOLD, and MARK PAPENFUSS, individually and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN, Plaintiffs v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and JOHN DOES 1–10, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00157-MTS (E.D. Mo., February 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by reducing Charter's employer matching contributions using the Plan's forfeiture assets rather than using them to pay all Plan administrative expenses. The Defendants unlawfully charging Plan administrative expenses to Plan participants' and Plaintiffs' retirement accounts in violation of ERISA, says the suit. Charter Communications, Inc. is a publicly traded telecommunications and mass media corporation, with its principal place of business in Stamford, Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq. Troy Doles, Esq. Kurt C. Struckhoff, Esq. Kaitlin Minkler, Esq. SCHLICHTER BOGARD LLC 100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 621-6115 Facsimile: (314) 621-5934 Email: jschlichter@uselaws.com tdoles@uselaws.com kstruckhoff@uselaws.com kminkler@uselaws.com CHELSEA GRAND: Faces Swartz Suit Over Disabled's Access to Property ------------------------------------------------------------------- HELEN SWARTZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHELSEA GRAND LLC and CHELSEA GRAND WEST LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01162 (S.D.N.Y., February 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York Civil Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their facilities to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other persons with disabilities. The Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of their properties and businesses. The Plaintiff and similarly situated disabled individuals encountered architectural barriers in main entrance, lobby area, public restrooms, and guest rooms. The Plaintiff and Class members seek injunctive relief to remove the existing architectural barriers to the physically disabled when such removal is readily achievable for the place of public accommodation. Chelsea Grand LLC is a commercial property owner and operator based in New York. Chelsea Grand West LLC is a commercial property owner and operator based in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon A. Rotbart, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BRANDON A. ROTBART, P.A. 11098 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 401-18 Miami, FL 33161 Telephone: (305) 350-7400 Email: rotbart@rotbartlaw.com CHURCH & DWIGHT: Settles Zicam False Advertising Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Will Fritz of Top Class Actions reports that Zicam has agreed to a $6 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims its cold remedy products are falsely advertised as able to shorten the duration of colds. The Zicam settlement benefits consumers who purchased any Zicam-branded product before Oct. 17, 2024. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claimed Zicam falsely advertised its cold remedy products as able to shorten the duration and lessen the severity of colds. These claims allegedly misled consumers and tricked them into purchasing the cold and flu relief products. Zicam is a cold remedy brand owned by Church & Dwight Co. Inc. The brand sells nasal sprays, throat sprays, lozenges and other products. Church & Dwight hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $6 million to resolve the Zicam false advertising class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Zicam settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the number of products they purchased. Class members who purchased up to six Zicam products and can provide proof of purchase can receive up to $30, or $5 per product. Class members who purchased up to two Zicam products without proof of purchase can receive up to $5, or $2.50 per product. Exact payments will vary depending on the number of claims filed with the settlement. In addition to providing cash payments, Church & Dwight agreed to modify its Zicam labels to include qualifying statements and disclosures such as “individual results may vary.” These changes will allow consumers to make more informed purchasing decisions. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Dec. 18, 2024. The final approval hearing for the Zicam false advertising settlement is scheduled for Feb. 28, 2025. In order to receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by Feb. 21, 2025. Who's Eligible Consumers who purchased one or more Zicam products before Oct. 17, 2024 Potential Award Up to $30 with proof of purchase or $5 without proof of purchase. Proof of Purchase Receipts, order confirmations or other documentation including the purchase price paid, date of purchase and location of purchase. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 02/21/2025 Case Name Vance, et al. v. Church & Dwight Co. Inc., Case No. 24LA190, in the Circuit Court for the 20th Judicial Circuit for St. Clair County, Illinois Final Hearing 02/28/2025 Settlement Website ColdVirusSettlement.com Claims Administrator Zicam Products Settlement c/o Settlement Administrator 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210 Philadelphia, PA19103 info@ColdVirusSettlement.com (833) 322-3987 Class Counsel Nick Suciu III MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC L Timothy Fisher BURSOR & FISHER PA Defense Counsel Baldassare Vinti PROSKAUER ROSE LLP [GN] CLARENCE CARTER: Class Cert Bid Hearing in Bull Suit Due April 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIN BULL, et al., v. CLARENCE H. CARTER, Case No. 3:25-cv-00041 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge William Campbell, Jr. entered an order granting briefing schedule for preliminary injunction and class certification. -- The parties state that they have conferred regarding a briefing schedule and discovery plan for Plaintiffs' pending motion for preliminary injunction and motion for class certification. -- The parties agree that limited discovery is necessary to adjudicate the pending motions. The Court will hold a hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and motion for class certification on Thursday, April 3, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. at the Fred D. Thompson United States Courthouse and Federal Building, 719 Church Street, Nashville, Tennessee, in Courtroom 6B. By noon on March 27, 2025, the parties shall file the following: (1) any affidavits; (2) witness lists; (3) exhibit lists; (4) any depositions and/or deposition designations; (5) any stipulations; and (6) any motions in limine. No witness shall testify live at the hearing unless the party calling such witness has identified and made the witness available for a deposition prior to the hearing. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KPhXfs at no extra charge.[CC] CLINT MILLER: Refuses to Refund Hunt Fee, Iasella Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN IASELLA, for himself, and for others similarly situated v. Clint Miller, Case No. 3:25-cv-00032-HRH (D. Ala., Feb. 11, 2025) arises when Clint Miller, a registered hunting guide in the State of Alaska, promises clients a hunt of a lifetime, and charges accordingly. According to the complaint, after Miller's clients prepay his fee (typically $20,000 or more per person), the Defendant cancels the hunt, and refuses to refund any money to clients. As part of the ruse, Miller claims that some misfortune or calamity has occurred, and he cannot take clients on the hunt they have paid for. Accordingly, Miller expresses his deepest regrets, apologizes, plays on their sympathies, and offers to reschedule their hunt until the following year. For those clients who opt to reschedule, the rescheduled hunt never actually occurs. For those clients who demand a refund of their prepaid fee, Miller stops all communication, and does not refund the fee. Miller's scheme of promising hunts, taking prepayment of the fee, and failing to provide any hunt at all, is not an isolated event. This scheme has occurred over several years and to many clients. Because Miller' scheme goes back to at least 2021, it is believed that the putative class may be 60 people or more. Clint Miller should be held financially accountable for his deceptive and fraudulent behavior by imposing statutory treble damages under the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff asserts that Miller should be forever prevented from perpetrating this fraudulent scheme by permanently enjoining Miller from ever again acting as a commercial hunting guide in the State of Alaska. The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tim Cook, Esq. COOK & ASSOCIATES 3901 Taiga Drive Anchorage, AL 99516 Telephone: (907) 336-5291 E-mail: tcook@acsalaska.com COAST ENVIRONMENTAL: Teng Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against COAST ENVIRONMENTAL DUCT CLEANING, INC., et al. The case is styled as Chemnan Teng, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COAST ENVIRONMENTAL DUCT CLEANING, INC., DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC25622150 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 6, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Coast Environmental Duct Cleaning Inc is a construction company based in Azusa, California and specializes in Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning HVAC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-438-5555 Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com COLGATE PALMOLIVE: Fails to Investigate Water Quality, Foreman Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- William Foreman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. THE COLGATE PALMOLIVE COMPANY and TOM’S OF MAINE, Case No. 3:25-cv-00314-TWR-KSC (S.D. Cal., Feb. 11, 2025) alleges that Tom's continued to distribute merchandise based on the test results of final products, but did not investigate the quality of water used in the process as noted by the Food and Drug Administration in its letter despite the results of microbial tests it conducted. Accordingly, Tom's responded to the FDA by stating it is retrospectively looking into the incidents, and that the detection of Paracoccus yeei was due to a lab error. However, the agency said there is no evidence of that. Pseudomonas aeruginosa -- which can cause infections in the blood and lungs, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention -- was also recovered in multiple water samples from June 2021 to October 2022. That water was used to manufacture Tom's Simply White clean mint paste, and for the final rinse of numerous equipment cleaning processes, the letter said. The bacteria Ralstonia insidiosa was also recovered from water points of use. The FDA found that batches manufactured after these incidents were released based on the microbial testing of the finished over-the-counter product despite the quality of the water used as a component or to clean the equipment. The FDA warned Tom's investigation concluded, without sufficient justification, that the growth was due to sample contamination. An FDA investigator also observed a "black mold-like substance" at the base of a hose reel and behind a water storage tank at the facility, which was within a foot away from equipment used for toothpaste production. The FDA also found that Tom's failed to investigate hundreds of product complaints regarding odor, color, and taste because they did not indicate a trend, says the suit. According to the FDA, Tom's responded by saying it handles complaints with a "risk-based approach," and that individual complaints are not enough to deem a product inadequate. The FDA's letter also stated "Water is a major ingredient in many of your OTC drug products. It is essential that you employ a water system that is robustly designed, and that you effectively control, maintain, and monitor the system to ensure it consistently produces water suitable for pharmaceutical use. The Plaintiff purchased the Tom's of Maine toothpaste from a local retailer. Before his purchase, the Plaintiff saw and reviewed Defendants' advertising claims on the packaging and labeling itself, and he made his purchase of the toothpaste in reliance thereon. The Plaintiff specifically relied upon representations made by Defendant. The Plaintiff did not receive the promised benefits or the total value of his purchase. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and the following Classes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(2) and/or (b)(3). Specifically, the Classes are defined as: National Class "All persons in the United States who purchased the Products during the fullest period of law. In the alternative, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of the following State class. California Sub-Class "All persons in the State of California who purchased the Products during the fullest period of law." Colgate Palmolive is a publicly traded company whose principal place of business is located in New York. Tom's of Maine is a U.S. manufacturing company whose principal place of business is located in Kennebunk, Maine. It is a majority-owned subsidiary of Colgate Palmolive.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manfred P. Muecke, Esq. MANFRED APC 600 W Broadway Ste 700 San Diego CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 550-4005 Facsimile: (619) 550-4006 E-mail: mmuecke@manfredapc.com COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: White Sues Over Mislabeled Toothpaste ----------------------------------------------------------- DOUGLAS WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO.; and TOM'S OF MAINE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00662-FB-LKE (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 6, 2025) seeks to remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of the Defendants regarding the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of Defendants' Tom's of Maine Kid's Natural Fluoride-Free Toothpaste Silly Strawberry product throughout the state of New York and throughout the country. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants have improperly, deceptively, and misleadingly labeled and marketed their Product to reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff, by omitting and not disclosing to consumers on its packaging that the Product is contaminated with unsafe levels of lead and arsenic, which are powerful neurotoxins that are known to cause cognitive deficits, mental illness, dementia, and hypertension. The Plaintiff and the Class Members all paid money for the Product; however, Plaintiff and the Class Members did not obtain the full value of the advertised Product due to Defendants' misrepresentations and omissions. Colgate-Palmolive Company is a consumer products company that markets its products throughout the world. The Company's products include toothpaste, toothbrushes, shampoos, deodorants, bar and liquid soaps, dishwashing liquid, and laundry products, as well as pet nutrition products for cats and dogs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Furia, Esq. Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 Email: pfuria@thesultzerlawgroup.com sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER: McCarthy Files Suit in D. Connecticut -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Health Center, Inc. The case is styled as Brian McCarthy, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Community Health Center, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00183-RNC (D. Conn., Feb. 6, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Community health centers (CHC) -- https://www.chc1.com/ -- offer vital care services and resources to communities in need.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1111 Summer Street, Suite 403 Stamford, CT 06905 Phone: (203) 992-4523 Email: shopkins@zlk.com CONCEPTIONS REPRODUCTIVE: Gibson Suit Removed to D. Colorado ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Kimberly Gibson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONCEPTIONS REPRODUCTIVE ASSOCIATES, INC. and IVI AMERICA, LLC., Case No. 2024CV32817 was removed from the District Court for Arapahoe County, Colorado, to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on Feb. 10, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00448. On December 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed an original complaint in the District Court for Arapahoe County, alleging claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. The Plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a putative class of individuals she describes as follows: "All individuals residing in the United States whose PII/PHI was compromised in the Data Breach discovered by Conceptions Reproductive Associates in April 2024, including all those individuals who received notice of the breach."[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jason D. Strabo, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206 Phone: 310.788.4125 Email: jstrabo@mwe.com - and - David Quinn Gacioch, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 200 Clarendon Street, Floor 58 Boston, MA 02116-5021 Phone: 617.535.4478 Email: dgacioch@mwe.com CONSTELLATION BRANDS: Shah Seeks to Confirm Arbitral Award ---------------------------------------------------------- VISHAL SHAH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioner v. CONSTELLATION BRANDS, INC., Respondent, Case No. 3:25-cv-01325 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 7, 2025) is an action seeking to confirm an arbitral award against Respondent pursuant to Section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act. The arbitral award was made in the San Francisco office of the American Arbitration Association. Constellation Brands, Inc. operates as a beverage company. The Company produces and markets beer, wine, and spirits. [BN] The Petitioner is represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Todd Kennedy, Esq. Kali R. Backer, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 Email: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com todd@gutridesafier.com kali@gutridesafier.com COOPERSURGICAL INC: Class certification Bid Due March 20, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as T.U., et al., v. COOPERSURGICAL, INC., et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-01261-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order setting the following case deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and Civil Local Rule 16-10: Event Deadline Class certification motion and Plaintiffs' March 20, 2026 class certification expert disclosures due: Fact discovery deadline: March 27, 2026 Class certification opposition and May 20, 2026 Defendants' class certification expert disclosures due: Defendant's Rule 702/Daubert motion May 20, 2026 related to class certification due: Plaintiffs' Rule 702/Daubert motion: June 18, 2026 Class certification reply and Plaintiffs' July 16, 2026 expert reply disclosures due: Class certification expert discovery cut-off: July 16, 2026 Class certification hearing: Aug. 13, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. CooperSurgical offers women health care medical instruments, devices and disposables. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cPMAQ9 at no extra charge.[CC] CVS HEALTH: Hall Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Ashley Hall, as an individual on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; CVS PHARMACY INC., a Rhode Island corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24CECG03967 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Fresno, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Feb. 10, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00173-JLT-SKO. The Complaint alleges class action claims for purported Violation of Business and Professions Code Section 16600, 1660.1, and 1660.5, Violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq., and Retaliation in Violation of California Labor Code.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Geoffrey C. Westbrook, Esq. Jeffrey Nordlander, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916-448-0159 Facsimile: 916-558-4839 Email: gwestbrook@seyfarth.com jnordlander@seyfarth.com DATACAMP INC: Cai Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Private Info --------------------------------------------------------------- HENGGAO CAI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DATACAMP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00954 (S.D.N.Y., February 3, 2025) arises from Defendant's practice of knowingly disclosing its users' personally identifiable information and video viewing activity to Facebook and other third parties without their consent. The Defendant's website uses code called the Facebook Tracking Pixel to track what videos its users watch, and to then send that data to Facebook along with their PII, including their names and email addresses. The website contains other tracking technologies as well and, through them, Defendant shares similar data with companies like TikTok, LinkedIn, Bing and Google. Moreover, the sharing of that data without the consent of Plaintiff or other consumers constitutes a violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act, says the suit. Headquartered in New York, NY, DataCamp, Inc. owns and operates datacamp.com, which is used throughout New York and the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. ARISOHN LLC 513 Eighth Avenue, #2 Brooklyn, NY 11215 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 E-mail: josh@arisohnllc.com DIRECT DIGITAL: Thompson Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Direct Digital, LLC. The case is styled as Karestin Thompson, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Direct Digital, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01026-AS (C.D. Cal., Feb. 6, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Direct Digital LLC -- https://www.direct.digital/ -- creates and markets direct to consumer and retail nutritional supplement brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com DOMINO'S PIZZA: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by August 25 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDMOND CARMONA, ABRAHAM MENDOZA, ROGER NOGUEIRA, THOMAS ARRIOLA, BURNETT BRULEE, GYGORY DIAZ, DANIEL ETCHEPARE, RAUL QUIROZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and all other aggrieved employees, v. DOMINO'S PIZZA, LLC, a Michigan Corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 8:20-cv-01905-JVS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Selna entered an order setting briefing schedule is as follows: Event Date Plaintiffs to file motion for class Aug. 25, 2025 certification: Domino's to file opposition to motion Sept. 22, 2025 for class certification: Plaintiff's reply to motion for class Oct. 6, 2025 Certification: Hearing: Oct. 20, 2025 Domino's is an American multinational pizza restaurant chain founded in 1960. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qGALI2 at no extra charge.[CC] DRAFTKINGS INC: Beyer Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as James Beyer, Collin Smothers, Mateen Zafer and Corey Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DraftKings, Inc.; Crown IL Gaming LLC d/b/a DraftKings, Casino Queen Inc., and Northside Crown Gaming LLC, Case No. 2025L000261 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 6, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01336. The Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that DraftKings misrepresented a promotion advertising "Risk-Free Bets" or "No Sweat First Bets", and misrepresented a new customer deposit bonus promotion, thereby inducing Plaintiffs to sign up for DraftKings' services. The Plaintiffs also allege that DraftKings "targeted" underage customers to sign up for DraftKings' services. On behalf of Plaintiffs and the putative classes, the Complaint attempts to state claims for violations of Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Andrew W. Vail, Esq. Clifford W. Berlow, Esq. JENNER AND BLOCK LLP 353 Clark Street Chicago, IL, 60654 Phone: (312) 222-9350 Email: avail@jenner.com cberlow@jenner.com - and - Richard R. Patch, Esq. Clifford E. Yin, Esq. Christopher J. Wiener, Esq. Sarah E. Peterson, Esq. COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-391-4800 Facsimile: 415-989-1663 Email: ef-rrp@cpdb.com ef-cey@cpdb.com ef-cjw@cpdb.com ef-sep@cpdb.com E TRADE: Faces Class Suit Over Undisclosed Account Transfers ------------------------------------------------------------ Colleen Murphy, writing for Law.com, reports that E*Trade and Morgan Stanley are facing a consumer class action accusing the Wall Street banks of automatically transferring uninvested funds to affiliate banks that yield minimal returns without adequately disclosing the practice to their customers. Takeaway: This suit is part of a wave of cases accusing banks of automatically transferring customer's uninvested cash balances into accounts with "unreasonably" low interest rates. Court: New Jersey, U.S. District Court Case Type: Consumer class action Industry: Financial Lawyers: Christopher A. Seeger, David R. Buchanan, and Caleb Seeley of Seeger Weiss represent the plaintiff. Counsel has not yet entered an appearance for Morgan Stanley or E*Trade. Liability Arguments: The four-count complaint was filed in New Jersey district court by Kevin Smith, an Illinois resident who has a brokerage and retirement account with E*Trade. Morgan Stanley was named in the complaint because it acquired E*Trade in October 2020. Smith’s complaint concerned a program called “cash sweep” which moves a client’s univested cash to an interest bearing account. In one example, Smith alleged that although market interest rates rose throughout 2022 and 2023, E*Trade paid investors with up to $499,999 in deposit balances only 0.01% annual percentage yield on their cash. He alleged that amount is 500 times lower than the federal funds rate at the time and that the rate was not fair or reasonable. Smith alleged counts for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentations and omissions, and section 349 of New York’s General Business Law. Damages Arguments: Instead of paying a reasonable interest rate, Smith contended, the defendants ignored benchmark and risk-free interest rates and paid their customers minimal, near-zero rates and generated hundreds of millions in profits for Morgan Stanley, E*Trade, and their affiliates. Smith alleged that the two banks breached their fiduciary duties and contractual obligations to their clients. Instead of paying a reasonable interest rate, Smith contended, the defendants ignored benchmark and risk-free interest rates and paid their customers minimal, near-zero rates and generated hundreds of millions in profits for Morgan Stanley, E*Trade, and their affiliates. What the lawyers are saying: The Seeger Weiss team did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Counsel has not yet entered an appearance for Morgan Stanley or E*Trade. Requests for comment sent to the companies were not returned. Radar scan: According to Law.com Radar, Bank of America was hit with a flurry of class actions last month, including at least five federal lawsuits with similar allegations on their 'cash sweep' program. Caption: Smith v. E*Trade Date filed: Feb. 13 Judge: U.S. District Judge Esther Salas [GN] EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Cole Sues Over Website Inaccessibility --------------------------------------------------------- HARON COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Edgewell Personal Care Brands, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01130 (N.D. Ill., February 3, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website contains significant access barriers that make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website. Moreover, by failing to make the website accessible to blind persons, Defendant is violating basic equal access requirements under both state and federal law. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now asserts claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress, declaratory relief, and for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Headquartered in Shelton, CT, Edgewell Personal Care Brands, LLC owns and controls the website, Getjackblack.com, which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view shaving essentials, moisturizers, deodorants, shampoos, conditioners, sunscreens, fragrances. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Reyes, Esq. ASHER COHEN LAW PLLC 2377 56th Dr, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: dreyes@ashercohenlaw.com ENPHASE ENERGY: Continues to Defend Hayes Putative Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Enphase Energy Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Hayes putative class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On July 15, 2024, a second putative class action complaint was filed naming the same Defendants in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Hayes v. Enphase Energy, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-04249 (the "Hayes Action" and with the Bialic Action, the "Securities Class Action"), purportedly on behalf of a class of individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired its common stock between December 12, 2022 and April 25, 2023. Both the Bialic Action and the Hayes Actions allege that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Both plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On or about July 29, 2024, six additional stockholders filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff and have their selection of counsel appointed as lead counsel. The Court held a hearing on the lead plaintiff motions on September 5, 2024, but has not yet issued a decision. Once a lead plaintiff and lead counsel are appointed, the parties will negotiate a schedule for an anticipated amended complaint and motion to dismiss. The Company disputes the allegations in each of the above-referenced lawsuit and intends to defend the matters vigorously. Enphase is an energy technology company that designs, develops, manufactures, and sells solar micro-inverters, battery energy storage and electric vehicle (EV) charging stations in the United States and internationally. Its securities traded on the NASDAQ Stock Market under the symbol â€œENPH.â€ [BN] ENPHASE ENERGY: Continues to Defend Pension Fund Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Enphase Energy Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a pension fund class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On December 13, 2024, a third putative class action complaint was filed naming the Company, its chief executive officer and its chief products officer (collectively, "Defendants II") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Trustees of the Welfare and Pension Funds of Local 464A v. Enphase Energy, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-09038 (the "Pension Fund Action"), purportedly on behalf of a class of individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock between April 25, 2023 and October 22, 2024. The Pension Fund Action alleges that Defendants II made false and/or misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The Company disputes the allegations in each of the above-referenced lawsuit and intends to defend the matters vigorously. Enphase is an energy technology company that designs, develops, manufactures, and sells solar micro-inverters, battery energy storage and electric vehicle (EV) charging stations in the United States and internationally. Its securities traded on the NASDAQ Stock Market under the symbol â€œENPH.â€ [BN] ESSA BANCORP: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- ESSA Bancorp Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act class suit. The Company and its subsidiary, ESSA Bank and Trust ("the Bank") were named as defendants, among others, in an action commenced on December 8, 2016 by one plaintiff who sought to pursue the suit as a class action on behalf of the entire class of people similarly situated. The plaintiff alleged that a subsidiary of a bank previously acquired by the Company received unearned fees and kickbacks in the process of making loans, in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. In an order dated January 29, 2018, the district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the case. The plaintiff appealed the court's ruling. In an opinion and order dated April 26, 2019, the appellate court reversed the district court's order dismissing the plaintiff's case against the Company and remanded the case to the district court in order to continue the litigation. The litigation is now proceeding before the district court. On December 9, 2019, the court permitted an amendment to the complaint to add two new plaintiffs to the case asserting similar claims. On May 21, 2020, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Fact and expert discovery were completed, but, as explained below, have recently been re-opened. The Company and the Bank filed motions seeking to have the case dismissed (in whole or in part) and/or the class de-certified, as well as for other relief. Plaintiffs opposed the motions. On August 18, 2023 the Court granted the motions to dismiss as to the Company and the Bank, with the result that the only remaining defendant is a now-dissolved former wholly-owned subsidiary of a previously-acquired company. The Court also amended its class certification order, and severed one of the original plaintiffs' claims from those of the class, ordering a separate trial for that plaintiff. Plaintiffs sought permission to appeal from these and other related rulings, but the court denied their request. Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking relief from some of the court's prior orders. On November 20, 2024 the court granted Plaintiffs' motion and vacated the prior orders that had granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants except the subsidiary alleged to have employed the individuals who allegedly violated RESPA. The court also allowed Plaintiffs additional discovery. The Company and the Bank will continue to vigorously defend against Plaintiffs’ allegations. ESSA PHARMA: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Wisconsin ------------------------------------------------------------------- ESSA Pharma Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2025, that the Company faces a putative securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. On January 24, 2025, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer in federal district court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf of a class of persons and/or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Common Shares between December 12, 2023 to October 31, 2024, alleges violations by the defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making material misstatements and/or omissions in the Company's public statements with respect to its then-ongoing clinical trials of masofaniten. The Company believes that it has valid defenses to the claims alleged in the complaint and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously, but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail. ESSA Pharma Inc., is a pharmaceutical company focused on the development of small molecule drugs for the treatment of prostate cancer. [BN] EVERGREEN CORP: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Forekast -------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Evergreen Corporation (Nasdaq: EVGR), relating to its proposed merger with Forekast Limited. Under the terms of the agreement, Forekast shares will automatically be converted into the right to receive a number of Evergreen shares. Click link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/evergreen-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Quanterix Corporation (Nasdaq: QTRX), relating to the proposed merger with Akoya Biosciences. Under the terms of the agreement, Akoya shareholders will receive 0.318 shares of Quanterix common stock for each share of Akoya common stock owned. Quanterix shareholders will own approximately 70% of the combined company. Click link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/quanterix-corporation-qtrx/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Arcadia Biosciences, Inc. (Nasdaq: RKDA), relating to the proposed merger with Roosevelt Resources LP. Under the terms of the agreement, Roosevelt and Arcadia shareholders are expected to own approximately 90% and 10%, respectively, of the outstanding shares of Arcadia. Click link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/arcadia-biosciences-inc-rkda/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Enterprise Bancorp, Inc. (Nasdaq: EBTC), relating to the proposed merger with Independent Bank Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, shareholders of Enterprise will receive 0.60 shares of Independent, and $2.00 in cash, per share held. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for April 3, 2025. Click link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/enterprise-bancorp-inc-ebtc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] EXPEDIA INC: Overcharges Consumers' Credit Accounts, Rozen Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- AREZ ROZEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXPEDIA, INC., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01125 (C.D. Cal., February 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for false, misleading, and deceptive business practices in violation of the Fair Credit Billing Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act or California Civil Code, California Civil Code, and California Business and Professions Code, and for breach of contract and breach of good faith and fair dealing. According to the complaint, Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank knowingly and recklessly uses the policies of Defendant Expedia, Inc. to its advantage by failing to properly credit its consumers, like the Plaintiff, thus unjustly enriching themselves at consumers' expense. The Defendants failed to make the proper allocations, adjustments and/or timely credits to the Plaintiff's account and caused various inaccuracies to appear on the Plaintiff's credit card account. As a result, the Plaintiff suffered damages, the suit alleges. Expedia, Inc. is an online travel agency doing business in California. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is a financial services provider in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amir J. Goldstein, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF AMIR J. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ. 7304 Beverly Boulevard, Suite 212 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Telephone: (323) 937-0400 Facsimile: (866) 288-9194 Email: ajg@consumercounselgroup.com EXPRESS SCRIPTS: 4th Cir. Halts Remand Order of Martinsville Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a key ruling in the ongoing legal battle between the City of Martinsville and Express Scripts, Inc. and OptumRx, Inc. The appeals court granted the defendants' request for a stay, preventing the case from moving back to state court as the Fourth Circuit reviews the appeal. This ruling follows a decision by the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, which had previously ordered the lawsuit to be remanded to state court. The case began in 2018, when Martinsville filed a lawsuit against Express Scripts and OptumRx in Virginia state court. The city claimed the companies were responsible for contributing to the prescription drug crisis by failing to adequately monitor and regulate prescription drug distribution. The defendants moved the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), but the district court later sent the case back to state court. In 2024, the defendants filed another removal request under the federal-officer removal statute (28 U.S.C. Section 1442), which led to a second removal to federal court. The district court again rejected the defendants' request and issued an order to remand the case to state court. In response, Express Scripts and OptumRx immediately appealed the decision under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(d), arguing that their appeal should stay the district court’s ability to enforce the remand order. In its ruling, the Fourth Circuit agreed with the defendants, citing the 2023 Supreme Court decision in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, which established that an appeal automatically stays the lower court's power to enforce remand orders. Judges Richardson and Heytens ruled in favor of the stay, ensuring the case remains in federal jurisdiction while the appeal is considered. Judge Wynn dissented, holding that the district court should still have discretion to proceed with the remand order despite the appeal. The City of Martinsville, Va., is represented by: Lauren Tallent Rogers, Esq. William Edgar Spivey, Esq. Patrick Hugh O'Donnell, Esq. KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC Tel: 757-624-3004 E-mail: ltrogers@kaufcan.com wespivey@kaufcan.com phodonnell@kaufcan.com - and - Richard Johan Conrod Jr. CICALA LAW FIRM PLLC Tel: 757-286-8299 E-mail: johan@cicalapllc.com - and - Kevin Sharp, Esq. Grant Edward Morris, Esq. Jonathan Tepe SANFORD HEISLER SHARP MCKINIGHT, LLP Tel: 615-434-7000 E-mail: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com gmorris@sanfordheisler.com jtepe@sanfordheisler.com OPTUMRX, Inc. is represented by: Amanda Bird-Johnson, Esq. Turner Anderson Broughton, Esq. WILLIAMS MULLEN Tel: 804-420-6000 E-mail: abird-johnson@williamsmullen.com E-mail: tbroughton@williamsmullen.com - and - Matthew Patrick McGuire, Esq. Brian D. Boone, Esq. Caroline Rawls Strumph, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD, LLP Tel: 919-862-2279 E-mail: matt.mcguire@alston.com E-mail: brian.boone@alston.com E-mail: caroline.strumph@alston.com Express Scripts, Inc. is represented by: Matthew K. Wasserman, Esq. Eric Christopher Lyttle, Esq. Jonathan Gordon Cooper, Esq. Michael J. Lyle, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP E-mail: matthewwasserman@quinnemanuel.com ericlyttle@quinnemanuel.com jonathancooper@quinnemanuel.com mikelyle@quinnemanuel.com - and - Emily Munro Scott, Esq. HIRSCHLER FLEISCHER, PC Tel: 804-771-9539 E-mail: escott@hirschlerlaw.com EXXON MOBIL: Completion of Class Certification Discovery Due June 6 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MENDI YOSHIKAWA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, DARREN W. WOODS, LIAM M. MALLON, and MELISSA BOND, Case No. 3:21-cv-00194-N (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge David Godbey entered an order updating schedule for Class Certification discovery: 1. The deadline for Lead Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification to be served on Defendants is Feb. 7, 2025; 2. The deadline for completion of class certification discovery, excluding the deposition of Plaintiffs' and Defendants' expert, is June 6, 2025; 3. The Defendants' opposition, including all supporting evidence and supporting brief, will be served on Plaintiffs on June 23, 2025; 4. The deadline to take the deposition of Defendants' expert is July 23, 2025; 5. Lead Plaintiffs' Reply, including rebuttal evidence, if any, and supporting brief, will be served on Defendants on Aug. 6, 2025; 6. The deadline to take the deposition of any expert submitted with Lead Plaintiffs' Reply will be Aug. 20, 2025; 7. The Defendants' Sur-Reply addressing only issues on which Defendants bear the burden, including rebuttal evidence, if any, and a supporting brief, will be served on Lead Plaintiffs on Sept. 2, 2025; 8. The Parties will file with the Court Lead Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, Defendants' Opposition, Lead Plaintiffs' Reply, and Defendants' Sur-Reply, together with all supporting evidence and briefs, on Sept. 4, 2025. ExxonMobil is an American multinational oil and gas corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=io4Azn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq. Rebecca E. Boon, Esq. John J. Esmay, Esq. Michael Mathai, Esq. Thomas Z. Sperber, Esq. Stephen Boscolo, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: johnr@blbglaw.com rebecca.boon@blbglaw.com john.esmay@blbglaw.com thomas.sperber@blbglaw.com michael.mathai@blbglaw.com stephen.boscolo@blbglaw.com - and - Daniel L. Berger, Esq. Barbara J. Hart, Esq. Caitlin M. Moyna, Esq. Lauren J. Salamon, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER PA 485 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (646) 722-8501 E-mail: dberger@gelaw.com bhart@gelaw.com cmoyna@gelaw.com lsalamon@gelaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Noelle M. Reed, Esq. Abigail E. Davis, Esq. Wallis M. Hampton, Esq. Michelle L. Davis, Esq. Michael W. Restey Jr. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 6800 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 655-5122 Facsimile: (713) 483-9122 E-mail: noelle.reed@skadden.com abigail.sheehan@skadden.com wallis.hampton@skadden.com michelle.davis@skadden.com michael.restey@skadden.com F21 OPCO: Faces Cantu Class Suit Over Invasive Surveillance ----------------------------------------------------------- TANYA CANTU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. F21 OPCO, LLC, a DELAWARE limited liability company d/b/a WWW.FOREVER21.COM, Case No. 2:25-cv-01132 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 10, 2025) alleges that the Defendant's website, forever21.com, operates as a digital "trojan horse" to help the Chinese government use TikTok to spy on visitors to the website, track their journey across the web, eavesdrop on their conversations, and bombard them with targeted advertising in violations of the California tap and trace law. Accordingly, TikTok's ability to spy on Americans requires the active assistance of companies like Defendant, which created an online presence at the website and encourages consumers to use the website as an alternative to personal interaction. The Defendant well understands that its website is a means to communicate privately with potential customers -- a consumer expectation that is not only reasonable, but actively nurtured by Defendant. Indeed, Defendant assures consumers that they only "disclose aggregated or de-identified information that cannot reasonably be used to identify you." See https://www.forever21.com/us/privacypolicy.html (last accessed January 2025) The Plaintiff contends that she visited the Defendant's website during the statute of limitations period. Defendant secretly de-anonymized Plaintiff using electronic impulses generated from the Plaintiff's device and helped TikTok track and eavesdrop on Plaintiff's personal life. The Defendant sells clothing, shoes, and accessories. The Defendant's website and the Tik Tok Software Spies on Activists Like Plaintiff. The Defendant operates the website and has installed on the website spyware created by TikTok -- known as a "tracking pixel" -- to identify and gather detailed information about website visitors (the "TikTok Software").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Gerardo J. Sosa, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com gsosa@toddflaw.com FEDERAL EXPRESS: Smith Sues Over Unlawful Employment Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Michael Smith, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, Case No. 3:25-cv-00020-CDL (M.D. Ga., Feb. 10, 2025), is brought for systemic violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (hereinafter "FLSA"), as well as for an individual violations for Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (hereinafter the "ADA), and for individual violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (hereinafter "FMLA"). The Plaintiff has suffered from arthritis, ADHD, and depression for some time as well as worked in a variety of positions, including as a delivery driver. In June 2023 the Plaintiff requested intermittent FMLA leave to better address the effects of arthritis on his knee (as opposed to a designated ADA based accommodation). Plaintiff used one day of intermittent FMLA leave per week between July 2023 through to November 2023 to address his injured knee. Within a week of the taking intermittent FMLA leave in November 2023, Defendant terminated the Plaintiff for pretextual reasons. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has brought claims against Defendant for, among other claims, interference with the FMLA, retaliation under the FMLA, failure to provide necessary FMLA notices, and ADA based discrimination and retaliation based on previous requests for an accommodation for the treatment of the affects of his arthritis, ADHD, and depression on his ability to work, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant. The Defendant is a private American company that shipping and receiving of packages on behalf of customers in the United States and the all over the globe.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter H. Steckel, Esq. STECKEL LAW, L.L.C. 1120 Ivywood Drive Athens, GA 30606 Phone: (404) 717-6220 Email: peter@SteckelWorkLaw.com FOOD EXPRESS INC: Barnes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Food Express, Inc. The case is styled as Kelvin Barnes, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Food Express, Inc., Case No. 25STCV03693 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 10, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Food Express, Inc. -- https://www.foodexp.com/ -- is a family owned and operated trucking company specializing in the transportation of food grade dry bulk commodities in the Western United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-438-5555 Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com - and - Sarah H. Cohen, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 8484 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243 Phone: 310-438-5555 Email: sarah@tomorrowlaw.com FOREST RIVER: Nelson Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAY NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FOREST RIVER, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-00049-BMM (D. Mont.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying class. The counsel certifies, pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c)(1), that the Counsel for the Plaintiff has conferred with the Counsel for the Defendant regarding this Motion, and the Defendant opposes the relief requested. Forest River manufactures recreational vehicles. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VZfek5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Tab Turner, Esq. TURNER & ASSOCIATES, PA 4705 Somers Avenue, Suite 100 North Little Rock, AR 72116 Telephone: (501) 791-2277 Facsimile: (214) 750-9787 E-mail: tab@tturner.com - and - Dennis P. Conner/J.R. Conner, Esq. CONNER, MARR & PINSKI, PC Great Falls, MT 59403-3028 Telephone: (406) 727-3550 Facsimile: (406) 727-1640 - and - Daniel B. Bidegaray, Esq. BIDEGARAY LAW FIRM, LLC 1700 W. Koch, Suite 5 Bozeman, MT 59715 Telephone: (406) 522-7744 Facsimile: (406) 534-7629 E-mail: daniel@bidegaraylawfirm.com FOREVER 21 INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Forever 21, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-00533 (D. Minn., Feb. 10, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.forever21.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") 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 (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind. The Defendant offers clothing and accessories for sale including, but not limited to tops, bottoms, dresses, shoes, jewelry and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC Jason Gustafson (#0403297) 222 South Ninth Street, Suite 1600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com FRANCHISE WORLD: Ussery Seeks to Confirm Arbitral Award ------------------------------------------------------- RYAN USSERY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioner v. FRANCHISE WORLD HEADQUARTERS, LLC, Respondent, Case No. 3:25-cv-01337-LJC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 7, 2025) is an action seeking to confirm an arbitral award against Respondent pursuant to Section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act. The arbitral award was made in the San Francisco office of the American Arbitration Association. Franchise World Headquarters, Inc operates and franchises subway restaurants. The Company offers sandwiches, salads, breads, toppings, and drinks. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 Email: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com FURNITURE MART USA: Hilmar Files Suit in D. South Dakota -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Furniture Mart USA, Inc. The case is styled as Gabriel Hilmar, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. Furniture Mart USA, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-04020-CBK (D.S.C., Feb. 7, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Injury for Breach of Contract. The Furniture Mart -- https://furnituremartusa.com/ -- offers the best in home furnishings, mattresses and home decor for every room of your home.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett J. Waltner, Esq. MYERS BILLION, LLP 230 S. Phillips Ave., Suite 300 PO Box 1085 Sioux Falls, SD 57101 Phone: (605) 336-3700 Fax: (605) 336-3786 Email: bwaltner@myersbillion.com FURNITURE MART USA: Schaffer Files Suit in D. South Dakota ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Furniture Mart USA, Inc. The case is styled as Brody Schaffer, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Furniture Mart USA, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-04021-RAL (D.S.C., Feb. 7, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Injury for Account Receivable. The Furniture Mart -- https://furnituremartusa.com/ -- offers the best in home furnishings, mattresses and home decor for every room of your home.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett J. Waltner, Esq. MYERS BILLION, LLP 230 S. Phillips Ave., Suite 300 PO Box 1085 Sioux Falls, SD 57101 Phone: (605) 336-3700 Fax: (605) 336-3786 Email: bwaltner@myersbillion.com GAS EXPRESS: Brown Sues Over Private Data Breach ------------------------------------------------ QUINCY BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GAS EXPRESS, LLC d/b/a CIRCLE K, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00494-ELR (N.D. Ga., February 3, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former job applicants' and employees' personally identifiable information from hackers. On or about January 13, 2025, Gas Express filed official notice of a hacking incident with the Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General. On or around the same time, Gas Express also sent out data breach letters to individuals whose information was compromised as a result of the hacking incident. The Gas Express conducted an investigation which revealed that an unauthorized party had access to certain company files on May 20, 2024. Moreover, Gas Express waited eight months to notify the public that they were at risk. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, invasion of privacy, breach of implied of contract, and unjust enrichment. Headquartered in Atlanta, GA, Gas Express, LLC operates as a convenience store and gas station chain . [BN The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Cameron Tribble, Esq. BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC 31 Atlanta Street Marietta, GA 30060 Telephone: (770) 227-6375 E-mail: ctribble@barneslawgroup.com GEICO GENERAL: Seeks to Seal Class Cert. Confidential Info ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN MARCELLETTI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 6:23-cv-06211-EAW-CDH (W.D.N.Y.), the Defendant will move the Court for an Order granting GEICO's motion to seal confidential information in the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, appointment of class representative, and appointment of class counsel. GEICO offers a variety of insurance such as vehicle, property, business, life, umbrella, travel, pet, jewelry and more. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1ulU3p at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Dan W. Goldfine, Esq. Jamie L. Halavais, Esq. DICKINSON WRIGHT, PLLC 1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 285-5000 Facsimile: (844) 670-6009 - and - Jennifer M. Schauerman, Esq. WOODS OVIATT GILMAN LLP 1900 Bausch & Lomb Place Rochester, NY 14604 Telephone: (585) 987-2800 Facsimile: (585) 445-2393 GOODRX INC: Gus' Pharmacy Sues Over Reimbursement Rate Suppression ------------------------------------------------------------------ GUS' PHARMACY, LLC d/b/a KENNEDY PHARMACY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOODRX, INC.; GOODRX HOLDINGS, INC.; CAREMARK, L.L.C.; EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC.; MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE, SYSTEMS, INC.; and NAVITUS HEALTH SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00937 (C.D. Cal., February 3, 2025) arises from a scheme by Defendants to artificially suppress the reimbursement rates paid to pharmacies unaffiliated with Defendants, like Plaintiff and the other independent pharmacies, for generic prescription drug claims. Defendants GoodRx, Inc., Caremark, LLC., Express Scripts, Inc., MedImpact Healthcare Systems, Inc., and Navitus Health Solutions, LLC have vertically integrated themselves into various sectors of the healthcare and pharmaceutical supply chain, including pharmacies insurers, and drug distributors. This integration has resulted in powerful conglomerates that wield significant influence over access to and pricing of prescription drugs in the U.S. The Defendants charge a fee to the pharmacy on every discount card transaction, and do not reimburse the pharmacy, leaving the discounted price paid by the patient as the only revenue to the pharmacy. As a result, pharmacies often lose money on discount card transactions but initially agreed to honor them to foster customer loyalty and bring traffic into their stores. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendants' unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. Headquartered in Santa Monica, CA, GoodRx, Inc. is a healthcare company that develops and maintains a telemedicine platform and free-to-use website and mobile app that track prescription drug prices in the United States and provide drug coupons for discounts on medications. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dena C. Sharp, Esq. Scott Grzenczyk, Esq. Sean Greene, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com scottg@girardsharp.com sgreene@girardsharp.com GRAB HOLDINGS: Proposes Class Settlement, Hearing Set May 15 ------------------------------------------------------------ Levi & Korsinsky, LLP and Pomerantz LLP announce that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of Grab Holdings Limited securities (NASDAQ: GRAB) or Altimeter Growth Corp. securities (formerly NASDAQ: AGC): SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, FINAL APPROVAL HEARING, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES To: All persons and entities who: (i) purchased or otherwise acquired public shares in Grab (including by way of exchange of Altimeter Growth Corp. ("AGC") shares) pursuant to or traceable to the proxy/registration statement that Grab filed with the SEC on Form F-4 on August 2, 2021, and that was thereafter amended on Forms F-4/A on September 13, 2021, October 18, 2021, November 12, 2021, November 17, 2021, and November 19, 2021, and incorporated into the final prospectus on Form 424(b)(3) filed on November 19, 2021, as amended (the "Proxy/Registration Statement"); (ii) who exchanged AGC shares for Grab Class A Ordinary Shares rather than redeeming the same pursuant to the Proxy/Registration Statement; or (iii) purchased or otherwise acquired public Grab Class A Ordinary Shares or other public Grab or AGC securities between August 2, 2021 and March 3, 2022, both dates inclusive. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (a) Defendants and their immediate families; (b) current and former directors or officers of Grab or AGC; and (c) claims relating to the purchase or acquisition of Grab shares subject to a Lock-Up Agreement referenced in the Proxy/Registration Statement. To avoid doubt, the Settlement Class definition is intended to encompass claims of public AGC shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired public Grab Class A Ordinary Shares as well as claims relating to the approximately 20.97% of Grab Class A Ordinary Shares that were not subject to a Lock-Up Agreement and became freely transferable on December 2, 2021, but is not intended to encompass claims of the PIPE Investors in their capacity as such or claims related to Grab shares acquired through the exchange of Sponsor shares. Also excluded from the Settlement Class are all putative members of the Settlement Class who exclude themselves by filing a valid and timely request for exclusion. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Southern District of New York, that the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs, Si Fan, Amit Batra, and SLG Cloudbank Holdings, LLC ("Lead Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and all members of the Settlement Class, and Brad Gerstner ("Gerstner"), Hab Siam ("Siam"), Richard N. Barton ("Barton"), Aishetu Fatima Dozie ("Dozie"), Dev Ittycheria ("Ittycheria"), Anthony Tan ("Tan"), Peter Oey ("Oey"), Tan Hooi Ling ("Ling"), John Rogers ("Rogers"), Dara Khosrowshahi ("Khosrowshahi"), Ng Shin Ein ("Ein"), Oliver Jay ("Jay"), and Grab Holdings Limited ("Grab" and, collectively, "Defendants") have reached a proposed settlement of the claims in the above-captioned class action (the "Action") in the amount of $80,000,000.00 (the "Settlement"). Lead Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel estimate that if all affected Grab shares elect to participate in the Settlement, the average recovery per share could be approximately $0.1073, before deduction of any fees, expenses, costs, and awards as described in the Notice. In exchange for the Settlement and the release of the Released Claims against the Released Defendant Parties, Defendants have agreed to create an $80,000,000 cash fund, which may accrue interest, to be distributed, after deduction of Court-awarded attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, Notice and Administration Expenses, Taxes, and any other fees or expenses approved by the Court (the "Net Settlement Fund"), among all Settlement Class Members who submit valid Claim Forms and are found to be eligible to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund ("Authorized Claimants"). A hearing will be held before the Honorable Jennifer L. Rochon, on May 15, 2025, at 11:00 a.m., in Courtroom 20B of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 (the "Settlement Hearing") to, among other things, consider whether: (i) the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and should be approved; (ii) the proposed plan for allocating the proceeds of the Settlement (the "Plan of Allocation") to Settlement Class Members is fair and reasonable and should be approved; and (iii) Co-Lead Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and expenses and Lead Plaintiffs' awards are reasonable and should be approved. This Notice describes important rights you may have and what steps you must take if you wish to participate in the Settlement, object, or be excluded from the Settlement Class. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it telephonically or via videoconference, without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. A full Notice and Claim Form can be obtained by visiting the website of the Claims Administrator, www.GrabSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Grab Securities Settlement c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173098 Milwaukee, WI 53217 Toll-free: (877) 388-1754 Email: info@GrabSecuritiesSettlement.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice/Claim Form or for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Co-Lead Counsel: Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. Gregory M. Potrepka, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1111 Summer Street, Suite 403 Stamford, CT 06905 Telephone: (203) 992-4523 E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com gpotrepka@zlk.com - and - Brian P. O'Connell, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 E-mail: boconnell@pomlaw.com If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked, emailed, or submitted online no later than April 24, 2025, to the Claims Administrator at the address above. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must mail a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice such that it is received no later than April 24, 2025, to the Claims Administrator. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Co-Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application, Lead Plaintiffs' request for an award, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are received no later than April 24, 2025. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: JANUARY 13, 2025 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Contacts Shannon L. Hopkins (203) 992-4523 shopkins@zlk.com Brian P. O'Connell (312) 377-1181 boconnell@pomlaw.com [GN] GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT: Miles Suit Removed to D. Nevada ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Nylynn Miles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LP, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. A-25-910091-C was removed from the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada, to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on Feb. 6, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00262. According to the Complaint, the Plaintiff formerly worked for Greystar as a leasing professional. The Plaintiff alleges that, in her offer letter from Greystar, Greystar agreed that Plaintiff "could be eligible" for bonus programs and "was possibly eligible" for housing benefits. The Plaintiff further alleges that Greystar provided her with bonuses and housing benefits which were not reflected in her overtime rate. The Plaintiff contends that these actions constitute a failure to: pay overtime in violation of NRS 608.018; timely pay all wages due at termination in violation of NRS 608.020, 608.018, 608.040, and 608.050; and pay overtime in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA").[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Zachary P. Takos, Esq. TAKOS LAW GROUP, LTD. 10785 West Twain Avenue, Suite 224 Las Vegas, NV 89135 Phone: 702.658.1900 Facsimile: 702.924.4422 Email: zach@takoslaw.com - and - Shawn D. Fabian, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 321 N. Clark Street, 32nd Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: 312.499.6300 Email: sfabian@sheppardmullin.com GYMSHARK USA: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Manier Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ SHARON MANIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GYMSHARK USA INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00366 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 10, 2025) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Gymshark USA Inc. operates as a fitness apparel and accessories company. The Company offers gym wear such as bottoms, hoodies, jackets, stringers, tanks, leggings, tops, and socks. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com HAYWARD, CA: Ghali et al. Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW GHALI, et. al., on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF HAYWARD, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-01116 (N.D. Cal., February 3, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs are or were employed by Defendant in non-exempt positions. During their employment, the Plaintiffs were entitled to receive either Defendant's contributions to the City's Flexible Benefits Plan or receive cash-in-lieu of health benefits. However, by excluding certain items of remuneration from the regular rate of pay used to calculate the overtime compensation paid to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals, including but not limited to cash in-lieu of health benefits and contributions towards the purchase of health benefits, the Defendant failed to pay them one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours of overtime they worked, alleges the suit. City of Hayward is a political division of the State of California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David E. Mastagni, Esq. Taylor Davies-Mahaffey, Esq. Amanda McCarthy, Esq. MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT, A.P.C. 1912 I Street Sacramento, CA 95811-3151 Telephone: (916) 446-4692 Facsimile: (916) 447-4614 E-mail: tdavies-mahaffey@mastagni.com amccarthy@mastagni.com HEATONIST LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Trippett Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ALFRED TRIPPETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Heatonist, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01210 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 11, 2025) alleges that Heatonist failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Heatonist provides to their non-disabled customers through https://heatonist.com. Accordingly, 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. Because Defendant's website, Heatonist.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 Heatonist's policies, practices, and procedures to that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, the lawsuit says. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his 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 New York. Heatonist.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Heatonist. Yet, Heatonist.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website. Thus, Heatonist excludes the blind and visually-impaired from the full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living. In the wave of technological advances in recent years, assistive computer technology is becoming an increasingly prominent part of everyday life, allowing blind and visually-impaired persons to fully and independently access a variety of services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. Telephone: (347) 941-4715 Manhasset, NY 11030 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com HOSPITAL SISTERS: Fails to Secure Private Info, Hedding Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- Isiah Robert Hedding, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hospital Sisters Health System (HSHS), Case No. 3:25-cv-03036-SEM-EIL (C.D. Ill., Feb. 11, 2025) is a class action against HSHS for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated HSHS patients' and employees' personally identifiable information and protected health information, including names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, medical record numbers, health insurance information, and medical treatment information, from criminal hackers. HSHS, based in Springfield, Illinois, is a 13-hospital system serving almost 2 million patients in Illinois and Wisconsin per year. On Sept. 3, 2024, HSHS filed official notice of a hacking incident with the Attorney General of Texas. On Aug. 30, 2024, HSHS also sent out data breach letters to individuals whose information was compromised as a result of the hacking incident. Based on the Notice sent to Plaintiff and "Class Members", the Defendant detected unusual activity on some of its computer systems in late August 2023. In response, the Defendant launched an investigation. HSHS's investigation revealed that an unauthorized party had access to certain files that contained sensitive patient and employee information, and that such access took place between August 16 and August 27, 2023 (the "Data Breach"). Yet, HSHS waited over a year to notify the public that they were at risk. Due to this delayed response, the Plaintiff and Class Members remained unaware for over a year that their Private Information had been compromised, leaving them exposed to an ongoing, significant risk of identity theft and other personal, social, and financial harms. This is a risk that will persist for the rest of their lives. The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach contained highly sensitive patient and employee data, representing a gold mine for data thieves. The data included, but is not limited to, Social Security Numbers, medical record numbers, and sensitive health treatment information that HSHS collected and maintained. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf of themselves and the Class, assert claims for Negligence, Negligence Per Se, Breach of Implied Contract, Unjust Enrichment, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and Violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the Illinois Personal Information Protection Act. HSHS is a multi-hospital medical system. Founded as an offshoot of the Hospital Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis in 1875, and officially incorporated in 1978. HSHS is a significant medical provider, serving almost 2-million patients in Illinois and Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Bryan Bleichner, Esq. Philip Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE, PA 100 Washington Ave, S, Unit 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com ICON PLC: Artificially Inflated Ordinary Share Price, Shing Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHAN KWOK SHING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ICON PLC, STEPHEN CUTLER, and BRENDAN BRENNAN, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00763 (E.D.N.Y., February 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding ICON's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade ICON ordinary shares at artificially inflated prices between July 27, 2023, and October 23, 2024. When the truth emerged, the price of ICON ordinary shares declined more than 20 percent over a two-day trading period, from $280.76 per share on October 23, 2024, to $220.47 per share on October 25, 2024, inflicting hundreds of millions of dollars of financial losses and economic damages under the securities laws on Class members, says the suit. ICON PLC is a clinical research organization, headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com - and - Brian E. Cochran, Esq. Francisco J. Mejia, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com fmejia@rgrdlaw.com - and - Ralph M. Stone, Esq. JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP 620 Fifth Avenue, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 292-5690 Email: ralphs@johnsonfistel.com INSOMNIA COOKIES: Sumlin Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ DENNIS SUMLIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSOMNIA COOKIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01169 (S.D.N.Y., February 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://insomniacookies.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: ambiguous link texts, inadequate focus order, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccessible search suggestions, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse, the suit says. 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. Insomnia Cookies, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Asher Cohen, Esq. ASHER COHEN PLLC 2377 56th Dr. Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (718) 914-9694 Email: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com INTELLIA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Gonzalez Suit Over Market Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARCOS GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INTELLIA THERAPEUTICS, INC., JOHN LEONARD, and LAURA SEPP-LORENZIN, Case No. 1:25-cv-10353 (D. Mass., Feb. 11, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Intellia securities between July 30, 2024, to January 8, 2025, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws. The Defendants provided investors with material information concerning Intellia's Phase 1/2 study evaluating NTLA-3001 for the treatment of alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD)-associated lung disease. Defendants' statements included, among other things, confidence in the Company's timeline for the aforementioned study, specifically that Intellia expected to dose the first patient in the second half of 2024. The Defendants failed to disclose inter alia that the demand for viral-based editing was rapidly dwindling as non-viral delivery methods became a main target of the scientific research community due to their cost-effectiveness and more efficient development, thus making NTLA-3001 an inefficient program for Intellia to maintain. Such statements absent these material facts caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Intellia's securities at artificially inflated prices. The truth emerged on January 9, 2025, when Intellia published a press release announcing Company reorganization. In pertinent part, Defendants disclosed that Intellia would be halting all NTLA-3001 research and studies and that the Company would be reducing its workforce by 27% in 2025. Specifically, the Company announced that management decided to focus Intellia's resources on other pharmaceutical development and would be implementing cost saving in the form of a major reduction in force. As a result, Defendants pipeline priority readjustment resulted in the Company's once-touted NTLA-3001's discontinuation, says the suit. Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Intellia's revelation. The price of Intellia's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $12.02 per share on January 8, 2025, Intellia's stock price fell to $10.20 per share on January 10, 2025 (which was the next trading session due to markets being closed on January 9, 2025, in observance of the passing of former President Jimmy Carter), a decline of about 15% in the span of just a single day. The Plaintiff purchased Intellia common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the Defendants' fraud. Intellia is a clinical-stage gene editing company focused on developing therapeutics using CRISPR/Cas9-based technologies. The Company advances its platform's modular solutions and research efforts on genome editing technologies as well as delivery and cell engineering capabilities to generate additional development candidates.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1111 Summer Street, Suite 403 Stamford, CT 06905 Telephone: (203) 992-4523 Facsimile: (212) 363-7500 E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com aapton@zlk.com J.M. SMUCKER: Ringler Sues Over Fruit Spreads' Misleading Labels ---------------------------------------------------------------- ADINA RINGLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01138 (C.D. Cal., February 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and California Unfair Competition Law, and breach of express warranties. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of a line of Smucker's Natural Fruit Spread products. The products' front labels contain images of fresh fruit and prominently represent that the products are "natural" and "made with ingredients FROM NATURAL SOURCES." However, these representations are false because the products contain citric acid, an artificial ingredient not made from natural sources. The Plaintiff and the Class would not have purchased the products, or would have paid less, had they known the truth, says the suit. The J.M. Smucker Company is a food manufacturer based in Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is 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 Email: lilach@crosnerlegal.com mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com JACKSON HOLE: Riley Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------ AMANIE RILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JACKSON HOLE BURGER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01168 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://jacksonholeburgers.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. Jackson Hole Burger, Inc. is a New York City based chain of hamburger restaurants. [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 JAIME S. SCHWARTZ: Faces Does Suit Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE 1, an individual; JANE DOE 2, an individual; JANE DOE 3, an individual; JANE DOE 4, an individual JANE DOE 5, an individual, JANE DOE 6, an individual; JANE DOE 7, an individual, and JANE DOE 8, an individual, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiffs v. JAIME S. SCHWARTZ, MD, an individual; JAMIE S. SCHWARTZ, MD PC, a California professional corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00898 (C.D. Cal., February 3, 2025) seeks for injunctive relief to rectify Defendants' negligent cybersecurity practices and to require him to destroy or secure any private personal and medical information in his possession as well as seeks statutory damages and damages for the severe emotional toll that Plaintiff and other patients having their private medical information compromised has taken on them. In March 2024, Dr. Schwartz's system was hacked a second time. Allegedly, the hackers again gained access to his entire system and all or substantially all patient data. However, Dr. Schwartz failed to notify the affected patients as required by federal and state law. Instead, Dr. Schwartz waited almost 10 months to notify them, says the suit. Jamie S. Schwartz, MD PC operates two plastic surgery practices in Beverly Hills and Dubai. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles Lew, Esq. Isaiah Artest, Esq. THE LEW FIRM, APC 9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 279-5145 Facsimile: (310) 300-1819 E-mail: Charles@thelewfirm.com Isaiah@thelewfirm.com - and - Damion D. D. Robinson, Esq. David Markevitch, Esq. Jimmie Davis Parker, Esq. ROBINSON MARKEVITCH & PARKER LLP 8430 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 200 West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone. (213) 757-7778 E-mail: dr@robinsonmarkevitch.com dm@robinsonmarkevitch.com jdp@robinsonmarkevitch.com JERUSALEN PRODUCTOS: Faces Martin Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Fla. ----------------------------------------------------------------- PEDRO O. MARTIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JERUSALEN PRODUCTOS INC., ALEJO A. CARMENATES, and LISET PORRERO, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-20570 (S.D. Fla., February 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Martin worked for the Defendants as a handyman, landscaping, and cleaning employee from approximately November 22, 2023, to approximately September 15, 2024. Jerusalen Productos Inc. is a nursery owner and operator based in Miami, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com JOHNSON CITY, TN: Settles Sean Williams Class Suit for $28-Mil. --------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Puente, writing for OAKRIDGER, reports that a newly-settled class action lawsuit is one of three suits against Johnson City related to the Sean Williams case. -- The lawsuit alleged that police took bribes in exchange for turning a blind eye as Seam Williams sexually assaulted women and children. -- Willams faces sentencing on Feb. 24 for three counts of producing child pornography. He has not yet faced charges related to the sexual assault allegations. Johnson City will pay $28 million to settle a major class action lawsuit alleging that police for years improperly handled sexual assault cases and ignored the actions of a serial rape suspect as he preyed on victims. The payout was unanimously approved by the Johnson City Commission on Thursday, February 13, night, nearly two years after several unnamed Jane Does filed a lawsuit against the city as well as current and former Johnson City Police officers. The case was related Johnson City businessman Sean Williams, 53, who is accused of drugging and raping more than 50 women in his downtown condo in incidents he captured on video, according to authorities. Williams was convicted in November of three counts of producing child pornography and faces sentencing on Feb. 24. He has not yet be charged in the alleged sexual assault cases. Attorney Jonathan Lakey, who represents the city, told commissioners the lawsuit had potential to be lengthy, with multiple trials that could impact city services. The settlement came after "extensive negotiations" and will partially be covered by the city's liability insurer, he said. Commissioner Joe Wise said he "felt sick" considering the high dollar amount, but ongoing litigation could bring an even bigger risk to the city. "The potential cost would make a settlement seem like peanuts someday in the future," he said. "This sort of settlement is one with significant consequences, but it is but not catastrophic. It will not disrupt ongoing city services." The East Tennessee city still faces two other lawsuits related to the Williams case. One is a whistleblower suit from a former federal prosecutor who alleges that police ignored her pleas to investigate and arrest Williams and then fired her after she complained. The other is from a woman who says police failed to properly investigate her case after Williams allegedly pushed her out of the window of his fifth floor condo. The women are all suing Johnson City in an explosive case that has rocked the East Tennessee town with allegations that police for years ignored the actions of a serial rape suspect, even as multiple victims came forward to report that he had drugged and sexually assaulted them. The class action lawsuit from the Janes Does included hundreds of explosive filings alleging police corruption and extortion. The plaintiffs alleged that Johnson City police officers were funneled thousands of dollars in weekly extortion payments to look the other way as Williams sold drugs and sexually assaulted women and children. The city and police officers have denied the allegations. Williams had been on the run for nearly two years before he was arrested in April 2023 when a campus police officer at Western Carolina University in Cullowhee, North Carolina, found him sleeping in his car. Police found in his car ounces of cocaine and methamphetamine, $100,000 in cash and thumb drives containing more than 5,000 images of child porn and images and videos of women in obvious states of unconsciousness being sexually assaulted by Williams, according to a police affidavit. The videos and images included some women who had previously filed reports with Johnson City police but said their cases were ignored, according to the lawsuit. Attorney Vanessa Baehr-Jones, who led the team of lawyers representing the Jane Does, in a statement said her clients are thrilled to reach a settlement and "can now begin the process of healing and moving forward with their lives." "It also means that the Johnson City community can turn the page on this horrific chapter of Sean Williams’ grievous abuses," she said. Johnson City in a statement Friday, February 14, said plaintiffs' attorneys will dismiss all claims and allegations of corruption, bribery and sex trafficking against the police department as part of the settlement agreement. "In dismissing these claims, Plaintiffs acknowledge that after all depositions and completion of discovery, there was substantial risk of not meeting their burden of proving these allegations," the city said. Baehr-Jones, however, pointed to the information found in the case's extensive discovery process. "The civil justice system can serve an important truth-seeking end, and it did so here," she said. [GN] JPMORGAN CHASE: Retains Vehicles After Payments, Jalalian Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- ARMEN JALALIAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., and MARIANNE LAKE, Case No. 3:25-cv-01411-LJC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 10, 2025) arises from Defendant's systematic practice o wrongfully retaining possession of vehicles after receiving required payments for their release, demanding additional payments, and engaging in deceptive practices regarding wire transfer payments. The Plaintiff brings this action in behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals who have been made payments to Chase for the release of their vehicles, only to have Chase retain possession and demand additional payments. The Defendant is a national banking association.[BN] The Plaintiff, of San Mateo, CA, appears pro se. JUSTIN FRENCH: Plaintiffs Seek to File Certain Docs Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re Ethereummax Investor Litigation, Case No. 2:22-cv-00163-MWF-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their application for leave to file under seal certain documents filed with the Defendants' opposition to Lead Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The specific documents that the Defendants seek the Court's permission to file under seal are: 1. Exhibits 1 to 7 for the Declaration of John T. Jasnoch, which are documents produced by Defendants and third parties in this litigation. 2. The unredacted version of Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (the "Brief"). The redacted version that Plaintiffs seek the Court's permission to file publicly contains redactions of certain text on pages 3-5. Each of these documents has been designated as confidential by either Defendants or Third Parties pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order entered in this case. The undersigned submits that the materials sought to be sealed contain personally identifiable information that courts typically seal, like personal telephone numbers and email addresses. Pages 3- 5 of the unredacted Brief relies heavily on references to the information contained in Exhibits 1 to 7, but not on the personally identifiable information. Beyond such personally identifiable information contained in Exhibits 1 to 7, Plaintiffs take no position on the appropriateness of sealing the remaining materials. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3MPF8M at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John T. Jasnoch, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 Facsimile: (619) 233-0508 E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com KLARNA INC: Thompson Sues Over Conversion of Content Creators' Pay ------------------------------------------------------------------ RACHEL THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KLARNA INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00124-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, February 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for unjust enrichment, violations of California's Business and Professions Code, California's Unfair Competition Law, and California's Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, and conversion. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of diverting commissions from online marketers and creators using coupon browser extensions. The Klarna browser extension cheats these online marketers out of commissions they are entitled to by altering the checkout process and replacing their tracking tags and affiliate marketing cookies with Klarna's own tracking tags and affiliate marketing cookies. The Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals seek to recover damages. Klarna Inc. is an online financial services provider, headquartered in Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel R. Karon, Esq. KARON LLC 700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 622-1851 Email: dkaron@karonllc.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 800 S. Gay St., Ste. 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: ahoneycutt@milberg.com - and - E. Michelle Drake, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 594-5999 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 Email: emdrake@bm.net - and - Norman E. Siegel, Esq. Barrett J. Vahle, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com vahle@stuevesiegel.com - and - Adam E. Polk, Esq. Anthony Rogari, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (310) 877-7034 Email: apolk@girardsharp.com arogari@girardsharp.com KOD ATLANTA: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, OT Under FLSA, Bishop Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ FREMIYAH BISHOP, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. KOD ATLANTA, LLC d/b/a KING OF DIAMONDS ATLANTA, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, and AKINYELE ADAMS, an individual, Case No. 1:25-cv-00694-LMM (N.D. Ga., Feb. 11, 2025) is an action for damages and other relief brought by the Plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs the minimum wage and overtime wages. The Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, including "kick-backs," liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs are all current or former exotic dancers who worked at Defendants' adult entertainment club, King of Diamonds Atlanta, located at 4730 Frontage Road, Forest Park, Georgia. KOD features adult entertainers, including nude female dancers, who perform throughout KOD's facility, which includes, in relevant part, stages, the floor area, and VIP areas. The Defendants jointly owned, operated, and managed KOD and were all involved in the day-to-day operation of KOD.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan P. Rose, Esq. Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com rose@theleachfirm.com ppalmer@theleachfirm.com MARTIAN SALES: Faces Class Suit Over OPMS-brand Kratom Powder ------------------------------------------------------------- J.P., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARTIAN SALES, INC. (d/b/a CHOICE ORGANICS), et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00741 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2025) is a civil class action lawsuit against the Defendants for their false, misleading, deceptive, and negligent sales practices regarding their OPMS-brand kratom powder, capsule, and liquid extract products. Kratom is a dried leaf that is sold as a loose powder, packaged into gel caps, or made into an extract. However, what reasonable consumers do not know, and Defendants fail to disclose, is that the "active ingredients" in kratom are similar to opioids. That is, kratom works on the exact same opioid receptors in the human brain as morphine and its analogs, has similar effects as such and, critically, has the same risk of physical addiction and dependency, with similar withdrawal symptoms. When reasonable consumers think of opiates and opioids, they think of heroin, fentanyl, hydrocodone, oxycodone, and morphine; they do not expect that the "all natural" product bought at their local corner store operates like an opioid, with similar addiction and dependency risks, says the suit. Kratom is perniciously addictive -- on a whole different level than caffeine or nicotine -- and it has sunk its hooks into tens of thousands of unsuspecting consumers and caused them serious physical, psychological, and financial harm. Accordingly, the Defendants intentionally and negligently failed to disclose these material facts anywhere on the Products' labeling, packaging, or marketing materials, and have therefore violated warranty law and state consumer protection laws in the process. The Defendants include PEYTON SHEA PALAIO (a/k/a PAYTON PALAIO or PEYTON PALAIA); JOPEN LLC (d/b/a A1 WHOLESALE, PARTY NUTS, EVOLUTIONARY ORGANICS, INNOVO ACTIVAS, AMERICAN KRATOM-D); LGI HOLDINGS, LLC (d/b/a ALPHABET WHOLESALE); LP IND., LLC (d/b/a OLISTICA LIFE SCIENCES GROUP, CENTRALIZED SERVICES, JORDAN PROCESS, CASCADE NATURALS, DELLA TERRA PHARMACEUTICALS, NATUREA BIOMATERIALS [a/k/a CANNOPY CORPORATION]); CAG HOLDINGS CO, LLC (d/b/a COMPANION AG); CALIBRE MANUFACTURING, LLC (f/k/a ADVANCED NUTRITION, LLC); NUZA, LLC (a/k/a NUZA LOGISTICS, f/k/a ADVANCED NUTRITION, LLC); JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; and OTHER JOHN DOE ENTITIES 1-10. Martian Sales owns the trademark for OPMS. The Martian Sales' 2021 and 2022 Annual Reports list 2550 Sandy Plains Road, Suite 225 Box 319, Marietta, Georgia. The OPMS trademark was registered in an office suite that has been long associated with Palaio and Reilly.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com MEERMIN USA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Andrews Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR ANDREWS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Meermin USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00575 (E.D.N.Y., February 3, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Plaintiff has been denied the full enjoyment of the facilities, goods and services of Defendant's website, as well as deprived of the opportunity to enjoy the facilities, goods and services of Defendant’s brick and mortar location, as a result of accessibility barriers on the website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Based in New York, NY, Meermin USA owns and controls Meermin.com, a commercial website and online platform that offers handcrafted footwear. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Asher Cohen, Esq. ASHER COHEN PLLC 2377 56th Dr, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (718) 914-9694 E-mail: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com MERCK & CO: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set April 14 --------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or acquirers of Merck & Co., Inc. (NYSE: MRK) securities between February 3, 2022 and February 3, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), have until April 14, 2025 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Merck class action lawsuit. Captioned Cronin v. Merck & Co., Inc., No. 25-cv-01208 (D.N.J.), the Merck class action lawsuit charges Merck as well as certain of Merck's top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Merck class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-merck-co-inc-class-action-lawsuit-mrk.html You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at info@rgrdlaw.com. CASE ALLEGATIONS: Merck operates as a healthcare company worldwide. The Merck class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) defendants created the false impression that they possessed reliable information pertaining to Merck's projected revenue outlook and anticipated growth of Gardasil while also minimizing risk from competition and drug approval development, such as China's approval to shift Gardasil to a 2-dose regimen; (ii) in truth, Merck's optimistic reports of growth, claims of successful consumer activation and education in China, overall ability to drive demand, and efforts to downplay the impact of competition on Gardasil fell short of the reality; and (iii) Merck's ability to push Gardasil in China had materially diminished. The Merck class action lawsuit further alleges that on July 30, 2024, Merck revealed that in the second quarter of 2024 "there was a significant step down in shipments from our distributor and commercialization partner, Zhifei, into the points of vaccination, compared with prior quarters, resulting in above normal inventory levels at Zhifei." On this news, the price of Merck stock fell nearly 10%, according to the complaint. Then, on February 4, 2025, the Merck class action lawsuit alleges that Merck published its fourth quarter fiscal year 2024 results, disclosing that "GARDASIL/GARDASIL 9 Sales Declined 3% to $8.6 Billion; Excluding the Impact of Foreign Exchange, Sales Declined 2%" "primarily due to lower demand in China, partially offset by higher demand in most international regions, particularly in Japan." On this news, the price of Merck stock fell more than 9%, according to the complaint. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired Merck securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Merck class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Merck class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Merck class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Merck class action lawsuit. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud cases. Our Firm has been #1 in the ISS Securities Class Action Services rankings for six out of the last ten years for securing the most monetary relief for investors. We recovered $6.6 billion for investors in securities-related class action cases – over $2.2 billion more than any other law firm in the last four years. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP J.C. Sanchez, Jennifer N. Caringal 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101 (800) 449-4900 info@rgrdlaw.com [GN] MOUNT AIRY: Mak Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Table Games Dealers --------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER L. MAK and WILLIAM R. NEIDIG, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MOUNT AIRY #1, LLC d/b/a MOUNT AIRY CASINO RESORT, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00238-JKM (M.D. Pa., February 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay proper minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and Pennsylvania's Wage Payment and Collection Law. Plaintiffs Mak and Neidig worked at the Mount Airy Casino Resort as table games dealers from September 2022 to July 2023 and from September 2020 to April 2024, respectively. Mount Airy #1, LLC, doing business as Mount Airy Casino Resort, is a casino owner and operator located in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Derrek W. Cummings, Esq. Larry A. Weisberg, Esq. WEISBERG CUMMINGS, PC 2704 Commerce Dr., Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-5707 Facsimile: (717) 233-8133 Email: dcummings@weisbergcummings.com lweisberg@weisbergcummings.com - and - George A. Hanson, Esq. Samuel Randolph Jackson, Esq. Alexander T. Ricke, Esq. Caleb J. Wagner, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 Email: hanson@stuevesiegel.com ricke@stuevesiegel.com wagner@stuevesiegel.com - and - Ryan L. McClelland, Esq. The Flagship Building 200 Westwoods Drive Liberty, MO 64068 Telephone: (816) 781-0002 Facsimile: (816) 781-1984 Email: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com MPC INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA, Garibay Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- GUISELA GARIBAY, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. MPC, INC. d/b/a STROKERS, a Georgia Domestic Profit Corporation, and JAMES DAVID RANDALL, an individual, Case No. 1:25-cv-00678-SDG (N.D. Ga., Feb. 11, 2025) is an action for damages and other relief brought by the Plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs the minimum wage and overtime wages. The Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, including "kick-backs," liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs are all current or former exotic dancers who worked at Strokers located at 1353 Brockett Road, Ste D, Clarkston, Georgia. Strokers features adult entertainers, including nude female dancers, who perform throughout its facility, which includes, in relevant part, stages and the floor area. The Defendants jointly owned, operated, and managed Strokers and were all involved in the day-to-day operation of Strokers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan P. Rose, Esq. Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com rose@theleachfirm.com ppalmer@theleachfirm.com NEW CHAPTER: Gummy Has Deceptive Prebiotic Fiber Label, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- TINAMARIE BARRALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NEW CHAPTER, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01171 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 11, 2025) alleges that the Defendant deceptively labels certain of its New Chapter products by misrepresenting the dosage amount of each gummy or tablet. Specifically, the front labels of the New Chapter Products prominently advertise a certain dosage amount, for example, "4g prebiotic fiber." Reasonable consumers are led to believe that each gummy or tablet contains the advertised dosage amount, for example, 4 grams of prebiotic fiber in each gummy. The truth, however, is that each gummy does not contain the advertised dosage amount. Instead, each gummy or tablet contains only a fraction of the advertised dosage and consumers must ingest two or more gummies to achieve the advertised dosage. As a result, consumers grossly overpay for the Products, receiving only half of the advertised value while paying the full purchase price, the lawsuit contends. The Defendant makes, distributes, sells, and markets a wide variety of dietary supplements under the brand name New Chapter. The products at issue include the following, in any size, count, or variation: -- New Chapter All-Flora Probiotic + Prebiotic Gummies (2 Billion CFU of Probiotics); -- New Chapter Organic Fiber Gummies (4 g Prebiotic Fiber); -- New Chapter Kids Organic Fiber Gummies (4 g Prebiotic Fiber); -- New Chapter Cellular Energy Vitamin B12+ Gummies (350 mcg B12); and -- New Chapter Berberine 1,000 mg Tablets. Additionally, Defendant markets two separate organic fiber gummy products: one advertised for adults and one specifically for "kids. " These representations lead reasonable consumers to believe that the New Chapter Organic Fiber Gummies product is more suitable for adults and the New Chapter Kids Organic Fiber Gummies product is more suitable for kids. Based on this reasonable belief, consumers are induced to purchase two separate products for each demographic and are induced to pay an unlawful premium. Plaintiff Barrales is a resident of California and purchased the New Chapter Organic Fiber Gummies and New Chapter Kids Organic Fiber Gummies products at retail stores in L.A. County in or around 2024.[BN] The Plaintiff is 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 NEW YORK BLOOD: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, De Leon-Wallin Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JACKIE DE LEON-WALLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK BLOOD CENTER INC.; and MEMORIAL BLOOD CENTERS, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01095 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 6, 2025) is an action against the Defendants for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its customers. According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendants' failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' personally identifiable information or "PII", from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendants' negligent conduct because the PII that Defendants collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired by data thieves. New York Blood Center Inc. is a community, nonprofit blood bank based in New York City. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE First Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com NEW YORK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Vitale Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY VITALE; GETAYNE GORDON; MICHAEL LYNCH; ASHREF ABDALLAH; JUBAIR ABDULLAH; KONA ABDUL-WAHAB; PHILIP ABENOJA; ARIEL ABREU; JULIO ABREU; GERALD ACEVEDO; HECTOR ACIEGO; MICHAEL ACIERNO; DARLENE ACOSTA-PEREZ; ALBERT ADAMES; ANTHONY ADAMES; OMAR ADAMS; SALVATORE AGLIALORO; ANDREW AGNEW; ANTHONY AGOGLIA; PASCUAL AGOSTO; CHRISTIAN AGUAYO; EDWIN AGUILAR; FRANCISCO AGUILAR; NICHOLAS AGUILAR; JOSEPH AIME; ALEXANDROS ALAFOYIANNIS; STEPHEN ALFANO; and JOSEPH ALFINITO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01129 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 7, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as sanitation workers. New York, often called New York City or NYC, is the most populous city in the United States, located at the southern tip of New York State on one of the world's largest natural harbors. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hope Pordy, Esq. Elizabeth Sprotzer, Esq. SPIVAK LIPTON LLP 1040 Avenue of the Americas 20th Floor New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 765-2100 Email: hpordy@spivaklipton.com esprotzer@spivklipton.com - and - Molly A. Elkin, Esq. Sarah M. Block, Esq. Patrick Miller-Bartley, Esq. McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Ave., N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 833-8855 Email: mae@mselaborlaw.com smb@mselaborlaw.com pmb@mselaborlaw.com NORTH RESTAURANTS: Underpays Restaurant Staff, McLellan Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- SHARON MCLELLAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTH RESTAURANTS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00413-DJH (D. Ariz., February 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay proper minimum wages and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and state labor laws. The Plaintiff was employed as a server/bartender at North Restaurants' North Italia location in Leawood, Kansas from approximately September 2022 until June 2023. North Restaurants LLC is a restaurant owner and operator in Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Ziegelmeyer III, Esq. Brad K. Thoenen, Esq. Kevin A. Todd, Esq. Ethan A. Crockett, Esq. Shifa Alkhatib, Esq. Sandra L. Jonas, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS 1 N. 1st Street, Suite 711 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (480) 930-4747 Email: jziegelmeyer@hkm.com bthoenen@hkm.com ktodd@hkm.com ecrockett@hkm.com sjonas@hkm.com salkhatib@hkm.com - and - Michael Hodgson, Esq. THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC 3609 SW Pryor Road Lee's Summit, MO 64082 Telephone: (816) 600-0117 Facsimile: (816) 600-0137 Email: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com NOVO NORDISK: Judge Narrows Claims in Griffin Hospital Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- NOVO NORDISK: Judge Narrows Claims in Griffin Hospital Suit The legal battle between Griffin Health Services Corporation and Novo Nordisk Inc. took a new turn on February 10, 2025, as Judge Janet C. Hall of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut issued a mixed ruling. The lawsuit, which alleges that Novo Nordisk failed to properly warn about the risks associated with its insulin pens, has seen some claims dismissed while others move forward. The lawsuit traces back to Griffin Health's use of Novo Nordisk insulin pens from 2008 to 2014. The hospital claims that the pens were defectively designed and lacked sufficient warnings, leading to unsafe usage practices. As a result, the lawsuit asserts that patients were inadvertently exposed to blood-borne illnesses due to the sharing of insulin pens among multiple individuals. This exposure eventually contributed to a class-action lawsuit, which had already been settled for around $1 million, in addition to the costs Griffin Health incurred for patient testing and compliance with regulatory requirements. Griffin Health's legal team had raised multiple allegations, including negligence, gross negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, and indemnification, claiming that Novo Nordisk either knew or should have known about the risks of the pens and failed to provide adequate warnings. They also argued that the company should be held liable under the Connecticut Product Liability Act (CPLA) and the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) for negligence and breach of warranty. Novo Nordisk argued that the CPLA offered the exclusive remedy, thereby barring separate claims for negligence and misrepresentation. The company also disputed the indemnification claims, asserting that Griffin Health had not suffered direct physical injury. Additionally, Novo Nordisk maintained that the breach of warranty claims lacked enough factual support to proceed. In Judge Hall's ruling, several claims were dismissed. The court found that the negligence, gross negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, and indemnification claims lacked sufficient factual backing and were therefore dismissed. However, the judge allowed claims under the CPLA, particularly those regarding defective product liability and breach of implied warranty of merchantability, to continue. Furthermore, while Griffin Health's request for punitive damages was denied, the court left the door open for the claim to be refiled if it could be properly supported with additional evidence. Griffin Health has 14 days to amend its complaint and restructure its claims in accordance with the court's ruling. The case is, Griffin Health Services Corporation et al v. Novo Nordisk Inc. et al., Case No. 24-cv-01045 (D. Conn., June 13, 2024). Novo Nordisk is represented by: Emily Ballard Marshall, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) Tel: 404-736-7823 E-mail: emily.marshall@dlapiper.com - and - Lesley P. Chuang, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP Tel: 617-406-6088 E-mail: lesley.chuang@us.dlapiper.com Griffin is represented in the case by: David J. Robertson, Esq. HEIDELL, PITTONI, MURPHY & BACH Tel: 203-382-9700 E-mail: drobertson@hpmb.com - and - Matthew M. Sconziano, Esq. HEIDELL, PITTONI, MURPHY & BACH Tel: 203-969-4467 E-mail: msconziano@hpmb.com - and - Christopher Lee Wagner HEIDELL, PITTONI, MURPHY & BACH Tel: 507-696-8393 E-mail: cwagner@hpmb.com O'CONNOR CORP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Fleming Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MARK FLEMING, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. O'CONNOR CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-10355 (D. Mass., Feb. 11, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network, including, without limitation, full names, Social Security numbers and, financial account information. The Representative Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause Representative Plaintiff and, at least, thousands of other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendant on Dec. 2, 2024, in which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly sensitive PII that was being kept unprotected ("Data Breach"). While the Defendant claims to have discovered the breach as early as Dec. 2, 2024, the Defendant did not inform victims of the Data Breach until January 31, 2025. Indeed, Representative Plaintiff and Class Members were wholly unaware of the Data Breach until they received letters from Defendant informing them of it. The Defendant received highly sensitive PII from Representative Plaintiff in connection with employment Representative Plaintiff received. As a result, Representative Plaintiff's information was among the data an unauthorized third party accessed in the Data Breach, says the suit. O'Connor Corporation is an occupational safety and health company in Canton, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina Xenides, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 1005 Congress Avenue, Suite 925-C36 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 265-5622 E-mail: cxenides@sirillp.com - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Drive, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com OMAHASTEAKS.COM INC: Fagnani Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- MYKAYLA FAGNANI, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. OMAHASTEAKS.COM, INC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01196 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.omahasteaks.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. By failing to make its website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services -- all benefits it affords nondisabled. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant offers the commercial website to the public. The website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services offered by Defendant and which Defendant ensures delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States including New York State. The goods and services offered by the Defendant's website include information about Defendant's: meat and food gifts, as well as other types of goods, pricing, delivery, locations and hours of operation of physical stores, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials. The website is a nexus to the Defendant’s physical retail stores.[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 PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit Over Honey Browser Extension -------------------------------------------------------------- EDDIE BLOTNICKI, MIESHA DOBBS, COURTNEY DORAN, JULES FLETCHER, CAROLYN JOHNSTON, ANGELA KACHONIK, LAUREN LEATHERMAN, AMY MALCOLM, TATIANA MARQUEZ, KARA MILLER, AND LEILANI SHIMODA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC. and PAYPAL, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-01386 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 10, 2025) arises from the Defendants' ownership and use of the Honey browser extension to poach commissions generated by online content creators and personalities who use affiliate links to generate and track online sales in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, and Mississippi Computer Crimes and Identity Theft Act. Honey is a browser extension that is marketed as a tool to help consumers find and apply online coupons to save money. The pitch is that when consumers are checking out to complete a purchase at an online merchant, they click on Honey, and it will identify any online coupon or promotional codes that may be applicable to the purchase and apply them to save consumers money before they complete the purchase. What Honey does behind the scenes, however, is very different. While pretending to be helpful to the consumer, Honey goes to work under the hood to replace any affiliate link tracking cookies with its own tracking cookie so it will appear to the merchant that Honey originated the sale. Honey then takes the commission, unbeknownst to the consumer, affiliate or vendor, depriving the affiliate of the fruits of their marketing efforts. Accordingly, this conduct has caused significant financial harm to the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals who rely on affiliate marketing for income, says the suit. Honey is a free browser extension developed by PayPal that purports to assist online shoppers in finding and applying discount codes at checkout. Compatible with browsers like Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Opera, and Edge, Honey automatically searches for and tests available coupon codes on over 30,000 popular online merchants. If a working code is found, it applies the one with the biggest savings to the consumer's cart.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Mackey, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT MACKEY 660 Baker Street Building A, Ste. 201 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (412) 370-911 E-mail: bobmackeyesq@aol.com - and - Jason S. Rathod, Esq.* Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.* MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H St N.E., Suite 302 Washington, D.C. 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 Facsimile: (202) 800-2730 E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com PBI INTERNATIONAL: Caballero Suit Alleges FLSA Violations --------------------------------------------------------- STEVE CABALLERO, on behalf of himself and others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. PBI INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00026 (S.D. Tex., February 3, 2025) seeks to recover for Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Plaintiff Caballero worked for Defendant through 2024, within the statutory period, and as an hourly-paid employee. The Plaintiff now seeks relief on a collective basis challenging, among other FLSA violations, Defendant's practice of failing or refusing to compensate its employees for the hours they actually worked at the storage yard, at safety meetings, driving between the storage yard and the assigned job sites or otherwise; and Defendant's practice of failing or refusing to compensate its employees at a rate of at least one and one-half times their regular hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a given week. Headquartered in Kilgore, TX, PBI International, LLC provides equipment and personnel to job sites in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Colby Qualls, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 E-mail: cqualls@foresterhaynie.com - and - Matthew McCarley, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC Matthew McCarley 11300 North Central Expressway, Suite 550 Dallas, TX 75243 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 E-mail: mccarley@foresterhaynie.com PINNACLE PARKING: Lepage Seeks Parking Attendants' Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------------ LUIS E. LEPAGE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PINNACLE PARKING INC. and JAMES L. PATRONE, Defendants, Case No. 9:25-cv-80172-RLR (S.D. Fla., February 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed as a valet parking attendant from 2008 to December 15, 2023. Pinnacle Parking Inc. is a provider of valet parking services based in Palm Beach County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com POT-O-GOLD RENTALS: West Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Derrick West, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. POT-O-GOLD RENTALS, LLC AND DENNIS FLYNN, INDIVIDUALLY, Case No. 4:25-cv-00559 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 10, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") behalf of current and former driver technicians to recover unpaid overtime wages. The Defendants have a business plan that includes hiring driver technicians (formally known as pump truck technicians), paying them on a salary basis, and misclassifying them as exempt employees under the FLSA, even though they do not perform the job duties of exempt employees. The Defendants do this to avoid paying overtime compensation, saving Defendants money and allowing them to gain an unfair advantage over competitors who pay their employees correctly, says the complaint. The Plaintiff West was employed by Defendants from October 26, 2020 through August 23, 2024. The Defendants deliver and service portable toilets at a variety of locations in Texas, including within Harris County, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq. WELMAKER LAW, PLLC 409 N. Fredonia, Suite 118 Longview, TX 75601 Phone: (512) 799-2048 Email: doug@welmakerlaw.com POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Noble Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ALYSHA NOBLE, on behalf of herself and as parent and guardian of her minor child, R.J.S., and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC. and POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-at-00199 (E.D. Cal., February 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach between December 19 and December 28, 2024. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. 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 Plaintiff is represented by: Juli E. Farris, Esq. Christopher L. Springer, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 801 Garden Street, Suite 301 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 456-1496 Facsimile: (805) 456-1497 Email: jfarris@kellerrohrback.com cspringer@kellerrohrback.com - and - Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq. Andrew Lindsay, Esq. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 Email: claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com alindsay@kellerrohrback.com POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Spicuzza Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINA SPICUZZA; E.S.; and C.S., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC.; and POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-01353 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 7, 2025) alleges violation of the California Privacy Rights Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, despite holding the highly sensitive personal information of millions of people -- many of whom are minors -- PowerSchool left gaping cybersecurity holes. Unbeknownst to its end users PowerSchool stored PII and PHI in either unencrypted or inadequately encrypted formats on an Internet-accessible environment that did not support multi-factor authentication and allowed hackers to access and then exfiltrate vast amounts of data from that environment. The Data Breach occurred as a result of the Defendants' failure to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices for protecting the exposed information given its nature. Defendants failed to monitor its systems to identify suspicious activity and allowed unauthorized access to Plaintiffs' and Class members' PII. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc. provides cloud-based software for K-12 education. The Company offers student information systems, enrollment, unified classroom, unified administration, unified talent, unified insights, and more. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam E. Polk, Esq. Patrick T. Johnson, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 Email: apolk@girardsharp.com pjohnson@girardsharp.com - and - David Berger, Esq. Jane Farrell, Esq. Sarah E. Hillier, Esq. Jennifer Sun, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 1111 Broadway, Ste. 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Tel: 510-350-9700 Email: dmb@classlawgroup.com jgf@classlawgroup.com seh@classlawgroup.com jsun@classlawgroup.com PURPLE INNOVATION: Thompson Sues Over Rights Plan Provisions ------------------------------------------------------------ ANDREW THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PURPLE INNOVATION, INC.; ADAM GRAY; GARY DICAMILLO; ROBERT DEMARTINI; S. HOBY DARLING; CLAUDIA HOLLINGSWORTH; R. CARTER PATE; D. SCOTT PETERSON; and ERIKA SEROW, Defendants, Case No. 2025-0139 (Del. Ch., Feb. 10, 2025) alleges violation of the Delaware General Corporation Law. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants have currently effective rights plan, and they adopted and maintained, has a provision which purports to eliminate the liability of the Company's directors for breaches of fiduciary duty in violation of DGCL. Purple Innovation, Inc. operates as a mattress, bedding, and cushioning company. The Company produces and markets pillows, sheets, bedding, bed frames, and seat cushions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake A. Bennett, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A. The Brandywine Building 1000 N. West Street, Suite 1500 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 984-3800 - and - Brian P. Murray, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Avenue, Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 - and - Werner R. Kranenburg, Esq. KRANENBURG 80-83 Long Lane London EC1A 9ET United Kingdom Telephone: 44-20-3174-0365 RECON PROTECTION: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Crumwell Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ DENISE CRUMWELL, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. RECON PROTECTION LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01198 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.strafeouterwear.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. Because Defendant's interactive website, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services -- all benefits it affords nondisabled. 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 New York. The Defendant operates the Strafe Outerwear online interactive Website and retail store across the United States. This online interactive Website and retail store constitute a place of public accommodation because it is a sales establishment. The Defendant's interactive Website provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's: apparel and outerwear, as well as other types of goods, pricing, delivery, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials. Defendant's interactive Website advertises, markets and/or operates in the State of New York and across the United States.[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 SNEAKER CITY: Vega Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ------------------------------------------------------------ NORBERTO VEGA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A SNEAKER CITY NEWPORT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01135 (D.N.J., February 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.asneakercity.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. A Sneaker City Newport, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com SOUTH CAROLINA: Seeks to File Unredacted Versions of Sur-Reply -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Doe, et al., v. State of South Carolina, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-06420-RMG (D.S.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to file unredacted versions of their proposed Sur-Reply in opposition to Minor Plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunction and class certification and corresponding exhibit under seal. The Defendants request that the Court grant this Motion to file versions of their responses and exhibits under seal. The Defendants certify that they have attempted in good faith to comply with the requirements of Local Civ. Rule 5.03 (D.S.C.) South Carolina is a southeastern U.S. state known for its shoreline of subtropical beaches and marshlike sea islands. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=y9ZHWh at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Joseph D. Spate, Esq. SOUTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 1000 Assembly St. Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (803) 734-3371 E-mail: josephspate@scag.gov - and - Miles E. Coleman, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH 2 West Washington Street / Suite 400 Greenville, SC29601 Telephone: (864) 373-2300 E-mail: miles.coleman@nelsonmullins.com - and - Brandon E. Gaskins, Esq. MOORE & VAN ALLEN PLLC 78 Wentworth Street Charleston, SC 29401 Telephone: (843) 579-7038 E-mail: gaskinsb@mvalaw.com TAHOE FRESH: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, OT, Buyukliyski Says ------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGI YORDANOV BUYUKLIYSKI, NIKOLAY GANCHEV KIROV, and VIARA TODOROVA LAZAROVA, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals v. TAHOE FRESH CO d/b/a AUSTIN'S RESTAURANT, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:25-cv-00077 (D. Nev., Feb. 10, 2025) seeks to recover minimum wages and overtime pursuant to the Nevada Constitution. Plaintiff Buyukliyski was employed by Defendant as a nonexempt, hourly-paid J1 Employee from May 22, 2023, to August 31, 2023, and from May 17, 2024 to Aug. 25, 2024. Plaintiff Kirov was employed by Defendant as a nonexempt, hourly-paid J-1 Employee from June 15, 2024, to Aug. 25, 2024. Austin's is a restaurant located in Incline Village, Nevada that serves American cuisine.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua D. Buck, Esq. Leah L. Jones, Esq. THIERMAN BUCK 325 West Liberty Street Reno, NE 89501 Telephone: (775) 284-1500 Facsimile: (775) 703-5027 E-mail: josh@thiermanbuck.com leah@thiermanbuck.com TOPPERS PIZZA: Cole Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users -------------------------------------------------------------- HARON COLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOPPERS PIZZA HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01288 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 6, 20205) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://toppers.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. Toppers Pizza Holdings, LLC is a chain of pizza restaurants in the United States. [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 TRANSMEDICS GROUP: 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 TransMedics Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: TMDX) between February 28, 2023 and January 10, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for TransMedics investors under the federal securities laws. To join the TransMedics class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=22793 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) TransMedics used kickbacks, fraudulent overbilling, and coercive tactics to generate business and revenue; (2) TransMedics engaged in unsafe practices and hid safety issues and generally lacked safety oversight; (3) the foregoing subjected TransMedics to heightened risk of scrutiny and regulatory risk; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about TransMedics' 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 April 15, 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=22793 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] TRANSOCEAN LTD: Matteson Sues Over 8% Decline of Securities Price ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID MATTESON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSOCEAN LTD., JEREMY D. THIGPEN, MARK L. MEY, and THAD VAYDA, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01112 (S.D.N.Y., February 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Transocean's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade Transocean securities at artificially inflated prices between May 1, 2023, and September 2, 2024. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: the Discoverer Inspiration and the Development Driller III were considered non-strategic assets, the company's recorded asset valuations were overstated, which, as a result, meant the company would take nearly twice the vessels' sale price in impairment if sold. As a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis, says the suit. When the truth emerged, Transocean's stock price fell to $4.32 per share on September 3, 2024, a decline of over 8 percent. Transocean, Ltd. is a drilling company, with its principal executive offices located in Steinhausen, Switzerland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: aapton@zlk.com TTEC SERVICES: Alvarez Seeks to Stay Briefing on Arbitration Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOREN ALVAREZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. TTEC SERVICES CORPORATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-02847-PAB-SBP (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to stay briefing on defendant's motion to compel arbitration until after a decision on the Plaintiff's motion for conditional collective action certification and judicial notice and the completion of any ensuing notice period. Accordingly, the Court should enter an Order (1) staying briefing on Defendant's motion to compel arbitration until after a decision on Plaintiff's pending step one motion for conditional collective action certification and judicial notice and the completion of any ensuing notice period, or alternatively, (2) denying Defendant's motion to compel arbitration without prejudice to refiling at step two. The Plaintiff filed this putative collective and class action on Oct. 15, 2024, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Virginia Overtime Wage Act ("VOWA"), to recover unpaid overtime compensation incurred as a result of Defendant's "Unreimbursed Tool Policy" for herself and others similarly situated. TTEC is a digital global customer experience (CX) technology and services company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RzUUoy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zev H. Antell, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 237-1413 E-mail: zev@butlercurwood.com - and - Timothy Lawrence Coffield, Esq. COFFIELD PLC 106-F Melbourne Park Circle Charlottesville, VA 22901 Telephone: (434) 218-3133 Facsimile: (434) 321-1636 E-mail: tc@coffieldlaw.com ULTIMATE FITNESS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Montez Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANNY MONTEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ULTIMATE FITNESS GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-01375-BLF (N.D. Cal., Feb. 10, 2025) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Ultimate Fitness Group, LLC, doing business as Orangetheory Fitness, provides fitness services. The Company offers gym, online coaching, fitness plan, group workout, and other related services, as well as mobile application. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com UNITED STATES: Davis Wins Renewed Bid for Cass Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNEDY DAVIS, v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01312-TNM (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Trevor McFadden entered an order granting the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification and appointment of counsel: -- The case is certified as a class action on behalf of all people with a disability who are on or will be on parole or supervised release in the District of Columbia under the Commission’s and CSOSA's supervision, and who need accommodations to have an equal opportunity to succeed on parole or supervised release. -- The following counsel currently representing Davis are appointed to serve as class counsel: Christine Casey Smith, Esq. Hanna Perry, Esq. Allison Frankel, Esq. Ashika Verriest, Esq. Lia Rose Barrett, Esq. Peter E. Davis, Esq. Scott Michelman, Esq. Zoe E. Friedland, Esq. Samir Deger-Sen, Esq. Davis is a 48-year-old man on lifetime parole because of his convictions for Second-Degree Murder and Possession of a Firearm During a Crime of Violence. He allegedly faces systemic disability discrimination from the two federal agencies that supervise him. And he insists he is not alone. Davis now moves for class certification, hoping to expand his case to cover other disabled offenders. He proposes a class consisting of: "all people with a disability who are on or will be on parole or supervised release in the District of Columbia under the Commission's and CSOSA's supervision, and who need accommodations in order to have an equal opportunity to succeed on parole or supervised release." US Parole Commission makes parole release decisions for eligible Federal and District of Columbia prisoners. A copy of the Court's memorandum order dated Feb. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Jyui4f at no extra charge.[CC] VGW HOLDINGS: Knapp Suit Transferred to D. Delaware --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Eric A Knapp, on behalf of himself and all other Florida citizens similarly situated v. VGW Holdings Limited, Fidelity National Information Services Inc., Worldpay, Inc., Worldpay, LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-00413 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on Feb. 7, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00147-CFC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. VGW -- https://www.vgw.co/ -- is a global technology company specialising in the creation of cutting-edge online social games.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dennis Wells, Esq. WEBB & WELLS, P.A. P.O. Box 915432 Longwood, FL 32779 Phone: (407) 865-5600 Email: denniswells2@icloud.com The Defendants are represented by: T. Todd Pittenger, Esq. Kelly J. H. Garcia, Esq. GRAYROBINSON, P.A. 301 East Pine Street, Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 843-8880 Phone: Fax: (407) 244-5690 Email: todd.pittenger@gray-robinson.com kelly.garcia@gray-robinson.com VIRTUA HEALTH: Molnar Sues Over Mismanagement of 401(k) Plan Funds ------------------------------------------------------------------ STEVEN MOLNAR, individually and on behalf of the Virtua Inc., 401(k) Plan and on behalf of all the similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the plan, Plaintiff v. VIRTUA HEALTH, INC.; and THE FINANCE & INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF THE VIRTUA HEALTH, INC., 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN; JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-30 in their capacities as members of the Administrative Committee, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01081 (D.N.J., February 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Plan and its participants by consistently selecting funds with higher cost and lower returns than available alternatives. As a result of the Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan and violations of ERISA, the Plaintiff and the Class were subject to excessive fees, underperformance, and suffered financial losses. Had the Defendants complied with their fiduciary obligations, the Plan would not have suffered these losses, and participants of the Plan would have had more money available to them for their retirement, says the suit. Virtua Health, Inc. is an academic non-profit healthcare system in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Alexandr Rudenco, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 800 S. Gay St., Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Email: arudenco@milberg.com WEIGHTED SLEEP: Bids for Class Certification Due March 10, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re: Nested Bean, Inc. Weighted Sleep Products Litigation, Case No. 1:24-cv-11299-JEK (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Kobick entered a scheduling order as follows: I -- Initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Feb. 28, 2025 Civ. P. 26(a)(1) and by the Court's Notice of Scheduling Conference must be completed by: -- All discovery, other than expert discovery, Oct. 31, 2025 must be completed by: -- A status conference will be held remotely Nov. 7, 2025 on -- The Plaintiff(s)' trial experts must be Nov. 21, 2025 designated, and the information contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) must be disclosed, by: -- The Plaintiff(s)' trial experts must be Jan. 23, 2026 deposed by: -- The Defendant(s)' trial experts must be Dec. 5, 2025. designated, and the information contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) must be disclosed, by: -- The Defendant(s)' trial experts must be Feb. 5, 2026 deposed by: -- Motions for class certification and March 10, 2026 summary judgment must be filed by: -- Oppositions to class certification and summary judgment motions must be filed within 40 days after service of the motion or April 21, 2026, whichever is later. Nested Bean is a company based in Hudson, MA that specializes in creating innovative sleepwear for infants. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0ULD2h at no extra charge.[CC] WORKDAY INC: Derek Mobley Expands AI Employment Discrimination Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Fisher Phillips reports that a frustrated job applicant who won court approval to advance his employment discrimination lawsuit against an AI-based vendor is now looking to ratchet up the pressure and expand his claim into a national class action. His initial argument: Workday's AI screening tools unfairly led him to be rejected from hundreds of jobs because of his race, age, and disability status. His new argument? Millions of applicants over the age of 40 who were also rejected by Workday's AI system since September 2020 should be able to join his federal claim. What do employers and AI developers need to know about this February 6 court filing and what it means for the future of AI hiring? Quick Background: AI Lawsuit Got the Green Light It's important to remember that this case is in the early stages of litigation, and Workday hasn't even had a chance to provide evidence to refute the allegations -- so take these points with a grain of salt and recognize that they may even be proven false. Derek Mobley is a Black man over the age of 40 who self-identifies as having anxiety and depression. He says he applied to more than 100 jobs with companies that use Workday's AI-based hiring tools over the course of several years -- and says he was rejected every single time. Thousands of companies use Workday's AI-based applicant screening tools, which include personality and cognitive tests. They then interpret a candidate's qualifications through advanced algorithmic methods and can automatically reject them or advance them along the hiring process. After Mobley filed a claim in a California federal court, Workday asked to have the case dismissed since it wasn't the employer making the employment decisions. After over a year of procedural wrangling, a California federal judge gave the green light for Mobley to continue his lawsuit in July 2024. What's New? Mobley had always intended to proceed with a class action claim, seeking to represent all applicants like him who weren't hired because of the alleged discriminatory screening process. On February 6, he took the next step in that process. His claim now includes four other frustrated job applicants, all over the age of 40, all of whom claim they were similarly rejected by Workday's AI systems because of their age. Among them, they say they submitted over 3,000 job applications to companies that used Workday's screening system, alleging that they were minimally qualified for each of these positions. They claim they were summarily rejected from every one of these jobs, sometimes within minutes after submitting the application. Several of these rejections bore a tell-tale sign of having been processed by a robot -- they were sent in the middle of the night when it is unlikely that a human was screening job resumes. The federal filing alleges that anyone across the country over the age of 40 who was rejected by Workday's system since September 2020 should be able to join the claim since they were subject to the same common policy or practice. They have common elements of liability -- same proof of impact, same causation, same type of backpay relief -- and thus would be properly grouped as a collective group of plaintiffs. What's Next? Judge Rita Lin has set an April 8 hearing date to decide on the matter and determine whether Mobley's class should be certified. This case could have a significant impact on AI hiring given the prevalence of Workday's systems in employment settings across the country. 3 Things for Employers to Know Even if the plaintiff's motion fails, this case is a good reminder for employers to tread carefully when implementing AI hiring solutions. Three suggestions: -- Know What to Ask Your Vendors -- Ensure your AI vendors follow ethical guidelines and have measures in place to prevent bias before you deploy the tool. This includes understanding the data they use to train their models and the algorithms they employ. This Insight reviews the right questions to ask at the outset of the relationship and along the way. -- Consider Indemnification Language -- It's not uncommon for contracts between business partners to include language shifting the cost of litigation and resulting damages from employer to vendor. But make sure you work with counsel when developing such language -- public policy doesn't often allow you to transfer the cost of discriminatory behavior to someone else unless the language is carefully constructed. -- Get Your Governance House in Order -- If you haven't established an AI Governance program to set guardrails and construct the best practices for implementing AI in your organization, the time to do so is now. This will help you monitor the outcomes of your AI hiring tools on a regular basis and ensure you have the human touch where necessary. 3 Things for AI Developers to Know When taken in conjunction with the ongoing ACLU action against Aon Consulting for its use of AI screening platforms, this lawsuit should grab the attention of any developer of AI-based hiring tools. Here are three things to consider: -- Team With Your Lawyers -- Work hand-in-hand with counsel to help ensure compliance with best practices and all relevant workplace laws -- not just laws prohibiting intentional discrimination, but also those giving rise to the type of unintentional "disparate impact" claims as we see in the Workday lawsuit. -- Develop Bias Detection Mechanisms -- Implement robust testing and validation processes to detect and eliminate bias in your AI systems. This includes using diverse training data and regularly updating your algorithms to address any identified biases. -- Not All Software Developers are On the Hook -- This litigation doesn't mean that all software vendors and AI developers could qualify as "agents" subject to a lawsuit like this one. If a vendor, for example, developed a spreadsheet system that simply helped employers sort through applicants, they shouldn't be part of any discrimination lawsuit even if the employer used that system to purposefully sort the candidates by age and reject all those over 40. Conclusion We will continue to monitor these developments and provide the most up-to-date information directly to your inbox, so make sure you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System. If you have questions, contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any attorney in our AI, Data, and Analytics Practice Group. [GN] YARDI SYSTEMS: LaFleur Placeholder Class Cert Bid Tossed as Moot ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LaFleur et al., v. Yardi Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01262 (N.D. Ohio, Filed July 24, 2024), the Hon. Judge Pamela A. Barker entered an order denying as moot the Plaintiffs' "Placeholder" Motion for Class Certification. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other Personal Injury. Yardi is an investment, asset and property management software vendor for the real estate industry. It provides products such as property management platforms and software.[CC] YETI COOLERS: ADR & Class Certification Deadlines Extended ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Smith v. Yeti Coolers, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01703 (N.D. Cal., Filed March 19, 2024), the Hon. Judge Rita F. Lin entered an order extending the current ADR and class certification deadlines. The Parties shall submit an updated case management report proposing new ADR and class certification deadlines within 30 days of the Court's ruling on YETI's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other Personal Injury. Yeti designs, manufactures, and markets ice chests.[CC] ZILLOW GROUP: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Zillow Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the federal securities class suit. On November 16, 2021, November 19, 2021 and January 6, 2022, three purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its executive officers, alleging, among other things, violations of federal securities laws on behalf of a class of those who purchased its stock between August 7, 2020 and November 2, 2021. The three purported class action lawsuits, captioned Barua v. Zillow Group, Inc. et al., Silverberg v. Zillow Group, et al. and Hillier v. Zillow Group, Inc. et al. were brought in the Court and were consolidated on February 16, 2022 (the "Federal Securities Suit"). On May 12, 2022, the plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated complaint which alleges, among other things, that the Company issued materially false and misleading statements regarding its Zillow Offers business. The complaints seek to recover, among other things, alleged damages sustained by the purported class members as a result of the alleged misconduct. On December 7, 2022, the Court rendered its decision granting its previously filed motion to dismiss, in part, and denying the motion, in part. On January 23, 2023, it filed its answer to the consolidated complaint. On March 14, 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which was granted on August 23, 2024. On September 6, 2024, it filed a petition for permission to appeal the class certification order, on September 16, 2024, plaintiffs filed their opposition to its petition, and on September 23, 2024, it filed its reply in further support of the petition. On October 24, 2024, the Ninth Circuit issued an order granting Zillow permission to appeal, and on January 8, 2025, it filed its opening brief. On November 1, 2024, the Court issued an order staying the Federal Securities Suit pending the outcome of the appeal. There is a reasonable possibility that a loss may be incurred related to this matter; however, the possible loss or range of loss is not estimable. The Company denies the allegations of any wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend the claims in this consolidated lawsuit. Zillow Group is an American tech real-estate marketplace company. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Otis Worldwide Corporation has been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "A substantial majority of these asbestos-related claims have been dismissed without payment or were covered in full or in part by insurance or other forms of indemnity. Additional cases were litigated and settled without any insurance reimbursement. The amounts involved in asbestos related claims were not material individually or in the aggregate for 2024 and 2023. "The estimated range of total liabilities to resolve all pending and unasserted potential future asbestos claims through 2059 is approximately $11 million to $21 million as of December 31, 2024, and approximately $20 million to $43 million as of December 31, 2023. Since no amount within the range of estimates is more likely to occur than any other, we have recorded the minimum amount of $11 million and $20 million as of December 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively, which is principally recorded in Other long-term liabilities on our Consolidated Balance Sheets. Amounts are on a pre-tax basis, not discounted, and exclude the Company's legal fees to defend the asbestos claims (which will continue to be expensed as they are incurred). In addition, the Company has an insurance recovery receivable for probable asbestos related recoveries of approximately $3 million and $5 million, which is principally included in Other assets on our Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=miLV7J ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Faces 990 Active Cases as of Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- United States Steel Corporation, as of December 31, 2024, was a defendant in approximately 990 active cases involving approximately 2,575 plaintiffs, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The vast majority of these cases involve multiple defendants. About 1,600, or approximately 62 percent, of these plaintiff claims are currently pending in jurisdictions which permit filings with massive numbers of plaintiffs. At December 31, 2023, U. S. Steel was a defendant in approximately 915 cases involving approximately 2,505 plaintiffs. Based upon U. S. Steel's experience in such cases, it believes that the actual number of plaintiffs who ultimately assert claims against U. S. Steel will likely be a small fraction of the total number of plaintiffs. "The amount U. S. Steel accrues for pending asbestos claims is not material to U. S. Steel's financial condition. However, U. S. Steel is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related claims due to a number of uncertainties, including: (1) the rates at which new claims are filed, (2) the number of and effect of bankruptcies of other companies traditionally defending asbestos claims, (3) uncertainties associated with the variations in the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, (4) uncertainties regarding the facts, circumstances and disease process with each claim, and (5) any new legislation enacted to address asbestos-related claims. "Further, U. S. Steel does not believe that an accrual for unasserted claims is required. At any given reporting date, it is probable that there are unasserted claims that will be filed against the Company in the future. The Company engages an outside valuation consultant to assist in assessing its ability to estimate an accrual for unasserted claims. This assessment is based on the Company's settlement experience, including recent claims trends. This analysis focuses on settlements made over the last several years as these claims are likely to best represent future claim characteristics. After review by the valuation consultant and U. S. Steel management, it was determined that the Company could not estimate an accrual for unasserted claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jWO6Xj ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has 4,808 Pending Claims at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Union Carbide Corporation has reported 4,808 claims pending individual claimants at December 31, 2024, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. At December 31, 2024, the Corporation's total asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims, including future defense and processing costs, was $791 million ($867 million at December 31, 2023). See Notes 1 and 12 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for more information on asbestos-related matters. These suits principally allege personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged claims primarily relate to products that UCC sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on UCC's premises, and UCC's responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a former subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o47WRw ********* 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 ***