/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250224.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, February 24, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 39 Headlines 3637 CORP INC: Torre Sues Over Unpaid Wages 67 BIG WONG: Alvarez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ADA MARK ANTHONY MONACO: Class Certification Denied in Perry Suit AGA SERVICE: Faces Herssein Class Suit Over Hidden & Bogus Fees AIR-O-FAN: Meier, et al. Case Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction ALBERTSONS SAFEWAY: Schofield Sues Over Unwanted Text Messages ALLSTATE CORP: Mahoney Sues Over Collection of Drivers' Information ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Jackson Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois AMERICAN TOWING: Boligan Sues Over Unpaid Regular & Overtime Wages ANAVEX LIFE: Continues to Defend Blum Shareholder Suit in New York APFS LLC: Gazitt Suit Removed to N.D. California ASCOTT RESOURCES: Lester Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages BAYHEALTH MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Marciniszyn Says BAYSTATE HEALTH: Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts BERMAN & RABIN: Steward Files Suit in D. Kansas BIGG MEALS: Cardoso Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages BIOVE INC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit in Nevada BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Pomalyst Antitrust Suit Trial Not Yet Set BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Trial on Thalomid-Related Suit Still Not Set CAPUTO'S FINE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Postrero Suit Says CELTIC OCEAN: Gonzalez Sues Over False Advertising CHA GENERAL: Massachusetts Court Refuses to Dismiss Hoye ERISA Suit CHARLES T. SITRIN: Underpays Health Care Center Staff, Cotton Says CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Suit Alleges CHICOPEE, MA: Hultine Files Contract Suit in Massachusetts CINTAS CORP: Sonia Bottona's Claims Dismissed with Prejudice COMMUNITY HEALTH: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Suit Alleges CURIOSITYSTREAM: Collect Website Visitors' Info, Mitchener Alleges CVS HEALTH: Court Grants Bids to Toss Consolidated Securities Suit DELTA AIR: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Antillon Sues Over Misleading Statements ELASTIC NV: Faces Lucid Suit Over 26.49% Decline of Stock Price ENGLANDE TRANS: Fails to Pay Delivery Drivers' Wages, Light Says EQUINIX INC: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit in Calif. ESQUELETO HOME: Trippett Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FARADAY FUTURE: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Securities Suit FCA US: Court Dismisses Claim in 1st Amended Maugain Complaint FOREVER NEW: Zelaya Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Laborers FREEDOM LASER: Bonham Files Suit in C.D. California GATEHOUSE MEDIA: Ewalt Suit Removed to S.D. Ohio GEICO: Seeks to Stay Class Certification Briefing GOOGLE LLC: Rabin Seek to Certify Class GOOGLE LLC: Rabin Seeks to Seal E-mails & Invoices Containing PII GRASS FED WAGYU: Devereaux Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GREEN THUMB: Mellor Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois GSW ARENA LLC: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GXO LOGISTICS: Cardenas Suit Removed to C.D. California HALLMARK HEALTH: Muhammad Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT: Scott Suit Transferred to N.D. West Virginia HEIDI WASHINGTON: Cortez Suit Transferred to W.D. Michigan HOLLIS COBB: Watson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia HOSANNA HOME: Nunez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Billing Clerks HP INC: N.D. California Dismisses Hutchins' 1st Amended Complaint HPC INDUSTRIAL: Court Consolidates Two Wage Class Actions HUMAN BEES INC: Reyes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ILLUMINA INC: Hearing on Securities Class Suit Set for June 20 INFLUX MARKETING: Giovannie Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. INSURGENT BRANDS: Wohl & Castellanos Sues Over False Product Label INTEGRATED CONSULTING: Holloway Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages INTRASYSTEMS LLC: Sued Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Litigation IQVIA INC: Parties Must File Supplemental Briefs by Feb. 28 JEROME LAUNDRY: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Faces Torres Disability Discrimination Suit KINDEVA DRUG DELIVERY: Shenghur Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. KKFC LLC: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Suit Alleges LANE BRYANT: Class Settlement in Cole Suit Denied Prelim. Approval LEVI STRAUSS: Casillas Suit Removed to S.D. California LID GROUP: Adams Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages LITTLE CAESAR: Dennany Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages LOEWS CORP: Discovery in Portillo Class Suit Stayed LOEWS CORP: Discovery in Segal Class Suit Stayed MADISON EMERGENCY: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Schmidt Says MAIDEN REST: Isakov Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store MASTERCARD INC: Awaits Ruling on TCPA-Related Class Suit MBIA INC: Breaches COFINA Bond Policy, Jereczek Class Suit Alleges MCGRAW HILL: Plaintiffs' Bid to Compel Discovery Partly OK'd MDC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Building Trades Pension Suit MDL 2873: Coussens Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products MDL 3090: Class Settlement in Data Breach Suit Gets Final Nod METROHEALTH SYSTEM: Bowman Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation MICHAEL ISABELLA: DelCid Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania MICHAEL KORS STORES: Nunes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MILWAUKEE ENTERTAINMENT: Alatorre Sues Over Unpaid Wages MISSISSIPPI: Stewart Sues Over 14th Amendment Rights' Violations MORGAN AND MORGAN: Gugliuzza Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct. MR. MASTER SERVICE: Alvarez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Maloney Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop N.L.C. ENTERPRISES: Sutherland Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NANCY JACOBY: Parties in Puchel Seek to Stay Class Cert Briefing NASHVILLE, TN: Parties Seek More Time to Complete Discovery NATIONAL ADVISORS: Settlement in Weber Gets Prelim. Approval NATIONAL GRID USA: Reminick Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. NATURES PATH FOODS: Martin Sues Over False Advertising NETCAP INC: Feb. 28 Deadline Set for Status Report in Baus Suit NEW DIRECTION: Hatten Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NEW MEXICO: Court Dismisses Hensley v. Wilkens Without Prejudice NEW YORK, NY: Monasar Files Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. NORTHERN INDIANA: Bill Class Suit Removed to N.D. Indiana OH MY DARLING: Faces Farrell Suit Over Unwanted Telephone Calls OMAKASE SHOTA: Walker Sues Over Unlawful Wage Theft OMI INDUSTRIES: Mishikyan Sues Over Cleaning Products' False Labels ONNIT LABS: Fact Discovery in Lotz Must be Completed by July 10 OREGON REPRODUCTIVE: Faces Suit Over Disclosure of Patients' Info PACE PLUMBING: Konopka Seeks Monetary Damages Under WARN Act PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Luong Sues Over Poached Content Creators' Payment PHYSICIANS' PRIMARY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Kryskalla Says PLUSHBEDS INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Walker Suit Says POSEIDON BRANDS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Walker Claims POSH GROUP: Sends Unsolicited Marketing Calls, Lopez-Oviedo Claims POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Calzado Sues Over Failure to Secure Systems POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Count Sues Over Clients' Compromised Info POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Champney Says PRIORITYONE BANK: Magee Sues Over Improper $38 OD Fee Charges PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Faces Friedman FDCPA Suit in S.D.N.Y. PVH RETAIL: Faces Barrera Wage-and-Hour Suit in California REALTY WHOLESALERS: Piper Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Traces Website Visitors, Kishnani Suit Alleges RTA MEDIA: Wambold Sues Over Unlawful Tracking Tools SAGE THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Korver Suit in New York SAN BERNARDINO 937: Arellano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SANDISK: Plaintiffs Can't Add Custodians for Discovery SCHRADER MECHANICAL: Villanueva Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SEMINOLE HARD: Tribe's Bid to Intervene in Montgomery Suit Granted SEQUOIA BENEFITS: Bid for Class Cert Extended to August 13 SHENZHEN SMOORE: Earth's Healing Sues Over Sherman Act Violation SIRIUS XM HOLDINGS: Faces Posternock Class Action in New Jersey SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: 9th Cir. Halts Pirani Securities Fraud Suit SMOOCHIE BABY: Faces Hernandez Suit Over Website Inaccessibility SOCK IT TO ME: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Wilson Suit Says SONDER HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Duffaydar Class Suit in Calif. SONDER HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Porter Class Suit in Delaware SPAY INC: Loses Bid to Compel Arbitration in Buffington Suit STOP & SHOP: Fuller Lidocane Patch Suit Dismissed with Prejudice SUNMERRY EDISON: Claude Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Website TARGET CORPORATION: Messeck Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages TEAMEX CORP: Underpays Field Service Technicians, Lee Suit Alleges THINK COFFEE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hernandez Claims THREE "B" PROPERTIES: Pardo Sues Over Disabled's Access to Property THUNDER ROAD INC: Crumwell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TIP PARTNERS: Claude Sues Over Website's ADA Noncompliance TRANS UNION: Must Oppose Kaplan Class Cert Bid by Oct. 23 TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Class Settlement in Rand Suit Has Final Nod TRUSTCO BANK: Class Settlement in Jenkins Suit Gets Final Nod TRUSTCO BANK: Class Settlement in Lamoureux Gets Final Nod TRUSTCO BANK: Class Settlement in Livingston Gets Final Nod UNITED AIRLINES: Brown Seeks to Stay All Proceedings UNITED HEALTHCARE: Deadline for Bid to Stay M.R. Suit on Feb. 26 UNIVERSAL SERVICES: Brewster Sues Over Unlawful Tobacco Surcharge URBAN STRATEGIES: Barca Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Sells Customers' Info to Advertisers VINGLACE LLC: Faces Battle Suit Over Website's Access Barriers VISA INC: Faces Securities Suit in California VISA INC: Faces Williams Suit over Breach of Contract W.L. GORE: Gore-Tex Fabric "Not Sustainable," Mason Suit Claims WESTLAND FARMS: Garcia May Serve M.G. Luna via Secretary of State WEXFORD HEALTH: W.Va. Judge Narrows Discovery Terms WOLFSPEED INC: Faces Zagami Securities in New York Court ZILLOW INC: Dakis Group Sues Over Unlawful Daily Fee ********* 3637 CORP INC: Torre Sues Over Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------- Agne De La Torre, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. 3637 CORP INC. d/b/a CANDIES CABARET and JAMES D. FULFORD, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-20654-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 12, 2025), is brought for unpaid wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff worked in the State of Florida without being paid at least the full minimum wage for all hours worked. The Defendants controlled and/or were responsible for the work of Plaintiff. The Plaintiff did a specific job, i.e., dance for and entertain guests, which was/is an integral part of the business of Defendants. As a result of these common policies, Plaintiff is entitled to receive full minimum for each hour worked as repayment improperly unpaid/deducted from her wages. During her employment, Plaintiff complained about the illegal practices Defendants' management, and Defendants took no action to stop the illegal practices, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as an Entertainer for Defendants from March 2024 through December 2024. The Defendants operated and managed the Club and were all involved in the day-to-day operation of the Club.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: T'Keara N. Watson, Esq. Anthony Hall, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Phone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 813-7513 67 BIG WONG: Alvarez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Marcos Alvarez, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated v. 67 BIG WONG RESTAURANT INC., FOOK S CHAN, JUDY CHAN and HONG WONG, Case No. 1:25-cv-01300 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 12, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") as recently amended by the Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA") and related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations ("NYCRR"), to recover, inter alia, unpaid minimum and overtime wage compensation for Plaintiff. The Defendants were required, under relevant New York State law, to compensate Plaintiff with overtime pay at one and one-half the regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours per work week. However, in deliberate disregard of these mandatory pay obligations, Defendants willfully compensated Plaintiff at a rate of only $10.50 per hour and failed to pay Plaintiff his lawful overtime pay for that period from August 20, 2023, until July 28, 2024. During this period, Plaintiff worked well in excess of 40 hours per workweek, as determined by the work schedule set by the Defendants. The Defendants regularly exercised their authority to require Plaintiff to work additional hours beyond his scheduled work hours without providing the requisite overtime compensation, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked from August 20, 2023, until July 28, 2024. The Defendants owned and operated a corporate entity principally engaged in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12t Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 203-2417 Web: www.StillmanLegalPC.com ADA MARK ANTHONY MONACO: Class Certification Denied in Perry Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Lewis J. Liman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the plaintiff's motions for class certification, attorneys' fees, and expedited discovery in the case captioned as WILLIAM PERRY, Plaintiff, -against- ADA MARK ANTHONY MONACO; DA ALVIN BRAGG; HON. RUTH PICKHOLZ; HON. CURTIS FARBER; ADA LISA DEL PIZO; ADA STUART SILBERG; ADA ERIN TIERNEY; ADA SHIRA ARNOW; ADA ALEXANDRA WYNNE; OFFICER THOMAS MULLINS; OFFICER DONYA BARDLIVING, Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-08736-LJL (S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiff, an attorney who is appearing pro se, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his constitutional rights. By order dated Dec. 20, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis, that is, without prepayment of fees. The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The Court must also dismiss a complaint when the it lacks subject matter jurisdiction of the claims raised. Plaintiff seeks class action certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. As Plaintiff is aware, in this Circuit, a pro se plaintiff who is an attorney may not bring an action in which he will serve as both class representative and class counsel. The complaint contains conflicting statements about whether Plaintiff has already secured counsel for the proposed class. Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, however, the Court cannot certify the proposed class, and denies the motion at this stage without prejudice. Plaintiff seeks attorney fees. However, pro se plaintiffs, including attorneys acting pro se, are not eligible for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988. The Court therefore denies that application. Because Plaintiff sues the named judges for acts arising out of, or related to, individual cases before them, they are immune from suit for such claims. Plaintiff alleges no facts suggesting that a declaratory decree was violated, declaratory relief was unavailable, or that an appeal was unavailable. The Court dismisses Plaintiff's claims against Judge Ruth Pickholz and Judge Curtis Farber under the doctrine of judicial immunity, because he seeks monetary relief against Defendants who are immune from such relief, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii), and, consequently, such claims are frivolous, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7uTY7G from PacerMonitor.com. AGA SERVICE: Faces Herssein Class Suit Over Hidden & Bogus Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- REUVEN T. HERSSEIN, on behalf of himself, the general public, and those similarly situated v. AGA SERVICE COMPANY (d/b/a ALLIANZ GLOBAL ASSISTANCE), JEFFERSON INSURANCE COMPANY Case No. 0:25-cv-60256 (S.D. Fla., Feb. 12, 2025) seeks redress for the Defendants' unlawful, unfair, fraudulent and deceptive practices relating to their online marketing and sale of insurance policies on the checkout pages of ticketing and travel websites. The case is about Defendants' longstanding practice of charging consumers with hidden and bogus fees. According to the complaint, the Defendants purport to make a straightforward offer to consumers: insurance for the event tickets and travel arrangements consumers purchase on those websites. However, Defendants secretly and unfairly charge unsuspecting consumers additional fees, on top of the calculated premium, without disclosing that they are charging those fees. The Plaintiff bring this action on behalf of himself, the general public, and classes of similarly situated individuals, seeking a judgment against Defendants that would, among other things: (1) prohibit Defendants from charging mandatory and/or undisclosed fees (in addition to premiums) for AGA's role (whether purportedly for "assistance" services or otherwise) in connection with the insurance purchases; (2) require Defendants to plainly and truthfully disclose all insurance premiums, fees, and charges to consumers prior to their online purchase of insurance and to give consumers the option to accept or decline particular add-on fees; and (3) require Defendants to pay restitution or damages to Plaintiff and class members. AGA Services maintains its principal place of business at 9950 Mayland Drive, Richmond, Virgini. AGA is an affiliate of Jefferson and AGA is Jefferson's registered agent and registered administrator for insurance business transacted in or issued in Florida. Jefferson is a New York corporation headquartered in Richmond, Virginia. Jefferson underwrites some of the insurance policies at issue in this lawsuit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maury L. Udell, Esq. BEIGHLEY, MYRICK, UDELL, LYNNE & ZEICHMAN PA notice66@bmulaw.com 2601 S. Bayshore Drive, Suite 770 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 349-3930 E-mail: mudell@bmulaw.com AIR-O-FAN: Meier, et al. Case Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Kirk E. Sherriff of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California dismissed the case captioned as MARK MEIER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LARRY E. DAVIS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01192-KES-SKO (E.D. Calif.) without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. In their complaint, plaintiffs state that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over all causes of action asserted herein pursuant to the California Constitution because this is a civil action in which the matter in controversy, exclusive of interest, exceeds $25,000, and because each cause of action asserted arises under the laws of the State of California or is subject to adjudication in the courts of the State of California. Therefore, plaintiffs do not facially allege any claim based on federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(a) provides jurisdiction over certain state law actions between citizens of different states, commonly known as diversity jurisdiction. The four named plaintiffs in the complaint are individuals domiciled in Indiana, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. However, plaintiffs purport to bring their claims on behalf of a class consisting of "all similarly situated shareholders within the State of California." According to the Court, as plaintiffs allege the defendants to be domiciled in California, the parties are not completely diverse. Nor have plaintiffs alleged that the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement has been met, the Court finds. To the extent that plaintiffs intend to bring their claim pursuant to the provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act, they fail to plead such jurisdiction, the Court further finds. Nothing in their complaint establishes compliance with the requirements that the class comprise 100 or more members and that the amount-in-controversy exceed $5,000,000. The complaint alleges that the entire outstanding common and preferred stock of defendant Air-O-Fan is held by 35 shareholders of record. Therefore, the complaint fails to adequately plead jurisdiction under Sec. 1332(d), the Court concludes. The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action and it must therefore be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Defendants' motion to dismiss and defendants' motions for bond are denied as moot. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EbA3l0 from PacerMonitor.com. ALBERTSONS SAFEWAY: Schofield Sues Over Unwanted Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER SCHOFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALBERTSONS SAFEWAY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-01259-DMR (E.D. Cal., February 5, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In or about October 2024, the Plaintiff began receiving text message solicitations to her cellular telephone from Defendant. Despite Plaintiff's opt out requests and Defendant's confirmations that it had received Plaintiff's stop instruction, the Plaintiff continued to receive text message solicitations from Defendant. In addition, the Plaintiff did not provide prior express consent to receive text message solicitations on her cellular phone from, or on behalf of, Defendant, says the suit. Albertsons Safeway LLC owns and operates drug and grocery stores in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana J. Oliver, Esq. OLIVER LAW CENTER, INC. 8780 19th Street #559 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 Telephone: (855) 384-3262 Facsimile: (888) 570-2021 E-mail: dana@danaoliverlaw.com ALLSTATE CORP: Mahoney Sues Over Collection of Drivers' Information ------------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL MAHONEY and SCOTT SCHULTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION; ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY; ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY; ARITY, LLC; ARITY 875, LLC; and ARITY SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01465 (N.D. Ill., February 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Federal Wiretap Act, the Stored Communications Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and 815 Ill. Comp. Stat., unjust enrichment, and invasion of privacy. The case arises from the Defendants' unlawful practice of collecting and selling consumers' personal data, particularly geolocation and movement data, from their mobile phones and in-car devices. The Defendants achieved this by developing and integrating software into third-party mobile applications such as Routely, Life360, GasBuddy, and Fuel Rewards. The Defendants paid app developers millions of dollars to integrate their software into developers' apps. The Plaintiffs did not consent to, nor were they aware of the Defendants' collection and sale of immeasurable amounts of their sensitive data. As a result, the Defendants' invaded the Plaintiffs' and similarly situated consumers' privacy and caused an increase to their auto insurance premiums. The Allstate Corporation is an insurance company, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Allstate Insurance Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Allstate Corporation, headquartered in Northbrook, Illinois. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company is a subsidiary of The Allstate Corporation, headquartered in Northbrook, Illinois. Arity, LLC is a subsidiary of The Allstate Corporation, headquartered in Northbrook, Illinois. Arity 875, LLC is a subsidiary of The Allstate Corporation, headquartered in Illinois. Arity Services, LLC is a consumer reporting agency, headquartered in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert S. Libman, Esq. Bernardo Lopez, Esq. MINER, BARNHILL & GALLAND, P.C. 325 N. LaSalle, Suite 350 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 751-1170 Email: rlibman@lawmbg.com blopez@lawmbg.com - and - Derek Loeser, Esq. Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq. Adele Daniel, Esq. Patrick T. Marriott, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 Email: claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com adaniel@kellerrohrback.com pmarriott@kellerrohrback.com - and – Christopher L. Springer, Esq. 801 Garden Street, Suite 301 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 456-1496 Facsimile: (805) 456-1497 Email: cspringer@kellerrohrback.com ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Jackson Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Joseph Jackson, Rachel Zimmerman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Allstate Corporation, Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company, Arity LLC, Arity 875 LLC, Arity Services LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-05636 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 12, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:25-cv-00040-SPS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. The Allstate Corporation -- http://www.allstate.com/-- is an American insurance company, headquartered in Northfield Township, Illinois, near Northbrook, since 1967.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anne Kathleen Davis, Esq. Joshua D. Samra, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD 1330 Broadway, Ste. 630 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (415) 445-4016 Email: adavis@bfalaw.com jsamra@bfalaw.com - and – Lesley Elizabeth Weaver, Esq. GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C. 700 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 275 Larkspur, CA 94939 Phone: (415) 477-6700 Email: gnecf@classcounsel.com - and – Sabita Jyotindra Soneji, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 254-6808 Email: ssoneji@tzlegal.com - and – Shana Hope Khader, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 770-2146 Email: skhader@tzlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Hussin Javier Kordi, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1 S. Dearborn Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 853-3087 Email: jkordi@sidley.com AMERICAN TOWING: Boligan Sues Over Unpaid Regular & Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Eugenio Boligan, Jr., and other similarly situated individuals v. AMERICAN TOWING, INC. RODOLFO F. CARVAJAL, and ELIZABETH M. CARVAJAL, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-20638-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 11, 2025), is brought to recover monetary damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages under United States laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("the FLSA"). The Plaintiff worked regularly and consistently a minimum of 114 hours weekly, but he was paid entirely by commissions, and he was not paid for overtime hours. However, Plaintiff was not a salesman, and he did not sell anything; he was just a tow truck driver and performed towing services assigned by a dispatcher. Thus, the overtime sales exemption for commissioned employees of the FLSA did not apply. As a result, the conditions of the exemption have not been met, exemption is not applicable. Plaintiff must be paid an overtime premium for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, at the overtime rate of time and one-half his regular pay rate. Plaintiff is owed overtime wages for the 54 weeks he worked for Defendants. Furthermore, during the relevant employment period, Plaintiff earned commissions only, and he was not paid minimum wages for every hour worked as required by the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce. AMERICAN TOWING is a towing company operating 24/7 roadside assistance in Miami-Dade and Broward County. Defendant is specialized in recoveries or vehicle repossessions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com ANAVEX LIFE: Continues to Defend Blum Shareholder Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------------ Anavex Life Sciences Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Blum shareholder class suit in New York. On March 13, 2024, a shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Initial Action"). The complaint was captioned Blum v. Anavex Life Sciences, Corp. et al., case number 1:24-cv-01910, and it named the Company and Christopher Missling as Defendants. The complaint alleged violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 associated with disclosures and statements made with respect to certain clinical trials for ANAVEX®2-73 related to Rett syndrome (the "March 2024 Complaint"). At a hearing on or about June 13, 2024, the Court named another purported Company shareholder, Quintessa Huey, as lead plaintiff with respect to the March 2024 Complaint. An Amended Complaint was filed by the appointed lead plaintiff on July 12, 2024, which asserts allegations related to purported violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act tied to disclosures associated with the same clinical trials related to Rett Syndrome, and which names the Company and Christopher Missling as defendants. The Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages, as well as costs, including counsel and expert witness fees, on behalf of class of investors who purchased stock of the Company on the NASDAQ during the period February 1, 2022 through January 1, 2024. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The motion to dismiss is fully-briefed and awaiting a decision by the Court. Headquartered in New York, NY, Anavex Life Science Corp. is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company. Shares of the its stock trade on the Nasdaq under the ticker symbol "AVXL." [BN] APFS LLC: Gazitt Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Heather Gazitt, individually and for others similarly situated v. APFS, LLC d/b/a ADDISON PROFESSIONAL FINANCIAL SEARCH, Case No. CGC-25-621289 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 7, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01328. In this action, Plaintiff's Complaint asserts five separate claims for: failure to pay overtime; failure to authorize and permit and/or make available meal and rest periods; failure to provide timely and accurate itemized wage statements; waiting time penalties; and unlawful business practices. The Plaintiff's claims in the Complaint are asserted on both an individual and class action basis.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jenny Yi, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300 San Francisco, CA 94111-3821 Phone: 415.844.9944 Facsimile: 415.844.9922 Email: jyi@mcguirewoods.com - and - Michael R. Phillips, Esq. 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4100 Chicago, IL 60601-1818 Phone:312.849.8100 Facsimile: 312.849.3690 Email: mphillips@mcguirewoods.com ASCOTT RESOURCES: Lester Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Hank Lester, individually and for others similarly situated v. ASCOTT RESOURCES LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-00087 (S.D.W. Va., Feb. 12, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant. The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek. However, the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees for all their hours worked, including overtime hours. Rather, the Defendant requires the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees to suit out in protective clothing and safety gear necessary to safely perform their job duties and gather necessary tools and equipment, while on the Defendant's premises "off the clock." The Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees for the time they spend donning and doffing their safety gear and protective clothing, traveling into the mine, and washing-up, "off the clock," before and after their shifts. Additionally, the Defendant pays the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees non-discretionary bonuses, including safety, attendance, and production bonuses that the Defendant fails to include in their regular rates of pay for the purpose of calculating their overtime rates of pay (the Defendant's "bonus pay scheme"). The Defendant's pre/post shift off the clock policy and bonus pay scheme violate the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees at 1.5 times their regular rates of pay—based on all remuneration—for all hours worked in excess of 40 a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a general laborer in the Belcher Branch coal mine from July 2022 through January 2023. Ascott is a staffing company that "staffs" workers to coal mines.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Majestro, Esq. Graham B. Platz, Esq. POWELL & MAJESTRO, PLLC 405 Capitol Street, Suite 1200 Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: 304-346-2889 Fax: 304-346-2895 Email: amajestro@powellmajestro.com gplatz@powellmajestro.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com BAYHEALTH MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Marciniszyn Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ ERIK MARCINISZYN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BAYHEALTH MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Case No. K25C-02-014 NEP (D. Del., Feb. 12, 2025) seeks relief for the consequences of the Defendant's failure to reasonably safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class members' Private Information. Accordingly, the Defendant's failure to reasonably provide timely notification to Plaintiff and Class members that their Private Information had been compromised. The Defendant also failed to inform Plaintiff and Class members concerning the status, safety, location, access, and protection of their Private Information. Mr. Marciniszyn is a resident and citizen of Smyrna, Delaware. He was a patient at Bayhealth Medical Center. Bayhealth is a not for profit healthcare system that serves central and southern Delaware. As part of its operations, Bayhealth collects, maintains, and stores highly sensitive personal and medical information belonging to its patients, including, but not limited to their full names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth (personally identifying information or PII), information regarding medical treatment and medical record numbers (private health information or PHI). Between July 27 and July 31, 2024, Bayhealth experienced a data breach incident in which unauthorized cybercriminals accessed its information systems and databases and stole Private Information belonging to Plaintiff and Class members (the "Data Breach"), says the suit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 Facsimile: (312) 782-4485 E-mail: nhagman@caffertyclobes.com dherrera@caffertyclobes.com - and - Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 North Market Street, 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-0300 E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com BAYSTATE HEALTH: Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jane Doe, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BAYSTATE HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 2384-CV-01949-BLS1 was removed from the Superior Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk County, to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Feb. 10, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-10337. On January 31, 2025, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, which added claims, including a claim under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA").[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Lisa Oliver White, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. One Federal Street, Suite 2620 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 531-1411 Email: lowhite@shb.com - and - Tammy B. Webb, Esq. Aubrey L. Kramer, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 555 Mission Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 544-1900 Email: twebb@shb.com - and - Jad Sheikali, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 111 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 704-7700 Email: jsheikali@shb.com - and - Anna A. Gadberry, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 2555 Grand Blvd Kansas City, MO 64108 Phone: (816) 474-6550 Email: agadberry@shb.com BERMAN & RABIN: Steward Files Suit in D. Kansas ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Berman & Rabin, P.A. The case is styled as Robin Steward, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Berman & Rabin, P.A., Case No. 2:25-cv-02066-JAR-GEB (D. Kan., Feb. 10, 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 BIGG MEALS: Cardoso Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------- Carlos Cardoso, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. BIGG MEALS INC (D/B/A BIGG BELLY) and MATHEW SHAJI, Case No. 7:25-cv-01233 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 11, 2025), is brought for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"), and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor codified at N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS. tit. 12, Section 146-1.6 (herein the "Spread of Hours Wage Order"), including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond the Plaintiff to all other similarly situated employees. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a cook and food preparer at the restaurant located in Valley Cottage, New York. The Defendants own, operate, or control a fast food restaurant, located in Valley Cottage, New York under the name "Bigg Belly."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 BIOVE INC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit in Nevada --------------------------------------------------------------- Biovie 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 continues to defend itself from a consolidated shareholder class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. On January 19, 2024, a purported shareholder class action complaint, captioned Eric Olmstead v. BioVie Inc. et al., No. 3:24-cv-00035, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. On February 22, 2024, a second, related putative securities class action was filed in the same court asserting similar claims against the same defendants, captioned Way v. BioVie Inc. et al., No. 2:24-cv-00361. On April 15, 2024, the court consolidated these two actions under the caption In re BioVie Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:24-cv-00035, appointed the lead plaintiff, and approved selection of the lead counsel. On June 21, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging that the defendants made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact relating to the Company's business, operations, compliance, and prospects, including information related to the NM101 Phase 3 study and trial of bezisterim (NE3107) in mild to moderate probable AD, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The class action is on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities during the period from December 7, 2022 through November 28, 2023, and seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on August 21, 2024, and plaintiffs filed their opposition on October 21, 2024 and the defendants' reply brief was filed on December 5, 2024. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intend to defend vigorously against them. Headquartered in Carson City, NV, BioVie is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company that purports to engage in the discovery, development, and commercialization of innovative drugs therapies, including for treatment of neurological and neurodegenerative disorders and advanced liver disease. The company's stock trades on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "BIVI." [BN] BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Pomalyst Antitrust Suit Trial Not Yet Set --------------------------------------------------------------- Bristol-Myers Squibb Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2025, that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has not yet set a trial date for the Pomalyst antitrust class suit. Beginning in September 2023, certain entities filed putative class actions against Celgene, BMS, and certain individuals in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims under various antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment laws in connection with activities related to obtaining and litigating certain Pomalyst patents. BMS and Celgene have filed motions to dismiss the complaints, which are pending. No trial dates have been scheduled. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is engaged in the discovery, development, licensing, manufacturing, marketing, distribution and sale of biopharmaceutical products based in New York. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Trial on Thalomid-Related Suit Still Not Set ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bristol-Myers Squibb Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2025, that the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has not yet set a trial date for Thalomid and Revlimid antitrust class suit. Beginning in November 2014, putative class action lawsuits were filed against Celgene in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that Celgene violated various antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair competition laws in connection with, among other things, activities related to obtaining and litigating certain Revlimid patents. In October 2020, the district court entered a final order approving a class settlement and dismissed the matter. Certain entities—including entities that opted out of the settlement class and others who claim that their suits are not covered by that settlement—have since filed additional suits against Celgene and BMS pursuing similar claims based on related theories, and a subset of plaintiffs brought additional claims related to copay assistance for Thalomid and Revlimid. Those new suits are principally being litigated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Court dismissed certain of those complaints with leave to amend in June 2024. All plaintiffs filed amended complaints in August 2024. BMS and Celgene have filed motions to dismiss those complaints, which are currently pending. Related actions are also pending in San Francisco Superior Court and the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. No activity is expected in these cases until disposition of the New Jersey actions. No trial dates have been scheduled. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is engaged in the discovery, development, licensing, manufacturing, marketing, distribution and sale of biopharmaceutical products based in New York. CAPUTO'S FINE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Postrero Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MAURICIO SANTOS POSTRERO, Plaintiff v. CAPUTO'S FINE FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00642-KAM-JAM (E.D.N.Y., February 5, 2025) is a class action seeking to enforce the Plaintiff's statutory right to be paid premium overtime wages equal to one and one-half times Plaintiffs respective regular hourly rates of pay for all hours worked more than 40 in a workweek, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from in or around February 2023 to August 2024 as a deli worker and during his employment, he did not receive proper overtime compensation. Caputo's Fine Foods, Inc. owns and operates a family-owned Italian specialty food store and deli located in the Carrol Gardens neighborhood of Brooklyn, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fausto E. Zapata, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF FAUSTO E. ZAPATA, JR., P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 501 New York, NY 10007 Telephone. (212) 766-9870 E-mail: fz@fzapatalaw.com CELTIC OCEAN: Gonzalez Sues Over False Advertising -------------------------------------------------- Mark Gonzalez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CELTIC OCEAN INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01177 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 11, 2025), is brought seeking redress for the Defendant's false advertising and deceptive conduct on behalf of consumers in the United States and California. The Defendant sells salt products under its Selina Naturally Celtic Sea Salt brand which includes the Fine Ground Celtic Sea Salt and Light Grey Celtic Sea Salt (the "Products"). The problem is the Products are contaminated with lead and arsenic. There are no "safe" levels of lead. Lead affects numerous organs and systems in the body and accumulates over time. This leads to health risks and toxicity, including hindering neurological function, anemia, and kidney damage. No reasonable consumer would buy the Products if they knew the Products contained toxic and harmful ingredients such as lead and arsenic. Further, the Products' packaging gives consumers the net impression that the Products are healthy and do not contain toxic heavy metals. The packaging displays large, realistic, and brightly colored images of a worker cultivating salt from water and describes the salt as: "Vital Minerals," "Good Manufacturing Practice" and that is has "won the recommendation of Doctors, Nutritionists, and Chefs worldwide since 1976." Heavy metals would not be recommended by anyone and are not the product of good manufacturing practices as Defendant claims. Heavy metal testing performed on the Products has been done. The test results revealed that the Products tested positive for 460 ppb of lead and 140 ppb of arsenic. These test results are applicable to all the Products as they contain the same or similar ingredients that are sourced from the same areas and the Products are packaged in the same facilities, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Products during the class period. The Defendant was the manufacturer and distributor of the Products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig W. Straub, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (866) 276-7637 Fax: (310) 510-6429 Email: craig@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com CHA GENERAL: Massachusetts Court Refuses to Dismiss Hoye ERISA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Myong J. Joun of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit styled SUSAN J. HOYE AND LEONARDO JIMENEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE REPRESENTATIVES OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, AND ON BEHALF OF THE CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN, Plaintiffs v. CHA GENERAL SERVICES, INC.; RETIREMENT PLAN COMMITTEE; AND JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-13238-MJJ (D. Mass.). Plaintiffs Susan J. Hoye and Leonardo Jimenez have filed lawsuit individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons and beneficiaries of The Cambridge Health Alliance Partnership Plan (the "Plan"), against the Plan's fiduciaries, CHA General Services, Inc. ("Cambridge Health"), Retirement Plan Committee, and John and Jane Does 1-10 (collectively, "Defendants"), alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The Plaintiffs are bringing this lawsuit pursuant to ERISA Sections 409 and 502, 29 U.S.C. Sections 1109 and 1132. The putative class that the Plaintiffs seek to represent includes those who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan at any time between Dec. 29, 2017, through the date of judgment (the "Class Period"), excluding any Defendants and their immediate family members. The Plaintiffs claim all Defendants breached their fiduciary duty of prudence; specifically, as the fiduciaries of the Plan, the Defendants failed to ensure that participants have had appropriate investment options and that the Plan's service fees were reasonable. The Plaintiffs additionally allege that Cambridge Health failed to monitor other fiduciaries appointed to manage the Plan, as a "Retirement Plan Committee" was appointed in 2021 with some responsibility for oversight of the Plan. On May 24, 2024, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim. Ms. Hoye and Mr. Jimenez were or are employees of Cambridge Health, who participated in the Plan--a 403(b) defined contribution retirement plan--during the Class Period. Upon hiring, an employee is immediately eligible to participate in the Plan and would make contributions through salary deferrals. The Plan had net assets of around $242 million, $280 million, and $318 million at the end of 2019, 2020, and 2021, respectively. The Plan had over 3,000 participants for each year of the Class Period. In 2022, the Plan had 3,660 participants and over $280 million in assets available for benefits. Of these, at least $198 million were under management--making it among the top 3% of largest managed 403(b) plans. A participant's account is the sum of individual contributions plus the employer's matching contributions, which start after two years of service. Cambridge Health is the Plan Sponsor. Cambridge Health is also the Plan Administrator, a named fiduciary under 29 U.S.C. Section 1102(a) with the ultimate authority to control and manage the operation and administration of the Plan, and a functional fiduciary under 29 U.S.C. Section 1002(21)(A) because it exercises discretionary authority or control regarding management and administration of the Plan and disposition of the Plan's assets. As Plan Sponsor and Named Fiduciary, Cambridge Health has the power to appoint other fiduciaries of the Plan; it also has the corresponding fiduciary duty to monitor and supervise any appointees. Transamerica Financial Life Insurance Company ("Transamerica"), through Transamerica Retirement Solutions, provides the Plan's recordkeeping services and has done so for the entirety of the Class Period. The Plan's fiduciaries may choose whether recordkeeping is paid for by the Plan sponsor or from the Plan's assets. Here, recordkeeping was paid for from the Plan's assets via revenue sharing. Revenue sharing, under which investments within the plans make payments to the recordkeeper or to the plans directly for recordkeeping costs, may result in hiding the true scope of fees from participants and fiduciaries. During the Class Period, the Plan paid per-participant fees that exceeded the fees paid for similar services by similar-sized plans. In addition to the direct recordkeeping fees, Transamerica also received indirect revenue. Fee disclosures provided to participants indicate even higher amounts paid for recordkeeping, noting that the Plan incurred general administrative fees for recordkeeping of up to 0.11% in 2022 and 0.17% in 2020, with a plan service fee of 0.22% deducted from the largest plan investment on a monthly basis. In their motion to dismiss, the Defendants argue Ms. Hoye and Mr. Jimenez lack standing in their claim regarding fund investments because they did not invest in the T. Rowe Price All-Cap Opportunities Fund, MFS Value Fund, or American Funds EuroPacific Growth (collectively, the "Challenged Funds"). Because of this, the Defendants believe there can be no individualized injury established and, thus, no Article III standing. Here, the Plaintiffs plead that had the Defendants prudently monitored the investments within the Plan, the Defendants would have taken action as to the T. Rowe Price All Opportunities Fund, the MFS Value Fund, the American Funds EuroPacific Growth Fund and other funds in favor of superior funds featuring comparable investment objectives, superior performance, and lower fees. Notably, the funds challenged by the Plaintiffs are not limited to the three listed exemplars. The Plaintiffs further allege that had the Defendants not breached their duty, the Plaintiffs would each have paid lower recordkeeping fees and the value of each of their accounts would correspondingly be higher, and that the Plan and its participants suffered millions of dollars in losses as a consequence of the Defendants' fiduciary breaches. The Defendants seek dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claim relative to the Plan's recordkeeping fees on the grounds that (1) the Plaintiffs cannot show comparable plans received similar recordkeeping services at lower costs; (2) the Plaintiffs do not identify the specific services Transamerica provided here or compare those services to those provided by purported comparators; and (3) the Plaintiffs improperly compare direct and indirect compensation. Judge Joun holds that these arguments miss the mark. Reading the Amended Complaint as whole, in the light most favorable to them, and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of them, Judge Joun finds the Plaintiffs plausibly allege that the Defendants breached their duty of prudence relative to the Plan's recordkeeping fees. Where the Plaintiffs' failure to monitor claim is derivative of the underlying breach of fiduciary duty claim, and where said underlying claim has been plausibly alleged, Judge Joun holds that the failure to monitor claim also survives. For these reasons, the Court denies the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum of Decision is available at https://tinyurl.com/msb35x3j from PacerMonitor.com. CHARLES T. SITRIN: Underpays Health Care Center Staff, Cotton Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ REGIS COTTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHARLES T. SITRIN HEALTH CARE CENTER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-00071-DNH-ML (N.D.N.Y., January 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant part time as a receptionist from October 2018 through July 2023 and as a companion care aide (CCA) from approximately August 2021 through July 2023. Charles T. Sitrin Health Care Center, Inc. is a company that operates a health care center in New Hartford, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariyam Hussain, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (773) 666-4316 Email: mhussain@bm.net - and - Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq. Michael J. Anderson, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-4635 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 Email: crodriguez@bm.net manderson@bm.net CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN PITTS and MARIA JIMENEZ Individually and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries on and on behalf of the CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., CAROLYN WOOD, PAUL WEBER, BETH BIGGS, and John Does 1-30, Case No. : 4:25-cv-00178 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 12, 2025) seeks to remedy the Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Accordingly, Prior to Amendments effective as of Jan. 1, 2025, Section 6.9 of the Plan required Defendants to use any Forfeited Plan Assets first to pay all Plan administrative expenses before using any forfeited plan assets to defray Charter’s obligation under the Plan to make Employer Contributions. Plaintiff Pitts, a resident of Texas, by virtue of his prior employment with Charter and his continuing participation and investments in the Plan, has been damaged by Defendants' failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Sections 6.9 and 11.3 and also is or may become eligible to receive additional benefits under the Plan as a result of Defendants' breaches and alleged ERISA violations. Charter is an American telecommunications and mass media company with services branded as Spectrum. The company is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James J. Rosemergy, Esq. CAREY, DANIS & LOWE 8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 725-7700 E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com jrosemergy@careydanis.com - and - Steven A. Schwartz, Esq. Robert J. Kriner, Jr. , Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 361 Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 645-4720 E-mail: steve@chimicles.com rjk@chimicles.com CHICOPEE, MA: Hultine Files Contract Suit in Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Chicopee. The case is captioned as NICHOLAS HULTINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF CHICOPEE, Case No. 2579CV00038 (Mass. Super., January 15, 2025). The Plaintiff brings contract suit against the Defendant. City of Chicopee is a city government in Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chelsea Kim Choi, Esq. Jeffrey Morneau, Esq. Alexander J. Rodriguez, Esq. CONNOR AND MORNEAU, LLP 273 State St., 2nd Floor Springfield, MA 01103 Telephone: (413) 455-1730 CINTAS CORP: Sonia Bottona's Claims Dismissed with Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as THOMAS BEARUP, JR. et al., Plaintiffs, v. CINTAS CORP. NO. 2, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-151 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Matthew McFarland of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted Cintas Corporation No. 2's motion to dismiss Plaintiff Sonia Bottona for failure to prosecute. Bottona's claims are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff Sonia Bottona joined this case as part of a Class Action Complaint, along with twenty-four additional Named Plaintiffs, on Oct. 20, 2020. Given Bottona' s failure to cooperate and communicate both with her former counsel and opposing counsel, and failure to respond to the Court regarding new counsel, the four factors weigh heavily in favor of dismissal. The Court finds that Bottona has failed to prosecute her case. The Plaintiffs are employees of Southwest Airlines. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. Cintas supplies companies with corporate uniforms. Southwest and Cintas worked together to create the design of some new uniforms for Southwest employees. The new clothing collection included 75 separate pieces, allowing employees to mix and match their garments. The uniform collection launched in June 2017. But after the launch of the new uniforms, Southwest employees allegedly began experiencing adverse health reactions, including rashes, fatigue, hair loss, and trouble breathing. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rimEKn from PacerMonitor.com. COMMUNITY HEALTH: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- DEMIA ROSE-DANIELS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00182-SVN (D. Conn., Feb. 6, 2024) seeks monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief arising from Defendant's failure to safeguard the Personally Identifiable Information and Protected Health Information of its patients, which resulted in unauthorized access to its information systems on Jan. 2, 2025. The suit says that, as a result of the Data Breach, which the Defendant failed to prevent, the Private Information of the Defendant's patients, including the Plaintiff and the proposed Class members, were stolen, including name, date of birth, address, phone number, email diagnoses, treatment details, test results, Social Security number, and health insurance information. The Plaintiff and Class members now face a lifetime risk of identity theft due to the nature of the information lost, which they cannot change, and which cannot be made private again, the suit adds. The Defendant's harmful conduct has injured the Plaintiff and Class members in multiple ways, including: the lost or diminished value of their Private Information; costs associated with the prevention, detection, and recovery from identity theft, tax fraud, and other unauthorized use of their data; lost opportunity costs to mitigate the Data Breach's consequences; invasion of their privacy; and emotional distress associated with the loss of control over their highly sensitive Private Information, the Plaintiff asserts. Ms. Rose-Daniels received healthcare services from Defendant. As a condition of receiving services, the Defendant required the Plaintiff to provide them with her PII/PHI. Community Health is a healthcare services provider in Connecticut that that advertises itself as providing comprehensive care for the whole family.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1111 Summer Street, Suite 403 Stamford, CT 06905 Telephone: (203) 992-4523 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE First Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com CURIOSITYSTREAM: Collect Website Visitors' Info, Mitchener Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTOPHER MITCHENER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CURIOSITYSTREAM, INC., a Maryland Corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 5:25-cv-01471 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 12, 2025) alleges that the Defendant installed on its Website software created by TikTok in order to identify website visitors (the "TikTok Software"). Accordingly, the Plaintiff visited Defendant's website on September 16, 2024, after the TikTok Software was installed and within the limitations period established by statute. The TikTok Software acts via a process known as "fingerprinting." Put simply, the TikTok Software collects as much data as it can about an otherwise anonymous visitor to the Website and matches it with existing data TikTok has acquired and accumulated about hundreds of millions of Americans. The TikTok Software gathers device and browser information, geographic information, referral tracking, and URL tracking by running code or "scripts" on the Website to send user details to TikTok. The TikTok Software begins to collect information the moment a user lands on the Website. CuriosityStream is the proprietor of www.curiositystream.com, an online platform that operates as a factual content streaming service and media company, that provides premium video and audio programming services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. Narain Kumar, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-927 E-mail: robert@taulersmith.com nkumar@taulersmith.com CVS HEALTH: Court Grants Bids to Toss Consolidated Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Mary S. McElroy of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island issued a Memorandum and Order granting the motions to dismiss filed in the consolidated lawsuit entitled IN RE CVS HEALTH CORPORATION SECURITIES ACT LITIGATION, Case No. 1:19-cv-00434-MSM-LDA (D.R.I.). Judge McElroy notes that this is the second of two securities cases challenging practices of the CVS Health Corporation and its officers and agents to come before this Court. In 2019, this case was filed as a putative class action by the Waterford (Connecticut) Township Police & Fire Retirement System ("Waterford") seeking to impose liability on CVS for what it claimed were false and misleading statements surrounding CVS's 2018 acquisition of Aetna Insurance Corporation. Waterford, like other retirement funds joining in the action, was an investor in Aetna whose stock was exchanged for CVS shares as part of the merger. The same year this lawsuit was filed, a group of pension funds that had been investors in Omnicare Corporation, a company acquired by CVS in 2015, also sued CVS for what it similarly claimed were false and misleading statements CVS had made in connection with the Omnicare acquisition. The lead plaintiff in that case was the City of Miami (Florida) Firefighters' and Police Officers' Retirement Trust. Both the Omnicare and Aetna acquisitions were part of a larger effort by CVS, according to the lawsuits, to expand its dominance in the pharmaceutical arena of the long-term care world by diversifying its services. Prior to the Omnicare merger, CVS's market share was largely in its retail business, anchored by its brick-and-mortar stores. Omnicare brought it a new customer base of long-term care facilities to which it sold pharmaceuticals. The acquisition of Aetna took it into the insurance world. The two lawsuits shared common themes. Each contended that the documents CVS was required by law to file in connection with the acquisitions contained false statements and omitted facts that were so material that their omission made other statements misleading. Each contended that CVS painted an overly rosy picture of its operations to convince shareholders of the companies it was acquiring to vote for the merger. Each maintained that CVS's stock had lost value because of the Omnicare acquisition. The Omnicare shareholders complained that CVS's business practices had decimated the value of what Omnicare had brought to the merger. The Aetna shareholders complained that CVS's valuation, in convincing them of the favorability of their merger with CVS, failed to accurately inform them of the losses the Omnicare acquisition had caused to CVS's Retail/Long-Term Care unit. Both lawsuits complained that CVS had concealed the impact of losses of Omnicare's value by writing down losses in Omnicare goodwill too late and too slowly. The relationship between the two acquisitions, and the two lawsuits, was summarized by the First Circuit in upholding this Court's dismissal of the Omnicare (City of Miami) lawsuit: "CVS Health is a publicly traded company that provides integrated pharmacy healthcare services and operates thousands of retail stores and clinics across the United States. In 2015, CVS Health acquired Omnicare, then the leading provider of pharmaceutical services to long-term care (LTC) facilities. Plaintiffs allege that the newly acquired LTC business subsequently "hemorrhaged" customers due to CVS Health's mismanagement, including its decision to centralize and standardize a number of operations that Omnicare had previously tailored to each customer. According to the complaint, CVS Health misleadingly concealed these customer losses and their causes so as not to threaten CVS Health's ability to acquire financing for another large acquisition planned for 2018" (City of Miami Fire Fighters' and Police Officers' Ret. Tr. v. CVS Health Corp., 46 F.4th 22, 26 (1st Cir. 2022)). That other "large acquisition planned for 2018" was the acquisition of Aetna. Judge McElroy maintains that the First Circuit's opinion in City of Miami provides an obvious and instructive guide for the review of the instant Complaint, one against which the assessment of the Complaint both begins and ends. Because of City of Miami's likely impact, this Waterford litigation was stayed while City of Miami was pending on appeal. After it was decided, these plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which is the operative Complaint. For the same reason that prompted the First Circuit to affirm the dismissal of City of Miami, and in the context of pleadings that are similar in relevant respect, the Court finds the Amended Complaint wanting under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and grants the Motions to Dismiss. Judge McElroy finds the City of Miami complaint failed under Rule 12(b)(6) because of its overarching failure to allege material facts inconsistent with the Defendants' public statements. An example of that shortcoming was its failure to establish a reasonably clear timeline of customer losses inconsistent with the company's goodwill disclosure. While the Plaintiffs here appended a timeline of statements and events in what was presumably an attempt to make up for the City of Miami Complaint shortcomings, Judge McElroy points out that a close examination of the Amended Complaint here reveals the same absence of direct inconsistencies between CVS's performance and its representations that would support a conclusion of falsity. The Plaintiffs further assert that the Amended Complaint alleges an independent basis for liability under Section 11 of the Securities Act and Item 303 of Regulation S-K: "pure omissions" liability for an issuer's failure to make mandated disclosures in a registration statement. While Section 11(a) creates liability for a "pure omission," Judge McElroy explains this is not a pure omission case. The facts as pled, advance a theory that CVS's statements were misleading, but that it did make disclosures on the topics the Plaintiffs' claims challenge, Judge McElroy opines. For all these reasons, the Court grants the Motions to Dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6fra47m from PacerMonitor.com. DELTA AIR: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- Delta Air Lines 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 a multi-district antitrust class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. In July 2015, a number of purported class action antitrust lawsuits were filed alleging that Delta, American, United and Southwest had conspired to restrain capacity. The lawsuits were filed in the wake of media reports that the U.S. Department of Justice had served civil investigative demands upon these carriers seeking documents and information relating to this subject. The lawsuits have been consolidated into a single Multi-District Litigation proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In August 2023, the Court denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment that had been pending for over two years. In Fall 2023, we moved to certify the decision for an interlocutory appeal or for reconsideration, and briefing related to that motion is now complete. The Company believes the claims in these cases are without merit and are vigorously defending these lawsuits. DELTA AIR LINES, INC. provides scheduled air transportation for passengers, freight, and mail over a network of routes.[BN] EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Antillon Sues Over Misleading Statements -------------------------------------------------------------- Felipe Antillon, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EDISON INTERNATIONAL, PEDRO J. PIZARRO, and MARIA RIGATTI, Case No. 2:25-cv-01154 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 11, 2025), is brought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), alleging that Defendants violated the Exchange Act by publishing false and misleading statements to artificially inflate the Company's stock price. Throughout the class period, Edison claimed that SCE uses its Public Safety Power Shutoffs ("PSPS") program to "proactively de-energize power lines to mitigate the risk of catastrophic wildfires during extreme weather events." On January 7, 2025, a fire began in the area of Eaton Canyon (the "Eaton Canyon Fire") in the unincorporated census designated place in Los Angeles County, California, called Altadena, within a half mile from the intersection of North Altadena Drive and Midwick Drive in Pasadena, CA 91107 ("General Area of Origin"). The transmission circuit in Eaton Canyon, as well as related hardware fixtures, devices, structures, components, property, easements, and rights of way were part of an electrical transmission system ("ETS") owned, designed, constructed, installed, inspected, maintained and/or controlled by Defendant Edison or its subsidiary SCE. Following the outbreak of the Eaton Canyon Fire, on January 8, 2025, Edison stated in a press release that its "distribution lines immediately to the west of Eaton Canyon were de-energized well before the reported start time of the fire, as part of SCE's Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) program." However, on January 12, 2025, Edison admitted that there were "no interruptions or operational/electrical anomalies in the 12 hours prior to the fire's reported start time until more than one hour after the reported start time of the fire." On January 13, 2025, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles alleging that the fires originated from Edison's power lines. The complaint included eye-witness accounts and photographs that showed the fire was started by Edison's electrical equipment. On this news, Edison share prices dropped by $7.73, or approximately 11.89%, on January 13, 2025. On February 6, 2025, The Wall Street Journal reported that SCE "submitted two letters to the California Public Utilities Commission with updates on its analysis of the Eaton and Hurst wildfires, saying it believes its equipment may be associated with the start of the Hurst fire." On this news, Edison share prices dropped by $1.28, or approximately 2.4%, on February 6, 2025. Plaintiff and the other Class members have suffered significant damages due to Defendants' false and misleading statements and omissions, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Company's securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Edison International is the parent holding company of Southern California Edison Company ("SCE") and Edison Energy Group, Inc. ("Edison Energy Group").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com ELASTIC NV: Faces Lucid Suit Over 26.49% Decline of Stock Price --------------------------------------------------------------- LUCID ALTERNATIVE FUND, LP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELASTIC N.V., ASHUTOSH KULKARNI, and JANESH MOORJANI, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00785 (E.D.N.Y., February 11, 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 Elastic's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade Elastic securities at artificially inflated prices between May 31, 2024, and August 29, 2024. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Elastic had implemented significant changes to its sales operations, particularly with respect to its customer segments in the Americas; (ii) the foregoing changes were likely to, and did, disrupt Elastic's sales operations during the first quarter of its Fiscal Year (FY) 2025; (iii) accordingly, the Defendants had overstated the stability of Elastic's sales operations; (iv) as a result of all the foregoing, Elastic was unlikely to meet its own previously issued revenue guidance for its FY 2025; and (v) as a result, the Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the truth emerged, Elastic's ordinary share price fell $27.45 per share, or 26.49 percent, to close at $76.19 per share on August 30, 2024. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Lucid Alternative Fund, LP is an investment fund doing business in New York. Elastic NV is a software company in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. James M. LoPiano, Esq. 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jlopiano@pomlaw.com - and - Jacob Sabo, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JACOB SABO 22a Mazzeh Street Tel-Aviv, Israel Telephone: (972) 39070770 ENGLANDE TRANS: Fails to Pay Delivery Drivers' Wages, Light Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- TRAVIS LIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ENGLANDE TRANSPORTATION, INC., and FLEETMASTER EXPRESS, INC., Case No. 7:25-cv-00102-MFU-CKM (W.D. Va., Feb. 12, 2025) is a class action lawsuit in behalf of current and former delivery drivers who worked for the Defendant. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the Virginia Misclassification Statute by failing to pay the Plaintiff and other delivery drivers all wages due and requiring the Plaintiff and other delivery drivers to incur expenses in connection with their work for the Defendants. Englander began as a refrigerated transportation operation has grown to now include a dry van regional division, according to its website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob M. Small, Esq. J. MADISON PLC 1750 Tysons Boulevard, Suite 1500 McLean, VA 22102 Telephone: (703) 910 5062 Facsimile: (703) 910 5107 E-mail: jmsmall@jmadisonplc.com - and - Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Olena Savytska, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, PC 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994 5800 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com osavytska@llrlaw.com EQUINIX INC: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit in Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Equinix 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 stockholder class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On May 2, 2024, a putative stockholder class action was filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The named plaintiff alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, on the basis that the defendants allegedly made false and misleading statements about the Company's business, results, internal controls, and accounting practices between May 3, 2019 and March 24, 2024. The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, a determination that the alleged claims may be asserted on a class-wide basis, unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, other expenses and costs. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on October 10, 2024. The motion was granted in part on January 6, 2025. It intends to continue to defend the lawsuit. Headquartered in Redwood City, CA, Equinix, Inc. is the largest publicly traded carrier-neutral data center hosting provider in the world with operations in 44 markets across the Americas, EMEA and Asia-Pacific. ESQUELETO HOME: Trippett Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Alfred Trippett, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Esqueleto Home, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01200 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 11, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for their 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 Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services Stadium Enterprises provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.shopesqueleto.com (hereinafter "Shopesqueleto.com" or "the website"). Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Shopesqueleto.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 Esqueleto Home's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Esqueleto Home provides to the public a website known as Shopesqueleto.com which provides consumers with access to view a variety of handcrafted jewelry including earrings, necklaces, rings, bracelets, as well as mugs, candles, rugs, and blankets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Phone: +1 347-941-4715 Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com FARADAY FUTURE: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vice Chancellor Lori W. Will of the Delaware Chancery Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in the consolidated case IN RE FARADAY FUTURE INTELLIGENT ELECTRIC INC. STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION, C.A. No. 2022-0845-LWW (Del. Ch.). This case concerns a 2021 de-SPAC transaction. Property Solutions Acquisition Corp. was incorporated in Delaware in February 2020. It was formed as a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) for the purpose of combining with a private company target in a de-SPAC transaction. After its IPO, Property Solutions searched for a business combination target. In the fall of 2020, it explored a potential transaction with FF Intelligent Mobility Global Holdings, Ltd. ("Legacy Faraday"), a private startup electric vehicle manufacturer. Property Solutions' board of directors approved a merger agreement, which was announced on Jan. 28, 2021. After stockholder approval, the de-SPAC merger closed on July 21, 2021. Unredeemed shares of Property Solutions stock were automatically "converted" into shares of Class A common stock in the combined company, which was renamed Faraday Future Intelligent Electric, Inc. ("Faraday"). The company's stock trades on NASDAQ. Stockholder Howard Cleveland asserts that the SPAC's sponsor and directors breached their fiduciary duties, with the assistance of various aiders and abettors, by impairing public stockholders' redemption rights. He also alleges that the transaction violated the SPAC's certificate of incorporation. The Zhou Action In December 2021, five months after the de-SPAC transaction closed, a Property Solutions stockholder filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the "Zhou Action"). Several near-identical complaints were filed in the same court and consolidated before the same judge. The federal court appointed lead plaintiffs and co-lead class counsel, who filed an amended complaint on May 6, 2022. Faraday and certain officers and directors were named as defendants. The federal complaint advanced six securities law claims based on purported misleading statements in the proxy, the announcement of the merger, and certain post-merger public filings. The core theory was that Property Solutions' disclosures misrepresented the value of Faraday. The federal plaintiffs alleged securities fraud in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Section 10(b) claim was brought on behalf of a class of public stockholders who bought stock after each of the challenged disclosures and incurred damages when the "truth was revealed" in April 2022. The federal complaint also included a claim under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. That claim concerned alleged material omissions in the proxy that impaired public stockholders' ability to exercise their redemption rights and vote on the merger. It was brought on behalf of a differently defined stockholder class: those who "beneficially owned and/or held" publicly traded Property Solutions stock and were entitled to redeem their shares and vote on the business combination. The defendants moved to dismiss the Zhou Action. The Section 14(a) claim survived the motion and a motion for reconsideration. Discovery ensued. The Delaware Action Weeks after the amended federal complaint was filed, another Faraday stockholder filed a putative class action in this court on June 14, 2022. It was followed by a second suit brought by William Cleveland on Sept. 21. On Jan. 5, 2023, Vice Chancellor Will consolidated these actions, appointed Cleveland lead plaintiff, and designated his Complaint as the operative pleading. Cleveland's Complaint names three defendants also named in the Zhou Action: Property Solutions (now Faraday), Jordan Vogel, and Aaron Feldman. It also names various parties who were not, including Property Solutions' legal and financial advisors Cleveland purports to represent former Property Solutions public stockholders entitled to vote on the merger and demand redemption of their shares. Cleveland's claims center on the business combination, purported impairment of public stockholders' redemption rights, and alleged disclosure deficiencies. As in the Zhou Action, one of his theories is that the proxy "deceived" Property Solutions' stockholders about "the valuation of [Legacy Faraday]." Count I is a breach of contract claim against the SPAC's sponsor and the individual defendants. Cleveland alleges that these defendants violated Article Sixth of Property Solutions' certificate of incorporation by failing to determine the fair market value of Legacy Faraday and issuing "improper and confusing" proxy instructions on how to exercise redemption rights. Count II is a breach of fiduciary duty claim against the sponsor and the individual defendants for approving the merger while allegedly flouting Article Sixth, making misleading and incomplete disclosures in the proxy, and relying on financial and legal advisors with undisclosed conflicts. Counts III, IV, V, and VI are aiding and abetting and civil conspiracy claims against Riverside, Deutsche Bank, Latham and stockholder FF Top Holding LLC for facilitating breaches of fiduciary duty that purportedly resulted in materially deficient proxy disclosures. On April 7, 2023, the defendants filed their respective motions to dismiss the Complaint. At the parties' request, the motion to dismiss hearing was adjourned so that it could be concurrently heard with the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Zhou Settlement and Cleveland's Objection The parties in the Zhou Action and in this action engaged in separate mediations, each with JAMS' Jed Melnick, during the summer of 2023. At first, neither mediation yielded a settlement. But the parties in the Zhou Action continued settlement discussions and eventually accepted a mediator's proposal to settle for $7.5 million. A motion for preliminary approval was filed in October, along with a stipulation of settlement (the "Zhou Stipulation"). On Nov. 7, the federal court preliminarily approved the settlement and form of notice to the settlement class; set deadlines for class claims, objections, opt-outs, and post-settlement motions; and scheduled a final approval hearing for March 18, 2024. On Feb. 12, 2024, a motion for final approval of the settlement and for certification of the settlement class was filed in the Zhou Action. On March 18, 2024, the federal court approved the proposed settlement and plan to allocate the settlement fund and certified the settlement class. Summary Judgment Two months later, the defendants in this action filed a motion for summary judgment. Cleveland opposed the motion. The primary dispute presented is whether Cleveland's claims are released by the settlement of the Zhou Action. The defendants seek summary judgment on two grounds. First, they assert that the Zhou Stipulation (and its releases) should be enforced against Cleveland and the class he purports to represent. Second, they argue that the doctrine of res judicata requires dismissal. In approving the settlement of the Zhou Action, the federal court held that the settlement and the court's final order and judgment were binding on all settlement class members. Cleveland argues that members of his proposed class may fall outside the Zhou settlement class. He contends that his proposed class is broader than the one in the Zhou Action because it includes not only former Property Solutions stockholders but also their "successors and assigns. The Court emphasizes that Cleveland's claims "arise out of" and "relate" to the allegations and transactions raised in the Zhou Action. The Zhou Action centers on Property Solutions' business combination with Legacy Faraday. Cleveland's claims are based on the same business combination. The Court says they assert harm from the same stockholder vote, the same proxy disclosures, and the same redemption rights provided by the same certificate of incorporation. According to the Court, a release can encompass claims "not specifically asserted" in a settled class action, including claims that might not have been presentable, if they arise from the "same identical factual predicate or the same set of operative facts as the underlying action. Vice Chancellor Will concludes that the plain language of the Zhou Stipulation binds Cleveland. It unambiguously precludes further prosecution of this action. Cleveland's efforts to anufacture a loophole to avoid enforcement are meritless. She holds that Cleveland's claims are barred by the Zhou Stipulation, as approved by the federal court. The defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted. The Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The motions to dismiss are moot. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p7hORv FCA US: Court Dismisses Claim in 1st Amended Maugain Complaint -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jennifer L. Hall of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware issued an order adopting report and recommendation granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss in the lawsuit styled ETIENNE MAUGAIN, et al., Plaintiffs v. FCA US LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00116-JLH-SRF (D. Del.). On Jan. 15, 2025, Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon issued a Report and Recommendation in this action, which recommended that the Court grant the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count III of Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint for Lack of Jurisdiction. No party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation pursuant to 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the prescribed period. Finding no clear error on the face of the record, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation, and grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count III of Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint for Lack of Jurisdiction. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2k4u5n49 from PacerMonitor.com. FOREVER NEW: Zelaya Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Laborers ----------------------------------------------------------------- JESUS ALBERTO ZELAYA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FOREVER NEW CONSTRUCTION INC., PANTELIS TSEKOS, and ANDREAS TSEKOS, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00416-ARR-RML (S.D.N.Y., January 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, fraudulent filing of information returns, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a laborer from August 2019 until May 2024. Forever New Construction Inc. is a general contracting services provider based in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1180 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 FREEDOM LASER: Bonham Files Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Freedom Laser Therapy, Inc. The case is styled as Amber Bonham, on behalf of herself, as a private attorney general, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Freedom Laser Therapy, Inc., Case No. 8:25-cv-00239-ADS (C.D. Cal., Feb. 7, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Freedom Laser -- http://www.freedomlasertherapy.com/--provides a low-level laser therapy procedure to help alleviate nicotine withdrawal symptoms.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Liana Vitale, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 979 Osos Street, Suite A5 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 505-9550 Email: liana@janove.law - and - Raphael Janove, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 500 7th Avenue, 8th Floor New York, NY 10018 Phone: (646) 347-3940 Fax: (347) 696-1227 Email: raphael@janove.law GATEHOUSE MEDIA: Ewalt Suit Removed to S.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as John Ewalt, Steve Wylie, and Bonnie Navarre, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. GATEHOUSE MEDIA OHIO HOLDINGS II, INC., d/b/a THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH, Case No. 19CV006859 was removed from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on Feb. 7, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00119-SDM-CMV. The removed case was styled: John Ewalt, et al., v. GateHouse Media Ohio Holdings II, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-04262 ("Ewalt I"). The Ewalt I case was litigated for years (including voluminous document discovery, depositions, and expert testimony), and involved a First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 42) and Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 181 (under seal); ECF No. 201-1, public version with redactions).[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Michael J. Zbiegien, Jr., Esq. Lynn Rowe Larsen, Esq. Daniel H. Bryan, Esq. TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP 200 Public Square, Suite 3500 Cleveland, OH 44114-2302 Phone: 216-241-2838 Facsimile: 216-241-3707 Email: mzbiegien@taftlaw.com llarsen@taftlaw.com dbryan@taftlaw.com - and - James D. Abrams, Esq. TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP 65 East State Street, Suite 1000 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: 614-221-2838 Facsimile: 614-221-2007 Email: jabrams@taftlaw.com GEICO: Seeks to Stay Class Certification Briefing ------------------------------------------------- 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 emergency motion to strike declarations of Ruairi McDonnell and Alex Couch and stay class certification briefing, or in the alternative to modify second amended scheduling order. 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 Feb. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NS7kJH at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Dan W. Goldfine, Esq. Jamie L. Halavais, Esq. Cameron C. Stanley, 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 GOOGLE LLC: Rabin Seek to Certify Class --------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE RABIN, CPA and IAN GRAVES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-04547-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on April 24, 2025, will move the Court for an order certifying a Class, defined infra at section II, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The Plaintiffs also move the Court to appoint them as Class representatives and to appoint Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following "Class": "All person or entities in the United States who: (a) signed up for the free version of Google Apps between Aug. 1, 2006 and Dec. 6, 2012; (b) were still Legacy Free Customers as of Jan. 19, 2022; (c) had at least one active user on their account during the 180 days prior to Jan. 19, 2022; and (d) did not "opt-out" prior to being charged for Workspace." Google specializes in internet related services and products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5srNlt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roger N. Heller, Esq. Annie M. Wanless, Esq. Daniel E. Seltz, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: rheller@lchb.com awanless@lchb.com dseltz@lchb.com - and - G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq. E. Adam Webb, Esq. WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC 1900 The Exchange S.E., Suite 480 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (770) 444-0773 Facsimile: (770) 217-9950 E-mail: Franklin@WebbLLC.com Adam@WebbLLC.com GOOGLE LLC: Rabin Seeks to Seal E-mails & Invoices Containing PII ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE RABIN, CPA and IAN GRAVES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-04547-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order granting their administrative motion to seal emails and invoices containing the Named Plaintiffs' personally identifiable information. Plaintiffs move the Court to allow the following Exhibits to the Motion for Class Certification to be filed under seal: Document Description Designating Party Exhibit 21 to the Redacted email containing Plaintiffs Joint Declaration personal plaintiff ISO of Motion for information, produced as Class Certification GRAVES000000129 Exhibit 22 to the Redacted email containing Plaintiffs Joint Declaration personal plaintiff ISO of Motion for information, produced as Class Certification GRAVES000000123 Exhibit 32 to the Redacted email containing Plaintiffs Joint Declaration personal plaintiff ISO of Motion for information, produced as Class Certification GRAVES000000032 The Plaintiffs seek to file redacted versions of documents containing the Named Plaintiffs’ personally identifying information, namely e-mail addresses and domain names. In today’s society, an e-mail address is synonymous with a person’s online identity. Public disclosure of an e-mail address can expose a person to online identity attacks, targeted fraudulent or spam mail, and possible harassment. The Plaintiffs have redacted only the email address or domain name from the messages and invoices in question; the rest of the document remains unsealed. Google specializes in internet related services and products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BBs6mV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roger N. Heller, Esq. Annie M. Wanless, Esq. Daniel E. Seltz, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: rheller@lchb.com awanless@lchb.com dseltz@lchb.com - and - G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq. E. Adam Webb, Esq. WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC 1900 The Exchange S.E., Suite 480 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (770) 444-0773 Facsimile: (770) 217-9950 E-mail: Franklin@WebbLLC.com Adam@WebbLLC.com GRASS FED WAGYU: Devereaux Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against GRASS FED WAGYU LLC, et al. The case is styled as Bruce Devereaux, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GRASS FED WAGYU LLC, SUSHI NOZAWA LLC, Case No. 25STCV03765 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 7, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung Lyun Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S Grand Ave., Ste. 1450 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3152 Phone: 213-985-1150 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com GREEN THUMB: Mellor Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Lindsey Mellor, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. GREEN THUMB INDUSTRIES, INC.; GTI ROCK ISLAND, LLC; GTI OGLESBY, LLC; GTI-CLINIC ILLINOIS HOLDINGS, LLC; GTI ROCK ISLAND PARTNERS, LLC; GTI MUNDELEIN PARTNERS, LLC; GTI MUNDELEIN, LLC; GTI-3C, LLC; GTI MUNDELEIN PARTNERS II, LLC; GTI OGLESBY PARTNERS II, LLC; VCP23, LLC; and GTI23, INC., Case No. 2025CH00186 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County Department, Chancery Division, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 10, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01411. The Complaint alleges that "Plaintiff and other members of the Class were harmed in the full amount of the monies paid for the Vapable Oils purchased." Plaintiff alleges that she purchased one of the products for approximately $46. The Complaint further alleges that "the total sales of Vapable Oils during the applicable statutory period are in the tens of millions and there are thousands of proposed class members."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie Holz, Esq. Laura Luisi, Esq. LUISI HOLZ LAW 161 N Clark St, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60601 Email: LuisiL@luisiholzlaw.com HolzJ@luisiholzlaw.com - and - Eugene Turin, Esq. Paul T. Geske, Esq. Joseph M. Dunklin, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W Wacker Dr, 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Email: eturin@mcgpc.com pgeske@mcgpc.com jdunklin@mcgpc.com The Defendant is represented by: Joseph Collins, Esq. William Bogot, Esq. FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP 321 N Clark St, Suite 1600 Chicago, Illinois 60654 Phone: 312-517-9200 Email: jcollins@foxrothschild.com wbogot@foxrothschild.com GSW ARENA LLC: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against GSW ARENA LLC, et al. The case is styled as Janette Garcia, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GSW ARENA LLC, DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC25622240 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Feb. 10, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." GSW Arena LLC, an affiliate of Golden State Warriors, LLC, which owns and operates the Golden State Warriors National Basketball Association team.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP 515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316 Phone: 213-488-6555 Fax: 213-488-6554 Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com - and - William L. Marder, Esq. POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP 501 San Benito St. Ste. 200 Hollister, CA 95023-3903 Phone: 831-531-4214 Fax: 831-634-0333 Email: bill@polarislawgroup.com GXO LOGISTICS: Cardenas Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Diana Cardenas, Luis Ramirez, individuals, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, aggrieved employees and the State of California as Private Attorney General v. GXO LOGISTICS SUPPLY CHAIN, INC., FKA XPO LOGISTICS SUPPLY CHAIN., INC., GXO LOGISTICS, INC.; AND DOES 1 TO 50, Case No. 24STCV15461 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 7, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01095. On September 9, 2024, Plaintiffs unilaterally filed the FAC, adding causes of action for a failure to produce personnel records, failure to produce signed records, and claims arising under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"). The Plaintiffs' FAC asserts failure to: pay all wages including minimum and overtime wages; provide meal periods; provide rest periods; provide recovery periods; produce wage statements; produce personnel records; produce signed records; provide accurate itemized wage statements; pay waiting time penalties; reimburse necessary business expenditures; and violation of California's quota laws. The Plaintiffs also allege unfair business practices and seek enforcement of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA").[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Tim L. Johnson, Esq. Jesse C. Ferrantella, Esq. Cameron O. Flynn, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: 858-652-3100 Facsimile: 858-652-3101 Email: tim.johnson@ogletree.com jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com cameron.flynn@ogletree.com HALLMARK HEALTH: Muhammad Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lasanya Muhammad, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HALLMARK HEALTH CARE SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-10344 (D. Mass., Feb. 10, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as a result od the Defendant failure to pay overtime wages. The Defendant required Plaintiff to work more than forty hours in a workweek without overtime pay. Unfortunately, Defendant misclassified Plaintiff as exempt from overtime under the FLSA, and denied her pay at the rate of time and one-half her regular rate of pay when she worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. In addition to the Plaintiff, Defendant has misclassified hundreds of other workers as exempt from overtime, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a customer service worker from April 2022 to November 2024. The Defendant is a software company that sells various products to health systems, hospitals, LTC facilities, staffi ng agencies and other companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arnold. J. Lizana, III, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ARNOLD J. LIZANA III, P.C. 1350 Main Street, Suite 302 Springfield, MA 01103 Phone: (877) 443-0999 Email: alizana@attorneylizana.com - and - Don J. Foty, Esq. 5625 Cohn Meadow Lane Houston, TX 77007 Phone: (832) 510 9950 Email: dfoty@fotylawgroup.com HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT: Scott Suit Transferred to N.D. West Virginia ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Darryl Scott, and others similarly situated v. Healthcare Management Solutions, LLC, ASRC Federal Data Solutions, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-04658 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia on Feb. 10, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00012-TSK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. Healthcare Management Solutions, LLC -- https://hcmsllc.com/ -- is focused on ensuring the quality of care and services for federal and state agencies in the areas of technology and healthcare.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amber Love Schubert, Esq. Daniel Pulgram, Esq. Robert C. Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union St Ste 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Phone: (415) 788-4220 Fax: (415) 788-0161 Email: aschubert@sjk.law dpulgram@sjk.law rschubert@sjk.law The Defendants are represented by: Chardaie Charlemagne, Esq. BAKERHOSTETLER 600 Montgomery Street Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 659-2662 Email: ccharlemagne@bakerlaw.com - and - Ashley Lynn Shively, Esq. Rebecca Durham, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 560 Mission Street, Ste. 19th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 743-6900 Email: ashley.shively@hklaw.com rebecca.durham@hklaw.com HEIDI WASHINGTON: Cortez Suit Transferred to W.D. Michigan ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Burton David Cortez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Heidi Washington, MDOC Director; Jeffery Howard, Warden; Robin Voorhees, Grievance Coordinator; Kirt Vahar, Mailroom staff; Shannon Jones, Mailroom staff Case No. 2:25-cv-10226 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan on Feb. 7, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00025-MV to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. Heidi E. Washington has served as the director of the Michigan Department of Corrections since July 2015.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. HOLLIS COBB: Watson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hollis Cobb Associates, Inc. The case is styled as Shante Watson, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Hollis Cobb Associates, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00682-SEG (N.D. Ga., Feb. 11, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Hollis Cobb Associates, Inc. -- https://www.holliscobb.com/ -- provides revenue recovery services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tristan Wade Gillespie, Esq. 600 Blakenham Court Johns Creek, GA 30022 Phone: (404) 276-7277 Email: gillespie.tristan@gmail.com HOSANNA HOME: Nunez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Billing Clerks -------------------------------------------------------------- ROSANNA NUNEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOSANNA HOME CARE SERVICES, INC., and LILLIAN ROSARIO, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-20639 (S.D. Fla., February 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, and retaliatory discharge. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a billing clerk from approximately January 20, 2020, to July 22, 2023. Hosanna Home Care Services, Inc. is a full-service healthcare agency in 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 HP INC: N.D. California Dismisses Hutchins' 1st Amended Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, grants the motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's first amended class action complaint in the lawsuit titled PAUL HUTCHINS, Plaintiff v. HP INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-05875-BLF (N.D. Cal.). Judge Freeman notes that this is Defendant HP Inc.'s ("HP") second effort to dismiss this putative class action regarding certain of its obligations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). Plaintiff Paul Hutchins alleges that HP breached its fiduciary duties and engaged in self-dealing in violation of ERISA when it decided to use 401(k) Plan "forfeitures" to reduce employer contributions rather than to pay administrative costs. Following the Court's grant of HP's first motion to dismiss, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint and HP moved once again for dismissal. The Plaintiff opposes the motion, and the Defendant filed a reply in support of the motion. The Court held a hearing on Dec. 19, 2024. HP Inc. is an information technology company headquartered in Palo Alto, California. The Plaintiff is a former employee of HP and a participant in HP's 401(k) Plan (the "Plan"). The Plan is a defined contribution, individual account, employee pension benefit plan under 29 U.S.C. Sections 1002(2)(A) and 1002(34). The The Plan is subject to the provisions of ERISA pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 1003(a). The Plan is funded by wage withholdings from Plan participants, as well as matching contributions from HP, both of which are deposited into a Plan trust fund. HP matches the first 4 percent of eligible earnings that a participant contributes each pay period at 100 percent, and HP is required to pay all matching contributions that have accrued through a given calendar year as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of that calendar year. Plan expenses are paid from assets in the Plan and charged to participants' accounts unless HP decides otherwise. HP's contributions are subject to a three-year cliff vesting schedule, in which a participant, who stays employed by HP for three years becomes 100 percent vested in employer contributions in the participant's account. If a participant experiences a "break in service" prior to this full vesting of HP's matching contributions, the participant forfeits the balance of HP's unvested matching contributions in the individual's Plan account. HP then has control over how those forfeited matching contributions are used, with the Plan indicating that forfeited amounts may be used to "reduce employer contributions, to restore benefits previously forfeited, to pay Plan expenses, or for any other permitted use." Unless HP allocates forfeitures to pay Plan expenses, those administrative expenses are charged to Plan participants' accounts. The Plaintiff alleges that, during the class period alleged in the First Amended Class Action Complaint, each participant's account was charged "a fixed amount of $34 per year for recordkeeping services." The Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on Nov. 14, 2023. Following a May 9, 2024 hearing, the Court granted HP's motion to dismiss with leave to amend ("MTD Order"). On July 17, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint against Defendant HP Inc. and Does 1–10. In the First Amended Class Action Complaint, the Plaintiff brings three claims under ERISA: (1) breach of the fiduciary duty of loyalty; (2) breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence; and (3) self-dealing. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of participants and beneficiaries of the Plan in challenging the Defendants' use of the forfeited funds. Once again, Judge Freeman says, the Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of certain excerpts from the Plan's Form 5500 filings with the Department of Labor for plan years 2018 through 2022. For the same reasons stated in the MTD Order--that they are matters of public record not subject to reasonable dispute and of which courts in this district routinely take judicial notice--the Court again takes judicial notice of the Plan's Form 5500 filings. The Court does not take notice of the truth of any of the facts asserted in these documents. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for judicial notice is granted. Likewise, the Defendants again note that the Court may consider the HP Inc. 401(k) Plan, As Amended and Restated Jan. 1, 2017, under the incorporation by reference doctrine. The Court will consider this document as incorporated by reference into the First Amended Class Action Complaint for the same reasons previously stated in the MTD Order: that it forms the basis of the Plaintiff's claims and no party contests its authenticity. The Court's Order on HP's earlier motion to dismiss resolved in the Plaintiff's favor the question of whether he had adequately alleged that the Defendant was acting as a fiduciary when it allocated forfeited amounts, and the Court does not revisit that ruling now. This order is, therefore, focused only on whether the Plaintiff has adequately alleged that HP breached its fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence, and whether the Plaintiff has adequately alleged that HP engaged in self-dealing. Before addressing each of the Plaintiff's claims directly, HP presents two overarching arguments: First, that the Plaintiff is seeking a categorical increase in benefits provided under the Plan; and second, that his arguments ignore decades of settled law allowing defined contribution plans to use forfeitures exactly as HP did. The Plaintiff disputes both arguments. The Court agrees with HP on both points. Judge Freeman opines that nothing in ERISA requires employers to establish employee benefits plans, and ERISA does not specifically mandate what kind of benefits employers must provide if they choose to have such a plan. Rather, ERISA seeks to ensure that employees will not be left empty-handed once employers have guaranteed them certain benefits. The Court acknowledges the Plaintiff's argument that, in structuring the Plan as it did, HP assigned the decision of how reallocate forfeited contributions to the Plan administrator as fiduciary, thereby, guaranteeing to Plan participants that the decision would be made pursuant to fiduciary obligations. Judge Freeman says the Plaintiff seeks both to stretch the fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence beyond the law and to create benefits beyond what was promised in the Plan itself. The Court cannot agree with such a far-reaching theory, and further, the Plaintiff has still not come forward with any intervening changes in the law or any particularized facts justifying departure from the settled rules regarding use of forfeitures in defined contribution plans. In this second motion to dismiss, HP again argues that the Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege a breach of ERISA's duty of loyalty, because HP acted in accordance with ERISA when it used forfeitures to provide benefits to participants. Judge Freeman holds that the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Breach of Fiduciary Duty of Loyalty claim is granted. Having already provided the Plaintiff with an opportunity to amend this claim, the Court finds that a further opportunity to amend is not appropriate and would be prejudicial to the Defendant. Thus, Claim One is dismissed without leave to amend. HP's argument in favor of dismissal of the Plaintiff's second claim in the First Amended Class Action Complaint parallels the arguments from the first motion to dismiss. Specifically, HP says that the Plaintiff's claim suggests that ERISA effectively allows only one choice: use forfeitures to increase the Plaintiff's benefits through payment of administrative costs--despite the fact that the statute and the Plan both expressly permit use of forfeited amounts to reduce employer contributions. The Court dismissed the Plaintiff's original Complaint because it evinced an implausible breadth and was in tension with the Supreme Court's emphasis that the plausibility of allegations of breach of fiduciary duty should consider the context and circumstances of the fiduciary's actions. Judge Freeman points out that the Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint has failed to address those concerns. The problem, once again, is that the facts as alleged do not invite a plausible inference of wrongdoing on HP's part, Judge Freeman holds. In this case, the Plaintiff does not--and apparently cannot--allege that he or any other Plan participant did not receive the benefits to which he was entitled under the Plan. Thus, Judge Freeman says, the Plaintiff fails to plausibly allege that a "proper" investigation would have led to a different outcome. Judge Freeman opines that the Plaintiff ignores that he is only entitled to the benefits provided under the Plan and that Plan Section 17(b) reserves to HP, as settlor, the decision to defray administrative costs borne by Plan participants. The Plan cannot fairly be read to delegate the decision over whether to increase benefits to the fiduciary. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint still fails to state a plausible claim for Breach of Fiduciary Duty of Prudence, and the Defendant's motion to dismiss the claim is granted. For the same reason stated with regard to Claim One, Claim Two is dismissed without leave to amend. HP also seeks dismissal of the Plaintiff's third claim by arguing that he still fails to identify a "transaction" that would bring the facts of this case within the ambit of ERISA's prohibited transaction provisions. The Plaintiff responds that HP's argument improperly imports the "transaction" requirement of section 1106(a) into 1106(b), which is actually broader in scope and proscribes self-dealing and certain transactions by fiduciaries. The Court rejects the Plaintiff's argument that section 1106(b) can apply even to nontransactional "dealing" with account assets. Therefore, since the Plaintiff still cannot identify a "transaction" under section 1106, the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim. The Defendant's motion to dismiss Claim Three is granted. For the same reason stated with regard to Claim One, Judge Freeman holds that Claim Three is dismissed without leave to amend. For these reasons, the Court rules that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Claim One (Breach of Fiduciary Duty of Loyalty) is granted. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Claim Two (Breach of Fiduciary Duty of Prudence) is granted. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Claim Three (Self-Dealing) is granted. The First Amended Class Action Complaint is dismissed without leave to amend. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr4crm28 from PacerMonitor.com. HPC INDUSTRIAL: Court Consolidates Two Wage Class Actions --------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Christopher Baker of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California consolidated the following cases under Rule 42(a): a. The lead case, Travis Longley v. HPC Industrial Services, LLC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00860-KES-CDB; b. Derek Moss, et al. v. HPC Industrial Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv01479-KES-CDB. On June 17, 2024, Plaintiff Travis Longley filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Kern, case number BCV-24-102044, that was removed to this Court on July 25, 2024. On March 18, 2024, Plaintiff Derek Moss filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, case number 24-STCV06730, that was removed to this Court on May 6, 2024. On Feb. 14, 2025, the Longley and Moss parties filed a join status report. Therein, the Longley and Moss parties represent that they are not necessarily opposed to consolidation but deem it to be unnecessary at this juncture. Based on its review of the pleadings in both actions, the Court finds there are significant and substantial common issues of fact and law that warrant consolidation under Rule 42(a) and Local Rule 123. The Court notes that both actions assert substantially similar facts, arising out of Defendant HPC's failure to pay all straight and overtime wages, failure to provide lawful meal and rest periods, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse employees for business expenses and illegal deductions, failure to adopt a compliant sick/paid time off policy, and other claims in violation of the rights of Plaintiffs and a putative class of hourly, non-exempt employees. Both actions seek certification of a putative class. In addition to a common defendant in HPC Industrial Services, LLC, it appears to the Court that these two putative wage-and-hour actions share common questions of fact and law, with both actions asserting similar causes of action, all of which arise out of the California Labor Code and California's Unfair Competition Law. According to the Court, the relief requested in both complaints is substantially similar. Currently, both actions are in a similar procedural posture, with the initial scheduling conference pending in each. Counsel for Defendants is identical in both actions. Presently, the parties in both actions have proposed discovery and briefing schedules for the anticipated motion for class certification. The Court concludes the benefit of consolidation would reduce the burden on judicial resources, the parties, and any potential witnesses, eliminate the risk of inconsistent adjudications, avoid prejudice, and allow for the orderly and expeditious resolution of all cases. All further filings in this consolidated action shall be made in lead case Travis Longley v. HPC Industrial Services, LLC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00860-KES-CDB. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close member case Derek Moss, et al. v. HPC Industrial Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01479-KES-CDB. The parties must appear via Zoom videoconference for a scheduling conference in this consolidated action on Feb. 25, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lTthXA from PacerMonitor.com. HUMAN BEES INC: Reyes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Human Bees, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Silviano Reyes, an individual and class representative on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated non-exempt former and current employees v. Human Bees, Inc., Yosemite Foods Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0002191 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Feb. 11, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Human Bees -- https://humanbees.com/ -- is a recruiting company specialized in placing engineers, IT professionals and manufacturing personnel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shoham J. Solouki, Esq. SOLOUKI | SAVOY, LLP 316 W 2nd St., Ste. 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90012-3537 Phone: 213-814-4940 Fax: 213-814-2550 Email: shoham@soloukisavoy.com ILLUMINA INC: Hearing on Securities Class Suit Set for June 20 -------------------------------------------------------------- Illumina Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 29, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2025, that the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo has set hearing for consolidated securities class suit on June 20, 2025. On February 2, 2024, the first of two additional securities class actions was filed against Illumina, certain of its officers and directors, and several other individuals and entities in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, captioned Loren Scott Mar v. Illumina, et al. and Scott Zerzanek v. Illumina, Inc. et al. Both complaints generally allege, among other things, that defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omitted material facts in the November 2020 and February 2021 registration statements and prospectus relating to Illumina's acquisition of GRAIL. The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, fees, and costs. On March 29, 2024, the parties to the actions filed a Joint Stipulation to Consolidate the actions and to appoint co-lead counsel for plaintiffs, which the Court granted on April 5, 2024. On August 12, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint. On September 6, 2024, Illumina and the other named defendants filed a motion to stay the litigation. On October 4, 2024, the plaintiffs opposed the motion to stay. At a hearing held on December 6, 2024, the Court declined to stay the litigation. The defendants' demurrer is due February 28, 2025. Plaintiffs' oppositions to the demurrer are due April 30, 2025, and defendants’ final reply briefs are due May 30, 2025. A hearing is set for June 20, 2025. Illumina is a genetic and genomic analysis company with a portfolio of integrated sequencing and microarray systems, consumables, and analysis tools designed to accelerate and simplify genetic analysis.[BN] INFLUX MARKETING: Giovannie Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Influx Marketing, LLC. The case is styled as Edward Giovannie, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Influx Marketing, LLC, Case No. 25STCV03666 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 10, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Influx Marketing -- https://www.influxmarketing.com/ -- is a leading medical marketing company focused on custom web design and medical practice marketing for doctors, surgeons and medical spas.[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 INSURGENT BRANDS: Wohl & Castellanos Sues Over False Product Label ------------------------------------------------------------------ MELANIE WOHL and ELENO CASTELLANOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. INSURGENT BRANDS LLC D/B/A RXBAR and KELLANOVA, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01275 (N.D. Ill., February 5, 2025) arises from Defendants' false representations of their protein bars. Based on Defendants' marketing and labeling of their protein bars, consumers are led to believe these products contain only whole ingredients. However, the said products contain highly processed ingredients such as natural flavoring or other additives. These highly processed ingredients are not listed on the front label of the products nor does Defendants disclose to the public what hidden sub-ingredients its “natural flavors” is comprised of. Through falsely, misleadingly, and deceptively labeling, advertising and marketing the products, Defendants have sought to take advantage of unwitting consumers, as well as Defendants' lawfully acting competitors, over whom Defendants maintain an unfair competitive advantage. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now seek redress for Defendants' unlawful conduct and assert claims for breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, unfair prong, and for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and of the New York General Business Law. Headquartered in Cook County, Illinois, Insurgent Brands, LLC manufactures and distributes protein snacks. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carey Alexander, Esq. Samuel M. Gagnon, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 260 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (646) 290-6009 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: calexander@clarksonlawfirm.com sgagnon@clarksonlawfirm.com - and - Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Hwy Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com INTEGRATED CONSULTING: Holloway Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- John C. Holloway, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. INTEGRATED CONSULTING & INSPECTION INTERNATIONAL, LLC, TABLEROCK LAND SERVICES, LLC, PETER WOODY, RUTHANN SPARROW, MICHAEL MCCROSKEY and TIM GLASS, Case No. 7:25-cv-00068 (W.D. Tex., Feb. 10, 2025), is brought to recover back wages, including overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). The Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff worked in excess of forty hours per week. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff for the hours he worked in excess of forty per week "at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he was employed." Instead, Defendants paid Plaintiff a flat sum for each day's work regardless of the number of hours he worked in a workweek. (day-rate workers entitled to additional overtime premium). In other words, the Defendants paid the Plaintiff for his overtime at a rate less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he was employed in violation of the FLSA. The Plaintiff was not exempt from the maximum hour requirements of the FLSA. The Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff was not exempt from the maximum hour requirements of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a Constructability Coordinator/Chief Inspector from August 2019 through October 2024. ICII and Tablerock is a staffing agency specializing in placement in planning, construction and management of any oil and gas venture.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 1110 Houston, TX 77002-1063 Phone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 Email: melissa@mooreandassociates.net curt@mooreandassociates.net INTRASYSTEMS LLC: Sued Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI ---------------------------------------------------------- Paul Brennsteiner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INTRASYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-10350-AK (D. Mass., Feb. 11, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former patients' ("Class Members," defined infra) sensitive information, including personally identifiable information ("PII") like names, addresses, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers, and protected health information ("PHI") like health insurance information, treatments/procedures, date(s) of service, prescription information, and medical device serial number (PHI and PII together, "Private Information"). By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. On January 17, 2025, AHN announced that Defendant which managed systems for Defendant's Home Medical Equipment and Home Infusion services, had been accessed by an unauthorized third party ("Data Breach"). The Private Information of 293,900 of individuals is believed to have been exposed by the Data Breach. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect its patients' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided, through AHN, Private Information to Defendant in connection with its provision of IT services to AHN (and Defendant's other customers). The Defendant is a Massachusetts-based, third-party IT firm contracted to host, manage, and secure computer systems for its clients,2 including for Pennsylvania-based health network Allegheny Health Network ("AHN"). The Plaintiff is represented by: Randi Kassan, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (212) 594-5300 Email: rkassan@milberg.com - and - Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq. Andrea L. Bonner, Esq. SHUB & JOHNS LLC Four Tower Bridge 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (610) 477-8380 Email: bjohns@shublawyers.com sholbrook@shublawyers.com abonner@shublawyers.com INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------- Intuitive Surgical, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 31, 2025, that it is facing a consolidated class action captioned "In Re: da Vinci Surgical Robot Antitrust Litigation." On January 23, 2025, the court held a hearing on plaintiff's motion for class certification, on which the court has not yet issued a ruling. Three class action complaints were filed against the company in the Northern District of California Court alleging antitrust allegations relating to the service and repair of certain instruments manufactured by the company. A complaint by Larkin Community Hospital was filed on May 20, 2021, a complaint by Franciscan Alliance, Inc. and King County Public Hospital District No. 1 was filed on July 6, 2021, and a complaint by Kaleida Health was filed on July 8, 2021. The court has consolidated the Franciscan Alliance, Inc. and King County Public Hospital District No. 1 and Kaleida Health cases with the Larkin Community Hospital case, which is now a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint been filed on behalf of each plaintiff named in the earlier-filed cases. On January 14, 2022, Kaleida Health voluntarily dismissed itself as a party to this case. On January 18, 2022, the company filed an answer against the plaintiffs in this matter, and discovery has commenced. With regard to this class action case, on September 7, 2023, the court heard argument on the parties' respective motions for summary judgment and motions related to expert testimony. On March 31, 2024, the court granted-in-part and denied-in-part plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on certain market definition issues, and denied Intuitive's motion on the antitrust claims. In denying Intuitive's motion, the court declined to decide whether third-party companies were required to obtain 510(k) clearance for their services with respect to its "EndoWrists," and in the absence of a formal ruling from the FDA on that question denied Intuitive's motion for summary judgment challenging plaintiffs' standing on that ground. There were additional rulings on the expert witness issues as well. In the summary judgment order, the court ruled with plaintiffs that the da Vinci robot and EndoWrist instruments occupy separate product markets for antitrust purposes. The court also ruled that there is an antitrust aftermarket for the repair and replacement of EndoWrist instruments, and that Intuitive holds monopoly power in that aftermarket. The court denied summary judgment for plaintiffs on the issue of whether soft-tissue surgical robots constitute a relevant antitrust market or are part of a larger market that includes laparoscopic and open surgery for antitrust purposes. On July 30, 2024, the court granted Intuitive’s motion for reconsideration, vacating those portions of the Court’s March 31, 2024 Order granting summary judgment as to the definition of a U.S. market for EndoWrist repair and replacement and Intuitive’s market power in such a market. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets da Vinci (R) surgical systems and the Ion (R) endoluminal system based in California. IQVIA INC: Parties Must File Supplemental Briefs by Feb. 28 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN J. LYNGAAS, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., v. IQVIA, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-02370-NIQA (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Nitza Quiñones Alejandro entered an order that the parties shall file supplemental briefs regarding the applicability, if any, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's decision in Steven A. Conner DPM, P.C. v. Fox Rehab. Servs., Case No. 23-1550. The supplemental briefs shall be filed by Feb. 28, 2025, and any response to the briefs shall be filed within ten (10) days after service of the briefs. IQVIA is a provider of biopharmaceutical development, professional consulting and commercial outsourcing services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZiXEhg at no extra charge.[CC] JEROME LAUNDRY: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Antonia Ramirez, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees v. JEROME LAUNDRY MART, INC., DAOUD ABUKHADER and ANAS ABUKHADER, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-01259 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 12, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") as recently amended by the Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA"), seeking monetary relief, statutory damages, and other remedies for Defendants' systematic violations of federal and state wage and hour laws, including but not limited to, unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation. The Defendants were required, under relevant New York State law, to compensate Plaintiff with overtime pay at one and one-half the regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours per work week. However, despite such mandatory pay obligations, Defendants willfully only compensated Plaintiff at a rate of $10 per hour and failed to pay Plaintiff her lawful overtime pay for that period from January 20, 2020, until December 13, 2024. During this period, Plaintiff worked well in excess of 40 hours per workweek, as determined by the work schedule set by Defendants. The Defendants regularly exercised their authority to require Plaintiff to work additional hours beyond her scheduled work hours without providing the requisite overtime compensation. This included instances from January 20, 2020, until December 13, 2024, where the Plaintiff was required to work 48 to 42 hours without receiving appropriate overtime pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by JEROME LAUNDRY MART, INC. The Defendants owned and operated JEROME LAUNDRY MART, INC., a corporate entity principally engaged in Bronx, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12t Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 203-2417 Web: www.StillmanLegalPC.com JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Faces Torres Disability Discrimination Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTOPHER TORRES, Plaintiff v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00634 (E.D.N.Y., February 5, 2025) seeks to remedy JetBlue's systematic discriminatory policy of refusing to consider reasonable accommodations for disabled employees. Plaintiff Torres, who has his arm amputated below the elbow, had been working for JetBlue for a year without problems. However, Plaintiff just needed help with the occasional, 5-minute task of independently opening and closing the aircraft door during certain shifts. When, however, he was made to request the accommodation formally through JetBlue's central office, JetBlue refused to consider it. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action, on behalf of himself and on behalf of JetBlue's other disabled employees in New York, to remedy violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the Administrative Code of the City of New York. Headquartered in Long Island City, Queens, NY, JetBlue Airways offers flights and vacation packages to domestic and international network destinations. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maia Goodell, Esq. VLADECK, RASKIN & CLARK, P.C. 111 Broadway, Suite 1505 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 403-7300 KINDEVA DRUG DELIVERY: Shenghur Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kindeva Drug Delivery L.P., et al. The case is styled as Waheedullah Shenghur, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Kindeva Drug Delivery L.P., CASTILLO VERONICA, Case No. 25STCV03865 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 11, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Kindeva -- https://www.kindevadd.com/ -- is a global force in drug delivery, offering innovative, comprehensive contract development and manufacturing solutions for partners around the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com KKFC LLC: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, v. KKFC LLC; and KRISPY KREME DOUGHNUT CORPORATION d/b/a KRISPY KREME, Case No. 1:25-cv-20565 (S.D. Fla., Feb. 6, 2024) is an action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 12181, et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act. On Dec. 2, 2024, the Individual Plaintiff visited the Commercial Property and business located within the Commercial Property, and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the Commercial Property. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and business located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and business within, have each denied or diminished the Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA, the suit alleges. The barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of injury, embarrassment, and discomfort to the Plaintiff and others similarly situated, the suit adds. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, the Plaintiff asserts. Plaintiff Pardo is an individual with disabilities as defined by and pursuant to the ADA. He uses a wheelchair to ambulate. He is limited in his major life activities by such, including walking, standing, grabbing, grasping and/or pinching. KKFC owned and operated a commercial property at 32999 South Dixie Highway, Florida City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Armando Mejias, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, Fl 33134 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 E-mail: amejias@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 E-mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com LANE BRYANT: Class Settlement in Cole Suit Denied Prelim. Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge P. Casey Pitts of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied the plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement in the employment lawsuit captioned as SHANIA COLE, Plaintiff, v. LANE BRYANT, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-06714-PCP (N.D. Calif.) without prejudice. Cole was a stylist for Lane Bryant from approximately June 2021 to June 2022. She worked three to four days per week for four to six hours per day greeting customers, assisting customers with shopping needs, cleaning the store, disinfecting fitting rooms, and cashiering. In the operative September 2022 complaint, Cole asserted violations of various California labor laws. She alleges that Lane Bryant failed to pay minimum wages earned, failed to provide compliant rest and meal breaks, failed to provide accurate wage statements, failed to timely pay wages upon termination, willfully failed to pay wages, and engaged in unlawful and unfair business practices. She filed a notice letter with the Labor and Workforce Development Agency on Oct. 10, 2022 alleging various Labor Code violations by Lane Bryant. After the operative complaint was filed, the parties engaged in discovery and one round of mediation, on Oct. 27, 2023, before reaching the proposed settlement. The parties entered into a signed memorandum of understanding on Oct. 27, 2023. On Oct. 10, 2024, the parties jointly moved to amend Cole's complaint to add (1) a claim under California's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), and (2) an additional California labor law claim based on unpaid overtime. On the same date, the parties also moved for preliminary approval of a class action and PAGA settlement, conditional certification of the settlement classes, appointment of class representatives and counsel, and approval of class notices. Under the terms of the settlement, defendant will contribute a total gross amount of $1,150,000. The parties propose allocating $10,000 of that amount as an incentive payment to Cole; $646,666.67 to the class members; $15,000 to the aggrieved employees; $45,000 to the Labor & Workforce Development Agency (LWDA); $383,333.33 to attorney's fees and $25,000 to attorney's expenses; and $25,000 to settlement administration costs. Cole requests certification of a class including any person who worked for Lane Bryant as a non-exempt, hourly employee in the State of California at any time from Jan.1, 2021, through and including the earlier of: (i) January 25, 2024 or (ii) the Date of Preliminary Approval, and who does not timely opt-out of the Settlement. The settlement defines "PAGA Members" to include any person who worked for Lane Bryant as a non-exempt, hourly employee in California at any time from August 22, 2022, through the earlier of: (i) January 25, 2024 or (ii) the Date of Preliminary Approval. For individuals who are within the class and do not opt out, the proposed settlement includes a release of all federal and state law claims that were or could have been pleaded based on the factual allegations in the first amended complaint or any prior complaint. The aggrieved employees are required to release all claims under PAGA for all California Labor Code violations that were pleaded in the first amended complaint or any prior complaint. There are approximately 1,435 Class Members and approximately 850 PAGA Members. All PAGA Members are also Class Members. Plaintiff predicts the opt-out rate to be less than 3% and expects the average net recovery to be approximately $470. The parties plan to allocate $60,000 from the Gross Settlement Amount for resolution of the PAGA claim based on their estimate that the defendant's potential PAGA exposure is approximately $3,500,000 (35,000 violative pay periods × $100). The parties, however, have artificially lowered the total potential value of the PAGA claim by not including the $200 subsequent violation penalty. According to the Court, because it omits any penalties for "subsequent" violations, plaintiffs' estimate of Lane Bryant's total potential PAGA exposure is incorrect. If properly calculated with the $200 subsequent violation fees, the proposed settlement represents under 1% of the total potential value of the PAGA claim, the Court finds. Beyond noting that the LWDA has not yet objected to the settlement, the parties have not addressed whether the other relevant factors warrant approval of a PAGA settlement representing less than 1% of the total claim value -- likely due to their erroneous calculation of the claim's potential value. Without further information regarding these factors the Court cannot determine whether the parties' settlement of the PAGA claim warrants preliminary approval. The Court's inability to evaluate the propriety of the PAGA claim settlement precludes it from approving any other aspect of the settlement. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JUlKDF from PacerMonitor.com. LEVI STRAUSS: Casillas Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Miltita Casillas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LEVI STRAUSS & CO., a Delaware entity, d/b/a WWW.LEVI.COM, Case No. 25CU000499C was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on Feb. 7, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00291-H-DDL. The Complaint in this action alleges that Defendant has violated California Business & Professions Code section 17501, et seq., and the putative class who could recover includes any consumer who "purchased one or more of Defendant's products from Defendant's Website within the statute of limitations period at a purported discount from a higher reference price."[BN] The Defendant is represented by: P. Craig Cardon, Esq. Alyssa Sones, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6017 Phone: (310) 228-3700 Facsimile: (310) 228-3701 Email: ccardon@sheppardmullin.com asones@sheppardmullin.com - and - Dane C. Brody Chanove, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 12275 El Camino Real, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92130-4092 Phone: (858) 720-8900 Facsimile: (858) 509-3691 Email: dbrodychanove@sheppardmullin.com LID GROUP: Adams Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Nyesha Adams, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. LID GROUP LLC d/b/a EMPIRE RESTAURANT AND LOUNGE, a Georgia Domestic Limited Liability Company, and ADEDAYO ADEDOTUN, an individual, Case No. 1:25-cv-00677-LMM (N.D. Ga., Feb. 11, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as amended by the Tip Income Protection Act of 2018 ("TIPA"), as a result of Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs the minimum wage and overtime wages as required by federal law. Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, including "kick-backs," liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The essence of Plaintiffs' claims are that Defendants: misclassified Plaintiffs as independent contractors rather than employees; failed to pay them at least the federal minimum wage for each hour they worked; failed to pay them at least one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for each hour they worked over 40 hours in a given workweek, constituting a violation of the overtime wage provisions of the FLSA; and seized their tips in violation of TIPA and the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff have been employed by the Defendants from February 2024 to January 2025. LID Group LLC d/b/a Empire Restaurant And Lounge is a Georgia Domestic Profit Corporation with its principal place of business and principal office address located in Snellville, Georgia.[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 Phone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 Email: cleach@theleachfirm.com jrose@theleachfirm.com ppalmer@theleachfirm.com LITTLE CAESAR: Dennany Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Bradley Dennany, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-10384-RJW-APP (E.D. Mich., Feb. 10, 2025), is brought challenges policies and practices of Defendant that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), as well as the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA") as a result of unpaid overtime wages. The Plaintiff and the other similarly situated employees were or are hourly, non-exempt employees and were routinely required to work 40 or more hours per workweek. Defendant did not pay The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for this off-the-clock work and did not count it towards their weekly work hours. The Defendant's failure to pay The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for all compensable work resulted in unpaid overtime in violation of the FLSA and Ohio law. Despite knowing that the Plaintiff and others similarly situated were working outside of their scheduled shift times performing this off-the-clock work, Defendant did not and has not compensated the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for this work time. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were not fully and properly paid for all overtime wages at one and one-half times their regular rates. The Defendant knowingly and willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for at least 10 to 20 minutes of off-the-clock work, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt hourly co-manager from November 2018 to May 2023. Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. is a for-profit corporation incorporated under the laws of Michigan which owns, franchises, operates, manages, or is otherwise engages in business with its stores and franchisees in numerous States, including Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 1360 E. 9th St., Suite 808 Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. 7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Phone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com LOEWS CORP: Discovery in Portillo Class Suit Stayed --------------------------------------------------- Loews Corp. 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 United States District Court for the Western District of Washington stayed the discovery in the Portillo class suit. On February 20, 2024, Jeanette Portillo filed a putative class action against Loews Hotels Holdings Corporation and other defendants in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The lawsuit asserts antitrust claims against defendants under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, and alleges that certain hotel chains, including Loews Hotels, engaged in a conspiracy to fix higher prices for hotel rooms. Defendants jointly filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Portillo on May 17, 2024. Defendants await decision in the case. The parties have agreed to stay discovery in the case pending the courts' rulings on these motions. Loews Corp. -- http://www.loews.com-- is a holding company, whose lines of business its subsidiaries are engaged in include commercial property and casualty insurance (CNA Financial Corporation (CNA), an 89%-owned subsidiary); production and sale of cigarettes (Lorillard, Inc. (Lorillard), a wholly owned subsidiary); operation of offshore oil and gas drilling rigs (Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., a 51%-owned subsidiary); exploration, production and marketing of natural gas and natural gas liquids (HighMount Exploration & Production LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary); operation of interstate natural gas transmission pipeline systems (Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, a 70%-owned subsidiary), and operation of hotels (Loews Hotels Holding Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary). LOEWS CORP: Discovery in Segal Class Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------------ Loews Corp. 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 United States District Court for the Western District of Washington stayed the discovery in the Segal class suit. On March 1, 2024, Ryan Segal filed a putative class action against Loews Hotels Holdings Corporation and other defendants in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The lawsuit asserts antitrust claims against defendants under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, and alleges that certain hotel chains, including Loews Hotels, engaged in a conspiracy to fix higher prices for hotel rooms. Defendants jointly filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Segal on June 24, 2024. Defendants await decisions in both cases. The parties have agreed to stay discovery in both cases pending the courts' rulings on these motions. Loews Corp. -- http://www.loews.com-- is a holding company, whose lines of business its subsidiaries are engaged in include commercial property and casualty insurance (CNA Financial Corporation (CNA), an 89%-owned subsidiary); production and sale of cigarettes (Lorillard, Inc. (Lorillard), a wholly owned subsidiary); operation of offshore oil and gas drilling rigs (Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., a 51%-owned subsidiary); exploration, production and marketing of natural gas and natural gas liquids (HighMount Exploration & Production LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary); operation of interstate natural gas transmission pipeline systems (Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, a 70%-owned subsidiary), and operation of hotels (Loews Hotels Holding Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary). MADISON EMERGENCY: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Schmidt Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- STACY SCHMIDT, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. MADISON EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, S.C., Case No. 3:25-cv-00087 (W.D. Wis., Feb. 6, 2024) is a collective and class action brought by Individual and Representative Plaintiff, Stacy Schmidt, on behalf of herself and on behalf of the proposed classes, against Madison Emergency Physicians, S.C. Plaintiff Schmidt and other similarly situated employees regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. However, MEP did not pay Schmidt and other similarly situated employees at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin law, the suit contends. Additionally, the Plaintiff individually brings a claim for breach of contract. On Oct. 8, 2024, Schmidt submitted her 90-day employment termination notice as required by her employment contract with MEP. MEP responded by terminating Schmidt's employment without cause, as defined by the contract, effective immediately and without compensation for the notice period. Plaintiff Schmidt allegedly suffered damages as a result of MEP's breach of contract in violation of Wisconsin law, added the suit. MEP operates a private practice group of physicians and APPs that staff emergency departments and urgent care centers in Southern Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David C. Zoeller, Esq. Natalie L. Gerloff, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. Madison, WI 53701-2155 Telephone: (608) 257-0040 Facsimile: (608) 256-0236 E-mail: dzoeller@hq-law.com ngerloff@hq-law.com MAIDEN REST: Isakov Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store ------------------------------------------------------------------ SIMON ISAKOV, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAIDEN REST, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01204 (S.D.N.Y., February 11, 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://www.industry-kitchen.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Maiden Rest, 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 MASTERCARD INC: Awaits Ruling on TCPA-Related Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Mastercard 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 12, 2025, that the Company awaits court decision for the Telephone Consumer Protection Act class suit. Mastercard is a defendant in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") class action pending in Florida. The plaintiffs are individuals and businesses who allege that approximately 381,000 unsolicited faxes were sent to them advertising a Mastercard co-brand card issued by First Arkansas Bank ("FAB"). The TCPA provides for uncapped statutory damages of $500 per fax. Mastercard has asserted various defenses to the claims, and has notified FAB of an indemnity claim that it has (which FAB has disputed). In 2019, the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") issued a declaratory ruling clarifying that the TCPA does not apply to faxes sent to online fax services that are received online via email. In 2021, the trial court granted plaintiffs' request for class certification, but narrowed the scope of the class to stand alone fax recipients only. Mastercard's request to appeal that decision was denied. Briefing on plaintiffs' motion to amend the class definition and Mastercard's cross-motion to decertify the stand alone fax recipient class was completed in April 2023 and the parties await the court's decision. Mastercard is a payment card services company offering a range of payment transaction processing.[BN] MBIA INC: Breaches COFINA Bond Policy, Jereczek Class Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ DWIGHT JERECZEK and STANLEY ELLIOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MBIA INC; AMBAC FINANCIAL GROUP,INC.; AMBAC ASSURANCE CORPORATION; MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION; NATIONAL PUBLIC FINANCE GUARANTEE CORPORATION, Case No. 3:25-cv-00223 (D. Conn., Feb. 12, 2025) is a class action suit under Rule 23 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons and entities that owned COFINA bonds between Oct. 19, 2018, and Feb. 12, 2019. Each claim has a common basis with every other claim, namely Defendants executed identical policies in which they agreed to pay the trustee for the benefit of Holders a portion of the principal and interest in the obligation, the lawsuit says. Plaintiff Jereczek is a resident of California and held COFINA Bonds insured by Defendants during the Class Period. Plaintiff Stanley Elliott is a resident of Florida and also held COFINA Bonds insured by the Defendants during the Class Period. Between 2007 and 2011 , the Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation -- commonly referred to by its Spanish acronym, COFINA, issued over $10 billion par of bonds The COFINA Bonds were issued with Official Statements (the "Bond Offerings"), which contained information about the bond offering's terms, the issuer and insurers obligations, and bondholders' rights and privileges. The bond insurance was issued by Defendants or their predecessors through contracts that were offered as part of the bond offering, referred to as Policies, with each of the COFINA bondholders. The Policies served as guarantees of the Defendants' obligations to pay COFINA bondholders in the event of nonpayment for any reason default. In other words, if COFINA failed to make its required payments in connection with the bonds, Defendants were required to stand in the shoes of COFINA and make the requisite principal and interest payments to bondholders. The Defendants' obligations were noncancelable and irrevocable. The guaranty of the bonds by Defendants, multinational financial institutions, made the purchase of the COFINA bonds a low risk bet for investors. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and members of the Class were entitled to receive cash from Defendants in the event of default under the Policies. Instead, the Defendants' respective breaches of the Policies caused financial harm to Plaintiffs and members of the Class by unilaterally replacing their low risk, highly marketable insured bonds, for which Plaintiffs were entitled to receive cash from Defendants in the event of a default, with less valuable, riskier, and less marketable financial instruments that had varying yields. These instruments had inferior yields and complex call provisions that placed plaintiffs at material financial risk, and complex and costly tax implications, and left much of the benefits in the hands of the Defendants, the suit further alleges. MBIA Inc. is an American financial services company. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ralph Strzalkowski, Esq NATION'S COUNSEL PLLC Telephone (352) 262-9593 1500 K. Street NW, Suite 200 E-mail: rs@lawyeronwheels.org MCGRAW HILL: Plaintiffs' Bid to Compel Discovery Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN FLYNN, et al., v. McGRAW HILL LLC, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00614-LGS-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery, as follows: -- The Defendants must search for and produce documents responsive to RFPs 25 and 26 concerning all authors, whether or not named as plaintiffs. -- The Plaintiffs' motion is denied as to this RFP. -- The Defendants must search for and produce documents responsive to RFPs 45 and 46 for the time period ended Dec. 31, 2020, or the date on which the new platform fee was debuted, whichever is earliest. -- The Plaintiffs' motion is denied as to this category. -- The Plaintiffs' motion is denied as to this category. -- The Defendants must respond to Interrogatories 3-8 no later than March 13, 2025. Plaintiffs' motion is denied as to Interrogatory 9. McGraw Hill operates as a book publisher. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SzOOED at no extra charge.[CC] MDC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Building Trades Pension Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- M.D.C. Holdings 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 Building Trades Pension class suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On November 13, 2024, Building Trades Pension Fund of Western Pennsylvania, acting on behalf of itself and a putative class of similarly situated stockholders of M.D.C. Holdings, Inc. ("MDC"), filed a class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Larry A. Mizel ("Mr. Mizel"), David D. Mandarich ("Mr. Mandarich"), and SH Residential Holdings, LLC ("SHRH"). The complaint alleges, among other things, that, in connection with the acquisition of MDC by SHRH and its affiliates, Mr. Mizel and Mr. Mandarich breached their fiduciary duty to MDC and that SHRH aided and abetted such breach. Pursuant to indemnification agreements, MDC has an obligation to indemnify Mr. Mizel and Mr. Mandarich in this matter. MDC, in connection with such indemnification obligations, plans to vigorously defend against these allegations by the putative class plaintiffs. Denver, Colo.-based M.D.C. Holdings Inc. (NYSE: MDC; PCX) -- http://RichmondAmerican.com/-- owns and manages companies that build and sell homes under the name "Richmond American Homes." The Company also provides mortgage financing, primarily for MDC's homebuyers, through its wholly owned subsidiary HomeAmerican Mortgage Corporation. MDC also has established operating divisions in Chicago, Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, Philadelphia/Delaware Valley, and West Florida. MDL 2873: Coussens Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW EDWARD COUSSENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00269-RMG (D.S.C., January 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with thyroid disease and high cholesterol. The Coussens case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Hochman, Esq. THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC 5411 McPherson Rd., Ste. 110 Laredo, TX 78041 Telephone: (956) 704-5187 Facsimile: (956) 368-1343 MDL 3090: Class Settlement in Data Breach Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: FORTRA FILE TRANSFER SOFTWARE DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION, Case No. 1:24-md-03090-RAR (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Rodolfo Ruiz II entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement and application for attorneys' fees and costs. The case is dismissed with prejudice with respect to the Defendant Brightline, and no costs shall be awarded other than those specified in this Order or provided by the Settlement Agreement. In sum, upon final review, the Court finds the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate; the Settlement Class is certified for Settlement purposes; and the Notice Program satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 and due process. Pursuant to the Settlement and the Notices, and consistent with recognized class action practice and procedure, the Court awards Class Counsel $2,333,333.33 for attorneys' fees, which is equal to 33.33% of the $7,000,000.00 Settlement Fund, and $39,237.40 for reasonable litigation costs. The action is a putative class action that has been centralized with all other Fortra GoAnywhere MFT related cases into MDL-3090 before this Court. The Plaintiffs' complaint alleges Brightline failed to adequately protect the Private Information of Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class from unauthorized access and asserts multiple common law and statutory claims for relief. The Court therefore provisionally certifies the following Settlement Class: "All living individuals residing in the United States who received notice of the Brightline Data Incident indicating that their Private Information may have been impacted in the Data Incident." A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qZ4cvB at no extra charge.[CC] METROHEALTH SYSTEM: Bowman Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Bowman, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE METROHEALTH SYSTEM, Case No. 1:25-cv-00256 (N.D. Ohio, Feb. 10, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended (the "FLSA") as a result of unpaid overtime compensation. The FLSA required Defendantto pay all non-exempt employees at least one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours each workweek. Ohio statutory and/or common law further required the payment of overtime wages and/or contained other compensation requirements and/or penalties. Although Defendant suffered and permitted Plaintiff and members of the FLSA Collective and the State Law Class to work more than 40 hours per workweek, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and members of the FLSA Collective and the State Law Class overtime at a rate of one- and one-half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. As a result, Plaintiff and the members of the FLSA Collective and the State Law Class were willfully not properly paid overtime compensation for their overtime hours worked as required by the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant since 2021 as a non-exempt medical practice assistant employee. The MetroHealth is a healthcare provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 308 Strongsville, Ohio 44136 Phone: (216) 912-2221 Fax: (440) 846-1625 Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com - and - Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Christopher M. Timmel, Esq. KLAFTER LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Phone: (914) 934-9200 Email: seth@klafterlesser.com christopher.timmel@klafterlesser.com MICHAEL ISABELLA: DelCid Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Lucas DelCid, Danielle Harris, Milena Radulovic, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Michael Isabella, Johannes Allender, Taha Ismail, Dhiandra Olson, Case No. 3:24-cv-04658 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Feb. 11, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-mc-00127 to the proceeding.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kyla J Miller, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 71 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 782-0600 Email: kmiller@mayerbrown.com MICHAEL KORS STORES: Nunes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Michael Kors Stores (California), Inc., et al. The case is styled as Marcus Nunes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Michael Kors Stores (California), Inc., Does 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. CGC25622287 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Feb. 11, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Michael Kors Stores (California), Inc. -- https://locations.michaelkors.com/us/ca.html -- offers luxury designer handbags, watches, shoes, clothing and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP 515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316 Phone: 213-488-6555 Fax: 213-488-6554 Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com - and - Dennis Sangwon Hyun, Esq. HYUN LEGAL, APC 515 S Figueroa St. Ste. 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316 Phone: 213-488-6555 Fax: 213-488-6554 Email: dhyun@hyunlegal.com - and - Edward Choi, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES 515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316 Phone: 213-381-1515 Fax: 213-465-4885 Email: edward.choi@choiandassociates.com MILWAUKEE ENTERTAINMENT: Alatorre Sues Over Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Ingrid Alatorre, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals v. MILWAUKEE ENTERTAINMENT, LLC D/B/A HEART BREAKERS, MENASHA ENTERTAINMENT, LLC D/B/A BLU SAPPHIRES CABARET, HORIZON CONSULTING, LLC D/B/A SHOW PALACE, GB ENTERTAINMENT, LLC D/B/A OVAL OFFICE, DJ & IQ, LLC D/B/A BLU ASTOR CABARET, Case No. 2:25-cv-00209-PP (E.D. Wis., Feb. 11, 2025), is brought for recovery of earned and unpaid wages and unlawfully deducted kickbacks, deductions, and assignments, statutory liquidated damages, interest, and attorney's fees and costs arising from Defendants' violations of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Wisconsin Minimum Wage Law ("WMWL"), the Wisconsin Wage Payments Claims and Collections Law ("WWPCC"), and the Wisconsin Illegal and Unauthorized Deductions Law ("WIUDL"). , says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work as an exotic dancer within Heart Breakers from August 2023, through September 2023. The Defendants operated as a gentlemen's club.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry A. Johnson, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. 5150 North Port Washington Road, Suite 243 Milwaukee, WI 53217 Phone: (414) 271-8650 Fax: (414) 207-6079 Email: ljohnson@hq-law.com - and - Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Phone: (301) 587-9373 Fax: (240) 839-9142 Email: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com MISSISSIPPI: Stewart Sues Over 14th Amendment Rights' Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES STEWART, JOHN BARNES, KEEAN SANTEE, DEVIN JOHNSON, SHANE COATS, BRUCE WALLACE, DAVID RUSHING, ROBERT OSWALT, ARTHUR BUCKHAULTON, FREDRETT HICKS, EARL LETT, ARDELL ROSS, DAROLD PAYNE, SHAWN LYONS, DANIEL TOWNSEND, AND COLTYN POPE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, V. BURL CAIN, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES; DERIN ROBERTSON, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES; JOHN SARGENT; AND JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-30, IN THEIR OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, Case No. 2:25-cv-00016-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss., Feb. 6, 2024) alleges that the Defendants deprive the Plaintiffs' rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution pursuant to the Mississippi Tort Claims Act. Due to Mississippi's failure to properly train and supervise its employees, namely Correctional Officer Derin Robertson. Based on information and belief, Robertson is a resident of Hinds County, MS. By this action, the Plaintiffs seek money damages arising from this incident and subsequent unconstitutional conditions, for themselves and all others similarly situated. The Plaintiffs are all individuals who have been or are currently incarcerated within the Mississippi Department of Corrections("MDOC"), specifically the South Mississippi Correctional Institution ("SMCI") in Leakesville, Mississippi, who bring this action on behalf of themselves and a class of inmates injured during the incident subject of this Complaint and who are currently confined or were confined within the Mississippi Department of Corrections. The Plaintiffs were ultimately injured in a vehicle collision while being transferred from the Central Mississippi Correctional Facility ("CMCF") to SMCI, and whose civil rights were violated by MDOC's and its agents, representatives, or employees failure to provide adequate medical care which amounted to a deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs' and others' similarly situated medical needs following the collision, says the suit. Burl Cain is the Commissioner of the MDOC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Arthur H. Calderon, Esq. CALDERON & WILLIAMS, PLLC 103 S. Court St., Ste. 101 Cleveland, MS 38732 Telephone: (662) 545-4445 Facsimile: (662) 796-3689 E-mail: arthur@msdeltalaw.com MORGAN AND MORGAN: Gugliuzza Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Morgan & Morgan Jacksonville, PLLC. The case is styled as Mark Gugliuzza, on behalf of Himself and all others similarly situated v. Morgan and Morgan, Jacksonville, PLLC d/b/a Morgan and Morgan, Jacksonville, LLC and Seth Diamond, Case No. SPCV25-00202-MI (Ga. Super. Ct., Chatham Cty., Feb. 11, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Tort - Legal Malpractice. Morgan & Morgan -- https://www.forthepeople.com/ -- is an American law firm. Founded in 1988 by John Morgan, it is headquartered in Orlando, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent J. Savage, Esq. SAVAGE TURNER PINCKNEY SAVAGE & SPROUSE 102 East Liberty Street, 8th Floor Savannah, GA 31401 Phone: (912) 231-1140 Fax: (912) 232-4212 The Defendants appear pro se. MR. MASTER SERVICE: Alvarez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Jose D. Alvarez, and other similarly situated individuals v. Mr. Master Service, LLC, Andrys I. Rodriguez and Jeanie Pena, individually, Case No. 0:25-cv-60253-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 11, 2025), is brought to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages and retaliation under United States laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("the FLSA"). While employed by Defendants, Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours every week, but he was not paid for overtime hours. Plaintiff worked regularly and consistently more than 40 hours every week, and he was paid for all his hours, but at his regular rate. Plaintiff was not paid for overtime hours, as required by law. The Plaintiff did not clock in and out, but Defendants could track the number of days and hours worked by Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals by GPS and texts. Defendants knew the hours worked by Plaintiff. Therefore, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages at the rate of time and a half his regular rate for every hour that he worked in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a construction employee. Mr. Master Service provides air conditioning, construction, and repair services, specializing in office trailer repairs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Maloney Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER MALONEY, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE, INC. F/K/A NET ELEMENT, INC., DAVID MICHERY, and JONATHAN NEW, Case No. e 2:25-cv-01187 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 12, 2025) is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Mullen securities between Feb. 3, 2023, and March 13, 2025, inclusive. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules promulgated thereunder. The Company's share price fell 99% between April 2023 and April 2024. As of April 15, 2024, the Company's stock price had fallen 73% in 2024, from $1,286.00 per share to $377.00 (adjusted for reverse splits) per share. The complaint says that the Company's share price had been artificially inflated due to the constant barrage of Defendants' false and misleading statements and material omissions of facts. When the truth began to come to light the artificial bubble burst, negatively impacting the Company's share price. The Company called a special shareholder meeting for December 3, 2022 to vote on four proposals, including: (1) a reverse stock split; (2) a switch of incorporation from Delaware to Maryland; (3) an increase to the number of allowable shares from 1.3 billion to 5 billion. Less than one month prior to the Company’s first reverse split, on April 18, 2023, the Company announced it was forming a joint venture, Mullen Advanced Energy Operations, LLC, with Global EV Technology, Inc., to "advance energy management technologies, starting with electric vehicles and scaling to other energy applications." The Company's press release announcing the joint venture stated: Under the newly formed entity, the Company "owns 51% and will consolidate the results of its operations in Mullen Automotive, Inc. Under the agreement between the parties, Global EV Technology will be contributing its technology and existing contracts to MAEO, and Mullen will provide capital, execution and commercialization to grow the business." The Company has completed and/or amended multiple financing agreements with Esousa Holdings. The Company has failed to disclose material information about the individual who controls Esousa Holdings, Michael Wachs. "Michael Wachs is the managing member of Esousa Holdings, LLC and has sole voting control and investment discretion over securities beneficially owned directly by Esousa Holdings, LLC. We have been advised that none of Mr. Wachs or Esousa Holdings, LLC is a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or FINRA, or an independent broker-dealer, or an affiliate or associated person of a FINRA member or independent broker-dealer" As a result of the Defendants wrongful acts and omissions, and the decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Throughout the course of the Company's false and/or misleading statements and omissions discussed above, Mullen's stock price fell over $3.25 per share, or 96%, to close at approximately $.015 per share on March 13, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume, damaging investors. The Plaintiff purchased the Company's securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the alleged material misrepresentations and omissions. Mullen purports to be an electronic vehicle manufacturer. On Nov. 5, 2021, Mullen underwent a merger with and into Net Element and the Company changed its name to Mullen Automotive, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (747) 777-7748 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com gharoutunian@justice4you.com bjack@justice4you.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com N.L.C. ENTERPRISES: Sutherland Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against N.L.C. Enterprises, Incorporated, et al. The case is styled as Michelle Sutherland, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. N.L.C. Enterprises, Incorporated, Yoon Patricia, Case No. 25STCV03543 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 7, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." N.L.C. Enterprises, Incorporated offer Web Design, Facebook Page Customizing, Social Media Integration and Marketing, Advertising, Product Branding, SEO, Small Business Development.[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 NANCY JACOBY: Parties in Puchel Seek to Stay Class Cert Briefing ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Noel Puchel, v. Nancy Jacoby, in her official capacity, Case No. 3:24-cv-03294-MMM (C.D. Ill.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to stay briefing of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class until the Court rules on Defendant's motion to dismiss and award any other relief the Court deems just and proper. On Feb. 3, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, asserting that the proposed claims and issues in his Amended Complaint are suitable for class-wide adjudication. Pending before the Court is Defendant's fully briefed Motion to Dismiss, contending that Plaintiff's claims fail as a matter of law. Both sides agree that the Court's ruling on the Motion to Dismiss may render some or all issues relevant to the Motion to Certify Class moot or substantially narrower, and that a stay would preserve the Parties' and the Court's resources until the viability and scope of Plaintiff's claims are determined. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), the Court may, for good cause, extend deadlines. Additionally, the Court retains inherent authority to manage its docket and promote judicial economy. A stay of briefing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Certify Class until the pending Motion to Dismiss is resolved will avoid potentially unnecessary and duplicative briefing, thereby conserving judicial and Party resources. The Parties agree to this motion and further stipulate that the stay should be without prejudice to any position or argument that they may raise if and when briefing on class certification proceeds. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8s9rrB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adele D. Nicholas, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ADELE D. NICHOLAS 5707 W. Goodman Street Chicago, IL 60630 Telephone: (847) 361-3869 E-mail: adele@civilrightschicago.com - and Mark G. Weinberg, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK G. WEINBERG 3612 N. Tripp Avenue Chicago, IL 60641 Telephone: (773) 283-3913 E-mail: mweinberg@sbcglobal.net The Defendant is represented by: Daniel Noah Robbin, Esq. ASSISTANT UNIT SUPERVISOR, PRISONER LITIGATION GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATION DIVISION OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 115 S. La Salle St. Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 814-7199 E-mail: daniel.robbin@ilag.gov NASHVILLE, TN: Parties Seek More Time to Complete Discovery ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as INFINIUM BUILDERS LLC, KE HOLDINGS LLC d/b/a ASCENT CONSTRUCTION, ENRIQUE SELMAN, and JEAN LAFITTE BUILDERS LLC f/k/a JEAN LAFITTE DESIGNS LLC, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, v. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE & DAVIDSON COUNTY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00924 (M.D. Tenn.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: -- extending the deadline to complete discovery related to the Plaintiffs' forthcoming class certification motion to March 7, 2025, and -- extending the deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their class certification motion to March 26, 2025. The Parties have been engaged in discovery related to Plaintiffs' forthcoming motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The deadline to complete discovery related to Plaintiffs' forthcoming Class Certification Motion is February 14, 2025. Plaintiffs have requested to take two depositions that they have been unable to take due to schedules of counsel and witnesses. First, they have sought to take the deposition of Joey Hargis, Defendant's Zoning Administrator, who Defendant has disclosed as a witness it may rely on. Second, they have sought to take a deposition on certain topics pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gL3ec8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Scott P. Tift, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com stift@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com - and - R. Alex Dickerson, Esq. Sarah Ingalls, Esq. Devin A. Majors, Esq. THOMPSON BURTON PLLC Palmer Plaza 1801 West End Avenue, Suite 1550 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 465-6000 Facsimile: (615) 807-3048 E-mail: alex@thompsonburton.com singalls@thompsonburton.com devin@thompsonburton.com The Defendant is represented by: J. Brooks Fox, Esq. Benjamin A. Puckett, Esq. John W. Ayers, Esq. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT FOR NASHVILLE & DAVIDSON COUNTY 108 Metropolitan Courthouse Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 862-6341 E-mail: brook.fox@nashville.gov benjamin.puckett@nashville.gov will.ayers@nashville.gov NATIONAL ADVISORS: Settlement in Weber Gets Prelim. Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN WEBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NATIONAL ADVISORS TRUST COMPANY, NATIONAL ADVISORS TRUST OF SOUTH DAKOTA INC., AND NAH SIDECAR I, LLC d/b/a NATIONAL ADVISORS CONCIERGE SERVICES, all d/b/a NATIONAL ADVISORS TRUST, Case No. 4:24-cv-00162-FJG (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Gaitan, Jr. entered a preliminary approval order: 1. The Court therefore finds that the requirements for preliminary approval have been met and conditionally certifies the following Class for purposes of issuing notice of the Settlement: "All individuals within the United States of America whose PII was exposed to unauthorized third parties as a result of the Defendants' data security incident that occurred between Feb. 2023 and April 2023." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the judges presiding over this Action, and members of their direct families; (2) the Defendants, their subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendants or their parents have a controlling interest, and their current or former officers and directors; and (3) Settlement Class Members who submit a valid Request for Exclusion prior to the Opt-Out Deadline. 2. The Court appoints Lynn A. Toops of Cohen & Malad, LLP; J. Gerard Stranch, IV of Stranch, Jennings & Garvey, PLLC, and Samuel J. Strauss of Strauss Borrelli PLLC as Class Counsel, and appoints Plaintiff as Class Representative. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). National Advisors provides banking and financial services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v3r6UZ at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONAL GRID USA: Reminick Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NATIONAL GRID USA, et al. The case is styled as Dominique Moselle Reminick, Tedzendondim, Inc., 1729 Realty Corp., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NATIONAL GRID USA, et al, Case No. 504836/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., Feb. 10, 2025). National Grid -- https://www.nationalgridus.com/ -- is an electricity, natural gas, and clean energy delivery company.[BN] NATURES PATH FOODS: Martin Sues Over False Advertising ------------------------------------------------------ William J. Martin, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. NATURES PATH FOODS, INC., a Canadian corporation, Case No. 8:25-cv-00241 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 7, 2025), is brought against the Defendant which are manufactured, packaged, labeled, advertised, distributed, and sold by Defendant, are misbranded and falsely advertised because Defendant implies that they are healthy and conducive to health and physical well-being, despite containing between 33 and 38 grams of added sugar per serving. To sell these Products, Natures Path employs a marketing strategy designed to give consumers--especially parents of school-aged children, the target market of these Products--the erroneous impression that they are healthy or are conducive to good health and physical well-being. Despite the Products being loaded with added sugar, Natures Path prominently makes the following claims and uses the following graphical elements to suggest that they are healthy or conducive to good health and physical well-being: "Always Organic," with multiple organic certifications; "Made With Real Fruit"; "Our organic toaster pastries are always made with real fruit and no artificial flavors"; "No Artificial Flavors or Synthetic Colors"; Depictions on the front label of the fresh fruits that characterize the flavor of the bars; and Depictions of wheat fields in a natural, sun-lit setting. The boxes and labels of the high-sugar toaster pastries are substantially similar for each flavor and each bears the challenged claims. These claims convey that the Products are healthy or are conducive to good health and physical well-being, which is misleading because that representation is incompatible with the dangers of excessive sugar consumption to which the Products contribute. The Plaintiff reviewed the label on the Products and the other statements regarding the characteristics of the Products that are described herein. Consumers such as Plaintiff who viewed the Products' labels and associated marketing statements reasonably understood the statements to mean that the Products are healthy or conducive to good health and physical well-being. These statements are false and/or misleading, as the Products contain sugar in amounts per serving that far exceed an amount that is healthy or conducive to good health or physical well-being. Consumers including Plaintiff reasonably relied on these statements described herein such that they would not have purchased the Products from Defendant if the truth about the Products was known, or would have only been willing to pay a substantially reduced price for the Products had they known that Defendant's representations were false and misleading, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Cherry Pomegranate flavor of the Products on January 10, 2024 through Amazon.com. Natures Path formulates, manufactures, distributes, and sells a line of frosted toaster pastries, in at least the following flavors: Berry Strawberry, Mmmaple Brown Sugar, Granny's Apple Pie, Wildberry Acai, Lotta Chocolate, Buncha Blueberry, Razzi Raspberry, Cherry Pomegranate, and Pumpkin Pie.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles C. Weller, Esq. CHARLES C. WELLER, APC 11412 Corley Court San Diego, CA 92126 Phone: 858.414.7465 Fax: 858.300.5137 Email: legal@cweller.com NETCAP INC: Feb. 28 Deadline Set for Status Report in Baus Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Brian A. Tsuchida of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington ordered the parties in the case captioned as STEVE BAUS, Plaintiff, v. NETCAP, INC. D/B/A VANGUARD VEHICLE ARMOR, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00227-LK (W.D. Wash.) to submit a joint status report by Feb. 28, 2025, addressing discovery issues. Defense counsel's motion to withdraw and Plaintiff's opposition is intertwined with the failure to complete Phase I discovery, the lack of discovery regarding class members and class certification, and the procedural posture of the case in which a class has not yet been certified. Thus, to assist the Court in its consideration of the motion to withdraw, the parties shall jointly submit a status report on the following issues: First can the parties agree on the three areas that are the subject of discovery allowed under Phase I: Did Plaintiff give prior express invitation or permission to receive the Dec. 8, 2020 call; did Plaintiff end the business relationship at any time; and did Plaintiff reestablish the business relationship by buying a new contract on Jan. 19, 2021. And second, can the parties agree on completing discovery regarding class members and certification, which Plaintiff has indicated has already been served on Defendant, regarding potential class members to address Plaintiff's concerns that withdrawal will prevent Plaintiff from obtaining information needed for class certification. Defense counsel's motion to withdraw comes nearly a year after Plaintiff filed a class complaint against Defendant. Plaintiff argues in opposing defense counsel's withdrawal motion that Plaintiff has made discovery requests and in response, Defendant produced a single document, a call-log showing Defendant continued to contact Plaintiff after Plaintiff asked Defendant to cease making calls and to place Plaintiff on Defendant's do not call list. Plaintiff further indicates Defendant did not provide any discovery regarding "consent” which was the focus of Defendant's suggestion for Phase I discovery and did not issue any written discovery to Plaintiff despite requesting limited phased discovery. On Jan. 17, 2025, defense counsel moved to withdraw on the grounds: (1) LCR 83.2 permits withdrawal because “discovery does not conclude until Aug. 22, 2025; (2) professional considerations make it unreasonable for counsel to continue its representation of NatCap; and (3) Defense counsel has advised Natcap it must be represented by counsel and the failure to obtain new counsel may result in the entry of default against it as to each claim Plaintiff has asserted. The parties agree that in assessing a motion to withdraw, the Court should consider the reason for withdrawal; whether other litigants will be prejudiced, any harm withdrawal may cause to the administration of justice and the degree to which withdrawal will delay resolution of the case. Plaintiff contends when a corporation, such as Defendant, is not represented by counsel, a default judgment may be entered against the corporation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55. He contends a default judgment would prejudice his ability to obtain information needed for class certification, and this inability was caused by Defendant's request in the joint status report request filed on June 21, 2024, to phase or bifurcate discovery, which necessarily delayed class discovery. Essentially, Plaintiff is arguing while a default judgment might provide Plaintiff an individual award, a default judgment would terminate this action and thus bar discovery needed to support the class allegations contained in Plaintiff's complaint and needed to certify a class. Plaintiff further contends the Court should deny the motion because defense counsel fails to cite any reason under the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct that supports withdrawal and articulates no valid reason for withdrawal. Defense counsel's January 2025 motion to withdraw has placed Plaintiff into a position in which the Phase I discovery appears to be far from complete, and Phase II discovery regarding identifying class members and class certification has not occurred. Plaintiff thus has legitimate concerns that if defense counsel is permitted to withdraw, and Defendant fails to retain new counsel, default would be entered in favor of Plaintiff as an individual and Plaintiff's class action would proceed no further. On the other hand, defense counsel's representation that his client has not made payment for the services he has rendered and his attempts to reach out to Natcap executives have been unsuccessful indicate there may be permissive grounds to permit withdrawal under RPC 1.16(b). Before the Court makes a final determination on defense counsel's motion to withdraw, the Court orders: (1) Present defense counsel is still counsel of record and is thus still required to represent Natcap as required by the Washington Rules of Professional conduct and pending any final order from the Court on his motion to withdraw. (2) Defense counsel avers Natcap's primary counsel is in a large law firm in Chicago. Defense counsel shall thus contact primary counsel in Chicago and inform primary counsel that he or she must file a notice of appearance, if admitted in the Western District of Washington, seek to proceed pro hac vice, if he or she is not admitted, or to arrange for alternative new counsel to appear on behalf of Natcap in this matter. Primary counsel in Chicago shall file a notice of appearance or have alternative counsel appear for Natcap or explain why neither can be accomplished no later than Feb. 21, 2025. If primary counsel in Chicago advises present defense counsel that he or she no longer represents Natcap and cannot appear on behalf of Defendant, defense counsel should so advise the Court and indicate whether there are other lawyers who will agree to represent Natcap herein by Feb. 24, 2025. (3) Defense counsel shall file under seal, and for the Court's review only, a sealed affidavit or declaration in support of his motion to withdraw. The affidavit or declaration shall set forth with particularity the factual basis in support of the motion to withdraw. The Court will order additional in camera review or hearings if deemed necessary. Defense counsel shall file the sealed affidavit or declaration no later than Feb. 20, 2025. The Clerk of Court shall renote the motion to withdraw for March 5, 2025, as ready for consideration by the Judge Tsuchida. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ANuUcx from PacerMonitor.com. NEW DIRECTION: Hatten Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Direction Solutions LLC. The case is styled as Kaira Imari Hatten, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. New Direction Solutions LLC, Case No. 25STCV03867 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 11, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." New Direction Solutions, LLC doing business as ProCare Therapy -- https://www.procaretherapy.com/ -- is one of the country's top sources of school-based therapy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com NEW MEXICO: Court Dismisses Hensley v. Wilkens Without Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sarah M. Davenport of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico dismisses without prejudice all claims in the lawsuit captioned JEREMY HENSLEY, et al., Plaintiffs v. FNU WILKENS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00444-SMD-SCY (D.N.M.). The matter is before the Court on the Prisoner Civil Rights Complaints and supplemental filings in this case, which were submitted by five Inmate-Plaintiffs: Jeremy Hensley; Domenique Sedillo; Gabriel Perez; Lawrence P. Rivas; and Kenneth Williams. The Inmate-Plaintiffs seek to prosecute a pro se class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The claims primarily challenge the inmates' conditions of confinement at the Guadalupe County Correctional Facility (GCCF) in Santa Rosa, New Mexico. As a threshold issue, the Court must determine whether it is permissible or feasible for five pro se Plaintiffs to prosecute this case. The Court, in its discretion, may permit a joinder where all claims arise from the same transaction/occurrence and share at least one question of law or fact. Judge Davenport notes, among other things, that multiple-plaintiff prisoner litigation raises concerns that pro se prisoner plaintiffs might be seeking to impermissibly provide legal assistance to each other in pursuing their claims. The filings here implicate a number of these concerns, Judge Davenport says. It appears two of the five Inmate-Plaintiffs (Domenique Sedillo and Kenneth Williams) severed contact with the Court. Moreover, even if the Court were inclined to permit a joinder, the Inmate-Plaintiffs cannot pursue a pro se class action. Judge Davenport points out that it is well settled that class representatives may not appear pro se. For these reasons, the Court will not permit the proposed joinder. Courts take different approaches where, as here, Inmate-Plaintiffs are not permitted to proceed together under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. Judge Davenport finds there is no primary filer in this case. All five Inmate-Plaintiffs submitted or joined multiple pleadings. Dismissing the claims and requiring each inmate-plaintiff to file their own case will also not result in any prejudice. The claims arose in 2024 and are not time-barred. None of the Inmate-Plaintiffs have paid a fee in this case, as the Court deferred collections until after making a determination on the proposed joinder. The Court will, therefore, dismiss this case, and each pleading herein, without prejudice. Each Inmate-Plaintiff may file a new case limited to their own claims, if they wish to continue litigating. Finally, the Court will deny as moot all pending motions to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice to refiling in the new case. The Court rules that all claims in the case are dismissed without prejudice and all pending motions are denied without prejudice. The Court will enter a separate judgment closing the civil case. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/22y9ph97 from PacerMonitor.com. NEW YORK, NY: Monasar Files Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The City of New York, Target Corporation, and The New York Times Company. The case is captioned as MOHAMED MONASAR and GABRIELLE WALLS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, TARGET CORPORATION and THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, Case No. 150717/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., January 17, 2025). The suit is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Freelance Isn't Free Act. Target Corporation is a retail company, headquartered in Minnesota. The New York Times Company is an American mass media corporation headquartered in New York, New York. [BN] NORTHERN INDIANA: Bill Class Suit Removed to N.D. Indiana --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled MAY BILL, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. NORTHERN INDIANA MAGNETIC RESONANCE CENTER LLP, et al., Case No. 71C01-2108-CT-000295, was removed from the St. Joseph County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana on January 15, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Indiana assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00041-DRL-SJF to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs bring personal injury claims against the Defendants. Northern Indiana Magnetic Resonance Center LLP is an owner and operator of a diagnostic testing facility in South Bend, Indiana. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Darren A. Craig, Esq. Katherine Slisz, Esq. FROST BROWN TODD LLP 111 Monument Circle, Ste. 4500 P.O. Box 44961 Indianapolis, IN 46244 Telephone: (317) 237-3800 Facsimile: (317) 237-3900 Email: dcraig@fbtlaw.com kslisz@fbtlaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shaffer, Esq. Daniel R. Obert, Esq. Sarah E. Brown, Esq. Brian E. Casey, Esq. BARNES & THORNBURG LLP 201 S. Main St., Ste. 400 South Bend, IN 46601 Telephone: (574) 233-1171 Facsimile: (574) 237-1125 Email: andrew.shaffer@btlaw.com daniel.obert@btlaw.com sarah.brown@btlaw.com brian.casey@btlaw.com OH MY DARLING: Faces Farrell Suit Over Unwanted Telephone Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- CHASE HARRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OH MY DARLING PARTY CO. LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00062-RH-MAF (N.D. Fla., Feb. 12, 2025) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited telephone calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On Feb.6, 2023 and April 26, 2023, the Defendant made telephone solicitations to Plaintiff's cellular telephone, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff never signed any type of authorization permitting or allowing Defendant to send them telephone solicitations before 8 am or after 9 pm. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the Class members. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The class that Plaintiff seeks to represent is defined as: "All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through the date of class certification (1) Defendant, or anyone on Defendant's behalf, (2) placed more than one marketing text message within any 12- month period; (3) where such marketing text messages were initiated before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (local time at the called party's location)." Oh My Darling specializes in wholesale paper novelty products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr . THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (813) 340-8838 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com OMAKASE SHOTA: Walker Sues Over Unlawful Wage Theft --------------------------------------------------- Tarek Walker, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OMAKASE SHOTA LLC, and CHENG LIN, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-00708 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 7, 2025), is brought to recover damages for Defendants' egregious, systemic, and continuous violations of: the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); the overtime provisions of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") and New York Comp. Codes R. & Regs ("NYCRR"), the NYLL's prohibition against employers engaging in unlawful wage theft by making unlawful deductions from employees' wages earned. From November 2023, until the retaliatory termination of his employment on July 24, 2024, Plaintiff regularly worked a schedule in excess of forty hours per week, yet Defendants paid Plaintiff a flat hourly wage for his first forty hours of work each week, with no additional compensation for any of his overtime hours worked each week, resulting in Plaintiff suffering unpaid overtime compensation in willful violation of both the FLSA, and the NYLL, as well as New York's Hospitality Industry Wage Order, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in New York. The Defendants own and operate an upscale Omakase-style sushi restaurant that employs workers, laborers, and other personnel to work primarily at its principal place of business located in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq. Michael R. Minkoff, Esq. Avraham Y. Scher, Esq JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 227-5700 OMI INDUSTRIES: Mishikyan Sues Over Cleaning Products' False Labels ------------------------------------------------------------------- OGANES MARTIN MISHIKYAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OMI INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01183 (C.D. Cal., February 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for false and misleading advertising, unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, common law fraud, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of California Unfair Competition Law and California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its cleaning products. According to the complaint, the Defendant falsely labels and advertises its products as plant-based. However, the products actually contain numerous non-plant-based, unnatural, synthetic, artificial, and/or highly processed ingredients. As a result of the Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered economic damages, says the suit. OMI Industries, Inc. is a manufacturer of cleaning products, headquartered in Palatine, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Valter Malkhasyan, Esq. Erik Pogosyan, Esq. MALK & POGO LAW GROUP, LLP 1241 S. Glendale Ave, Suite 204 Glendale, CA 91205 Telephone: (818) 484-5204 Facsimile: (818) 824-5144 Email: valter@malkpogolaw.com erik@malkpogolaw.com ONNIT LABS: Fact Discovery in Lotz Must be Completed by July 10 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEAN PAUL LOTZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, V. ONNIT LABS, INC. Case No. 7:24-cv-03098-KMK-VR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth Karas entered a case management and scheduling order as follows: -- The case is to be tried by jury. -- No additional parties may be joined except with leave of the Court. -- Initial disclosures pursuant to Rule (26)(a)(1), Fed. R. Civ., P., will be completed by Feb. 15, 2025. -- All fact discovery is to be completed no later than July 10, 2025. Onnit offers supplements, foods, apparel, accessories, and other athletes related products. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lnMts3 at no extra charge.[CC] OREGON REPRODUCTIVE: Faces Suit Over Disclosure of Patients' Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- B.N., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Oregon Reproductive Medicine, LLC d/b/a ORM Fertility, Case No. 3:25-cv-00202-IM (D. Or., Feb. 6, 2024) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all patients who accessed and used www.ormfertility.com to book a consultation for IVF, fertility, and/or other family planning services. The Plaintiff contends that ORM aided, employed, agreed, and conspired with LinkedIn Corporation to intercept sensitive and confidential communications sent and received by the Plaintiff and Class Members, including communications related to their reproductive health. In addition, the Defendant allegedly aided in these unlawful disclosures without the Plaintiff and Class Members' knowledge or consent. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and the Class for equitable relief and to recover damages and restitution for: violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act; negligence; breach of confidence; and unjust enrichment. As a result of Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered numerous injuries, including invasion of privacy, diminution of value of their PII and PHI, and statutory damages, the suit says. The Plaintiff was in Oregon when she booked consultations for fertility services using the Defendant's Website around May of 2022 and March of 2024. Due to the surreptitious nature of the disclosures at issue, the Plaintiff was not aware that her confidential communications had been disclosed by the Defendant until around November 2024. The Defendant provides in-person fertility services and treatment at its two clinics located in Portland, Oregon.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cody Hoesly, Esq. BARG SINGER HOESLY PC 121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 241-8521 E-mail: choesly@bargsinger.com - and - Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. Stephen A. Beck, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com sbeck@bursor.com PACE PLUMBING: Konopka Seeks Monetary Damages Under WARN Act ------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAL KONOPKA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PACE PLUMBING CORP. d/b/a THE PACE COMPANIES, PACE PLUMBING DELAWARE CORP., and EAGLESTONE LLC d/b/a EAGLESTONE HOLDINGS, LLC and EAGLESTONE NY, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00811 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 12, 2025) seeks monetary damages and affirmative relief resulting from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and New York Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. On Feb. 6, 2025, the Defendants terminated all of Defendant Pace Plumbing Corp.'s 218 employees, including Plaintiff, without sufficient written notice as required by the WARN Act and NY WARN Act. As such, the Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees seek to recover from Defendants their back wages and benefits. The Plaintiff brings this action as a putative class action, on behalf of the following "Class" of individuals: "All former employees terminated without cause on or about February 6, 2025, or terminated, as a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the mass layoffs and/or plant closing, within 30 days of February 6, 2025, and who are affected employees under the WARN Acts." The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a plumber until February 6, 2025. Pace offers mechanical contracting services. The Company offers plumbing, fire protection, ventilation, heating, air-conditioning, and insulation, and installation services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Troy L. Kessler, Esq. Garrett Kaske, Esq. KESSLER MATURA, P.C. 534 Broadhollow Road, Ste. 275 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 499-9100 E-mail: tkessler@kesslermatura.com gkaske@kesslermatura.com - and - John C. Philo, Esq. Anthony D. Paris, Esq. SUGAR LAW CENTER FOR ECONOMIC & SOCIAL JUSTICE 4605 Cass Ave., 2nd Floor Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 993-4505 E-mail: jphilo@sugarlaw.org tparis@sugarlaw.org PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Luong Sues Over Poached Content Creators' Payment ------------------------------------------------------------------ DAISY LUONG, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC., HONEY SCIENCE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00102-TKW-HTC (N.D. Fla., February 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for conversion, tortious interference with a prospective economic advantage, violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from PayPal's alleged deceptive scheme in a form online marketing fraud where a malicious affiliate marketer, PayPal Honey, secretly places tracking cookies on a user's browser, making it appear as if the user came to a website through its affiliate link, even if the user did not. This deceptive tactic has allowed PayPal to profit off of the promotional efforts of online content creators like the Plaintiff and Class members, by maliciously replacing the legitimate affiliate cookies of the Plaintiff and Class members with PayPal's own affiliate cookies just as users begin the checkout process. By implementing this malicious cookie-stuffing scheme, PayPal is able to poach the commissions of the Plaintiff and other online content creators. PayPal Holdings, Inc. is a financial technology company headquartered in San Jose, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric D. Stevenson, Esq. FASIG BROOKS PLLC 815 S. Palafox St., Ste. 302 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 572-1963 Email: estevenson@fasigbrooks.com - and - Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP 31365 Oak Crest Dr., Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 212-5124 Facsimile: (805) 270-7589 Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com PHYSICIANS' PRIMARY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Kryskalla Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ TONY KRYSKALLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHYSICIANS' PRIMARY CARE OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA P.L., Defendant, Case No. _______ (Fla. Cir. Ct., 20th Jud. Cir., Lee Cty., January 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated patients stored within its network systems following a data breach on or about September 15, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Physicians' Primary Care of Southwest Florida P.L. is a medical provider, headquartered in Fort Myers, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com PLUSHBEDS INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Walker Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ LEAH WALKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. PlushBeds, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01283 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 6, 2024) sues the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying the blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services PlushBeds provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.plushbeds.com, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a mattress topper on Plushbeds.com. Despite her efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the Website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, the suit says. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in PlushBeds' policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to the blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Ms. Walker is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. PlushBeds offers a variety of mattresses, toppers, pillows, bed bases, sheet sets, mattress protectors, comforters, and blankets.[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 POSEIDON BRANDS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Walker Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- LEAH WALKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Poseidon Brands, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01284 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 6, 2024) alleges that the Defendant 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, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Poseidon Brands provides to their non-disabled customers through https://unitedbyblue.com, the suit contends. On January 23, 2025, the Plaintiff was searching for an online store to order a spacious and functional tote bag, as she needed a durable and eco-friendly option for daily use. She discovered the Defendant's website while searching for a store specializing in offering products from sustainable materials. During her browsing experience, she encountered significant accessibility barriers that prevented her from navigating the Defendant's website efficiently. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Poseidon Brands' policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Ms. Walker is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. Poseidon provides a wide selection of backpacks, tote bags, fanny packs, crossbody bags, duffle bags, socks, hats, beanies, bandanas, mugs, water bottles, candles, and apparel.[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 POSH GROUP: Sends Unsolicited Marketing Calls, Lopez-Oviedo Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ ALAIN LOPEZ-OVIEDO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POSH GROUP INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-20634-DPG (S.D. Fla., February 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant placed telemarketing calls to the Plaintiff's and similarly situated consumers' telephone numbers in an attempt to promote products or services without obtaining prior express written consent. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful practice, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered concrete injury and actual damages, including inconvenience, invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion upon seclusion, wasted time, violation of their statutory privacy rights, and disruption to their personal and daily life. Posh Group Inc. is an event management agency, with its principal place of business in New York County, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Gold, Esq. GOLD LAW, P.A. 350 Lincoln Rd., 2nd Floor Miami Beach, FL 33139 Telephone: (305) 900-4653 Email: chris@chrisgoldlaw.com - and - Alexander Korolinsky, Esq. AJK LEGAL 1580 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 130 Sunrise, FL 33323 Telephone: (888) 815-3350 Email: korolinsky@ajklegal.com POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Calzado Sues Over Failure to Secure Systems -------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Behar Calzado, on behalf of himself; KIMBERLY WIRTES, on behalf of herself and A.W. and T.W., her minor children; and all others similarly situated v. POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC, a Delaware corporation, POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-100, Case No. 2:25-cv-00498-AC (E.D. Cal., Feb. 11, 2025), is brought seeking remedies on behalf of themselves and millions of PowerSchool's customers throughout the United States who had their PII taken due to PowerSchool's failure to secure its computer systems. PowerSchool maintains highly sensitive PII for students and educators. It was, or should have been, well aware of the importance of the measures organizations should take to prevent data breaches, including the importance of promptly updating its systems to address vulnerabilities as they become disclosed, and willingly failed to take them. fact, PowerSchool itself represented to the public, including Plaintiffs, that it would take such efforts to protect PII and prevent data breaches. Specifically, this is a data breach class action on behalf of over 60 million consumers and 9 million teachers from some 6,500 school districts whose personal identifying information ("PII") including dates of birth, names, medical alert information, Social Security numbers ("SSNs"), and other personal information (collectively, "Data") was taken from PowerSchool in a cyber-attack that was first publicly announced by PowerSchool on January 7, 2025 ("Data Breach"). PowerSchool failed to adequately safeguard consumers' PII because it lacked or knowingly failed to take reasonable or proper safeguards to maintain security of Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII. PowerSchool's lack of reasonable security provided a means for unauthorized intruders to access PowerSchool's computer network and take consumers' sensitive PII. Class Members could face a long process to deal with the consequences of PowerSchool's failure to secure their PII, including the filing of fraudulent tax returns, unauthorized loans or credit cards, and variety of other identity frauds. PowerSchool's failure to adequately protect customers' PII has caused, and will continue to cause, substantial harm and injuries to over 70 million affected individuals across the United States. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiffs and Class Members are exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft and must now closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft well into the future, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Calzado has been employed by the Rochester City School District ("RCSD") as a music teacher since August 2015. PowerSchool bills itself as "the largest U.S. provider of K-12 education technology solutions."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Wyatt A. Lison, Esq. John P. Worgul, Esq. Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq. Brendan R. Delaney, Esq. Emily R. Rollins, Esq. FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300 429 Fourth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1639 Phone: (412) 281-8400 Fax: (412) 281-1007 Email: wlison@fdpklaw.com jworgul@fdpklaw.com jkravec@fdpklaw.com bdelaney@fdpklaw.com erollins@fdpklaw.com POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Count Sues Over Clients' Compromised Info --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE LA COUNT, TY MACIEJEWSKI, E.R.M., and R.E.M., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC. and POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00209-AC (E.D. Cal., January 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, and breach of implied contract. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc. is a software company with its principal place of business located in Folsom, California. PowerSchool Group LLC is a software company with its principal place of business located in Folsom, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: 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 POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Champney Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- DENISE CHAMPNEY, on behalf of herself, and NICOLE DRENNEN, on behalf of herself and as parent and guardian of her two minor children, John Doe and Jane Doe, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00211-SCR (E.D. Cal., January 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between December 19 and December 24, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc. is a software company with its principal place of business located in Folsom, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC 1650 W. 82nd Street, Suite 880 Bloomington, MN 55431 Telephone: (612) 778-9595 Email: rpeterson@4-justice.com - and - Lori G. Feldman, Esq. GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC 102 Half Moon Bay Drive Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520 Telephone: (917) 983-9321 Email: lfeldman@4-justice.com - and - Julie Liddell, Esq. Andrew Liddell, Esq. EDTECH LAW CENTER P.O. Box 300488 Austin, TX 78705 Telephone: (737) 351-5855 Email: julie.liddell@edtech.law PRIORITYONE BANK: Magee Sues Over Improper $38 OD Fee Charges ------------------------------------------------------------- JOHNNY MAGEE, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. PRIORITYONE BANK, Case No. 3:25-cv-00094-CWR-LGI (S.D. Miss., Feb. 6, 2024) sues the Defendant over the improper assessment and collection of: (1) $38.00 overdraft fees ("OD Fees") on accounts on days when the account was not actually overdrawn; (2) $38.00 OD Fees on transactions authorized on sufficient funds; (3) $38.00 OD Fees on another fee, not a consumer-initiated item or transaction; (4) multiple $38.00 fees on an item that the consumer only presented for payment once; and (5) the assessment of overdraft interest charges on days when the account balance is not overdrawn. The Plaintiff and other customers of the Defendant have been injured by Defendant's improper fee maximization practices. On March 24, 2022, the Defendant charged the Plaintiff a $38.00 OD Fee on a transaction made by Plaintiff, even though, according to Defendant's own account statements, the balance in the account was positive on this date. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the classes of individuals, brings claims for the Defendant's breach of contract, including the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. Mr. Magee is a citizen of Mississippi and a resident of Collins, Mississippi. He has had a checking account with the Defendant, which was governed by the Contract. The Defendant is engaged in the business of providing retail banking services to consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Winston S. Hudson, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (601) 270-0197 E-mail: winston@jefirm.com PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Faces Friedman FDCPA Suit in S.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Claims Bureau, LLC. The case is captioned as ALEXANDER FRIEDMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS BUREAU, LLC, Case No. 7:25-cv-00428-JGLC (S.D.N.Y., January 15, 2025). The suit is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Professional Claims Bureau, LLC is a debt collection agency in Garden City, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com PVH RETAIL: Faces Barrera Wage-and-Hour Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------- VALERIE BARRERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PVH RETAIL STORES LLC; DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CIVSB2501618 (Cal. Super., San Bernardino Cty., February 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide required meal periods, failure to provide required rest periods, failure to properly pay accrued sick days, failure to properly pay unused vacation pay, willful misclassification of employees as independent contractors, failure to pay timely wages during employment, failure to pay a11 wages due to discharged and quitting employees, failure to maintain required records, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse necessary expenditures, and unfair and unlawful business practices. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a floor supervisor from approximately July 01, 2022, to approximately March 06, 2024. PVH Retail Stores LLC is a retail company doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Elkin, Esq. Benjamin McLain, Esq. ELKIN GAMBOA, LLP 4119 W. Burbank Blvd., Suite 110 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (323) 372-1202 Facsimile: (323) 372-1216 Email: michael@elkingamboa.com ben@elkingamboa.com REALTY WHOLESALERS: Piper Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Realty Wholesalers, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Kyle Piper, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Realty Wholesalers, Inc., Weintraub & Weintraub, P.A., Case No. CACE25001922 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Feb. 11, 2025). Realty Wholesalers Inc. -- http://www.rwbids.com/-- is a real estate office.[BN] ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Traces Website Visitors, Kishnani Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- KIEREN KISHNANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD., a Florida corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 5:25-cv-01473 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 12, 2025) alleges that the Defendant installed on its Website software created by TikTok in order to identify website visitors (the "TikTok Software") in violation of the California Trap and Trace Law. Accordingly, the Defendant did not obtain a court order before installing the TikTok Software. The Plaintiff visited Defendant's website on June 25, 2024, after the TikTok Software was installed and within the limitations period established by statute. The TikTok Software acts via a process known as "fingerprinting." Put simply, the TikTok Software collects as much data as it can about an otherwise anonymous visitor to the Website, such as Plaintiff Kieren Kishnani, and matches it with existing data TikTok has acquired and accumulated about hundreds of millions of Americans, the lawsuit says. The TikTok Software gathers device and browser information, geographic information, referral tracking, and URL tracking by running code or "scripts" on the Website to send user details to TikTok, the lawsuit adds. The Plaintiff is a citizen of California residing and located within the Northern District of California. Royal is the proprietor of www.celebritycruises.com, an online platform that operates as a global cruise company running a fleet of vessels in the cruise vacation industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Blvd Ste 510, 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 RTA MEDIA: Wambold Sues Over Unlawful Tracking Tools ---------------------------------------------------- Michael Wambold and Robert Guptill, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. RTA MEDIA HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a RACING AMERICA, Case No. 1:25-cv-00096 (M.D.N.C., Feb. 7, 2025), is brought against the Defendant's violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA") as a result of unlawful tracking tools, on behalf of all persons who subscribed to the Website and subsequently watched pre-recorded video content on the Website. On the Website, Defendant utilized tracking tools to intercept and disclose consumers' search terms, video watching information, and personally identifiable information (collectively, "Sensitive Information") without seeking or obtaining consumers' consent (the "Tracking Tools"). The Website's use of the Tracking Tools resulted in violations of the VPPA, state and federal wiretap statutes, and invasions into consumers' privacy. The Defendant does not disclose that Subscribers' Sensitive Information, including personal identifying information ("PII"), would be captured by the Tracking Tools, and then transmitted to third parties, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Wambold became a subscriber to the Website in or around 2023. Racing America owns and manages a video streaming website at https://www.racingamerica.tv/ (the "Website").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Wilkerson, Esq. THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM NC State Bar No. 35742 11 North Market Street Asheville, NC 28801 Phone: (828) 258-2991 Email: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Gary S. Ishimoto, Esq. Alyssa Tolentino, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, Floor 17 New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: mreich@zlk.com gishimoto@zlk.com atolentino@zlk.com SAGE THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Korver Suit in New York -------------------------------------------------------------- Sage Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from federal securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On August 28, 2024, named plaintiff Darren Korver filed a purported federal securities class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against the Company and individuals, Barry E. Greene and Kimi Iguchi, or the Securities Class Action. The complaint in the Securities Class Action alleges violations of U.S. securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks an as-yet unspecified amount of damages allegedly sustained by parties who purchased Sage stock between April 12, 2021 and July 23, 2024, as well as applicable attorneys' fees and costs. The Company denies any allegations of wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend against the Securities Class Action. Sage Therapeutics, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company pioneering solutions in brain health medicines. SAN BERNARDINO 937: Arellano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against San Bernardino 937 Inc., et al. The case is styled as Margarita Arellano, an individual, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated v. San Bernardino 937 Inc. d/b/a IHOP, Siyavoush Soleimani, Case No. 25STCV03738 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 10, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." San Bernardino 937 Inc. doing business as IHOP -- https://www.ihop.com/en -- is an American multinational pancake house restaurant chain that specializes in American breakfast foods. It is owned by Dine Brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Orion S. Robinson, Esq. ROBINSON DI LANDO 801 S Grand Ave., Ste. 500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-4633 Phone: 213-229-0100 Fax: 213-229-0114 Email: orobinson@rdwlaw.com SANDISK: Plaintiffs Can't Add Custodians for Discovery ------------------------------------------------------ In the consolidated case In re SANDISK SSDs LITIGATION, Case No. 23-cv-04152-RFL (N.D. Calif.), Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied the plaintiffs' request to add custodians without prejudice for failure to show diligence in complying with the case schedule. The parties have filed a joint discovery letter regarding Plaintiffs' request for Defendants to produce documents from three additional custodians, beyond the five custodians the parties had previously agreed Defendants would provide. Judge Rita Lin referred the case to Judge Cisneros for all discovery purposes. In the context of the schedule for this case, however, Plaintiffs have not met their burden to pursue discovery from the custodians they propose adding at this late stage, even without reaching the parties' dispute regarding relevance, proportionality, or the apex doctrine, the Court finds. In a text order issued Jan. 23, 2024, Judge Lin extended the close of fact discovery by sixty days to April 1, 2025, modified other deadlines accordingly, and set the deadline for substantial completion of document production for Feb. 14, 2025. The parties filed their present joint discovery letter two weeks later, on Feb. 6, 2025. Plaintiffs cite their Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, filed in June of last year, as including theories for which this new discovery is relevant. To afford Defendants enough time to perform the necessary searches and produce the relevant evidence they yield, Plaintiffs propose the Court extend the deadline for substantial completion of discovery by 2-3 weeks. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants first acknowledge that Matthew White, Defendant Western Digital's Senior Vice President of Flash Product Management, is a custodian of relevant evidence through an amended Rule 26 disclosure on Dec. 31, 2024. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not shown that White's files contain unique information not already produced. Defendants do not argue that White's documents are irrelevant to the case, or that any other consideration warrants denying this request besides Plaintiffs' tardiness in seeking to add White as a custodian, the cumulative nature of his files, and the potential delay to the case schedule if Plaintiffs' request is granted. Plaintiffs have offered no explanation for their delay in selecting the other two proposed custodians, Robert Soderbery and David Goeckeler, the Court noes. The parties are directed to meet and confer in person or by videoconference as to whether they can stipulate to Defendants providing limited discovery from White and a corresponding deadline for the production of White's custodial records that is not long after the existing deadline for substantial completion of document production. According to the Court, Plaintiffs' request to add three new custodians at this stage of the case requires an amendment to the scheduling order. Plaintiffs have not shown diligence as required for such an amendment, the Court concludes. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A8rpJY from PacerMonitor.com. SCHRADER MECHANICAL: Villanueva Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Schrader Mechanical, Inc. The case is styled as Ceasar Villanueva, as an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Schrader Mechanical, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0001999 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Feb. 7, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Schrader Mechanical Inc. -- https://www.smiwest.com/ -- is an Industrial Process and Cold Storage Contractor, SMI offers a wide variety of services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ethan Capell Surls, Esq. STANSBURY BROWN LAW 2610 1/2 Abbot Kinney Boulevard Venice, CA 90291 Phone: (323) 207-5925 Email: esurls@stansburybrownlaw.com SEMINOLE HARD: Tribe's Bid to Intervene in Montgomery Suit Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted the Seminole Tribe of Florida's motion to intervene in the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff, v. SEMINOLE HARD ROCK DIGITAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No: 8:24-cv-1062-KKM-TGW (M.D. Fla.) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). Montgomery sues Seminole Hard Rock Digital, LLC (SHRD), for violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), Secs. 501.201–501.23, Fla. Stat., and he seeks certification of a class. The action focuses on SHRD's "No Regret First Bet" promotion on the app Hard Rock Bet, through which SHRD allegedly encouraged users to make their first bets up to $100, with the promise of giving the money back if it doesn't win. Montgomery alleges that SHRD deliberately did not communicate that users availing themselves of the promotion would only be credited with a Bonus Bet. Montgomery contends that SHRD's advertisement of the "No Regret First Bet" promotion is misleading and violates FDUTPA. SHRD has moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The Tribe moves to intervene as of right for the limited purpose of filing a motion to dismiss. The Tribe makes a prima facie showing that its motion is timely and that it has an interest in the transaction at issue that may be impaired by the action's disposition. Montgomery challenges only the Tribe's argument that SHRD does not adequately protect the Tribe's interests. The Tribe argues that SHRD's representation of the Tribe's interests is inadequate. The Tribe contends that it is the proper defendant because SHRD has no legal interest in the Tribe's sports-betting business and the Tribe is legally responsible for the conduct at issue and otherwise has total authority and control over the website and apps offering the Tribe's sports betting games under the Tribe's compact with the State of Florida. The Tribe maintains that as a sovereign entity, it has interests not shared by entities like SHRD in defending its sovereign immunity and its right to conduct gaming operations. Judge Mizelle holds that Montgomery has not shown that SHRD has a right to offer sports betting in Florida independent of the Tribe. Nor has he shown that SHRD has the same sovereign interest in abiding by the compact -- and maintaining the right to offer sports betting -- that the Tribe does. And SHRD, as a limited liability company, possesses no innate sovereign immunity and thus does not have the same interest as the Tribe in policing the scope of the Tribe's sovereign immunity waiver. As such, the Tribe has met the minimal burden of showing that SHRD may be an inadequate representative of its interests. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=L6yXaz from PacerMonitor.com. SEQUOIA BENEFITS: Bid for Class Cert Extended to August 13 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re: Sequoia Benefits and Insurance Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 3:22-cv-08217-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an order extending all case deadlines through class certification by approximately six months as follows: Event Current Proposed Deadline Deadline Motion for class certification: Feb. 11, 2025 Aug. 13, 2025 Opposition to motion for class Apr. 18, 2025 Oct. 22, 2025 certification; Defendants' motions to exclude Plaintiffs' class certification experts: Reply to motion for class May 20, 2025 Nov. 21, 2025 certification; Plaintiffs' motions to exclude Defendants' class certification experts; and Plaintiffs' opposition to Defendants' motions to exclude: Defendants' replies in support June 3, 2025 Dec. 9, 2025 of motions to exclude: Defendants' oppositions to June 10, 2025 Dec. 16, 2025 Plaintiffs' motions to exclude: Hearing on motion for class July 15, 2025 Jan. 26, 2026 certification and motions to exclude in San Francisco, Courtroom 15, 18th Floor before Judge Rita F. Lin. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2GrSyV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Berger, Esq. Linda P. Lam, Esq. Jeffrey B. Kosbie, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: dmb@classlawgroup.com lpl@classlawgroup.com jbk@classlawgroup.com - and - Rachele R. Byrd, Esq. Stephanie Aviles, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 1820 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-4599 Facsimile: (619) 234-4599 E-mail: byrd@whafh.com saviles@whafh.com - and - M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP. 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 239-4778 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com gharoutunian@justice4you.com - and - Kaleigh N. Boyd, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Ave., Ste 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 E-mail: kboyd@tousley.com The Defendant is represented by: Spencer Stephen Persson, Esq. Jeffrey S. Bosley, Esq. Monder Khoury, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 350 S. Grand Avenue Ste 27th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 633-6800 Facsimile: (213) 633-6899 E-mail: spencerpersson@dwt.com jeffbosley@dwt.com mikekhoury@dwt.com - and - Brett Faye Asa, Esq. FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP 1960 East Grand Ave., Suite 1260 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 499-0035 E-mail: brett.asa@fmglaw.com SHENZHEN SMOORE: Earth's Healing Sues Over Sherman Act Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Earth's Healing, Inc., and others similarly situated v. SHENZHEN SMOORE TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD.; JUPITER RESEARCH LLC; GREENLANE HOLDINGS, LLC; 3WIN CORP.; and CB SOLUTIONS, LLC d/b/a CANNA BRAND SOLUTIONS, Case No. 3:25-cv-01428 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 11, 2025), is brought arises from the Defendant Smoore and its Authorized Distributors' unlawful agreement not to compete with one another. The Defendants are horizontal competitors at the distribution level (i.e., the level at which Plaintiffs and members of the Class purchased Vapes), and their agreement is therefore a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Throughout the Class Period, Smoore has sold its Vapes in the United States both directly and through its Authorized Distributors. That is, at all relevant times, Smoore has been both a supplier to and competitor with the Authorized Distributors in the wholesale distribution of Vapes sold in the United States. There have been no meaningful competitors to Defendant Smoore and its Authorized Distributors in the United States, and the Defendants have possessed and exercised significant market power in the wholesale distribution of Vapes sold in the United States. Specifically, Smoore and each of its Authorized Distributors entered into written and signed agreements to not charge their customers below minimum prices agreed to by all of the Defendants and not compete for other Defendants' (including Smoore's) customers (the "Distributor Agreements"). The Distributor Agreements are direct evidence of the conspiracy. The Defendants monitored and policed their agreement through the Authorized Distributors' monthly sharing of confidential customer names and price information, as well as through the Authorized Distributors' reporting of potential violations directly to Smoore. When the Defendants discovered a potential violation, Smoore contacted the alleged violator and stopped the offending action. In addition, Smoore punishes violators by deducting money from the security deposit the Authorized Distributors are required to pay Smoore. The Defendants' agreement is per se illegal under the antitrust laws. First, because Smoore competes with each of its Authorized Distributors in the sale of Vapes at the wholesale distribution level (i.e., sales to Plaintiff and the Class), the Defendants' agreement not to compete is in and of itself a horizontal restraint. The Defendants' anticompetitive conduct has artificially fixed the price of Smoore's Vapes in the United States at supra-competitive levels throughout the Class Period, and as a result, Plaintiff and members of the putative Class paid higher prices for Smoore's Vapes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff directly purchased Vapes manufactured by Smoore directly from one or more of the Defendants. Smoore has been the dominant manufacturer of Vapes sold in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 580 California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94101 Phone: (415) 633-1908 Facsimile: (415) 358-4980 SIRIUS XM HOLDINGS: Faces Posternock Class Action in New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------------- Sirius XM Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2025, that on May 17, 2023, Robyn Posternock, Muriel Salters and Philip Munning, individually, as private attorneys general, and on behalf of all other New Jersey persons similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against the company in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Sirius XM filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration on August 18, 2023. Sirius XM renewed that motion on June 14, 2024 and the renewed motion remains pending. SiriusXM features music, sports, entertainment, comedy, talk, news, traffic and weather channels and other content, as well as podcasts and infotainment services, in the United States on a subscription fee basis. It packages include live, curated and certain exclusive and on demand programming. The SiriusXM service is distributed through our two proprietary satellite radio systems and streamed via applications for mobile devices, home devices and other consumer electronic equipment. SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: 9th Cir. Halts Pirani Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court's decision that allowed a securities fraud lawsuit against Slack Technologies, Inc. to proceed. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs, led by Fiyyaz Pirani, failed to meet a critical requirement: proving that their shares were directly traceable to the allegedly misleading registration statement. This ruling follows a 2023 remand by the United States Supreme Court in Slack Technologies, LLC v. Pirani (598 U.S. 759). The case stemmed from Slack's direct listing in 2019, which allowed both registered and unregistered shares to be sold simultaneously, complicating efforts for investors to trace their shares to a specific registration statement. Slack went public through a direct listing, with no underwriters and no lock-up period. On the first day of the offering, 118 million registered shares and 165 million unregistered shares were available for purchase on the New York Stock Exchange. That day, Pirani purchased 30,000 Slack shares. Following the direct listing, Slack experienced multiple service disruptions and reported disappointing quarterly earnings. By September 2019, its share price had fallen by more than a third from the date of the direct listing. Pirani brought this class action against Slack as well as its officers, directors, and venture capital fund investors. Pirani accused Slack of providing a misleading registration statement, claiming violations under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, which holds companies strictly liable for material misstatements in registration documents. However, the Ninth Circuit concluded that in order to succeed, plaintiffs must prove that their shares were directly traceable to the registration statement. Pirani had already conceded that he could not establish this traceability, leading the appeals court to dismiss his claims with prejudice. The ruling, written by Judges Sidney R. Thomas, Eric D. Miller, and Jane A. Restani, emphasized that the Securities Act's provisions require traceability, a standard Pirani could not meet. Judge Restani is a judge for the United States Court of International Trade, and is sitting by designation. Slack's direct listing allowed both registered and unregistered shares to enter the market at the same time. This created a challenge for investors trying to trace their specific shares to the registration statement, especially since, unlike a traditional IPO, shares sold during a direct listing did not have a clear, direct connection to the registration statement. Pirani argued that the mix of registered and unregistered shares meant that all shareholders should be entitled to sue. He also attempted to use a statistical model to infer traceability based on the proportion of registered shares. However, the Ninth Circuit rejected this argument, reinforcing the strict requirement for traceability under securities law. Slack maintained that only those who could directly trace their shares to the misleading registration statement had standing to sue. The company emphasized that Pirani had already conceded his inability to trace his shares, and therefore, his claims should be dismissed. The case before the Ninth Circuit is styled Pirani v. Slack Technologies, No. 20-16419 (9th Cir.). A copy of the Ninth Circuit Court's decision dated Feb. 10, 2025, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yuhn7wyv Fiyyaz Pirani is represented in the case by Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq., W. Scott Holleman, Esq., and David J. Stone, Esq., at Bragar Eagel & Squire PC, New York, NY. Counsel may be reached at: Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq. BRAGAR EAGEL SQUIRE, P.C. 810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620 New York, NY 10019 Tel: (212) 308-5888 E-mail: eagel@bespc.com Slack is represented by Michael D. Celio, Esq., Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. , Esq., and Matt A. Getz, Esq., at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Palo Alto and Los Angeles, Calif. Counsel may be reached at: Thomas G. Hungar, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Tel: (202) 887-3784 E-mail: thungar@gibsondunn.com Counsel to Amicus Curiae Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Melissa Arbus Sherry, Esq. Andrew B. Clubok, Esq. Susan E. Engel, Esq. Brent T. Murphy, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 Tel: (202) 637-3386 E-mail: melissa.sherry@lw.com Counsel for Amicus Curiae Washington Legal Foundation: James N. Kramer, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel: (415) 773-5923 E-mail: jkramer@orrick.com Counsel for Amicus Curiae Cato Institute: Mark C. Fleming, Esq. Timothy J. Perla, Esq. Robert A. Donoghue, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Tel: (617) 526-6000 E-mail: mark.fleming@wilmerhale.com Counsel for Amicus Curiae Former SEC Commissioner Joseph A. Grundfest: Boris Feldman, Esq. Doru Gavril, Esq. Rebecca Lockert, Esq. Olivia Rosen, Esq. FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP 855 Main Street Redwood City, CA 94063 Tel: (650) 618-9250 E-mail: boris.feldman@freshfields.com doru.gavril@freshfields.com rebecca.lockert@freshfields.com olivia.rosen@freshfields.com Counsel for Amici Curiae Investors: Salvatore Graziano Hannah Ross Lauren Amy Ormsbee BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Tel: (212) 554-1400 E-mail: salvatore@blbglaw.com SMOOCHIE BABY: Faces Hernandez Suit Over Website Inaccessibility ---------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SMOOCHIE BABY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00640 (E.D.N.Y., February 5, 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 people. The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on November 20, 2024 to access Defendant's website from his home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. Smoochie Baby, Inc. owns the online store, www.smoochiebaby.com, which offers children's clothing, accessories, and gifts, with a focus on eco-friendly products. [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 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com SOCK IT TO ME: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Wilson Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ HOWARD WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOCK IT TO ME, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01273 (N.D. Ill., February 12, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.sockittome.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Due to Defendant's failure to build the website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to complete a purchase transaction. The Plaintiff now asserts that Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website is a violation of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sock It To Me, Inc. designs and manufactures socks and underwear. It owns the website which offers products and services for online sale and general delivery to the public. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com SONDER HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Duffaydar Class Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Sonder Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quaterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Duffaydar securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On April 11, 2024, a putative securities class action lawsuit titled Duffaydar v. Sonder Holdings Inc., et al., Case No. 24-cv-2952 was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California naming the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors as defendants. A lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed, and an amended complaint was filed on December 23, 2024. The amended complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of stockholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between March 16, 2023 and March 15, 2024, and alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements about the Company's financial results and condition, including the Company's valuation of operating lease right of use assets, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The amended complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, fees and costs. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any possible financial loss that could result from this matter. The Company believes the plaintiffs' allegations are without merit and intends to defend the action vigorously. Sonder Holdings Inc., provides short and long-term accommodations to travelers in various cities across North America, Europe, and the Middle East. It also operates boutique hotels. SONDER HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Porter Class Suit in Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sonder Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Porter class suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On December 23, 2024, a putative stockholder of GMII filed a purported class action lawsuit titled Porter v. Metropoulos, et al., Case No. 2024-1336 in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Gores Metropoulos Sponsor II, the directors and officers of GMII, and two of the Company's officers. The complaint purports to assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment in connection with the merger between GMII and Legacy Sonder and seeks unspecified damages and disgorgement. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any possible financial loss that could result from this matter. Sonder Holdings Inc., provides short and long-term accommodations to travelers in various cities across North America, Europe, and the Middle East. It also operates boutique hotels. SPAY INC: Loses Bid to Compel Arbitration in Buffington Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Philip M. Halpern of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denies the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit captioned STEVEN BUFFINGTON, NANCY HELMOLD, SARAH KRAMER, and CYRINDA CRAIG, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SPAY, INC. d/b/a STACK SPORTS, Defendant, Case No. 7:24-cv-02541-PMH (S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiffs Steven Buffington, Nancy Helmold, Sarah Kramer, and Cyrinda Craig commenced this putative class action against SPay, Inc., d/b/a Stack Sports, on April 9, 2024. Before the Court is the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act and to stay proceedings. The Plaintiffs opposed the motion, the Defendant filed its reply, and the Plaintiffs thereafter filed sur-reply with the Court's leave. Stack Sports offers sports management technology services to youth sports organizations, providing youth sports leagues with an online enrollment platform through its "Sports Connect" service. The youth sports organization using the software instructs parents or guardians that they must use Sports Connect service to register their children in the organization's sports offerings. When a consumer registers their child for a sport using software provided by Sports Connect, the consumer must create an account that is powered by Sports Connect software. A service fee is then assessed on the registrations completed via the Sports Connect software. The Plaintiffs, parents who registered their children in various youth sports organizations, were charged the service fee by the Defendant. They contend that the service fee is not tethered to any actual service or expense, it is a pure-profit generator, and it is not disclosed to consumers until after the consumer has already gone through several steps to commit to the purchase of registering for the youth sport. The Plaintiffs bring claims against the Defendant for violations of the consumer fraud statutes in New York, Florida, Illinois, and Iowa, and for unjust enrichment. The Defendant moves to compel arbitration of the Plaintiffs' claims, arguing that they agreed to the Defendant's Terms of Service in connection with their use of the software, and that by agreeing to the Terms, they agreed to mandatory arbitration for these disputes. The Defendant states that there is no dispute that the parties have entered into a binding agreement to arbitrate pursuant to the express Terms and the Plaintiffs' admitted use of Sport Stacks' licensed software. The Defendant supports this assertion by arguing that each Plaintiff was notified of the Terms of Service in connection with their use of the software, and that by agreeing to the Terms, the Plaintiffs agreed to mandatory arbitration of their claims. The Plaintiffs counter that the Defendant has failed to meet its initial burden of demonstrating that an agreement to arbitrate was made and has not proven it provided them notice of any agreement to arbitrate. Judge Halpern says the complete record before the Court is infected with a disputed question of material fact, such that the making of the arbitration agreement is in issue. The core issue--whether the Plaintiffs agreed to arbitration--is sharply disputed, as the Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs did so by creating their accounts on the sports organizations' registration pages while the Plaintiffs argue the webpages did not contain any notification that by creating their accounts they would be agreeing to the Defendants' Terms of Service and mandatory arbitration provision therein. The dispute stems from the Defendant's production of three archived copies of webpages, and the Plaintiffs' production of screenshots of webpages and four sworn statements, one from each of the named Plaintiffs. Although the Defendant established that its Terms of Service have remained consistent since July 9, 2021, the Defendant did not offer proof that those webpages remained consistent since 2021, Judge Halpern notes. The screenshots produced by the Defendants reveal a notification to the consumer that "by clicking Create Account you agree to the Sports Connect Terms of Service[.]" The screenshots produced by the Plaintiffs, however, do not show any such notice to the consumer. The parties dispute what the Plaintiffs actually saw on the webpages on the dates they utilized the service. Together, the Plaintiffs' evidence makes clear that there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the Plaintiffs manifested their assent to arbitration, Judge Halpern opines. The Defendant's offer of evidence only fortifies the reality that a genuine issue of fact exists here as to whether the Plaintiffs were on notice of the Defendant's Terms of Service and mandatory arbitration provision contained therein. For these reasons, the Court denies the motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. The Defendant will file its Answer to the Complaint within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Opinion & Order pursuant to the Court's June 25, 2024 Order. A conference is scheduled for April 1, 2025, at 12:00 p.m., to be held at the White Plains courthouse concerning the scheduling of a jury trial on the issue of whether an agreement to arbitrate was made. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at Doc. 11. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyyatmfy from PacerMonitor.com. STOP & SHOP: Fuller Lidocane Patch Suit Dismissed with Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Cathy Seibel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the case captioned as EDWARD FULLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, - against - THE STOP & SHOP SUPERMARKET COMPANY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:22-cv-09824-CS (S.D.N.Y.) with prejudice. The parties, by and through counsel, having filed their stipulation for dismissal, and the Court, having been duly advised, now finds that the same should be granted. Each party shall bear its own costs and fees. The Plaintiff brought the action seeking damages and an injunction to stop the Defendant's false and misleading labeling practices with regard to its adhesive lidocaine patches under the CareOne brand. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=23mxAD from PacerMonitor.com. SUNMERRY EDISON: Claude Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Website ----------------------------------------------------------- WISLANDE CLAUDE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNMERRY EDISON, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01016 (D.N.J., February 5, 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 people. The Plaintiff was injured when she attempted multiple times, most recently on December 13, 2024 to access Defendant's website from her home in an effort to make an online food order. However, the Plaintiff encountered barriers that denied him full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content and services. As a result, she was unable to complete a purchase due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's website. The Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. SunMerry Edison, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant that offers baked goods, particularly Asian-style cakes, pastries, and bread. It provides the website, www.sunmerryus.com, which offers these products for online sale and general delivery to the public. [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 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com TARGET CORPORATION: Messeck Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Messeck, Emanuel Becerra, Nicholas Raddatz, and Marijke Myland, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION, Case No. 0:25-cv-00535 (D. Minn., Feb. 10, 2025), is brought against Defendant seeking unpaid overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and the wage and hour and related laws of the States of Minnesota, New Jersey, California, and Pennsylvania. The Plaintiffs worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, without receiving wages from Defendant for all hours worked, as well as overtime compensation as required by federal and state laws. The Defendant suffered and permitted the Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective to routinely work more than 40 hours in a workweek without overtime compensation, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant. The Defendant owns and operates retail department stores throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachhana T. Srey, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 Email: srey@nka.com - and - Richard E. Hayber, Esq. HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC 750 Main Street, Suite 904 Hartford, CT 06103 Phone: (860) 522-8888 Facsimile: (860) 218-9555 Email: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com - and - Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Christopher M. Timmel, Esq. KLAFTER LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Phone: (914) 934-9200 - and - Marc S. Hepworth, Esq. Charles Gershbaum, Esq. David A. Roth, Esq. Rebecca Predovan HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC 192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802 New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 545-1199 TEAMEX CORP: Underpays Field Service Technicians, Lee Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAEWOO LEE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEAMEX CORP., INFIGO LLC dba INFIGO EV SOLUTIONS, SEAN KIM, MICHAEL CHOI, DANNY CHOI, and FELIX SONG, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01156 (D.N.J., February 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, and unlawful retaliation. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a field service technician from February 5, 2024, to January 24, 2025. Teamex Corp. is a provider of engineering level technical support in New Jersey. Infigo LLC, doing business as Infigo EV Solutions, is a provider of Operations and Maintenance (O&M) for electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Kim, Esq. RYAN KIM LAW, P.C. 222 Bruce Reynolds Blvd. Suite 490 Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Email: ryan@RyanKimLaw.com THINK COFFEE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hernandez Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THINK COFFEE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00639 (E.D.N.Y., February 5, 2025), arises from Defendant's failure to provide its online content and services compatible with screen-reader technology. The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.thinkcoffee.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Moreover, the Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. Think Coffee, LLC is a coffee company in New York City that owns and controls the website. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com THREE "B" PROPERTIES: Pardo Sues Over Disabled's Access to Property ------------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THREE "B" PROPERTIES, INC.; and T R ENTERPRISE 5, INC. d/b/a R & T FOOD MART, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-20631 (S.D. Fla., February 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its facilities to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other persons with disabilities. The Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of its property and business. The Plaintiff and similarly situated disabled individuals encountered architectural barriers in common areas such parking, entrance access and path of travel, and public restrooms. The Plaintiff and Class members seek injunctive relief to remove the existing architectural barriers to the physically disabled when such removal is readily achievable for the place of public accommodation. Three "B" Properties, Inc. is a commercial property owner and operator doing business in Florida. T R Enterprise 5, Inc., doing business as R & T Food Mart, is a commercial property owner and operator doing business in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Armando Mejias, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 Email: amejias@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com THUNDER ROAD INC: Crumwell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. THUNDER ROAD INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01240 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 11, 2025), is brought this civil rights action against the Defendant for their 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 Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://rembeauty.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. 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 individuals --thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen reading software to read website content using her computer. THUNDER ROAD INC., operates the R.E.M. Beauty online retail store, as well as the R.E.M. Beauty interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal TIP PARTNERS: Claude Sues Over Website's ADA Noncompliance ---------------------------------------------------------- WISLANDE CLAUDE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TIP PARTNERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01018 (D.N.J., February 5, 2025), arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.tacoria.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. On December 13, 2024, the Plaintiff visited Defendant's website to make an online food order. Despite her efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). TIP Partners, LLC owns Mexican restaurants and the website which allows customers to order food online. [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 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com TRANS UNION: Must Oppose Kaplan Class Cert Bid by Oct. 23 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESLEY KAPLAN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02438-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Wendy Beetlestone entered an amended scheduling order: Event Deadline Plaintiff's disclosure of any expert(s) May 29, 2025 related to class certification: Defendant's disclosure of rebuttal expert(s) June 26, 2025 related to class certification: Deadline for deposition(s) for expert(s) July 29, 2025 related to class certification: Deadline for Daubert motion(s) related to Sept. 25, 2025 class certification and Plaintiff's motion for class certification: Defendant's opposition to class Oct. 23, 2025 certification: Deadline to file Daubert and dispositive March 26, 2026 motion(s): TransUnion is an American consumer credit reporting agency. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KwPzDf at no extra charge.[CC] TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Class Settlement in Rand Suit Has Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Vincent L. Briccetti of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, White Plains Division, issued a Final Approval Order and Judgment approving the parties' settlement agreement in the lawsuit styled JENNIFER RAND, individually and on behalf of a class similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 7:21-cv-10744-VB-VR (S.D.N.Y.). The matter came before the Court for a duly-noticed hearing on Jan. 28, 2025 (the "Final Approval Hearing"), upon Plaintiff Jennifer Rand's ("Plaintiff" or "Settlement Class Representative") Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement with Defendant The Travelers Indemnity Company, which was consented to by Travelers. Due and adequate notice of the Settlement Agreement have been given to the Settlement Class Members. The Court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, or alternatively, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d) and 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a), to enter this Final Approval Order and Judgment and has personal jurisdiction over the Plaintiff and Travelers (in this Action only and for purposes of this Settlement only) and all Class Members. The Court grants final approval of the Settlement, including the releases in the Settlement and the Distribution Plan. For purposes of the Settlement and this Final Approval Order and Judgment, the Court finally certifies for settlement purposes only the following Settlement Class: "All individuals of the United States who were sent notice that their Personal Information was accessed, stolen, or compromised as a result of the Data Incident, as reflected on the Class List. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) Travelers, any Person in which Travelers has a controlling interest, and Travelers' officers, directors, legal representatives, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns; (ii) any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over the Action and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff; and (iii) any individual that timely and validly opts out of the Settlement." The Court finds that, solely for purpose of settlement, the Settlement Class meets all of the applicable requirements of Rule 23(a), Rule (b)(3) and Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Briccetti confirms the appointment of Plaintiff Jennifer Rand as the Settlement Class Representative, and Gainey McKenna & Egleston and Lowey Dannenberg, P.C., as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. The Court finds that one Settlement Class Member has validly requested to be excluded from the Settlement Class ("Opt-Out Member"). The Court finds that no timely objection to the proposed Settlement had been submitted. All persons and entities, who have not objected to the Settlement in the manner provided in the Settlement are deemed to have waived any objections to the Settlement. Judge Briccetti awards Class Counsel attorneys' fees in the amount of $2 million and reimbursement of litigation expenses in the amount of $79,809.58, which amounts are to be paid from out of the Settlement Fund in accordance with the terms of the Settlement. In addition, $252,000 in Administrative Expenses are to be paid out of the Settlement Fund to Angeion, to perform its responsibilities as the Settlement Administrator, in accordance with the terms of the Settlement. The Settlement Class Representative is awarded a case contribution award in the amount of $10,000. The Parties will bear their own costs, except as otherwise provided in the Settlement Agreement. A full-text copy of the Court's Final Approval Order and Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybmhmy6p from PacerMonitor.com. TRUSTCO BANK: Class Settlement in Jenkins Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jenkins v. Trustco Bank, Case No. 1:21-cv-00238-GTS-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Glenn Suddaby entered an order granting unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement. -- The Court has reviewed the Agreement and finds that the Settlement memorialized therein is fair and adequate and meets the requirements for Final Approval. The Settlement appears to be reasonable in light of the risk inherent in continuing with litigation. The Court also notes the Settlement is a non-reversionary one where no money from the $2,750,000.00 Settlement Fund will be returned to the Defendant, and was the product of an arm's length negotiation involving experienced counsel and the assistance of a mediator. -- The Court finds that the Settlement Class meets all the requirements for class certification for settlement purposes only, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and applicable case law. Accordingly, the Court certifies the Settlement Class, which is defined as follows: -- "All Trustco Bank account holders who have or have had accounts with Trustco Bank who from Sept. 2, 2014 through Dec. 10, 2023 were charged two or more NSF Fees or an NSF Fee followed by an Overdraft Fee on the same ACH transaction or check (the "Retry NSF" Class); and, all Trustco Bank account holders who have or have had accounts with Trustco Bank who from Sept. 2, 2014 through Dec. 10, 2023 were charged an Overdraft Fee on a point of sale Debit Card Transaction, where there was a sufficient available balance at the time the transaction was authorized but an insufficient available balance at the time the transaction was presented to Trustco Bank for payment and posted to the account (the "APPSN" Class). Excluded from the Settlement Class is Trustco Bank, its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers and directors; all customers who made a timely election to be excluded; and all judges assigned to this litigation and their immediate family members. -- Class Counsel are awarded $916,666 in attorneys' fees and $36,234.57 in litigation expenses. The Court finds that the awarded amount of attorneys' fees is reasonable for the reasons articulated in Plaintiffs' Motion. -- Each of the Class Representatives is awarded a Service Award of $10,000 in recognition of their time and effort spent on behalf of the Settlement Class and the risks they undertook in prosecuting the Action. -- Payment of the administration costs of Simpluris, Inc., from the Settlement Fund in the amount of $45,000 is approved. Trustco offers checking accounts, savings accounts, retirement accounts, time deposits, money market accounts, and credit cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tlj8A4 at no extra charge.[CC] TRUSTCO BANK: Class Settlement in Lamoureux Gets Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lamoureux v. Trustco Bank, Case No. 1:21-cv-00336-GTS-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Glenn Suddaby entered an order granting unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement. -- The Court has reviewed the Agreement and finds that the Settlement memorialized therein is fair and adequate and meets the requirements for Final Approval. The Settlement appears to be reasonable in light of the risk inherent in continuing with litigation. The Court also notes the Settlement is a non-reversionary one where no money from the $2,750,000.00 Settlement Fund will be returned to the Defendant, and was the product of an arm's length negotiation involving experienced counsel and the assistance of a mediator. -- The Court finds that the Settlement Class meets all the requirements for class certification for settlement purposes only, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and applicable case law. Accordingly, the Court certifies the Settlement Class, which is defined as follows: -- "All Trustco Bank account holders who have or have had accounts with Trustco Bank who from Sept. 2, 2014 through Dec. 10, 2023 were charged two or more NSF Fees or an NSF Fee followed by an Overdraft Fee on the same ACH transaction or check (the "Retry NSF" Class); and, all Trustco Bank account holders who have or have had accounts with Trustco Bank who from Sept. 2, 2014 through Dec. 10, 2023 were charged an Overdraft Fee on a point of sale Debit Card Transaction, where there was a sufficient available balance at the time the transaction was authorized but an insufficient available balance at the time the transaction was presented to Trustco Bank for payment and posted to the account (the "APPSN" Class). Excluded from the Settlement Class is Trustco Bank, its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers and directors; all customers who made a timely election to be excluded; and all judges assigned to this litigation and their immediate family members. -- Class Counsel are awarded $916,666 in attorneys' fees and $36,234.57 in litigation expenses. The Court finds that the awarded amount of attorneys' fees is reasonable for the reasons articulated in Plaintiffs' Motion. -- Each of the Class Representatives is awarded a Service Award of $10,000 in recognition of their time and effort spent on behalf of the Settlement Class and the risks they undertook in prosecuting the Action. -- Payment of the administration costs of Simpluris, Inc., from the Settlement Fund in the amount of $45,000 is approved. Trustco Bank offers checking accounts, savings accounts, retirement accounts, time deposits, money market accounts, and credit cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Jt8pXM at no extra charge.[CC] TRUSTCO BANK: Class Settlement in Livingston Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Livingston v. Trustco Bank, et al., DEBORAH J. LIVINGSTON; DENA SCROGGINS; ROBERT N. LAMOUREUX; Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and TAMMY K. JENKINS, Administrator and Representative of the Estate of Thomas Jenkins, v. TRUSTCO BANK, A FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, Case No. 1:20-cv-01030-GTS-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Glenn Suddaby entered an order granting unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement. -- The Court has reviewed the Agreement and finds that the Settlement memorialized therein is fair and adequate and meets the requirements for Final Approval. The Settlement appears to be reasonable in light of the risk inherent in continuing with litigation. The Court also notes the Settlement is a non-reversionary one where no money from the $2,750,000.00 Settlement Fund will be returned to the Defendant, and was the product of an arm's length negotiation involving experienced counsel and the assistance of a mediator. -- The Court finds that the Settlement Class meets all the requirements for class certification for settlement purposes only, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and applicable case law. Accordingly, the Court certifies the Settlement Class, which is defined as follows: -- "All Trustco Bank account holders who have or have had accounts with Trustco Bank who from Sept. 2, 2014 through Dec. 10, 2023 were charged two or more NSF Fees or an NSF Fee followed by an Overdraft Fee on the same ACH transaction or check (the "Retry NSF" Class); and, all Trustco Bank account holders who have or have had accounts with Trustco Bank who from Sept. 2, 2014 through Dec. 10, 2023 were charged an Overdraft Fee on a point of sale Debit Card Transaction, where there was a sufficient available balance at the time the transaction was authorized but an insufficient available balance at the time the transaction was presented to Trustco Bank for payment and posted to the account (the "APPSN" Class). Excluded from the Settlement Class is Trustco Bank, its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers and directors; all customers who made a timely election to be excluded; and all judges assigned to this litigation and their immediate family members. -- Class Counsel are awarded $916,666 in attorneys' fees and $36,234.57 in litigation expenses. The Court finds that the awarded amount of attorneys' fees is reasonable for the reasons articulated in Plaintiffs' Motion. -- Each of the Class Representatives is awarded a Service Award of $10,000 in recognition of their time and effort spent on behalf of the Settlement Class and the risks they undertook in prosecuting the Action. -- Payment of the administration costs of Simpluris, Inc., from the Settlement Fund in the amount of $45,000 is approved. Trustco offers checking accounts, savings accounts, retirement accounts, time deposits, money market accounts, and credit cards. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zNQLms at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED AIRLINES: Brown Seeks to Stay All Proceedings ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRACY BROWN, et al., v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00902-O (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order staying all proceedings in the case pending the Fifth Circuit's review and resolution of the district court's class-certification order in a related class action, Sambrano v. United Airlines, Inc., currently pending before the Hon. Mark T. Pittman. (N.D. Tex. 2024) United Airlines provides domestic and international airline services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zQYP66 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John C. Sullivan, Esq. Jace R. Yarbrough, Esq. S|L LAW PLLC 610 Uptown Boulevard, Suite 2000 Cedar Hill, TX 75104 Telephone: (469) 523-1351 Facsimile: (469) 613-0891 E-mail: john.sullivan@the-sl-lawfirm.com jace.yarbrough@the-sl-lawfirm.com UNITED HEALTHCARE: Deadline for Bid to Stay M.R. Suit on Feb. 26 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled M.R., individually and on behalf of J.S., a minor, Plaintiff v. UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, PFIZER INC., and the PFIZER HEALTH and WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04748-GHW-GS (S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Gary Stein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York sets for Feb. 26, 2025, the Defendants' deadline to file motion to stay the action. A status conference was held on Feb. 5, 2025. Defendants UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company, United Behavioral Health, Pfizer Inc., and the Pfizer Health and Welfare Benefit Plan intend to move to stay this action pending final approval of the settlement agreement in the R.B. v. United Behavioral Health class action, Case No. 21 Civ. 00553, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. As stated on the record, the Court set the following briefing schedule on the motion to stay: * The Defendants' moving papers are due by Feb. 26, 2025; * The Plaintiff's Opposition is due by March 19, 2025; and * The Defendants' reply, if any, is due by March 26, 2025. In light of the intended motion, the Feb. 12, 2025 discovery deadline is adjourned sine die. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/55mp6xw8 from PacerMonitor.com. UNIVERSAL SERVICES: Brewster Sues Over Unlawful Tobacco Surcharge ----------------------------------------------------------------- Spring Brewster, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. UNIVERSAL SERVICES OF AMERICA LP d/b/a ALLIED UNIVERSAL and the ALLIED UNIVERSAL EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE, Case No. 5:25-cv-00381 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 11, 2025), is brought challenging the Defendants' unlawful practice of charging a "tobacco surcharge" without complying with the regulatory requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") and the implementing regulations. Under ERISA, wellness programs must offer, and provide notice of, a reasonable alternative standard that allows all participants to obtain the "full reward"—including refunds for surcharges paid while completing the program. Instead, under the Allied Universal Health And Welfare Benefit Plan (the "Plan"), Defendants operate a non-compliant, discriminatory tobacco wellness program that does not offer the "full reward" to participants who satisfy the alternative standard and does not provide proper notice in all plan materials, violating federal regulations and depriving participants of benefits required under ERISA. Tobacco surcharges have become more prevalent in recent years but to be lawful plans can impose these surcharges only in connection with compliant "wellness programs," meaning they must adhere to strict rules set forth by ERISA and the implementing regulations established by the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury (collectively, the "Departments") over ten years ago in 2014. This Complaint alleges that Defendants operate a discriminatory wellness program through a tobacco surcharge that is unlawful. Defendants have the burden of showing that their wellness program meets every regulatory requirement under ERISA and the implementing regulations, including that they provide a mechanism for ensuring that every participant who satisfied the alternative standard is fully reimbursed and that they provide notice of the availability of that surcharge in all plan materials discussing the surcharge. Defendants cannot do so. Defendants' failure to reimburse surcharges to those who complete the alternative standard during the Plan year and failure to provide sufficient notice makes their program facially unlawful under ERISA, and no amount of post hoc justifications can cure this fundamental defect. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit individually and on behalf of all similarly situated Plan participants and beneficiaries, seeking to recover these unlawfully charged fees and for plan-wide equitable relief to prevent Allied Universal from continuing to profit from its violations under the ERISA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a participant in the Plan. Allied Universal Allied is a leading global security and facility services company headquartered in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania and Santa Ana, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle McLean, Esq. Oren Faircloth, Esq. Scott Haskins, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 S. Flower St., Ste. 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 212-532-1091 Facsimile: 646-417-5967 Email: kmclean@sirillp.com ofaircloth@sirillp.com shaskins@sirillp.com URBAN STRATEGIES: Barca Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------- Hamilcar Barca, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. URBAN STRATEGIES MANAGEMENT CORP., Case 1:25-cv-00774 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 11, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendants failure to pay proper compensation. The Defendant knew that the nonpayment of minimum wage, overtime wage, and other compensation would economically injure Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and members of the Class and violate federal and state laws. Because Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with a wage notice as required by law, when Plaintiff complained to his managers he was unable to get Defendant to acknowledge that he was owed an overtime rate for hours worked over 40 in a week or that he was owed his hourly compensation for every hour that he worked. As a result, Plaintiff was underpaid. Had Defendant provided Plaintiff with a legally adequate wage notice that included Plaintiff's regular rate of pay and overtime rate of pay, Plaintiff would have been, and would now be, in a better position to assert that Defendant pay him for the regular and overtime hours that he is owed and to be legally compensated for his work, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Maintenance Worker from October 2024 through January 2025. Urban Strategies Management Corp. is a building management company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. Michael DiGiulio, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 688-5640 Fax: (212) 981-9587 VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Sells Customers' Info to Advertisers ------------------------------------------------------------ SUSAN TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01081 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 6, 2024) is a class action complaint against the Defendant for the invasion of its customers' privacy by collecting, disclosing, and/or selling Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) to unknown third-party advertisers without obtaining its customers' prior affirmative consent. The suit contends that, by tracking mobile device activity, browsing history, location, purchases, and other private details of its wireless customers, the Defendant can monetize the data by selling it to third parties or otherwise use the data to serve targeted advertisements. The Plaintiff brings this action to enforce fundamental privacy rights and to recover damages, in an amount to be determined at trial, attorneys' fees, and costs. Furthermore, the Plaintiff seeks equitable or declaratory relief pronouncing Defendant's surreptitious surveillance of its customers is unlawful and antipodean to the public interest. The Defendant should be required to implement meaningful guardrails on its commercial surveillance activities. Plaintiff Taylor is a current Verizon wireless customer and has used the Defendant's wireless network, devices, and mobile apps for about 12 years. Verizon provides communications, technology, information, and entertainment products and services.[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 E-mail: furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com VINGLACE LLC: Faces Battle Suit Over Website's Access Barriers -------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Vinglace, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01221 (N.D. Ill., February 5, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case arises from the 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. Defendant's website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult for these customers to use it. Moreover, by failing to make the website accessible to blind persons, the Defendant is violating basic equal access requirements under both state and federal law, says the suit. Based in Houston, TX, Vinglace, LLC owns and controls the website, Vinglace.com, which provides consumers with the ability to view or purchase wines, champagne bottle chillers, glasses, and gift sets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com VISA INC: Faces Securities Suit in California --------------------------------------------- VISA Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 31, 2025, that on November 20, 2024, Beibei Cai filed a putative securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Visa Inc., and certain of its officers on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Visa securities between November 16, 2023 and September 23, 2024. The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 in failing to disclose that Visa was in violation of U.S. federal antitrust laws, as was alleged in the lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice on September 24, 2024. The plaintiff seeks a ruling that this case may proceed as a class action, and seeks damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Visa Inc. is a global payments technology company that facilitates global commerce and money movement across more than 200 countries and territories. It offers products, solutions and services that facilitate secure, reliable and efficient money movement for participants in the ecosystem. VISA INC: Faces Williams Suit over Breach of Contract ----------------------------------------------------- VISA Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 31, 2025, that on December 4, 2024, James Williams filed a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Visa Inc. on behalf of a nationwide class of all persons in the United States who paid a surcharge when completing a purchase with a Visa debit card in a transaction with a merchant located in the United States since 2010. The complaint claims that Visa has failed to enforce its rules prohibiting merchants from surcharging those transactions, and that plaintiff and putative class members have been harmed as a result. Plaintiff asserts breach of contract, unjust enrichment and unfair competition claims, and seeks monetary damages, declaratory and injunctive relief. Visa Inc. is a global payments technology company that facilitates global commerce and money movement across more than 200 countries and territories. It offers products, solutions and services that facilitate secure, reliable and efficient money movement for participants in the ecosystem. W.L. GORE: Gore-Tex Fabric "Not Sustainable," Mason Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- MICAH MASON, DIONYSIOS TSIRKAS, SCOTT B. JOHNSON, and ADRIAN WASHINGTON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00049 (E.D. Wash., February 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of consumer protection laws and common laws of various states in the U.S. The case arises from the Defendant's misleading claims of environmental stewardship and sustainable production processes in connection with its design and production of Gore-Tex Fabric. According to the complaint, the Defendant concealed, suppressed and omitted material facts regarding the production of Gore-Tex Fabric to mislead consumers that its product is environmental friendly and sustainable. As a result of the Defendant's misrepresentation and omission, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated consumers suffered economic damages, says the suit. W.L. Gore & Associates is a global materials science company, headquartered in Newark, Delaware. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Catherine Y.N. Gannon, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 Email: steve@hbsslaw.com catherineg@hbsslaw.com - and - Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. Krista K. Freier, Esq. Catherine A. Peterson, Esq. GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC 1650 W. 82nd Street, Suite 880 Bloomington, MI 55431 Telephone: (612) 778-9595 Email: rpeterson@4-justice.com kfreier@4-justice.com cpeterson@4-justice.com WESTLAND FARMS: Garcia May Serve M.G. Luna via Secretary of State ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled MIYOSHI GARCIA, et al., on behalf of the State of California, themselves, and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WESTLAND FARMS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00190-KES-HBK (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California grants the Plaintiffs' application to authorize service of Defendant M.G. Luna, Inc., via California Secretary of State. Pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs' application for an order authorizing service of Defendant M.G. Luna, Inc., via California Secretary of State under California Corporations Code Section 1702. The Plaintiffs submit the declaration of Attorney Caroline L. Hill with exhibits in support of the Motion. In their application, the Plaintiffs seek approval to make alternative service on Defendant M.G. Luna, Inc. by serving the California Secretary of State pursuant to the California Corporations Code Section 1702(a), contending that despite reasonably diligent efforts they have been unable to complete service pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 415.10, 415.20, 415.30, 416.10(a)-(b). This putative wage and hour action class action was filed on Feb. 6, 2020, against Defendants M.G. Luna, Inc., Maria Guadalupe Luna, and Westland Farms LLC. On Aug. 20, 2020, a clerk's entry of default was entered against Defendant Luna for failure to appear. On Oct. 30, 2020, the Plaintiffs' mailed subpoenas to the Defendant Luna requesting (1) payroll; (2) timekeeping; (3) employee files; and (4) and wage statements for all employees from February 2016 to the present. Defendant Luna did not respond. On June 8, 2022, the Plaintiffs served Defendant Luna again with the same subpoenas. The Plaintiffs maintain that Defendant Luna did not respond or file an objection to the request for documents. The Court ordered Defendant Luna to appear in order to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with subpoenas to produce documents. Defendant Luna did not appear at the show cause hearing. On June 26, 2024, Judge Barch-Kuchta entered certification of facts and findings and recommendations to hold Defendant Luna in civil contempt and sanctioned; and ordered Defendant Luna to appear before the Court to again show cause as to why the Court should not impose sanctions, including attorney fees. Defendant Luna did not appear. On Aug. 2, 2024, the Court adopted Judge Barch-Kuchta's certification of facts and findings and recommendations, held Defendant Luna in civil contempt, and awarded attorney fees to the Plaintiffs. In the Order, the Court directed the Plaintiffs to personally serve a copy of the Order on Defendant Luna and file a proof of service with the Court. The Plaintiffs' counsel submitted a declaration in support of the pending application that they have made diligent attempts to serve the Court's Order on Defendant Luna's registered agent for service of process. The Plaintiffs attempted to serve Defendant Luna at the address listed for its agent Maria Guadalupe Luna on its most recent Statement of Information, in Parlier, California 93648, but they were unable to effect service of the Court's Order after multiple attempts. Luna is an inactive corporation according to the California Secretary of State's website, and the most recent Statement of Information was filed in 2019. The Plaintiffs investigated possible alternative addresses via Accurint search and other internet searches but were unsuccessful. Next, the Plaintiffs located an updated address for agent Maria Guadalupe Luna as part of an active bankruptcy case in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California (Case No. 24-10003-B-7), in Fresno, California 93727. The Plaintiffs attempted personal service of the Court's Order on individual Maria Guadalupe Luna as agent of Defendant Luna at this new address, but all attempts have been unsuccessful. Finally, the Plaintiffs attempted to effectuate service pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 416.10 on the president, chief executive officer, or other head of the corporation. However, after an online search, the Plaintiffs were unable to locate any individuals fitting these descriptions that would be authorized to accept service for Defendant Luna. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds the Plaintiffs have adequately demonstrated that the designated agent cannot be served with reasonable diligence in the manner provided by California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 415.10, 415.20, 415.30; or upon the corporation in the manner provided by Section 416.10. Thus, the Court will grant the Plaintiffs leave to serve Defendant Luna by service upon the California Secretary of State pursuant to under California Corporations Code Section 1702(a). Finally, at the Jan. 30, 2025 status conference counsel for Defendants Westland Farms, LLC, and Madera Persimmon Growers, Inc., conceded that further attempts at agreeing on a mediator are unnecessary as any attempt at mediation would be futile without the documents requested in the June 8, 2022 subpoenas. Thus, the Court will direct the Plaintiffs to file a status report every ninety (90) days from the date of this order updating the Court as to their ability to locate and serve Defendant Luna with the Court's Aug. 2, 2024 Order. Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' Application to serve Defendant M.G. Luna, Inc. by serving the California Secretary of State under California Corporations Code Section 1702(a). The Plaintiffs will file a "Notice of Service of the California Secretary of State" within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. The Plaintiffs will file a status report every ninety (90) days from the date of this Order advising the Court as to the status of effecting service on Defendant M.G. Luna, Inc. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/sbw946mr from PacerMonitor.com. WEXFORD HEALTH: W.Va. Judge Narrows Discovery Terms --------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert C. Chambers of the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia ruled on key aspects of a class action lawsuit against Wexford Health Sources, Inc. The lawsuit accuses the for-profit healthcare company, which serves over 100 correctional facilities, of denying life-saving medication to incarcerated individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD). The plaintiffs allege that Wexford's actions violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Judge Chambers upheld, in part, and overruled, in part, Wexford's objections to a discovery order. The plaintiffs -- Lauren Spurlock, Heather Smith, and Shawn Zmudzinski -- are seeking punitive damages, arguing that Wexford's practices prioritized profits over patient care, leading to the denial of medically necessary treatment. Judge Chambers upheld Magistrate Judge Reeder's December 2024 order that required Wexford to disclose information about prior lawsuits and complaints involving the denial of medication for opioid use disorder. However, he limited the scope of financial disclosures and email searches, citing concerns over proportionality under Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Wexford is required to provide information on previous federal and state lawsuits related to the denial of medication, but Judge Chambers instructed the plaintiffs to further specify any additional documents they wish to obtain. The court ordered Wexford to produce emails from top executives, including the CEO and CFO, but excluded searches of personal email accounts. Financial records were also limited to consolidated financial statements and investor records, with the possibility for the plaintiffs to request more detailed financial data later in the case. The case is styled, Spurlock et al v. Wexford Health Sources, Incorporated, Case No. 23-cv-00476 (S.D. W.Va., Jul. 7, 2023), the Hon. Robert C. Chambers presiding. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://tinyurl.com/j6j8zxd8 Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes: W. Jesse Forbes, Esq. FORBES LAW OFFICES, PLLC 1118 Kanawha Blvd. East Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 343-4050 Facsimile: (304) 343-7450 E-mail: wjforbes@forbeslawwv.com - and - L. Danté diTrapano, Esq. CALWELL LUCE DITRAPANO PLLC Law and Arts Center West 500 Randolph Street Charleston, WV 25302 Telephone: (304) 343-4323 Facsimile: (304) 344-3684 E-mail: dditrapano@cldlaw.com - and - Anna C. Haac, Esq. Lauren A. Kuhlik, Esq. Gemma Seidita, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: ahaac@tzlegal.com lkuhlik@tzlegal.com gseidita@tzlegal.com WOLFSPEED INC: Faces Zagami Securities in New York Court -------------------------------------------------------- Wolfspeed, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 29, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2025, that on November 15, 2024, the company and certain current and former executive officers were named as defendants in a securities class action lawsuit captioned "Gary Zagami v Wolfspeed, Inc., et al.," Case No. 6:24-cv-01395, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. Wolfspeed, Inc. is an innovator of wide bandgap semiconductors, focused on silicon carbide materials and devices for power applications. Its product families include silicon carbide materials and power devices targeted for various applications such as electric vehicles, fast charging and renewable energy and storage. ZILLOW INC: Dakis Group Sues Over Unlawful Daily Fee ---------------------------------------------------- Dakis Group, LLC, a New York limited liability company, and GEORGE T. SPYRIDAKIS, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals v. ZILLOW, INC., a Washington corporation d/b/a StreetEasy, Case No. 2:25-cv-00270 (W.D. Wash., Feb. 11, 2025), is brought against Defendant, in response to Zillow's policy and practice of charging a daily fee in exchange for posting real estate listings on its StreetEasy online platform and later masking or otherwise removing from public view the listing while continuing to charge the daily fee. The Plaintiffs have listed more than 250 properties for rent or sale on the StreetEasy online platform. For each rental listing placed on StreetEasy, Zillow charges a fee of seven ($7.00) dollars per day. In exchange for the $7.00 fee, the listing realtor lists the property for rent on its StreetEasy platform, including the name and contact information of the listing realtor. Zillow allows multiple listing realtors to list the same property for rent at the same time on its StreetEasy platform, charging each listing realtor $7.00 per day. In the case of multiple realtors listing the same rental, Zillow's practice and procedure is to display only the most recent listing realtor, masking or otherwise removing from public view all prior listing realtors, while continuing to charge the prior listing realtor the $7.00 per day fee for the listing. The Plaintiffs' rental listings have been masked or otherwise removed from public view due to this practice on numerous occasions, causing Plaintiffs to lose business, in addition to its daily advertising fee paid to Zillow. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have sustained damages as result of this practice. This practice has similarly affected each of the members of the proposed class. Plaintiffs, through this action, seek to recover the damages they and the Class have incurred as a result of paying for advertising for which they did not receive a benefit, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Dakis is a member-managed company engaged in the sale and rental of real property located in the State of New York. Zillow operates the most popular online real estate website and mobile app in the United States, providing updated home information to tens of millions of buyers, sellers, renters and lessors every day.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kira M. Rubel, Esq. THE HARBOR LAW GROUP 8811 Harborview Dr. Ste. B Gig Harbor, WA 98332 Phone: (253) 358-2215 Facsimile: (253) 358-2215 Email: kira@theharborlawgroup.com - and - Scott D. Owens, Esq. SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A. 2750 N. 29th Ave., Suite 209A Hollywood, FL 33020 Phone: (954) 589-0588 Facsimile: (954) 337-0666 Email: scott@scottdowens.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***