/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250225.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, February 25, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 40 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Huntsman Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response AARON'S COMPANY: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Tracks Website Visitors' Info, Garcia Alleges ADP TOTALSOURCE: Court Certifies All Class Claims in Berkelhammer AJAY GLASS: Bid for Conditional Cert in Louis Due April 14 ALARUM TECHNOLOGIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set April 15 ALARUM TECHNOLOGIES: Velvart Sues Over 31.34% ADR Price Drop ALLEGHENY HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Boyer Says ALTRIA GROUP: Bid to Extended Discovery Period in Wilson Tossed APEX, NC: Asks Court to Reject Class Suit Over Town Recreation Fees ARROW FINANCIAL: Court Dismisses Ashe Suit w/ Prejudice AUDI AG: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Defective Products AUGUSTINE INST: Disclose Customers' Viewing Info to Third Parties BAM! PIZZA: Seeks More Time to File Reply in West Suit BASSFORD REMELE: Bid to Remand Dingmann Class Suit Tossed BGIS GLOBAL: Removes Baltazar Suit to E.D. Calif. BLOCK INC: Fact Discovery in Bottoms Extended to Dec. 5 BLOOMBERG LP: Bid to Seal Ndugga Class Cert Deemed Withdrawn BOYKIN FARMS: Seeks to Decertify Lopez Collective Action BRUCE PACKING: Bryant Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania BUCHHEIT ENTERPRISES: Shaver Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois CAMELBAK PRODUCTS: Faces Suit Over Bottle Recycled Plastic Content CAMPBELL SOUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Moskowitz Alleges CENTRAL BANK: Court Adopts Class Definitions in Rutherford CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Esparza Eavesdropping Suit in Calif. CITIZENS UNITED: Alsaga Suit Removed to E.D. Michigan CLIPPER REALTY: Sanchez Must File Class Cert Bid by March 19 COMMUNITY HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Murray Claims COMPUTERSHARE TRUST: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Heritage CORNERSTONE CAPITAL: Darby Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. CRST INT'L: Cheatham Seeks Conditional Status of Collective CUNY: Campbell Seeks Conditional Status of Collectives DEVIN FINZER: Ross Class Action Referred to Magistrate Judge DICK'S SPORTING: Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Tossed DOLLAR GENERAL: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment v. Brockington DOLLAR GENERAL: Wins Summary Judgment Bid v. Brockington DOLLAR TREE: Track Users' Websites Activities, Walsh Alleges DYLAN'S CANDYBAR: Isakov Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set April 21 EDWARD BEINER INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website EIDP INC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition ELITE NURSES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to May 19 EMMANUEL UNIVERSITY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Young Says EMTERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Schmidt Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime ENTRATA INC: Manaskie Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Georgia EQUIFAX INFO: Baker Plaintiffs Seeks More Time to File Class Cert ETHAN ALLEN RETAIL: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website EYM CHICKEN: Loses Bid to Dismiss English, et al. BIPA Lawsuit F21 OPCO: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Jimenez Extended to Sept. 2 FALCON CAPITAL: Court Approves Revised Plan of Allocation FEH TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay Drivers' Wages, OT, Subirat Says FIRST ADVANTAGE: Class Cert Opposition Filing Extended to March 14 FIRST ADVANTAGE: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by March 14 FISHER-PRICE INC: Faces Spencer Class Suit Over Defective Swings FLEX-N-GATE LLC: Gray Class Suit Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA FMC CORP: Faces Mohammed Suit Over Drop in Share Price FRED HUTCHINSON: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $11.5-Mil. GARDEN OF LIFE: Failed to Protect Personal Info, Williams Suit Says GATEHOUSE MEDIA: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition GEN DIGITAL INC: Dismissal of Jumpshot-Related Claims Under Appeal GOOGLE LLC: Rabin Seeks to File Confidential Files Under Seal GRACO CHILDREN'S: Class Cert-Related Deadlines Extended GRANITE COUNTY, MT: Plaintiffs Seek to Modify Class Sched Order HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Renewed Class Cert Bid Must be Filed by March 6 HSBC BANK: Mediation in Ni Suit Set for March 11 HUMBLE BUNDLE: Discloses Customer's Rental Records, Wray Alleges ICON PLC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set April 11 ILLUMINA INC: Trial Date on Securities Suit Still Not Set INVOCA INC: Illegally Surveilled Customer Phone Calls, Suit Says ITALIANTOUCH USA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Young Says J.M. SMUCKER: Faces Class Suit Over Fruit Spreads' Ingredients JEFFERY RICHARDSON: Joint Bid to Amend Scheduling Order Tossed JUNIOR'S CHEESECAKE: Trippett Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website KENT SCHOOL: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach LA-Z-BOY INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website LATCH INC: Proposed Class Settlement Hearing Set May 28 LOU BUDKE'S: Court Stays Addison Insurance Lawsuit LYFT INC: Faces Malone Suit Over Unwanted Telephone Calls MARINEMAX INC: Class Settlement in Lomedico Gets Initial Nod MARRIOTT INT'L: Class Cert Hearing in Cahill Continued to July 4 MASTERCARD INC: Continues to Defend Merchant Class Suit in Calif. MASTERCARD INC: Reduces Class Settlement from GBP10BB to GBP200MM MATANUSKA-SUSITNA: Land Seeks to Certify Student Subclass MATANUSKA-SUSITNA: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Cert. MCLANE COMPANY: McGowan Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid MDL 2873: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Cooper Class Suit Alleges MDL 2873: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Deshler Class Suit Alleges MDL 2873: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Eckman Class Suit Alleges MDL 2873: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Osterhout Class Suit Alleges MDL 2918: Court Stays Deadlines Pending Appeal of Class Cert Order MDL 2992: Bid Seal Portions of Class Hearing Transcript OK'd MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Shoumon Alleges MENA HOSPITAL: Class Settlement in Rodriguez Gets Initial Nod META PLATFORMS: User Plaintiffs' Renewed Class Cert. Bid Tossed MOTT OPTICAL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Solis Alleges NASHVILLE, TN: Court Extends Discovery Deadline NATIONAL GENERAL: Plaintiffs Seek to File Exhibits Under Seal NATIONAL GRID: Court Tosses 527 Lincoln, et al. Lawsuit NATIONAL GRID: Nightingale's Renewed Bid for Class Cert Tossed NATROL LLC: Yamasaki Seeks to File Confidential Docs Under Seal NESTLE USA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Illinois' GIPA Violation NEW YORK, NY: Plaintiffs' Expert Report Due March 21 NEW YORK: De Souza Sues Over Illegal Religious Intolerance NEXTRACKER INC: Faces Securities Suit over SEC Disclosures NOCO COMPANY: Removes Beaudry Suit to N.D. Calif. OMNI FAMILY HEALTH: Ranjel Suit Removed to E.D. California ONE NEVADA: Discriminatory Lending Settlement Gets Initial Nod PACS GROUP: Pension Fund Appointed Lead Plaintiff in Manchin Suit PAYPAL HONEY: Plaintiffs Seek to Appoint Girard Sharp As Counsel PAYPAL INC: Brodie Sues Over Unfair Business Practices PF CALI: Class Cert Bid Filing in Strandholt Extended to August 15 PHILIPS RS NORTH: Martin Seeks to Stay Implementation of Agreement POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Joseph Says POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Campbell Says POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Gauron Says PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Court Rules on Pryce's Summary Judgment Bid PSCU LLC: Seeks Dismissal of Brooks Suit RAINBOW LIGHT: Knowles Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind RAMACO RESOURCES: Blankenship Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages REALNETWORKS INC: Lead Plaintiff's Motion to Seal Granted RECOVER-CARE SHAWNEE: Bid to Certify FLSA Collective Tossed REPRODUCTIVE GENETICS: Landmark Seeks to Clarify Obligations SAFETY-KLEEN SYSTEMS: Graves Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois SAINT JOHN, NB: Faces Class Action Suit Over Police Sexual Abuse SANTA CLARA, CA: Court Tosses Doe Privacy Lawsuit SANTANDER CONSUMER: Brown Lawsuit to Remain in Federal Court SELECT PORTFOLIO: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Mirabadi Lawsuit SELECT REHABILITATION: Must File Class Cert Response by March 10 SPECIALIZED LOAN: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Withdrawn SPECIALIZED LOAN: Seeks to Strike Class Allegations in Butler Suit STATE FARM: Ellis Bid to Reply Tossed as Premature STATE FARM: Ellis Seeks to File Class Cert. Bid Under Seal STATE FARM: Ellis Suit Seeks to Certify Class STREAMLABS LLC: Settles Auto Renewal Class Suit for $4.4-Mil. SUNPATH LTD: Bid to Extend Class Cert Answer Briefs Tossed TARGETED LENDING: Ironmen Mobile Sues Over Usurious Interest Rate TECTA AMERICA: Apicello Sues Over Failure to Prevent Data Breach TETON ORTHOPAEDICS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach TEVA PHARMA: Plaintiffs' Bid to Compel Discovery Granted in Part TIKTOK INC: Faces Class Suit Over Data Protection Law Violations TIMBUK2 DESIGNS: Faces Uddin Class Suit Over Unwanted Phone Calls TRADE DESK: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit TRANSMEDICS GROUP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set April 15 TRUSTCO BANK: $2.75MM Class Settlement Obtains Final Court Approval UNION PACIFIC: Continues to Defend Illinois BIPA Class Suit UNITED STATES: Class Certification Granted in Davis Lawsuit UNITED STATES: Farrell Seeks to Certify Settlement Class UNITED STATES: Fired Feds Challenges Trump's Illegal Mass Firings UNIVERSITY MECHANICAL: Allmaras Suit to Remain in Federal Court UPBOUND GROUP: Tracks Users' Websites Activities, Gabrielli Says UTAH HIGH SCHOOL: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response UTAH: Jakeman Sues Over Termination of Parental Rights VECTRARX MAIL: Failed to Secure Personal Info, Ingegneri Says VECTRARX MAIL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Beatrice Alleges VENTURE GLOBAL: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit VICTORIA: Suit Against Police Over Use of Capsicum Spray Begins VIVE FINANCIAL: Muse Sues Over Illegal Electronic Fund Transfers WALMART INC: Monge Suit Removed to C.D. California WALT DISNEY: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Streaming Monopoly WEDDLE BROS: Funderburk Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages YOUNG'S MARKET: Court Narrows Claims in Bonilla Labor Lawsuit ZANDER GROUP: Seeks to Suspend Remaining Deadlines in Jones ********* 3M COMPANY: Huntsman Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EARL PARRIS, JR., individually, and on behalf of a Class of persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, and CITY OF SUMMERVILLE, GEORGIA, Intervenor-Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00040-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs and Huntsman ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time for Huntsman to respond to the class certification motion, if needed, within 21 days after the Court's ruling on the fairness of the proposed settlement. If the settlement is approved, Huntsman's response to the class certification motion will become moot. The Plaintiffs and Huntsman are in the process of drafting a settlement agreement regarding the claims asserted by Plaintiffs against Huntsman, and Plaintiffs intend to submit a motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement to the Court. The settlement would resolve all claims Plaintiffs assert against Huntsman. Under the Amended Scheduling Order set by the Court on Dec. 30, 2024, Huntsman's response to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is currently due on Feb. 14, 2025. 3M Company operates in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=T9F2Ho at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary A. Davis, Esq. DAVIS, JOHNSTON, & RINGGER, PC 21 Battery Park Avenue, Suite 206 Asheville, NC 28801 Telephone: (828) 622-0044 Facsimile: (828) 398-0435 E-mail: gadavis@enviroattorney.com The Defendants are represented by: Benjamin E. Fox, Esq. BONDURANT, MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP 1201 W. Peachtree St. NW, Ste. 3900 Atlanta, GA 30308 Telephone: (404) 881-4100 Facsimile: (404) 881-4111 E-mail: fox@bmelaw.com - and - Peter A. Farrell, Esq. T.J. McCarrick, Esq. Sarah E. McVay, Esq. William Kimmitt, Esq. Tia T. Trout-Perez, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 389-5000 Facsimile: (202) 389-5200 E-mail: pfarrell@kirkland.com tj.mccarrick@kirkland.com sarah.mcvay@kirkland.com william.kimmitt@kirkland.com ttrout-perez@kirkland.com AARON'S COMPANY: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ Kilgore News Herald reports that Ademi & Fruchter LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on February 13, 2024 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, captioned Koksal v. The Aaron's Company Inc., et al., CaseNo. 1:25-cv-00754-LMM, on behalf of a class of individuals and entities (the "Class") that held securities of The Aaron's Company Inc. (NYSE: AAN), asserting claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the merger of Aaron's with IQVentures Holdings, LLC. The proposed merger was announced on June 17, 2024, and closed on October, 2024. Former Aaron's investors are hereby notified that not later than 60 days after the date of this notice, any member of the purported Class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the purported Class in this action. We specialize in shareholder litigation involving buyouts, mergers, and individual shareholder rights throughout the country. For more information, please feel free to call us. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contacts Ademi & Fruchter LLP Guri Ademi Toll Free: (866) 264-3995 Fax: (414) 482-8001 [GN] ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Tracks Website Visitors' Info, Garcia Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ SILVIA GARCIA and EMILY RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO., a Delaware entity, d/b/a WWW.ABERCROMBIE.COM, Case No. 25STCV01300 (Cal. Super, Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 17, 2025) alleges that the Defendant has installed on its Website software created by TikTok -- known as a "tracking pixel" -- to identify and gather detailed information about website visitors. Accordingly, 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 before any pop-up or cookie banner advises users of the invasion or seeks their consent. The TikTok Software also requests, validates, and transmits other identifying information, including a website visitor's phone numbers and email addresses, says the suit. The Defendant sells clothing, shoes, and accessories via storefronts and online.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. David W. Reid, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. Newport Beach, CA 92660 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: dreid@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com ADP TOTALSOURCE: Court Certifies All Class Claims in Berkelhammer ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETH BERKELHAMMER, et al., v. ADP TOTALSOURCE GROUP, INC., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-05696-ES-JRA (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Esther Salas entered an order certifying under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) the following class as to all existing claims as identified and limited in the parties amended motion and stipulation on class certification: "All participants and beneficiaries of the ADP TotalSource Retirement Savings Plan from May 7, 2014 through the date of Judgment." The Court also entered an order: -- Appointing the Plaintiffs Beth Berkelhammer and Naomi Ruiz as class representatives, and appointing the Plaintiff Naomi Ruiz as the representative of the subclass. -- Appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel Schlichter Bogard LLC as class counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). Upon the parties' amended stipulation and motion on class certification, the Court finds the following: 1. The class proposed by Plaintiffs has over 50,000 members and therefore satisfies the requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1). 2. The claims of the class proposed by Plaintiffs raise common questions of law or fact common and therefore satisfies the requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2). 3. The claims of the Plaintiffs as representative parties are typical of the claims of the class and Plaintiffs therefore satisfy the requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3). This class qualifies for certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) because claims for breach of ERISA’s fiduciary duties such as those Plaintiffs assert are "paradigmatic examples of claims appropriate for certification as a Rule 23(b)(1) class." ADP offers HR, payroll, talent, time, attendance, tax, and, benefits administration solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PzVf0A at no extra charge.[CC] AJAY GLASS: Bid for Conditional Cert in Louis Due April 14 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Louis v. Ajay Glass & Mirror Co., Inc., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00462 (N.D.N.Y., Filed April 2, 2024), the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Brindisi entered an order extending the schedules and deadlines as follows: (1) The Plaintiffs motion for conditional April 14, 2025 certification is due by: (2) The Plaintiffs expert disclosure is June 19, 2025 due by: (3) The Plaintiffs motion for class June 30, 2025 certification is due by: (4) The Defendants expert disclosure Aug. 1, 2025 is due by: (5) Rebuttal expert disclosure is due by: Aug. 18, 2025 (6) All discovery, including all Sept. 15, 2025 depositions, shall be completed by: (7) Dispositive motions shall be filed by: Nov. 15, 2025 The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendant operates as a glass wall system contractors.[CC] ALARUM TECHNOLOGIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set April 15 ------------------------------------------------------------------ A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Alarum Technologies Ltd. ("Alarum" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ALAR). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about Alarum's business, operations, and prospects, including allegations that: (i) Alarum was less effective in retaining and/or expanding customer engagements than it had represented to investors; (ii) the foregoing would impair Alarum's ability to generate consistent revenue growth; and (iii) accordingly, Alarum's business and/or financial prospects were overstated. If you bought shares of Alarum between March 14, 2024 and August 26, 2024, and you suffered a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/alarum-technologies/ to learn more. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is April 15, 2025. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content.[GN] ALARUM TECHNOLOGIES: Velvart Sues Over 31.34% ADR Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------ NIV VELVART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALARUM TECHNOLOGIES LTD., SHACHAR DANIEL, SHAI AVNIT, and CHEN KATZ, Case No. 2:25-cv-01263-MCA-MAH (D.N.J., Feb. 14, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Alarum securities between March 14, 2024, and August 26, 2024, both dates inclusive. The suit seeks to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Alarum operates under a consumption-based business model, under which the Company charges customers for a given product or service based on how much they use it. Specifically, the Company generates SaaS revenues "when customers subscribe to its enterprise and consumer access platforms and [pay] for the packages they choose," says the suit. Given Alarum's concentrated customer base, the spending patterns of even a small number of customers can have a substantial impact on the Company's growth. Alarum has described itself as a "market leader" that has demonstrated "success in not only retaining, but also significantly expanding its engagements with existing customers." However, unbeknownst to investors, Alarum was experiencing difficulties in retaining and expanding its customer engagements. By June 2024 Alarum began seeing reduced customer spending that ultimately resulted in a 20% revenue decrease from the prior month, the suit alleges. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that the Company was less effective in retaining and/or expanding customer engagements than it had represented to investors. On Aug. 26, 2024, Alarum announced its results for the second quarter of 2024 and issued Q3 2024 guidance. Specifically, Alarum revealed that it was expecting Q3 2024 revenue of $7 million, far short of the $9.2 million revenue figure projected by analysts. That same day, Alarum hosted earnings call with investors and analysts to discuss the Company's Q2 2024 results, during which Alarum's Chief Executive Officer Defendant Shachar Daniel attributed the disappointing Q3 2024 revenue guidance to the reduced customer spending Alarum began experiencing in June 2024. Market analysts were quick to comment on the Company's revelation. For example, on August 27, 2024, Seeking Alpha noted that Alarum's projected Q3 2024 revenue figure "represented over a 20% decline sequentially and only 3% growth [year-over-year]," and raised several issues with Alarum's disclosure including, among other things, the lack of clarity in the Company's explanation for the drop in customer demand. On this news, Alarum's American Depositary Receipt price fell $6.77 per ADR, or 31.34%, to close at $14.83 per ADR on August 26, 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, the suit further asserts. Alarum is a global Software as a Service provider that offers web data collection solutions and a private internet browsing platform to a concentrated customer base. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com ALLEGHENY HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Boyer Says ---------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE BOYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLEGHENY HEALTH NETWORK; ALLEGHENY HEALTH NETWORK HOME MEDICAL EQUIPMENT LLC; ALLEGHENY HEALTH NETWORK HOME INFUSION LLC; and INTRASYSTEMS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10364 (D. Mass., Feb. 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and the Class Member's personally identifying information and personal health information. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants owed a duty to the Plaintiff and Class members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard their PII/PHI against unauthorized access and disclosure. Defendants breached that duty by, among other things, failing to, or contracting with companies that failed to, implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect their patients' PII/PHI from unauthorized access and disclosure. As a result of the Defendants' inadequate security and breach of their duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff's and Class members' PII/PHI was accessed and disclosed. Allegheny Health Network operates as a hospital. The Hospital offers dermatology, diagnostic testing, diabetes care, cardiovascular treatment, women's health, and nursing services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Pastor, Esq. PASTOR LAW OFFICE PC 63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 742-9700 Facsimile: (617) 742-9701 Email: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com - and - Ben Barnow, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. Cook County Attorney No. 38957 205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 621-2000 Facsimile: (312) 641-5504 Email: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com ALTRIA GROUP: Bid to Extended Discovery Period in Wilson Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHET MICHAEL WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, Case No. 1:24-cv-01917-CMH-WEF (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge William Fitzpatrick entered a Rule 16(B) scheduling order: 1. The Court declines to adopt the parties' request for an extended discovery period as stated in paragraph 9 of the Joint Discovery Plan. All discovery shall be concluded by May 16, 2025. 2. The Joint Discovery Plan filed by the parties is approved, as amended herein, and shall control discovery to the extent of its application unless further modified by the court. 3. All Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) disclosures, if not already completed, shall be completed by Feb. 14, 2025. 4. The Court declines to address any issues with the scope of discovery raised by the parties in paragraph 3 and 7.a / 7.b of the Joint Discovery Plan at this time. The parties shall file an appropriate motion(s) should they be unable to resolve their dispute(s). 5. The Court declines to adopt the parties' proposed case schedule as stated in paragraph 9 of the Joint Discovery Plan. a. The close of discovery will remain set on May 16, 2025. b. The Plaintiff's expert disclosures are due by March 17, 2025. Defendant's expert disclosures are due by April 16, 2025. Any rebuttal expert disclosures by Plaintiff are due by May 1, 2025. c. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification will be due on or before May 16, 2025. d. The Final Pretrial Conference will remain set on May 22, 2025. The Defendant is an Altria subsidiary that provides sales, distribution, and consumer engagement services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uEl1jt at no extra charge.[CC] APEX, NC: Asks Court to Reject Class Suit Over Town Recreation Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Carolina Journal reports that Apex is asking the North Carolina Court of Appeals to reject class-action status in a lawsuit challenging the recreation fee the town charges to developers. A trial judge granted class-action status in April 2024. Developer Empire Contractors challenged a $64,000 fee charged for its 20-unit development. Class-action status would allow other developers to recover fees from the town if the plaintiff wins the case. Apex officials are asking North Carolina's second-highest court to reject a class action in a lawsuit challenging recreation fees the town charges developers. A trial judge granted the suit class-action status last April. Plaintiff Empire Contractors filed suit in March 2023, challenging Apex's requirement of a $64,000 payment in lieu of dedicating land for recreation in its 20-lot, 3.5-acre development. Apex argues in a brief filed that a state law permitted the town to charge the fee. "To prove that a recreation fee-in-lieu paid as a condition of subdivision approval was unlawful, Plaintiff must show that the fee-in-lieu was beyond the scope of the enabling statute, which includes 'implied powers . . . essential to the exercise of those which are expressly conferred,'" Apex's lawyers wrote. "It is undisputed that the enabling statute allows Apex to adopt a regulation that '. . . provide[s] for payment of funds to be used to acquire or develop recreation areas serving residents of the development or subdivision or more than one subdivision or development within the immediate area,'" Apex's brief continued. "The statute contains only one express restriction on the use of the funds by cities: that they 'shall be used only for the acquisition or development of recreation, park, or open space sites.'" "Apex has additional authority by local act that allows the Town to 'us[e] a formula based upon a charge per dwelling unit of the development or subdivision without reference to property tax value,' so long as the 'the collection, maintenance, and use of such funds are otherwise consistent with G.S. 160A-372' and the fee-in-lieu does not 'exceed the fair market value of the land area that would have otherwise been required to be dedicated,'" Apex's lawyers wrote. Beyond the specifics of Empire Contractors' lawsuit, Apex argues that Superior Court Judge Gale Adams was wrong to conclude that this case could cover other developers, "The impact of each development will differ based upon many factors, including the number and type of dwelling units, the resources already available in the area of Town where the development is located, or whether the development increases the population of an existing area of Town or extends its boundaries," Apex's lawyers wrote. "In another example, the amenities built into the development by the developer may have the potential to mitigate its impact. Analysis of the impact of the development will also require fact-specific discovery and proof for each putative class member. This inquiry is ad hoc and fact- intensive. It is not susceptible to common proof, and the trial court erred in finding that it was a common issue of law or fact shared among the class." "There is a common nucleus of operative facts among all class members that underlie each of these issues," Adams wrote in the order granting the lawsuit class-action status. "Plaintiff's claim is typical of all other class members as it relates to the general theories of liability set forth in the common issues. The Court concludes that a 'class' exists in this action and that common issues of law and fact predominate over any individual issues." [GN] ARROW FINANCIAL: Court Dismisses Ashe Suit w/ Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT C. ASHE and JEFFREY S. GOHN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. ARROW FINANCIAL CORP., THOMAS J. MURPHY, PENKO K. IVANOV, and EDWARD J. CAMPANELLA, Case No. 1:23-cv-00764-AMN-DJS (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Anne Nardacci entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed final approval motion in its entirety. The Court further entered an order that: -- the Plaintiff's unopposed attorneys' fees motion, is granted in its entirety -- the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment, dismiss the case with prejudice, and close the case; and -- the Clerk serve a copy of this memorandum-decision and order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules. Accordingly, the Court grants final certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes on behalf of: "All Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Arrow securities between Aug. 6, 2022 and May 12, 2023, both dates inclusive, and who were allegedly damaged thereby, except excluded from the Settlement Class are all: (i) Individual Defendants; (ii) the officers and directors of Arrow, at all relevant times; (iii) members of the Individual Defendants’ immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns; and (iv) any entity in which the Defendants have or had a controlling interest." Accordingly, the Court awards: -- $4,000 in total, or $2,000 for Lead Plaintiff Robert C. Ashe and $2,000 for Plaintiff Jeffrey S. Gohn, as a compensatory award for their service to the Class and for reasonable costs and expenses directly relating to the representation of the Settlement Class as provided in 15 U.S.C. §78u- 4(a)(4), such amounts to be paid from the Settlement Fund upon the Effective Date of the Settlement. -- expenses in the amount of $41,850.52, plus any applicable interest, such amount to be paid out of the Settlement Fund immediately following entry of this Order. The Court also grants Lead Counsel an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $283,900 plus interest, such amount to be paid out of the Settlement Fund immediately following entry of this Order. Arrow provides commercial and consumer banking, and financial products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s65MDI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Brenda Szydlo, Esq. Dean P. Ferrogari, Esq. Joseph A. Hood, II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue-20th Floor New York, NY 10016 The Defendants are represented by: William Sushon, Esq. Javed S. Yunus, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas-Suite 1700 New York, NY 10019 AUDI AG: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Defective Products ----------------------------------------------------------- Jack Wilson, writing for The Gazette, reports that Audi electric vehicle drivers are suing the automaker, alleging the cars it sells are defective and unsafe. The class-action suit follows claims from some drivers -- especially of the Q4 e-tron -- that battery-related issues have stopped their cars from working. Filed at a Montreal courthouse Feb. 12, the application for the class action aims to represent all Quebecers who have purchased or leased a vehicle from the company's EV line: Audi e-tron. It seeks $5,000 in punitive damages per driver on top of damages related to alleged losses. A statement from Audi said the company is investigating complaints, but didn't respond directly to the lawsuit. In January, The Gazette spoke with three Audi Q4 drivers who said that battery issues had prevented their electric vehicles from starting. One driver, Mylène Dionne, said she'd experienced issues five times driving three separate Q4s. That included one incident in which she said her car had partially shut off while driving full speed down the highway. "The Audi e-tron is a lemon, suffers from many serious defects, was not adequately tested before being sold and was clearly not ready to be put on the market," the lawsuit alleges. Audi "has been aware of the safety issues in its e-tron vehicles for several years and has concealed it from its customers," it continues. The issues are "not just limited to the Q4," said Joey Zukran, whose law firm LPC Avocats filed the class action with attorney Michael Vathilakis from Renno Vathilakis. But Zukran said the Q4 is most affected, especially the 2022, 2023 and 2024 models. A Facebook group for Quebec Q4 drivers facing problems with their vehicles now counts close to 600 members. "The Q4 e-tron is designed and engineered to meet or exceed all Canadian safety requirements," said a statement from Audi spokesperson Cort Nielsen. "Audi Canada is investigating all customer complaints in compliance with the Motor Vehicle Safety Act," he wrote. While the statement didn't directly address the lawsuit or its claims, a statement sent to The Gazette in January said that no widespread issue affected the Q4. Zukran said he's met with several e-tron drivers, but declined to say how many. Revealing that number would be a poor legal strategy, he said. A judge has to approve the class action before its claims can be tested in court. That initial ruling is probably months away. For more information about this case or to register to be part of the proposed class action, visit lpclex.com. [GN] AUGUSTINE INST: Disclose Customers' Viewing Info to Third Parties ----------------------------------------------------------------- TATIANA BRODISKI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AUGUSTINE INSTITUTE, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00476-CNS (D. Colo., Feb. 13, 2025) is class action complaint against Augustine Institute which owns and manages a video streaming service at https://formed.org/. On the Website, the Defendant utilized Meta, Inc.'s to intercept and disclose consumers' video watching information and personally identifiable information without seeking or obtaining consumers' consent. The Defendant's use of the Pixel resulted in violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act, federal and state wiretap laws, and invasions into consumers' privacy, the lawsuit says. The Defendant produces catechetical videos, records audio drama productions, publishes books, and distributes Catholic media materials. The Website allows consumers to stream thousands of movies, children's programs, eBooks, audio, parish programs, and studies on demand for $9.99/month or $100.00/year. Consumers can also sign up to receive newsletters and product updates or sign up for a 7-day free trial by providing their personal information. The Defendant does not disclose to Subscribers that their personally identifying information, video watching information, and precise webpage information (Sensitive Information) would be captured by Facebook, and then transmitted to third parties. The Website does not inform Subscribers that their Sensitive Information will be exposed, available, and readily usable by any person of ordinary technical skill who receives that data, asserts the lawsuit. Subscribers of the Website have been allegedly harmed as a result of violations of the VPPA and the Federal Wiretap Act. In addition to monetary damages, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief requiring Defendant to immediately remove the Pixel from the Website, or add adequate notices and obtain the appropriate consent from Subscribers. Augustine is a leading private Catholic graduate theology school located in Greenwood Village, Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP 2373 Central Park Blvd., Suite 100 Denver, CO 80238 Telephone: (303) 861-1764 E-mail: jeffb@johnsonfistel.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Gary S. Ishimoto, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com gishimoto@zlk.com - and - Allen Carney, Esq. Courtney Ross Brown CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 E-mail: acarney@cbplaw.com cbrown@cbplaw.com BAM! PIZZA: Seeks More Time to File Reply in West Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH WEST, v. BAM! PIZZA MANAGEMENT, INC. ET AL. Case No. 1:22-cv-00209-SMD-JMR (D.N.M.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting extension of time to file reply in support of motion to deny class certification and/or strike the Plaintiff's class allegations as to the arbitration employees. Bam! Pizza is a local pizzeria in Roswell, NM that specializes in crafting and serving a variety of pizzas to its customers. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wZuwSl at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Micah D. Dawson, Esq. Francis Wilson, Esq. Phillips McWilliams, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP 1125 17th Street, Suite 2400 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 218-3665 E-mail: mdawson@fisherphillips.com fwilson@fisherphillips.com pmcwilliams@fisherphillips.com BASSFORD REMELE: Bid to Remand Dingmann Class Suit Tossed --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dingmann, et al., v. Bassford Remele, P.A. et al. (RE: SYNGENTA AG MIR 162 CORN LITIGATION), Case No. 2:24-cv-02576-JWL-ADM (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge John Lungstrum entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for suggestion of remand. The Court further entered an order that the Defendants shall file their answers or other responses to the complaint on or before Mar. 17, 2025. The Court rejects plaintiffs' argument that it should suggest immediate remand to the Minnesota transferor court because the case involves claims under Minnesota law. The Court is perfectly able to apply the law of that state, as it did in the related Kellogg case. Moreover, the merits of plaintiffs' claims – which plaintiffs argue throughout most of their reply brief – are irrelevant to this question of whether the Court should suggest remand. The Court also rejects plaintiffs' argument that "practical considerations" favor remand here. On Dec. 13, 2024, this case was transferred into the MDL and to this Court by order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML). In its Order of January 10, 2025, the Court denied without prejudice defendants’ motion for leave to file a motion to dismiss; vacated any deadlines for responding to the complaint; stated its intent not to issue substantive orders until the JPML had ruled on plaintiffs' pending motion for reconsideration of the transfer of the case into the MDL; and asked the parties to notify the Court of any ruling by the JPML on the motion. The Dingman case is a tag-a-long action to Case No. 14-md-2591, MDL 2591 In Re: Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v0AcGm at no extra charge.[CC] BGIS GLOBAL: Removes Baltazar Suit to E.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of ROGER BALTAZAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BGIS GLOBAL INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS US LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento (Case No. 24CV026104) to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Feb. 12, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00501-TLN-SCR. The case is assigned to Troy L. Nunley and referred to Magistrate Sean C. Riordan. BGIS Global Integrated Solutions US LLC provides commercial services. The Company offers project delivery, professional, workplace solutions, and real management services. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: David L. Cheng, Esq. Julie A.-Bachert, Esq. FORD & HARRISON LLP 350 South-Grand Avenue Suite 2300 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 237-2400 Facsimile: (213) 237-2401 Email: dcheng@fordharrison.coin JBachert@fordharrison.coin BLOCK INC: Fact Discovery in Bottoms Extended to Dec. 5 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY BOTTOMS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. BLOCK, INC. (F/K/A, SQUARE, INC.) (D/B/A, CASH APP), Case No. 2:23-cv-01969-MJP (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Marsha J. Pechman entered an order extending the pre-trial case deadlines and trial date as follows: Event Old Date New Date Jury Trial: March 2, 2026 To be set by the Court on or after Dec. 14, 2026 Fact discovery cut off: Feb. 28, 2025 Dec. 5, 2025 Expert discovery cut off: May 23, 2025 March 6, 2026 Motion for class certification June 13, 2025 March 27, 2026 to be noted in accordance with LCR 7(d) and filed by: All motions in limine to be Jan. 26, 2026 Oct. 30, 2026 noted in accordance with LCR 7(d) and filed by: Pretrial Conference: Feb. 24, 2026 Dec. 4, 2026 The Court finds this to be good cause to extend the remaining deadlines set by the case schedule, particularly as those deadlines necessarily flow from the conclusion of discovery. Block is an American technology company that provides financial services to consumers and merchants. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z56FdO at no extra charge.[CC] BLOOMBERG LP: Bid to Seal Ndugga Class Cert Deemed Withdrawn ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NAULA NDUGGA et al., v. BLOOMBERG L.P., Case No. 1:20-cv-07464-GHW-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gabriel Gorenstein entered an order that the motion for class certification and the accompanying motions to seal are all deemed withdrawn. -- The Daubert motion shall be filed on or before Feb. 20, 2025. Briefing thereafter shall be in accordance with paragraph 2.B of the Court's Individual Practices. -- The Plaintiffs may refile their motion for class certification within 14 days of the resolution of the Daubert motion. Briefing thereafter shall be in accordance with paragraph 2.B of the Court’s Individual Practices. Bloomberg is an American privately held financial, software, data, and media company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oNrWOe at no extra charge.[CC] BOYKIN FARMS: Seeks to Decertify Lopez Collective Action -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRISTOBAL LOPEZ LOPEZ and GILBERTO FLORES LOZANO, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons, v. BOYKIN FARMS, INC., RHODES FARMING, LLC, WILLIE C. BOYKIN, III, MATTHEW Z. RHODES, TONY D. LEE, d/b/a LEE AND SONS FARMS, TONY CAMERON LEE, d/b/a LEE AND SONS FARMS, and CLINT LEE, d/b/a LEE AND SONS FARMS, Case No. 5:22-cv-00491-BO-RN (E.D.N.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order decertifying the collective action conditionally approved by the Oct. 25, 2023 Order. Boykin is a family-owned agricultural business, specializing in the cultivation and distribution of a variety of crops. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LKppVn at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: F. Marshall Wall, Esq. Elizabeth C. King, Esq. CRANFILL SUMNER LLP Raleigh, NC 27611-7808 Telephone: (919) 828-5100 Facsimile: (919) 828-2277 E-mail: MWall@cshlaw.com eking@cshlaw.com BRUCE PACKING: Bryant Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Britton Bryant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bruce Packing Company, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-05636 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Pennsylvania 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 Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. BrucePac -- https://www.brucepac.com/ -- produces custom-crafted, pre-cooked proteins for top brands in Retail, leading foodservice operators, and other channel.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. Stuart J. Guber, Esq. Seth C. Little, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (803) 222-2222 Fax: (843) 494-5536 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com stuart.guber@poulinwilley.com seth.little@poulinwilley.com - and –' Stuart A. Carpey, Esq. CARPEY LAW, P.C. 600 W. Germantown Pike, Suite 400 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 Phone: (610) 834-6030 Fax: (610) 825-7579 The Defendant is represented by: Adam H. Settle, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 100 Berwyn Park 850 Cassatt Road, Suite 110 Berwyn, PA 19312 Phone: (610) 408-6020 BUCHHEIT ENTERPRISES: Shaver Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jason Shaver, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. BUCHHEIT ENTERPRISES, INC., Case No. 24LA39 was removed from the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois on Feb. 12, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-03043-SEM-KLM. The Plaintiff alleges claims against Defendant for alleged violations of the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act ("GIPA"). The Plaintiff alleges that "as a precondition of employment" Defendant "requires its prospective employees to undergo a physical examination" during which it solicits "information regarding the manifestation of diseases and disorders in family members of the prospective employee" "without informing these persons of their right not to provide such information."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson St., Ste. 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 984-0000 Fax: (212) 686-0114 Email: malmstrom@whafh.com - and - Julie E. Holt, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 610 Miami, FL 33131-3302 Phone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 Email: jholt@hedinllp.com The Defendant is represented by: Lee J. Karge, Esq. Wilson Elser Moskowitz, Esq. EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 7777 Bonhomme Ave., Suite 1900 St. Louis, MO 63105 Phone: 314-930-2860 Fax: 314-930-2861 Email: Lee.karge@wilsonelser.com CAMELBAK PRODUCTS: Faces Suit Over Bottle Recycled Plastic Content ------------------------------------------------------------------ AMANDA SCHWARTZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAMELBAK PRODUCTS, LLC, VISTA OUTDOOR INC., VISTA OUTDOOR SALES LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00656-LJC (N.D. Cal., Jan. 17, 2025) seeks relief for consumers who have been misled about the content of recycled plastic in CamelBak products, which are high-end water containers, including plastic water bottles. CamelBaks are marketed to runners, skiers, hikers, and other outdoor enthusiasts and command premium retail prices based, in part, on a widespread representation that some of the products' plastic is "Tritan Renew made with 50% recycled material." This representation is designed to, and does, appeal to consumers concerned with the sustainability of plastic, who seek to purchase products that use less virgin plastic. The representation, however, is misleading; a CamelBak water bottle purporting to comprise Tritan Renew plastic "made with 50% recycled material" may in fact contain little to no recycled material at all, says the suit. Schwartz purchased her Tritan Renew Bottles in reliance on promises CamelBak made about the Tritan Renew Bottles. The Defendant is a maker of "hydration solutions," including water-containment backpacks, coolers, water bottles, and drinkware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: P. Renee Wicklund, Esq. RICHMAN LAW & POLICY 535 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (718) 705-4579 E-mail: rwicklund@richmanlawpolicy.com CAMPBELL SOUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Moskowitz Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW MOSKOWITZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY; and SNYDER'S-LANCE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00227 (D. Conn., Feb. 13, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Moskowitz was employed by the Defendants as a driver. Campbell Soup Company produces and markets branded convenience food products. The Company offers soups, meals, canned foods, baked goods, beverages, and snacks. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Greg Blankinship, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP One N. Broadway Suite 900 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (844) 431-0695 Email: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com - and - Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Alex Tomasevic, Esq. Shaun Markley, Esq. Jordan Belcastro, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASELVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 Email: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org smarkley@nicholaslaw.org jbelcastro@nicholaslaw.org CENTRAL BANK: Court Adopts Class Definitions in Rutherford ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL C. RUTHERFORD, III, v. CENTRAL BANK OF KANSAS CITY, Case No. 3:24-cv-05299-TLF (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Theresa Fricke entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion as follows: (1) Chris R. Youtz, Richard E. Spoonemore, and Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore Hamburger PLLC are hereby appointed as class counsel; (2) The Court adopts the following class definitions: a. "All persons in the United States who, at any time between Apr. 17, 2023 and Sept. 29, 2024 were: (1) taken into custody at a jail correctional facility, detainment center, or any other law enforcement facility; (2) entitled to the return of money either confiscated from them and/or remaining in their inmate accounts when they were released from the facility, which was loaded or otherwise transferred to a prepaid debit card without their permission; (3) issued that prepaid debit card that does not include the cardholder agreement language of the amendment dated September 30, 2024, by Central Bank of Kansas City to pay the money owed to them; (4) incurred fees or other charges on such card(s); and (5) did not file a claim and receive an individual monetary recovery from the case captioned Brown v. Stored Value Cards, et al., United States District Court for the District or Oregon, Cause No. 3:15-cv-01370-MO." b. "All persons who, at any time between April 17, 2020 and Sept. 29, 2024 were: (1) taken into custody at a jail correctional facility, detainment center, or any other law enforcement facility located in the state of Washington; (2) entitled to the return of money either confiscated from them and/or remaining in their inmate accounts when they were released from the facility, which was loaded or otherwise transferred to a prepaid debit card without their permission; (3) issued that prepaid debit card that does not include the cardholder agreement language of the amendment dated Sept. 30, 2024, by Central Bank of Kansas City to pay the money owed to them; (4) incurred fees or other charges on such card(s); and (5) did not file a claim and receive an individual monetary recovery from the case captioned Brown v. Stored Value Cards, et al., United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Cause No. 3:15-cv-01370- MO." The case concerns prepaid debit cards issued by defendant Central Bank of Kansas City ("CBKC"). CBKC contracts with detention facilities to obtain funds confiscated from incarcerated individuals and these cards are provided to return inmate trust funds upon release. Central Bank of Kansas City is a local community bank that has provided financial services for individuals and businesses since 1951. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sj936b at no extra charge.[CC] CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Esparza Eavesdropping Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------------ MIGUEL ESPARZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation d/b/a SPECTRUM.COM, Case No. 25STCV03930 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 13, 2025) alleges that the Defendant secretly allows a third-party spyware company to eavesdrop on the private conversations of everyone who communicates through the chat feature on its Website in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The spyware company then exploits and monetizes that data in violation of the second clause of section 631(a) of the Penal Code. Dozens of state and federal courts have held that substantially identical conduct violates CIPA. The Defendant created its own online presence at spectrum.com (the "Website") to communicate with potential customers, encouraging engagement with this electronic medium – Defendant's Website -- as an alternative to the telephonic or in-person interaction. The Defendant did this to enable potential customers to obtain information from and about Defendant's products, and to enable Defendant to elicit information from potential customers about their specific needs and desires, says the suit. The Defendant well understands that its Website is a means to communicate privately with potential customers -- a consumer expectation that is not only reasonable, but actively nurtured by Defendant. Indeed, Defendant assures visitors that "your privacy is important to Charter" and "we value the trust you place in us.” See https://www.spectrum.com/policies/privacy-policy (last accessed December 2024). The Defendant's promise is false, the suit added. Charter Communications, Inc. is an American telecommunications and mass media company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com CITIZENS UNITED: Alsaga Suit Removed to E.D. Michigan ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Hasan Alsaga, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CITIZENS UNITED RECIPROCAL EXCHANGE (a/k/a CURE INSURANCE), FADHL ALHANSHALI, and DAILY BLACK FRIDAY LLC, Case No. 25-000563-NF was removed from the State of Michigan Third Judicial Circuit Court for the County of Wayne, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on Feb. 12, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-10423-MAG-APP. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that CURE and Defendants Fadhl Alhanshali and Daily Black Friday LLC ("DBF") have perpetrated a fraud against consumers of automobile insurance coverage in Michigan by rescinding policies based on a "loophole in the insurance contract."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Timothy A. Diemer, Esq. JACOBS AND DIEMER, P.C. 211 West Fort Street, Suite 1400 Detroit, MI 48226 Phone: (313) 965-1900 Email: tdiemer@jacobsdiemer.com - and - Anthony Argiropoulos, Esq. EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C. 150 College Road West, Suite 301 Princeton, New Jersey 08540 Phone: (609) 455-1540 Email: aargiropoulos@ebglaw.com CLIPPER REALTY: Sanchez Must File Class Cert Bid by March 19 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sanchez v. Clipper Realty, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-08502-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered an order approving briefing schedule for Plaintiff's class certification motion and summary judgment motion, as well as Defendants' potential cross-motion for summary judgment as follows: -- The Plaintiff to present separate motions for class certification and summary judgment on or before March 19, 2025; -- The Defendants to oppose class certification, to oppose and/or cross-move for summary judgment on or before April 17, 2025; -- The Plaintiff to reply as to class certification and reply in favor of summary judgment and/or oppose any cross-motion for summary judgment on or before May 1, 2025; -- The Defendants to reply as to any cross-motion for summary judgment on or before May 8, 2025. Clipper is a self-administered and self-managed real estate company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qA50Sm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 WEst 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1180 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com COMMUNITY HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Murray Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- TRACY MURRAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00226 (D. Conn., Feb. 13, 2025) seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the injuries the Defendant inflicted on the Plaintiff and the Class due to the Defendant's egregiously inadequate data security, which resulted in the private information of Plaintiff and those similarly situated to be exposed to unauthorized third parties. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and negligently failing to implement reasonable measures to safeguard Private Information and by failing to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of that information. The Defendant's woefully inadequate data security measures made the Data Breach a foreseeable, and even likely, consequence of its negligence, says the suit. As a direct and proximate result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members have allegedly suffered actual and present injuries. Community Health Center, Incorporated (CHC) provides health care services. The Company offers primary care services in medicine, dentistry, and behavioral health. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Brown, Esq. John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. Antonio Arzola, Jr., Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Facsimile: (813) 222-4736 Email: William.brown@forthepeople.com jyanchunis@forthepeople.com ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com ararzola@forthepeople.com - and - Paul Whalen, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALEN P.C. 768 Plandome Road Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (516) 426-6870 Email: pcwhalen@gmail.com COMPUTERSHARE TRUST: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Heritage ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as HERITAGE INTEGRITY INVESTMENT TRUST, v. COMPUTERSHARE TRUST COMPANY, N.A. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-09309-JPC-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order re general pretrial management, including scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(A): -- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. -- It appearing to the Court that no initial case management conference has yet taken place in this action, it is hereby ordered that an initial conference in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 will be held on April 1, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 20A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. At the conference, the parties must be prepared to discuss the subjects set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and (c). -- The parties must meet and confer in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) no later than 21 days prior to the initial case management conference. -- The date of the conference and appearances for the parties, including the names of the individual attorneys who will attend, their law firms, addresses, and telephone numbers, and the party or parties represented. The Court expects each party's principal trial attorney to attend the conference. Computershare operates as a brokerage firm. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=teORee at no extra charge.[CC] CORNERSTONE CAPITAL: Darby Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cornerstone Capital Ventures, LLC. The case is styled as Naomi Darby, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Cornerstone Capital Ventures, LLC, Case No. 16-2025-CA-000796-AXXX-MA (Fla. Cir. Ct., Duval Cty., Feb. 12, 2025). The case type is stated as "Circuit Civil." Cornerstone Venture Partners, LLC -- https://www.cornerstone-ventures.com/ -- operates as a venture capital firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1000 Brickell Ave., Ste. 1420 Miami, FL 33131-2800 - and - Matthew Peterson, Esq. 225 1st Ave. N. Unit 762 Saint Petersburg, FL33701-3586 CRST INT'L: Cheatham Seeks Conditional Status of Collective ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER CHEATHAM, on behalf of him-self and all others similarly situated, V. CRST INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, LLC and CRST EXPEDITED, INC, d/b/a CRST THE TRANSPORTATION SOLUTION, INC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00109-CJW-MAR (N.D. Iowa), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for circulation of notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b): The Plaintiff moves the Court to grant conditional collective action certification of this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claim and requests court authorization and facilitation of notice to the following putative collection action class members (collectively "Putative Collective Members" or "the FLSA Collective" or "Drivers") regarding their potential FLSA minimum wage and overtime claims: "All employee drivers who signed the Repayment Agreement and drove for CRST at any time between March 28, 2022, and the date of this Order." The Plaintiff also moves for an Order approving and authorizing Plaintiff to disseminate the proposed notice documents, including "Notice of Pending Collective Action Lawsuit. The Plaintiff also moves this Court to extend the statute of limitations for this action to three years so that Putative Collective Members can receive notice. Finally, the Plaintiff moves the Court to equitably toll the statute of limitation for all members of the FLSA Collective from February 12, 2025, the date of the of the filing of this motion, until the date notice is issued. CRST is a provider of transportation and logistics services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BHnac3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Mariner, Esq. Robert Montes, Esq. RAFII & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1120 N. Town Center Dr., Suite 130 Las Vegas, NV 89144 Telephone: (725) 245-6056 E-mail: rachel@rafiilaw.com robert@rafiilaw.com - and - Nathan Willems, Esq. Emily Shott Hood, Esq. RUSH & NICHOLSON, P.L.C. 115 First Avenue SE, Suite 201 Cedar Rapids, IA 52406-0637 Telephone: (319) 363-5209 Facsimile: (319) 363-6664 E-mail: nate@rushnicholson.com emily@rushnicholson.com The Defendants are represented by: James H. Hanson, Esq. Angela S. Cash, Esq. Andrew J. Ireland, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C. 10 West Market Street, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 E-mail: jhanson@scopelitis.com acash@scopelitis.com aireland@scopelitis.com - and - Kevin J. Visser, Esq. SIMMONS PERRINE MOYER BERGMAN PLC 115 Third Street SE, Suite 1200 Cedar Rapids, IA 52401-1266 E-mail: kvisser@spmblaw.com CUNY: Campbell Seeks Conditional Status of Collectives ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIE CAMPBELL, ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ, RICHARD LARREATEGUI, RAUL DEJESUS, and RAKESH KARKI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 1:24-cv-02575-JHR-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an order: 1. Conditionally certifying Plaintiffs' proposed collectives pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) of: "All CUNY peace officer level 1's, security specialists, and security assistants employed by Defendant at a community college at any time between three years before the date the Court grants this motion (if it does) and expiring at the conclusion of the opt-in period who worked more than 40 hours (including "doffing" time if they have a doffing claim) in one or more workweeks between three years before their opt-in date and the date when their damages are determined." All CUNY sergeants or corporals employed by Defendant at a community college at any time between three years before the date the Court grants this motion (if it does) and expiring at the conclusion of the opt-in period who worked more than 40 hours (including "doffing" time if they have a doffing claim and "off-the-clock" work time) in one or more workweeks between three years before their opt-in date and the date when their damages are determined. 2. Approving the Plaintiffs' proposed Notice and its distribution process to the members of the putative collectives; and 3. Ordering the Defendant to produce in a computer-readable file the following information for all putative opt-in plaintiffs: names, last known mailing addresses, alternate addresses, all known email addresses (work and personal), and dates of employment. City University is the largest urban university system in the United States. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4QKwVz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert J. Valli, Jr., Esq. Sara Wyn Kane, Esq. Matthew Berman, Esq. Brendan Carman, Esq. VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP 600 Old Country Road, Ste. 519 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7180 Facsimile: (516) 706-0248 E-mail: rvalli@vkv.law skane@vkv.law mberman@vkv.law bcarman@vkv.law - and - Michael D. Lieder, Esq. Jane Kim, Esq. MEHRI & SKALET PLLC 2000 K. Street, NW, Suite 325 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 822-5100 Facsimile: (202) 822-4997 E-mail: mlieder@findjustice.com jkim@findjustice.com DEVIN FINZER: Ross Class Action Referred to Magistrate Judge ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Craig Ross, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Finzer et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01179-DEH-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Dale Ho entered an order referring case to the assigned Magistrate Judge for the following purpose(s): -- General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non- dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement) A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=83i5Oe at no extra charge.[CC] DICK'S SPORTING: Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Tossed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KYLE KNOBLAUCH, JEFF KUCHARSKI, and GEORGE SCHLEY, v. DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00315-JPS (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge J. P. Stadtmueller entered an order denying without prejudice Plaintiffs Kyle Knoblauch, Jeff Kucharski, and George Schley's motion for preliminary settlement approval and class certification. The Plaintiffs may renew their motion for preliminary settlement approval and class certification, if at all, within 60 days of this Order. The Plaintiffs' complaint purports to seek certification of a nationwide class comprised of "All individuals currently or formerly employed by Defendant Dick's Sporting Goods in a Pro+ store as commissioned salespersons who were employed on or after January 1, 2021." (the "Nationwide Class"). In their motion, however, they define the Nationwide Class as: "All of Defendant’s employees employed at a Relevant Store who were eligible to receive a commission under Defendant's Premium Equipment Commissions Program ('P[EC]P') during the Class Period." The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees of the Defendant, sue the Defendant for breach of contract, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. Dick's Sporting is a nationwide retailer of sporting goods. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NWPDdV at no extra charge.[CC] DOLLAR GENERAL: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment v. Brockington ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEONARD BROCKINGTON, v. DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-06666-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis Liman entered an order: -- granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment; -- denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion for class certification; and -- denying as moot the Defendant's motion to strike as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending hearings and deadlines and to close this case. The Plaintiff fails to offer any evidence that he suffered any injury as a result of Defendant's alleged misrepresentations, a necessary element of his only remaining claims pursuant to GBL §§ 349 and 350. Therefore, because no reasonable jury could return a verdict in Plaintiff's favor, the Defendant is entitled to summary judgment. In this action, Mr. Brockington seeks to certify a class of New York purchasers who were allegedly deceived by Dollar General Corporation's labeling of its Honey Graham Crackers product. The Defendant is a discount retailer that sells a Honey Graham Crackers product under the Clover Valley brand. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QckTIU at no extra charge.[CC] DOLLAR GENERAL: Wins Summary Judgment Bid v. Brockington -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEONARD BROCKINGTON, v. DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-06666-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment. -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied as moot. -- The Defendant's motion to strike is denied as moot. -- Accordingly, the case is closed. Dollar General is a retailer that operates discount stores. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iymAih at no extra charge.[CC] DOLLAR TREE: Track Users' Websites Activities, Walsh Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ MARCO WALSH, HOWARD YOSHA, and ERICA MALDONADO, as individuals, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-01601 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 14, 2025) concerns a privacy violation and total breach of consumer trust in violation of the California Invasion Of Privacy Act. Accordingly, when consumers visit the Defendant's ecommerce websites, www.dollartree.com and www.familydollar.com, the Defendant displays to them a popup cookie consent banner. The Defendant's cookie banner discloses that the Websites use cookies but expressly gives users the option to control how they are tracked and how their personal data is used. The Defendant allegedly assures visitors that they can choose to "Reject Advertising Cookies". Like most internet websites, the Defendant designed the Websites to include resources and programming scripts from third parties that enable those parties to place cookies and other similar tracking technologies on visitors' browsers and devices and/or transmit cookies along with user data, says the suit. However, unlike other websites, Defendant's Websites offers consumers a choice to browse without being tracked, followed, and targeted by third party data brokers and advertisers. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant's promises are outright lies, designed to lull users into a false sense of security. Even after users elect to "Reject Advertising Cookies", the Defendant surreptitiously enables several third parties -- including Google LLC, Meta Platforms, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, Epsilon Data Management, LLC Pinterest, Inc., BlueConic, Inc., and others (the "Third Parties') -- to place and/or transmit cookies that track users' Websites browsing activities and eavesdrop on users' private communications on the Websites. The Defendant is in the business of retail, primarily offering affordable household goods, seasonal items, and general consumer merchandise through its brands Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The Defendant also owns and operates the Websites, which allows visitors to receive information about its products, locate retail stores, and purchase products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Todd Kennedy, Esq. Kali R. Backer, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com todd@gutridesafier.com kali@gutridesafier.com DYLAN'S CANDYBAR: Isakov Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- SIMON ISAKOV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DYLAN'S CANDYBAR, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01201 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 11, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.dylanscandybar.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Dylan's Candybar, LLC provides confectionery products. The Company offers candies, chocolates, sweets, and other related products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Asher Cohen, Esq. ASHER COHEN PLLC 2377 56th Dr. Brooklyn, NY 11234 Tel: (718) 914-9694 Email: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set April 21 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Edison International (NYSE: EIX) between February 25, 2021 and February 6, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Edison investors under the federal securities laws. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Edison's claim that Southern California Edison Company ("SCE") used its Public Safety Power Shutoffs ("PSPS") program to "proactively de-energize power lines to mitigate the risk of catastrophic wildfires during extreme weather events", was false; (2) this resulted in heightened fire risk in California and heightened legal exposure to the Company; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about Edison's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 21, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=33590 or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at case@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] EDWARD BEINER INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Edward Beiner, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-00549 (D. Minn., Feb. 12, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Websit (www.edwardbeiner.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind. The Defendant offers eyewear for sale including, but not limited to, designer sunglasses and luxury eyewear, eye examination services, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Gustafson, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC Jason Gustafson (#0403297) 222 South Ninth Street, Suite 1600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com EIDP INC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CANDY CAPORALE, et al., v. EIDP, INC., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01672-JLH-SRF (D. Del.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting the emergency motion for an extension of Defendants' Feb. 21, 2025, deadline to file their opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and supporting materials to March 24, 2024, and a commensurate extension of the remaining case deadlines. The Moving Defendants do not challenge the Court's Order finding that the stay factors were not met, but rather seek a modest extension pursuant to Federal Rules 6(b) and 16(b)(4). In the absence of an extension, the Moving Defendants will be prejudiced by having to oppose Plaintiff's motion for class certification and file Rule 702 motions without sufficient time to account for the impact of the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation recommending that the Court grant summary judgment in favor of some Defendants. The Plaintiffs filed this case on May 17, 2019 and it was removed to this Court on Sept. 6, 2019. On Jan. 29, 2025, Magistrate Judge Fallon entered a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court grant summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. EIDP provides seeds and crop protection products for the agriculture industry. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8ZMK4p at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Catherine A. Gaul, Esq. Andrew Colin Mayo, Esq. Randall J. Teti, Esq. ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A. 500 Delaware Avenue – Floor 8 Wilmington DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 654-1888 E-mail: cgaul@ashbygeddes.com amayo@ashbygeddes.com rteti@ashbygeddes.com - and - Brian D. Tome, Esq. REILLY, McDEVITT & HENRICH, P.C. 1013 Centre Road – Suite 210 Wilmington DE 19805 Telephone: (302) 777-1700 E-mail: btome@rmh-law.com - and - Kelly E. Farnan, Esq. RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A. One Rodney Square 920 North King Street Wilmington DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 651-7700 E-mail: farnan@rlf.com - and - Gerry Gray, Esq. DOROSHOW, PASQUALE, KRAWITZ & BHAYA 14 Village Square Smyrna DE 19977 Telephone: (302) 508-2140 E-mail: GerryGray@dplaw.com - and - Kaan Ekiner, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 1201 North Market Street – Suite 1001 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-2035 E-mail: kekiner@cozen.com - and - Daniel M. Silver, Esq. McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP Renaissance Centre 405 North King Street – Floor 8 Wilmington DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 984-6300 E-mail: dsilver@mccarter.com ELITE NURSES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to May 19 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KASONDRA MATHEWS, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ELITE NURSES MANAGEMENT LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01518-PAB-KAS (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Kathryn Starnella entered an order denying without prejudice the parties' joint motion for stay. The Court further entered an order that the deadline to complete Phase I discovery is extended to March 17, 2025. The deadline to file a class certification motion is extended to May 19, 2025. A Scheduling Order was entered in this case on Aug. 14, 2024. Phase I discovery is set to close on February 14, 2025, and the deadline to file a class certification motion is April 18, 2025. Elite Nurses is a nurse staffing agency. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HdQqsQ at no extra charge.[CC] EMMANUEL UNIVERSITY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Young Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ LESHAWN YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. EMMANUEL UNIVERSITY, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01355 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 14, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. Accordingly, 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 and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibiting discrimination against the blind. Because Defendant's interactive website, https://eu.edu/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, including, but not limited to, https://ec.bncollege.com/ and https://sideline.bsnsports.com/schools/georgia/franklinsprings/emmanuel-college, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA and the RA. 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. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant operates the EU online interactive Website and retail store across the United States. This online interactive Website and retail store constitutes a place of public accommodation because it is a college, place of exhibition, place of entertainment, service establishment and sales establishment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb (JG-7905) Dana L. Gottlieb (DG-6151) GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal EMTERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Schmidt Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Shawn Schmidt and Anthony Kretzer, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v EMTERRA ENVIRONMENTAL USA CORP, Case No. 4:25-cv-10422-JJCG-PTM (E.D. Mich., Feb. 12, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). Although Plaintiffs and the Putative Collective Members have routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, Plaintiffs and the Putative Collective Members were not paid overtime of at least one and one half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. At all relevant times, the Defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiffs and the Putative Collective Members for the proper amount of overtime on a routine and regular basis, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by Emterra. Emterra is a full-service solid waste company providing waste collection, recycling, and disposal services to commercial, industrial, and residential customers throughout the State of Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Carter T. Hastings ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: 361-452-1279 Fax: 361-452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com - and - Jennifer McManus, Esq. FAGAN MCMANUS, P.C. 25892 Woodward Avenue Royal Oak, MI 48067-0910 Phone: (248) 542-6300 Facsimile: (248) 542-6301 Email: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com ENTRATA INC: Manaskie Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Georgia ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Entrata, Inc. The case is styled as Bonnie Manaskie, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Entrata, Inc. doing business as: Resident Verify, Case No. 1:25-cv-00704-MHC-CCB (N.D. Ga.., Feb. 12, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Entrata, Inc. -- https://www.entrata.com/ -- operates as a software development company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Weiner, Esq. Jeffrey Sand, Esq. WEINER & SAND LLC 800 Battery Avenue SE, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30339 Phone: (404) 254-0842 Email: aw@wsjustice.com js@wsjustice.com - and - James A. Francis, Esq. Lauren KW Brennan, Esq. FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C., Suite 2510 1600 Market St. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 735-8600 Fax: (215) 940-8000 Email: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com EQUIFAX INFO: Baker Plaintiffs Seeks More Time to File Class Cert ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tyler Baker, Jennifer Bozue, Laura Brookman, Eric Heard, Edwin Woodburne, and Roberta Wright, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-04004-VMC-RDC (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to extend deadline to file motion for class certification. Equifax offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and analytical solutions. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7lHs5f at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey Lohman, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY LOHMAN, P.C. 2325 Camelback Road, Suite 400 Phoenix, AZ 85016 E-mail: jeffL@jLohman.com - and - Mark Carey, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. CAREY, P.C. Building C, Sandy Springs, GA 30342 E-mail: markcareylaw.@ymail.com ETHAN ALLEN RETAIL: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ethan Allen Retail, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-00586-DSD-ECW (D. Minn., Feb. 14, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website www.ethanallen.com (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind. The Defendant offers design services as well as high quality furniture and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, furniture and accessories for indoor and outdoor spaces, lighting options, rugs, flooring, decor and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Gustafson, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC Jason Gustafson (#0403297) 222 South Ninth Street, Suite 1600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com EYM CHICKEN: Loses Bid to Dismiss English, et al. BIPA Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as COSHIRA ENGLISH, DAWN WASHINGTON, OTIS CHILDS, and LATESSA LEROGAN-WASHINGTON, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v. EYM CHICKEN OF ILLINOIS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-3202 (C. D. Ill.), Judge Colleen R. Lawless of the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois denied EYM Chicken of Illinois, LLC's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, stay action and compel arbitration without prejudice. This case was initially filed in the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Sangamon County, Illinois, before being removed to this Court under 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1332(a) and 1441(a) by Defendant. Plaintiffs Coshira English, Dawn Washington, Otis Childs, and Latessa Lerogan-Washington filed a proposed class action complaint asserting claims for violations of the Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. They are current or former employees of Defendant EYM Chicken of Illinois, which owns and operates at least 20 KFC franchises in Illinois. In seeking dismissal or requesting arbitration, Defendant alleges that as part of their employment agreement, Plaintiffs entered into agreements to submit claims arising out of their employment, such as the claims asserted in the complaint, to binding arbitration. The purported arbitration agreements as to each Plaintiff are attached to Defendant's motion. Defendant further asserts Plaintiffs agreed to adjudicate any employment-related claim in the arbitration process individually, and not as part of a class. Because they allege a federal court is an improper venue to adjudicate these claims, Defendant seeks dismissal for lack of venue under Rule 12(b)(3), along with the dismissal of the class allegations. Alternatively, they request that the matter be stayed and arbitration be compelled consistent with Plaintiffs' employment agreements. Plaintiffs oppose Defendant's motion on the basis that Plaintiffs Coshira English and Dawn Washington deny signing, electronically or by any other means, the agreements in question. They contend (1) there is no enforceable arbitration agreement between the parties; and (2) the purported electronic signatures on the agreements do not comply with the Uniform Electronic Signature Act, 815 ILCS 333/1 et seq. Defendant alleges each Plaintiff signed a valid arbitration agreement as a condition of their employment. Because the claims in Plaintiffs' complaint arise out of their employment, Defendant contends the claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Accordingly, it asks the Court to stay this matter, compel the individual Plaintiffs to proceed with arbitration, and strike the class allegations based upon the agreement to litigate claims individually. Plaintiffs Coshira English and Dawn Washington have filed declarations denying they signed agreements to arbitrate. Both Plaintiffs also state that they did not sign any employment-related documents with electronic signatures. Thus, there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether English and Washington agreed to arbitrate, the Court finds. While there is a factual dispute as to whether Plaintiffs English and Dawn Washington agreed to arbitrate, Plaintiffs Otis Childs and Latessa Lerogan-Washington have not submitted declarations or affidavits regarding whether they signed an agreement to arbitrate. Given that Childs and Latessa Lerogan-Washington are alleged to have electronically signed the documents agreeing to arbitrate in May 2020, the Court concludes there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether any of Plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate. The Court concludes there is a factual dispute regarding whether Plaintiffs signed the arbitration agreements. Thus, an evidentiary hearing is necessary to resolve the question of fact. Defendant EYM Chicken of Illinois, LLC's Motion to Dismiss or, In the Alternative, Stay Action and Compel Arbitration is denied without prejudice to refile following an evidentiary hearing. The Court schedules a status hearing on Monday, March 3, 2025, at 10:30 a.m. for the purpose of scheduling the evidentiary hearing. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f3P26t from PacerMonitor.com. F21 OPCO: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Jimenez Extended to Sept. 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as FLOR JIMENEZ, v. F21 OPCO, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-03027-TLN-SCR (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Troy Nunley entered an order granting third stipulation to modify amended pre-trial scheduling order to continue all deadlines by at least 60 days follows: Event Current Revised Date Date Close of Discovery Related to Mar. 5, 2025 May 5, 2025 Class Certification: Deadline to Designate Experts Apr. 4, 2025 June 3, 2025 Related to Class Certification: Close of Fact Discovery: June 18, 2025 Aug. 18, 2025 Deadline to File Motion for July 2, 2025 Sept. 2, 2025 Class Certification: Deadline to Designate Experts Aug. 19, 2025 Oct. 17, 2025 Unrelated to Class Certification: F21 is a multinational fast-fashion retailer headquartered in Los Angeles, California. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B0zZQc at no extra charge.[CC] FALCON CAPITAL: Court Approves Revised Plan of Allocation --------------------------------------------------------- IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE PAUL BERGER REVOCABLE TRUST Plaintiff, C.A. No. 2023-0820-JTL v. FALCON EQUITY INVESTORS LLC, EAGLE FALCON JV CO LLC, ALAN G. MNUCHIN, JEFF SAGANSKY, EDGAR BRONFMAN, JR., KAREN FINERMAN, MICHAEL RONEN, AND SAIF RAHMAN, Defendants. SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT TO: ALL RECORD AND BENEFICIAL HOLDERS OF FALCON CAPITAL ACQUISITION CORP. ("FCAC") CLASS A COMMON STOCK WHO HELD SUCH STOCK IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING JUNE 25, 2021, THE REDEMPTION DEADLINE, HAD THE RIGHT TO, BUT DID NOT, EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO REDEEM SOME OR ALL SHARES OF SUCH STOCK, INCLUDING THEIR HEIRS, SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST, SUCCESSORS, TRANSFEREES AND ASSIGNS, EXCLUDING ANY EXCLUDED PERSONS (THE "CLASS" OR "CLASS MEMBERS"). THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT JUNK MAIL, AN ADVERTISEMENT, OR SOLICITATION FROM A LAWYER. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THE LITIGATION. PLEASE NOTE THAT IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE PROCEEDS OF THE SETTLEMENT DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE. TO CLAIM YOUR SHARE OF THE SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A VALID PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE FORM ("PROOF OF CLAIM") POSTMARKED, SUBMITTED ONLINE, OR RECEIVED ON OR BEFORE MARCH 10, 2025. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing was held on January 21, 2025, at 9:15 a.m. EST before the Honorable J. Travis Laster, Vice Chancellor, at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the action pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery styled as Paul Berger Revocable Trust v. Falcon Equity Investors LLC, et al., C.A. No. 2023-0820-JTL (the "Action") as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, Compromise, and Release dated November 6, 2024, amended on February 4, 2025 ("Stipulation") for $11,500,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered with prejudice; (3) to award Plaintiff's Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of: (I) Proposed Settlement and Plan of Allocation; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses ("Notice"), which is discussed below), and, if so, in what amount; and (4) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate. At the hearing, the Court directed the Parties to modify the proposed Plan of Allocation to ensure that Successors-in-Interest of non-redeeming FCAC Class A stockholders would share in the settlement proceeds. On February 3, 2025, the Parties submitted a revised Plan of Allocation to the Court. On February 4, 2024, the Court approved the revised Plan of Allocation. The revised Plan of Allocation provides Settlement payments to Class Members who held Non-Redeemed Shares as set forth in the original Plan of Allocation, and, as revised, also provides Settlement payments to: (i) Class Members who acquired Non-Redeemed Shares after the Redemption Deadline, continued to hold such shares as of the close of market on October 21, 2024, and can produce documentary evidence that such share is traceable to a Non-Redeemed Share ("Traceable Share"); and (ii) purchasers of FCAC Class A common stock acquired on a public market after the Redemption Deadline, that continued to hold such shares as of the close of market on October 21, 2024, and are unable to provide documentary evidence that such shares is traceable to a Non-Redeemed Share ("Non-Traceable Share"). This Summary Notice relates to a settlement of claims in the class action brought by a holder of FCAC Class A common stock. The Action alleged that Defendants violated applicable law by breaching their fiduciary duties and impairing FCAC stockholders' redemption and voting rights, including through proxy solicitation materials containing false and misleading misrepresentations and omissions, resulting in damages to Class Members. Defendants denied each and every claim and contention alleged in the Action and denied any misconduct or wrongdoing whatsoever. IF YOU HELD FCAC CLASS A COMMON STOCK IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING JUNE 25, 2021, AND HAD THE RIGHT TO, BUT DID NOT, EXERCISE YOUR RIGHT TO REDEEM SOME OR ALL OF SUCH STOCK, OR ARE AN HEIR, SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST, SUCCESSOR, TRANSFEREE, OR ASSIGN OF A RECORD OR BENEFICIAL HOLDER OF FCAC CLASS A COMMON STOCK WHO DID NOT REDEEM SOME OR ALL OF THEIR SHARES ON JUNE 25, 2021, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THE LITIGATION. If you are a member of the Class, you must establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked or received no later than March 10, 2025) or electronically (no later than March 10, 2025). Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by March 10, 2025, will subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving your full pro rata share of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of the Action. If you are a member of the Class, you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Action, including, but not limited to, the Final Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim. If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder (including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of Claim, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other settlement documents, online at www.SharecareStockholderSettlement.com, or by writing to: Sharecare Stockholder Settlement c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 170995 Milwaukee, WI 53217 GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. Christine M. Mackintosh 123 Justison Street 7th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT OR THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL BY MARCH 10, 2025, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. DATED: February 4, 2025 BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE [GN] FEH TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay Drivers' Wages, OT, Subirat Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROMAN SUBIRAT, for himself and on behalf of others similarly situated v. FEH TRANSPORTATION LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-20684 (S.D. Fla., Feb. 14, 2025) contends that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals the proper compensation for every overtime hour worked at the rate of time and one-half their regular rate. The action is intended to include each and every driver transporting rental cars, dispatchers, supervisors, and similarly situated individuals who worked for Defendant at any time during the past three years. The action seeks to recover monetary damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages under FLSA. FEH employed the Plaintiff Subirat from April 01, 2021, to October 12, 2024, or more than three years (184 weeks). FEH is a transportation company based in Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com FIRST ADVANTAGE: Class Cert Opposition Filing Extended to March 14 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN R. JONES, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v. FIRST ADVANTAGE BACKGROUND SERVICES CORP., Case No. 3:23-cv-00553-KAD (D. Conn.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion for extension of time as follows: Event Current Proposed Deadline Deadline Defendant's opposition to Feb. 20, 2025 March 14, 2025 Plaintiff's motion for class Certification: Plaintiff's opposition to Feb. 21, 2025 March 14, 2025 Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment: Plaintiff's reply in support Mar. 6, 2025 Apr. 4, 2025 of his motion for class certification: Defendant's reply in support Mar. 7, 2025 Apr. 4, 2025 of its motion for partial summary judgment The Plaintiff filed his motion for class certification on Jan. 30, 2025. First Advantage's counsel has conferred with the Plaintiff's counsel and confirmed that Plaintiff consents to First Advantage filing this joint motion on behalf of both parties. First Advantage provides detective, guard, and armored car services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DQLM1k at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Hayber, Esq. Thomas J. Durkin, Esq. HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC 750 Main Street, Suite 904 Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 522-8888 Facsimile: (860) 218-9555 E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com tdurkin@hayberlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Daniel B. Klein, Esq. Frederick T. Smith, Esq. Esther Slater McDonald, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Seaport East Two Seaport Lane, Suite 1200 Boston, MA 02210-2028 Telephone: (617) 946-4800 Facsimile: (617) 946-4801 E-mail: dklein@seyfarth.com fsmith@seyfarth.com emcdonald@seyfarth.com FIRST ADVANTAGE: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by March 14 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jones v. First Advantage Background Services Corp., Case No. 3:23-cv-00553 (D. Conn., Filed May 1, 2023), the Hon. Judge Kari A. Dooley entered an order granting motion for extension of time. -- The parties' respective oppositions to the motion for class certification and motion for partial summary judgment shall be filed on or before March 14, 2025. -- The parties' respective reply briefs shall be filed on or before April 4, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. First Advantage provides background screening and post-hire workforce monitoring services.[CC] FISHER-PRICE INC: Faces Spencer Class Suit Over Defective Swings ---------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD SPENCER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FISHER-PRICE, INC. and MATTEL, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00151 (W.D.N.Y., Feb. 14, 2025) alleges that Defendants' Swings are dangerously defective at the point of purchase, which was unknown to reasonable consumers, but well known to the Defendants since introducing the Swing into the consumer marketplace. Accordingly, following multiple infant deaths and public outcry regarding the hazards associated with use of the Swings, the Defendants concede through their deficient October 2024 Recall that the Swing "should never be used for sleep", yet the Defendants continue to recommend use of the Swings, which as Defendants know, will continue to lull children into unsafe sleep. Prior to the Recall and despite the serious dangers to infant safety presented by the Products, the Defendants intentionally marketed and sold the Swing as safe for infant sleep and failed to effectively disclose to consumers that the Swings were unsafe and unsuitable for infant sleep at any duration because Defendants know that infant sleepers are best sellers, that the vast majority of consumers would prefer to use the Swing for infant sleep, and that if the Swings were not sold as sleep products, they would be less profitable. Defendant Mattel, Fisher-Price's parent company, states that it employs its own Medical and Scientific Safety Council, "which works closely with Mattel in providing professional opinions, advice and recommendations related to product safety, helping to inform our work and promote safe practices." However, despite this purported public commitment to the safety of consumers, the Swings are hazardous to children because of a uniform defect consisting of an inclined surface with a deep concavity failing to create and maintain an appropriately level or flat sleeping, the lawsuit says. The Fisher-Price Snuga Swings are a line of inclined infant swings that Defendants have designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold as a suitable environment for safe infant sleep since 2010. However, contrary to Defendants' marketing and reasonable consumers' expectations, inclined infant sleep products, including the Swings, are dangerous and unsuitable for infant sleep at any duration. The Products include all 21 models of the Snuga Swing such as My Little Snugakitty (TM) Cradle 'n Swing, My Little Snugabunny (TM) Swing, and My Little Snugabear Cradle 'n Swing. Plaintiff Spencer purchased a Fisher-Price Baby Raccoon Swing on or around February 22, 2022, from Walmart.com for approximately $140.00. Prior to his purchase, Mr. Spencer read and relied on the Defendants' advertising and marketing materials, including the alleged Safe Sleep Marketing, which he understood to mean the Product was a safe and suitable environment for infants to sleep in, alleges the lawsuit. Fisher-Price designs, manufactures, distributes, markets, advertises, labels, and sells products for the care of infants and preschool children to consumers throughout the United States, including in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan M. Feldman, Esq. Zachary Arbitman, Esq. George Donnelly, Esq. FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER TANNER WEINSTOCK & DODIG, LLP 1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 567-8300 Facsimile: (215) 567-8333 E-mail: zarbitman@feldmanshepherd.com - and - Terrence M. Connors, Esq. Andrew M. Debbins, Esq. CONNORS LLP 1000 Liberty Building 424 Main Street Buffalo, New York 14202 Telephone: (716) 852-5533 Facsimile: (716) 852-5649 E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com amd@connorsllp.com - and - Rachel Soffin, Esq. Kelsey Gatlin Davies, Esq. MILBERG COLEMEN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 3833 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, FL 33713 Telephone: (866) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: rsoffin@milberg.com kdavies@milberg.com FLEX-N-GATE LLC: Gray Class Suit Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- CALIB GRAY and LORENZO FREDERICK, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. FLEX-N-GATE, LLC, FLEX-N-GATE ROYAL OAK CORP., FLEX-N-GATE ROYAL OAK, LLC, and VENTRA EVART, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00177-UNA (D. Del., Feb. 13, 2025) alleges that Defendant failed to pay employees all overtime wages earned pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The case challenges certain policies and practices of Defendants that violate the FLSA for failure to pay all compensable time, resulting in unpaid overtime. During their employment, the Plaintiffs worked 40 or more hours in one or more workweek(s). However, the Defendants did not compensate Plaintiffs and others similarly situated for integral and indispensable work resulting in unpaid overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA, says the suit. All Defendants operate under the "Flex-N-Gate" umbrella and use the website https://flex-n-gate.com.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael J. Farnan, Esq. Brian E. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 N. Market St., 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-0300 Facsimile: (302) 777-0301 E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher Street NW, Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hnilges@ohlaborlaw.com rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com FMC CORP: Faces Mohammed Suit Over Drop in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------ MUSHTAQ MOHAMMED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FMC CORPORATION; MARK DOUGLAS; PIERRE R. BRONDEAU; and ANDREW D. SANDIFER, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00771 (E.D. Pa., Feb. 13, 2025) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired FMC securities between November 16, 2023 and February 4, 2025, inclusive, the Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) the Company's channel management initiatives were not progressing as represented; (2) that, faced with pricing pressure, the Company had made the decision not to compete on prices and instead walk away from sales opportunities; (3) that, as a result, the Company had inflated inventory in the channels in "LATAM, including Brazil, Asia, including India, as well as Canada and Eastern Europe;" and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. FMC's stock price fell $18.12, or 33.5%, to close at $35.92 per share on February 5, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. FMC Corporation provides agricultural solutions. The Company offers herbicides, insecticides and miticides, fungicides, harvest aids, and other crop chemicals used for seed corn, potatoes, sorghum, sweet corn, cotton, tobacco, sunflowers, grapes, and other related products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee Albert, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Avenue, Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 Email: lalbert@glancylaw.com - and - Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 Email: clinehan@glancylaw.com - and - Frank R. Cruz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Century City, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 FRED HUTCHINSON: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $11.5-Mil. -------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center and the University of Washington have agreed to pay an $11,500,000 settlement to end a proposed data breach class action lawsuit over a November 2023 cyberattack that impacted Fred Hutch's current and former patients. The official website for the deal can be found at FredHutchSettlement.com. The Fred Hutch settlement covers more than 2.1 million people in the United States whose private information was potentially or actually compromised in the data security incident, including all those who were sent notice by Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center or its authorized representatives. The $11.5 million deal, which the court preliminarily approved in January 2025, resolves claims that unauthorized third parties gained access to Fred Hutch's computer system between November 10 and November 25, 2023 due to the defendant's alleged failure to implement and maintain reasonable data security safeguards. According to the settlement website, the Fred Hutch data breach exposed patients' names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, health insurance information, medical histories, details about their conditions, and other sensitive information. To get benefits from the settlement, class members must submit a valid claim form online or by mail by May 7, 2025. You can file a claim form online by heading to this page and entering the class member ID located in the personalized settlement notice you may have received. You can also download, print and mail in a PDF claim form. As part of the Fred Hutch settlement, eligible individuals can file a claim to get up to $5,000 in reimbursement for documented, out-of-pocket losses incurred as a direct result of the data breach, such as unreimbursed losses relating to fraud, identity theft or credit monitoring. Covered Fred Hutch data breach victims can also claim two years of medical identity theft protection and monitoring services. Finally, class members can submit a claim to receive a pro-rated cash payment of up to $599. "While these payments may be up to $599, if many Settlement Class Members elect to receive this payment, this amount will be correspondingly smaller," the site reads. "For example, if five percent (5%) of the Settlement Class elect to receive both medical monitoring and pro rata benefits from the Settlement (and without accounting for any claims for Out-of-Pocket Losses), this payment will be approximately $60." In lieu of filing a claim form electronically or mailing a PDF version, class members can get their pro-rated cash payments and medical identity theft monitoring services by filling out and mailing the "tear-off" claim form that was sent along with their postcard settlement notice. Before class members can receive their settlement benefits, the court needs to grant final approval to the settlement terms at a hearing scheduled for May 20, 2025. Cash payouts will be distributed to eligible class members only if the deal is ultimately approved. [GN] GARDEN OF LIFE: Failed to Protect Personal Info, Williams Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY WILLIAMS and JANINE SCOVILLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GARDEN OF LIFE, LLC, Case No. 9:25-cv-80216 (S.D. Fla., Feb. 14, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted the Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information that was impacted in a data breach that the Defendant publicly disclosed on Jan. 17, 2025. The Plaintiffs claims arise from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. On Jan. 17, 2025, the Defendant issued a public disclosure and started sending out notice letters and emails to affected individuals. The Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep its customers' Private Information secure. As a result of the Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiffs and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. The Plaintiffs and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff is a customer of Defendant. On Jan. 17, 2025, the Defendant sent Williams a notice letter informing her that her Private Information was compromised in the Data Breach. The Defendant is a provider of carbon-neutral-certified, whole food-based nutrition, and is headquartered in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Stein, Esq. STEINLAW FLORIDA, PLLC 1825 NW Corporate Blvd., Suite 110 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: 561-834-2699 E-mail: jon@steinlawflorida.com - and - Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. Mark Svensson, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: ek@zlk.com msvensson@zlk.com GATEHOUSE MEDIA: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN EWALT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, et al., v. GATEHOUSE MEDIA OHIO HOLDINGS II, INC., d/b/a THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH, Case No. 2:19-cv-04262-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its refiled motion for extension of time until March 24, 2025, to file its opposition to Plaintiff Wylie's motion for class certification, appointment of class representative, and appointment of class counsel. The Defendant previously filed this motion in Case No. 2:25-cv-119 ("Ewalt II"), on Feb. 7, 2025. On Feb. 12, 2025, the Court entered an Order which recognized that Ewalt II and this case "are the same case" and directed the parties "to make filings, including refiling their pending Motion for Extension of Time, in 19-cv-4262. GateHouse Media provides publications services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=r9TWzh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd H. Neuman, Esq. Rick L. Ashton, Esq. Jeffrey R. Corcoran, Esq. ALLEN STOVALL NEUMAN FISHER & ASHTON LLP 17 South High Street, Suite 1220 Columbus, OH 43215 E-mail: neuman@aksnlaw.com ashton@asnfa.com corcoran@asnfa.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael J. Zbiegien, Jr., Esq. Lynn Rowe Larsen, Esq. Daniel H. Bryan, Esq. James D. Abrams, Esq. TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP 200 Public Square, Suite 3500 Cleveland, OH 44114-2302 Telephone: (216) 241-2838 Facsimile: (216) 241-3707 E-mail: mzbiegien@taftlaw.com llarsen@taftlaw.com dbryan@taftlaw.com jabrams@taftlaw.com GEN DIGITAL INC: Dismissal of Jumpshot-Related Claims Under Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------------ Gen Digital Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 27, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 31, 2025, that on on December 12, 2022, a putative class action captioned, "Lau v. Gen Digital Inc. and Jumpshot Inc." (later restyled as "Karwowski v. Gen Digital Inc. et al."), was filed in the Northern District of California alleging violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, California Invasion of Privacy Act, statutory larceny, unfair competition and various common law claims related to the provision of customer data to Jumpshot. The claims related to Jumpshot, and Jumpshot, Inc. as a defendant, were dismissed on July 9, 2024, as a result of a Motion to Dismiss brought by the company. The remaining claims were then voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice, by the Plaintiffs. Judgment was entered by the court on October 23, 2024, as to those claims and on November 22, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the earlier dismissed Jumpshot-related claims. Gen Digital Inc. provides digital protection across multiple channels and geographies, including security and performance management, identity protection, and online privacy. Its family of trusted consumer brands including Norton, Avast, LifeLock, Avira, AVG, Reputation Defender and CCleaner. GOOGLE LLC: Rabin Seeks to File Confidential Files Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ask the Court to enter an order granting their administrative motion to consider whether documents produced and marked confidential by Google should be sealed. The material to be filed under seal are portions of Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and Exhibits attached thereto. Because these materials were marked Confidential by Google, or contain references to material marked Confidential by Google, the Plaintiffs request the Court consider whether the following should be filed under seal: Document Description Designating Party Portions of Motion References to Google for Class produced documents Certification marked Confidential Exhibit 2 to the Excerpts from the July Google Joint Declaration 25, 2024 deposition of ISO of Motion for Clay Bavor Class Certification Exhibit 3 to the Excerpts from the Oct. Google Joint Declaration 29, 2024 deposition of ISO of Motion for Angus Logan, 30(b)(6) Class Certification 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=8HKotQ 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 GRACO CHILDREN'S: Class Cert-Related Deadlines Extended ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLIE CARDER, et al., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GRACO CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00137-LMM (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Leigh Martin May entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to extend deadlines for filing oppositions to motions for class certification and summary judgment and motions for exclusion of experts. The deadline for filing class certification, summary judgment, and motions to exclude oppositions is extended from Feb. 14, 2025, to and including Feb. 21, 2025. In addition, the deadline for filing class certification, summary judgment, and motions to exclude replies is extended from Feb. 28, 2025, to and including Mar. 14, 2025. Graco offers products including car seats, travel systems, strollers, high chairs, play yards, and baby swings. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZMq3wZ at no extra charge.[CC] GRANITE COUNTY, MT: Plaintiffs Seek to Modify Class Sched Order --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDY LARSON AND RUSSELL MORRISON, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated, v. GRANITE COUNTY, Case No. 9:23-cv-00126-DLC-KLD (D. Mont.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order modifying the current Scheduling Order with regard to the deadline for the Putative Class Plaintiffs' class certification motion for 45 days – to Apr. 7, 2025. Granite County was granted several extensions for their response to Putative Class Plaintiffs' discovery, and it has just recently supplemented its discovery responses. The volume of discovery is such that more time is needed for the Plaintiffs to review and evaluate the production for both responsiveness as well as substantively for class certification issues. The Putative Class Plaintiffs' counsel has conferred with the Defendant's counsel and they are not opposed to this motion. Granite County is a rural natural-resource supported county in central Western Montana. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IoB5BL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lawrence E. Henke, Esq. HENKE LAW OFFICE, PLLC 6 Summer Gulch Road Philipsburg, MT E-mail: larry@henkelaw-mt.com The Defendant is represented by: Maureen H. Lennon, Esq. Mitchell A. Young, Esq. COUNTY LITIGATION GROUP 2715 Skyway Drive Helena, MT 59602 Telephone: (406) 441-5471 E-mail: mlennon@mtcounties.org myoung@mtcounties.org HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Renewed Class Cert Bid Must be Filed by March 6 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANTOS, et al., v. HEALTHCARE REVENUE RECOVERY GROUP, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-23084 (S.D. Fla., Filed July 24, 2019), the Hon. Judge entered an order regarding the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in light of the eleventh circuit's remand of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. -- The Plaintiffs shall file a renewed motion for class certification on or before March 6, 2025. -- The Defendant shall file its Response to that renewed motion on or before March 27, 2025. -- The Plaintiffs shall then file their Reply on or before April 10, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Defendant is a digital platform that helps to make a medical bill payment, update mailing and email addresses.[CC] HSBC BANK: Mediation in Ni Suit Set for March 11 ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ni v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., Case No. 1:23-cv-00309-JAV-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katharine Parker entered an order granting parties' motion to mediation before Eric Paltell on March 11, 2025: -- To allow the parties to focus on potential resolution, the parties request that the Court stay all discovery deadlines and the February 13, 2025, deadline to object to the Court’s Report and Recommendation regarding class certification. -- Additionally, the parties request that they report to the Court concerning the outcome of the mediation in a joint letter by March 18, 2025. If the parties are unable to reach a resolution at mediation, the parties propose that they, with their joint letter, submit a new proposed Scheduling Order and briefing schedule for objections to the Report & Recommendation regarding class certification for the Court’s approval. HSBC is a banking and financial services institution. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yrWrTj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 W. 24th Street, eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com HUMBLE BUNDLE: Discloses Customer's Rental Records, Wray Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID WRAY, JAMAHL FARRINGTON, MATTHEW BURROW, and NIKOLAS PULLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HUMBLE BUNDLE, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-01592 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 14, 2025) is a class action brought on behalf of all persons with Facebook accounts who purchased video games through humblebundle.com. Accordingly, Humble Bundle violated, and continues to violate, the VPPA through its practice of knowingly disclosing to a third party, Meta Platforms, Inc., data containing Plaintiffs' and putative class members' personally identifiable information and Facebook ID -- including a record of purchase of every video game featuring in-game videos -- without first providing clear and conspicuous notice to the account holders and receiving consent. To solicit additional purchases, Humble Bundle knowingly collects and discloses its purchasers' personally identifiable information—including a record of every video game purchased—to Facebook without proper consent, says the suit. Humble Bundle is an online video game retailer that operates through its website, humblebundle.com. The platform offers bundles of video games, software, and other digital content, while also selling individual video games and a subscription service featuring monthly game selections. It develops, owns, and operates humblebundle.com, which is used throughout California and the United State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex R. Straus, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PIDLLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive, PH Suite Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: astraus@milberg.com ICON PLC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set April 11 ------------------------------------------------------- Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces that a lawsuit has been filed against ICON plc (NASDAQ: ICLR) and certain of its senior executives for potential violations of the federal securities laws. If you invested in ICON, you are encouraged to obtain additional information by visiting https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/icon-plc. Investors have until April 11, 2025, to ask the Court to be appointed to lead the case. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors who purchased ICON securities. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and is captioned Shing v. ICON plc, et al., No. 25-cv-00763. Why was ICON Sued for Securities Fraud? ICON is a clinical research organization ("CRO") that provides a range of services to help its pharmaceutical company customers bring new drugs to market. In recent years, many large pharmaceutical companies have implemented drastic cost reduction programs, including shifting part of their clinical studies in-house and away from CROs like ICON. Despite these industry trends, ICON repeatedly represented that client demand was robust and that the company was benefiting from the trends. However, in truth, ICON's business had significantly deteriorated due to customer cost reduction measures and industry funding limitations. The Stock Declines as the Truth is Revealed On October 23, 2024, ICON revealed a quarterly "revenue shortfall" that missed analyst estimates by more than $100 million. The company also revealed that indicators of customer demand, such as net new business, had materially deteriorated, that two of its large pharmaceutical customers had significantly curtailed upcoming work, and that numerous other customers had cancelled, delayed, or reduced the scope of ongoing and planned trials. As a result, ICON cut its annual revenue guidance for 2024 by $220 million. This news caused a more than 20% decline in the price of ICON stock over a two-day trading period, from a closing price of $280.76 per share on October 23, 2024 to $220.47 per share on October 25, 2024. Then, on January 14, 2025, ICON issued financial guidance for 2025 that came in well below analysts' expectations which the company attributed to the downturn in the industry. This news caused the price of ICON stock to decline more than 8%, from a closing price of $217.99 per share on January 13, 2025 to $200.24 per share on January 14, 2025. Click here for more information: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/icon-plc. What Can You Do? If you invested in ICON you may have legal options and are encouraged to submit your information to the firm. All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any potential fees and expenses. Submit your information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/icon-plc Or contact: Ross Shikowitz ross@bfalaw.com (212) 789-3619 Why Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP? Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP is a leading international law firm representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder litigation. It was named among the Top 5 plaintiff law firms by ISS SCAS in 2023 and its attorneys have been named Titans of the Plaintiffs' Bar by Law360 and SuperLawyers by Thompson Reuters. Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million in value from Tesla, Inc.'s Board of Directors, as well as $420 million from Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. For more information about BFA and its attorneys, please visit https://www.bfalaw.com. https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/icon-plc [GN] ILLUMINA INC: Trial Date on Securities Suit Still Not Set --------------------------------------------------------- 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 United States District Court for the Southern District of California has not set trial date for the consolidated securities class suit. On November 11, 2023, the first of three securities class action complaints was filed against Illumina and certain of its current and former executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The first-filed case is captioned Kangas v. Illumina, Inc. et al., the second-filed case is captioned Roy v. Illumina, Inc. et al., and the third-filed case is captioned Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund v. Illumina, Inc. et al. (collectively, the Actions). The complaints generally allege, among other things, that defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omitted material facts relating to Illumina's acquisition of GRAIL. The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, fees, and costs. On January 9, 2024, four movants filed motions to consolidate the Actions and to appoint a lead plaintiff (Lead Plaintiff Motions). On April 11, 2024, the Court issued an order consolidating the Actions into a single action (captioned in re Illumina, Inc. Securities Litigation No. 23-cv-2082-LL-MMP), and appointed Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH, UI BVK Kapitalverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH, and ACATIS Investment Kapitalverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiffs (the Lead Plaintiffs). On June 21, 2024, the Lead Plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint. The complaint alleges that Illumina and GRAIL and certain of their current and former directors and officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 in connection with Illumina's acquisition of GRAIL. On September 13, 2024, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint. On November 12, 2024, the Company and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint. On December 20, 2024, the Lead Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss. The defendants' final reply brief was filed on February 3, 2025. No hearing date has been set. 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] INVOCA INC: Illegally Surveilled Customer Phone Calls, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARTIN VALENCIA and MELANIE THOMAS, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. INVOCA, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-013 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 14, 2025) concerns customer service phone calls placed to AT&T, being illegally surveilled and recorded by Invoca in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. AT&T employs a conversation intelligence software-as-a-service provided by Invoca. This conversation intelligence service derives information regarding the content of telephone conversations between AT&T customers and its call centers. Invoca's service records AT&T customers' speech, transcribes it, then feeds it into Invoca's internal artificial intelligence. Once the data is classified by Invoca's internal AI, such data is then presented back to AT&T in the form of dashboards, searchable transcripts, and reports, sometimes in real-time to the customer service agents speaking with the customer, says the suit. AT&T employs Invoca to perform such recordings and analysis for the purpose of more effectively promoting their own products to current and potential customers. The Plaintiffs bring this action to prevent Defendant from further violating the privacy rights of California residents, and to recover statutory damages from Defendant for failing to comply with CIPA. Invoca offers a broad suite of products aimed at call recording and transcription. One such product, Signal AI Studio, uses Invoca's advanced machine-learning technology to automatically analyze phone conversations." AT&T, a communications technology company, is an Invoca customer. In 2018, AT&T implemented Invoca's revenue execution platform to increase the number of customer service calls it tracked.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 10089 Willowcreek Road, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92131 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 Facsimile: (312) 275-7895 E-mail: eturin@mcgpc.com ITALIANTOUCH USA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Young Says --------------------------------------------------------------- LESHAWN YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. ITALIANTOUCH USA, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01329 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2025) alleges that Italiantouch failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.hogan.com/us-en/home, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services -- all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals -- thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the suit. The Defendant operates the Italiantouch online interactive Website and retail store across the United States. This online interactive Website and retail store constitute a place of public accommodation because it is a sales establishment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, New York 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal J.M. SMUCKER: Faces Class Suit Over Fruit Spreads' Ingredients -------------------------------------------------------------- Jessy Edwards of Top Class Actions reports that a Smucker's customer filed a class action lawsuit against The J.M. Smucker Company. Why: The plaintiff alleges Smucker's falsely advertises its fruit spreads as "natural" and "made with ingredients from natural sources" when they actually contain an artificial ingredient. Where: The Smucker's class action lawsuit was filed in a California federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses the J.M. Smucker Company of falsely advertising its fruit spreads as being "natural" and "made with ingredients from natural sources." Plaintiff Adina Ringler filed the class action complaint against The J.M. Smucker Company on Feb. 10 in a California federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the lawsuit, Smucker's fruit spreads actually contain citric acid, an artificial ingredient not made from natural sources. Ringler alleges Smucker's uses an artificial form of citric acid manufactured through chemical processing, which is not derived from natural sources like fruit. The Smucker's Natural Fruit Spread class action claims Smucker's misleadingly markets its fruit spreads as "natural" and "made with ingredients from natural sources" to appeal to health-conscious consumers. However, the plaintiff says the presence of artificial citric acid contradicts these claims. Smucker's fruit spreads contain artificial ingredient, plaintiff says. Ringler claims she purchased a Smucker's Natural Triple Berry Fruit Spread in May 2024 from a Smart & Final store in Northridge, California, relying on the product's "natural" labeling. She says she wouldn't have bought the fruit spread, or would have paid less for it, if she had known it contained an artificial ingredient. The Smucker's Natural Fruit Spread class action lawsuit cites studies showing that commercially produced citric acid is typically made using a type of black mold through heavy chemical processing. The plaintiff argues that the majority of citric acid used in food production is not naturally extracted from fruits but is instead manufactured through this artificial process. Ringler claims Smucker's actions violate California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law. The lawsuit also alleges breach of express warranty and seeks to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased Smucker's fruit spreads. The lawsuit seeks damages, restitution and injunctive relief to prevent Smucker's from continuing to market its products as "natural" when they contain artificial ingredients. Meanwhile, another recent class action lawsuit alleges Kraft Heinz falsely advertises that its Capri-Sun juice pouches contain all natural ingredients. The plaintiff is represented by Lilach H. Klein, Michael T. Houchin and Zachary M. Crosner of Crosner Legal PC. The Smucker's class action lawsuit is Adina Ringler v. The J.M. Smucker Company, Case No. 25-cv-1138 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] JEFFERY RICHARDSON: Joint Bid to Amend Scheduling Order Tossed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Liberty Property Holdings SC LLC, et al., v. Jeffery L. Richardson, et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-03556 (D.S.C., Filed Oct. 13, 2022), the Hon. Judge Sherri A. Lydon entered an order denying joint motion to amend scheduling order. -- The parties have previously been advised by the court of its intention to manage its docket and keep the motions and class certification deadline in March 2025 and a trial deadline of August 2025 in this case. -- The parties request that those deadlines be extended to facilitate additional discovery. -- The court will not grant any extensions of time absent exceptional circumstances. The nature of suit states Real Property -- Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty.[CC] JUNIOR'S CHEESECAKE: Trippett Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ ALFRED TRIPPETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUNIOR'S CHEESECAKE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01211 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 11, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.juniorscheesecake.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Junior's Cheesecake Inc. manufactures cheesecake. The Company produces traditional cheesecakes, cheesecake samplers, fancy and seasonal, and daily items. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 Email: Gevyfirm@gmail.com KENT SCHOOL: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- Kathryn Boughton, writing for The Lakeville Journal, reports that Kent School is facing a proposed class action suit filed on behalf of 70 current and former students whose personal photographs and video files were allegedly illegally accessed, viewed, copied, and retained by a former senior school IT employee. Typically, a class-action lawsuit is started by filing a complaint that names at least one representative, and that representative files the lawsuit on behalf of the entire proposed class of plaintiffs. The case was filed Tuesday, Feb. 11, in Torrington Superior Court by three former students -- Hannah Kent, of Halifax, Nova Scotia, Olivia Leary, of Goshen, Conn., and Natalie Hudson, of Sharon, Conn. -- and all others "similarly situated." The complaint asserts that "highly private and personal photographs (including photographs of a sexual and intimate nature), videos and communications" were accessed without their consent by Daniel Clery, former network and systems administrator at Kent School. The complaint alleges that a state police search of computers belonging to Clery, revealed "3,670 personal image files that either belong to or depict current and former Kent School students" as well as screenshots of text messages and emails. A private cybersecurity firm hired by Kent School reportedly found that Clery accessed and copied 81 persons' personal files, both of students and former employees of the school. Of these, 79 were female. Clery, of Brookfield, was arrested in June on two counts of first-degree computer crime, according to the complaint and is next due in the state Superior Court in Waterbury on March 20. His case is statutorily sealed. The women are represented in their case against Kent School by David S. Golub and Jennifer B. Goldstein of Silver Golub & Teitell. The lawsuit seeks to hold Kent School responsible for failing to oversee and supervise the employee, failing to establish a system to monitor access to the school computer network and students' personal devices, and failing to protect students' privacy over a period of four years. The lawsuit alleges that Kent School ignored a complaint filed in 2022 by an employee who discovered that her computer had been accessed. In spring or summer of that year, the staff member asked Clery for help with a computer she had been issued by Kent School. The complaint states she left the room while he was working on the laptop and, when she returned, found him looking at photos filed in her private Google account. He quickly closed the screen, according to the complaint. She reported his behavior to her supervisor, but it is believed no action was taken. The complaint reports about eight months later, the same staff member was approached by Clery, who told her he was checking the school's antivirus software and that he needed to access her laptop. After he left her office, she received an email on her Kent School account notifying her that a software product called RClone had been granted permission to access her Google account, according to the complaint. She contacted Michael Siepmann, head of the school's IT department, to inquire about the software. RClone is a command-line program to sync files and directories to and from different cloud storage providers, the complaint states. When Siepmann questioned Clery, he was told that Clery used RClone to transfer the school's antivirus program and had "accidentally" reconfigured RClone to access the staff member's Google account. Later, Clery again approached the woman, saying he had to access her computer, according to the complaint. This time, she stood beside him as he worked and noticed a gallery of her vacation photos on his phone. When she reported this, the school "belatedly initiated an interior investigation," the complaint states. Clery's employment was terminated in February 2023. The school subsequently hired Vancord, an information and cybersecurity firm, to examine Clery's work. The Vancord examination concluded that Clery used the Kent School system to systematically target female students to find and upload pictures saved on their personal computers from 2019 until 2023. The lawsuit seeks damages "in excess of $15,000" from Kent School for its alleged negligence, invasion of privacy, computer privacy violations, recklessness and negligent infliction of emotional distress. [GN] LA-Z-BOY INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. La-Z-Boy Incorporated, Case No. 0:25-cv-00553 (D. Minn., Feb. 12, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.la-z-boy.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind. The Defendant offers furniture for sale including, but not limited to, recliners, chairs, sofas, sectionals, bedroom furnishings, accessories and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Gustafson, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC Jason Gustafson (#0403297) 222 South Ninth Street, Suite 1600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com LATCH INC: Proposed Class Settlement Hearing Set May 28 ------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. announces that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of common stock of Latch, Inc. (OTCMKTS: LTCH): SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of Latch, Inc. ("Latch") during the period from June 7, 2021, through August 1, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period") (the "Settlement Class"). PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS-ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court"), that the above-captioned securities class action (the "Action") is pending in the Court. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff in the Action, VB PTC Establishment as Trustee of Gersec Trust, and Defendants Latch, Luke Schoenfelder, Garth Mitchell, and Barry Schaeffer (collectively, "Defendants," and together with Lead Plaintiff, the "Parties") have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $1,950,000 in cash (the "Settlement"), which, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing will be held on May 28, 2025, at 4:30 p.m., before Judge John G. Koeltl, either in-person at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007-1312, Courtroom 14A, or by telephone or videoconference, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether, solely for purposes of the proposed Settlement, the Action should be certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, Lead Plaintiff should be certified as class representative for the Settlement Class, and Lead Counsel should be appointed as class counsel for the Settlement Class; (iii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants and whether the releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of November 12, 2024 (and in the Long Notice) should be granted; (iv) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (v) whether Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses and Lead Plaintiff's motion for costs and expenses should be approved. If the hearing is held by telephone or videoconference, information on how to participate will be posted at www.strategicclaims.net/latch. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you might be entitled to a payment from the Settlement. If you have not yet received the Long Notice and the Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Proof of Claim"), you may get copies of them by contacting the Claims Administrator at Latch Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 North Jackson Street, Suite 205, Media, PA 19063; 1-866-274-4004; or info@strategicclaims.net. You also can download copies of the Long Notice and Proof of Claim from the Settlement website, www.strategicclaims.net/latch. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you must submit a Proof of Claim to the Claims Administrator either electronically or by first-class mail received or postmarked no later than April 28, 2025, to be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Proof of Claim, you will not be eligible to receive a payment, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion that is received no later than April 23, 2025, in accordance with the instructions in the Long Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action, and you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement. Excluding yourself is the only option that may allow you to be part of any other current or future lawsuit against Defendants or any of the other released parties concerning the claims being resolved by the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, or Lead Plaintiff's motion for costs and expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' counsel such that they are received no later than April 23, 2025, in accordance with the instructions in the Long Notice. Do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Defendants, or their lawyers about this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel. Requests for the Long Notice and Proof of Claim should be made to: Latch Securities Litigation c/o Strategic Claims Services P.O. Box 230 600 North Jackson Street, Suite 205 Media, PA 19063 Telephone: (866) 274-4004 info@strategicclaims.net www.strategicclaims.net/latch Inquiries, other than requests for the Long Notice and Proof of Claim, should be made to Lead Counsel for the Settlement Class: Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq. Leah Heifetz-Li, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 600-2817 jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com lheifetz@rosenlegal.com [GN] LOU BUDKE'S: Court Stays Addison Insurance Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------- Judge John A. Ross of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted in part and denied in part Defendant Richard Kyles' motion to dismiss or stay the case captioned as ADDISON INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. LOU BUDKE'S ARROW FINANCE COMPANY and RICHARD KYLES, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-00790-JAR (E.D. Mo.). Plaintiff Addison is an insurance company organized under the law of the State of Iowa with its principal place of business in Iowa. Defendant Lou Budke's Arrow Finance Co. is a Missouri corporation with its principal place of business in Missouri. Defendant Kyles is an individual and citizen of the State of Illinois. Between approximately Feb. 28, 2012, and Feb. 28, 2018, Addison issued to Arrow several insurance policies, which, in part, supplied Arrow with Commercial General Liability Coverage. On Nov. 18, 2015, Arrow filed the Underlying Action in the Associate Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri. In its Petition, Arrow alleges that Defendant Kyles defaulted on a retail installment contract for the purchase of an automobile and that Kyles owed Arrow $3,206.18 under the contract. On Aug. 4, 2016, Kyles filed a counterclaim against Arrow alleging that Arrow engaged in a deceptive pattern of wrongdoing regarding collection, enforcement, repossession and disposition of collateral, and collection of aged accounts. Kyles' Petition initiated a consumer class action on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. On Aug. 29, 2016, after the Associate Court found that the amount requested in the counterclaim exceeded the court's jurisdictional limits, it certified the case for transfer to the Circuit Court of St. Louis County. Kyles' counterclaim alleged that Arrow violated several provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code by engaging in an unlawful and deceptive pattern of wrongdoing. Kyles also alleged that Arrow's actions were wanton, outrageous, and/or malicious because of its reckless indifference to or conscious disregard for Kyles' and the class member's consumer rights, and Kyles sought punitive damages. On July 21, 2017, Kyles filed an amended counterclaim in the Circuit Court. On Nov. 6, 2019, the Circuit Court certified a class in Kyles' counterclaim, which it defined as "all persons who Arrow mailed a presale notice or post-sale notice," and excluding from the class "persons whom Arrow has obtained a final deficiency judgment or who filed for bankruptcy after the date on their presale notice and whose bankruptcy ended in discharge rather than dismissal." On or about Oct. 30, 2023, Arrow and Kyles entered into a settlement agreement. On Oct. 30, 2023, Arrow and Kyles filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class-Action Settlement seeking the Circuit Court's preliminary approval of the parties' class-action settlement. On Nov. 27, 2023, the Circuit Court entered a Preliminary Approval Order approving of Arrow's and Kyles' settlement agreement. On June 5, 2024, Addison filed its declaratory judgment action in this Court. Addison asks the Court to declare the rights and legal relations between itself, Arrow, and Kyles as it relates to the Policies and the Underlying Action. Addison further alleges that the newly pleaded allegations in Kyles' amended counterclaim in the Underlying Action were "made for the sole purpose of attempting to establish insurance coverage where none exists." Specifically, Addison labels the following allegations added in the amended counterclaim as conclusory: (1) the lawsuit was not due to Arrow's rendering of or failure to render professional services; or (2) Arrow's repossession of the class members collateral and other allegations disclaiming any intend on the part of Arrow to harm Kyles or the class members. More generally, Addison alleges that the Policies exclude coverage for "professional services" like loan servicing and financing and for punitive damages. On June 6, 2024, the day after Addison filed this declaratory judgment action, Kyles moved in the Underlying Action for leave to assert a counterclaim against Addison. Kyles' counterclaim against Addison in the Underlying Action raises four Counts. In Count I, Kyles asks for a declaratory judgment that Addison has a duty to defend and duty to indemnify Arrow against Kyle's counterclaim under the terms of the Policies. In Counts II and III, Kyles' raises claims of breach of contract for Addison's alleged failure to indemnify and failure to defendant Arrow under the Policies. In Count IV, Kyles alleges that Addison acted in bad faith by failing to defend or settle Kyles' counterclaim against Arrow in the Underlying Action. On Dec. 9, 2024, Kyles filed the instant motion to dismiss or stay. Specifically, Kyles argues that this case should be dismissed or stayed under the Wilton/Brillhart abstention doctrine because (1) this action is parallel with the Underlying Action; (2) Missouri law controls the issues; (3) all claims raised by Addison in this declaratory judgment action can be decided in the Underlying Action; (4) all parties are joined in the Underlying Action; and (5) the Underlying Action is more than adequate to resolve the disputes raised by Addison's Complaint. In this case, the Court finds that abstention is proper under the Wilton/Brillhart abstention doctrine because the Underlying Action is a parallel state court action and the issued raised in this action can be satisfactorily adjudicated in the Underlying Action. Addison brought this declaratory judgment action against Kyles and Arrow while a separate proceeding between Kyles and Arrow existed in the Underlying Action. While Addison was not yet a party to the Underlying Action when it filed this case, after the Circuit Court granted Kyles' motion for leave to file a declaratory judgment counterclaim against Addison, it became a party to that case. The issue of insurance coverage and Addison's duty to defend under the same Policies at issue in this case are now in controversy in the Underlying Action. Additionally, the issue of Addison's duty to defend and whether the Policies cover Arrow's alleged actions at issue in the Underlying Action are governed by Missouri law. These issues can be adequately decided by the Circuit Court in the Underlying Action, which has been pending in the Circuit Court for nearly a decade. Considering these factors, the Court finds that the Underlying Action is parallel to this case. The Court will therefore exercise its discretion and abstain from deciding the issues raised in Addison's Complaint, at least until it can be assured that the Circuit Court has not or will not address the insurance coverage and duty to defend issues. The only remaining issue is whether the Court should abstain by dismissing this matter outright or stay this matter pending resolution of these issues in the Underlying Action. The Court believes that it is at least possible that the insurance coverage and duty to defend issues will not be fully resolved in the Underlying Action. Therefore, staying this matter pending resolution of those issues in the Underlying Action is appropriate. In lieu of dismissal, the Court will stay and administratively close this matter pending resolution of the Underlying Action A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rNW5OB from PacerMonitor.com. LYFT INC: Faces Malone Suit Over Unwanted Telephone Calls --------------------------------------------------------- RONALD MALONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LYFT INC, Case No. 1:25-cv-20288-JAL (S.D. Fla., Jan. 17, 2025) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant’s unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the Class members. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. The Plaintiff is a natural person entitled to bring this action under the TCPA, and a citizen and resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is the regular user of the telephone number that received the solicitations. The Plaintiff utilizes the cellular telephone number that received the Defendant's telephone solicitations for personal purposes and the number is Plaintiff's residential telephone line and primary means of reaching Plaintiff at home. 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 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 text message within any 12-month period; (3) where such text messages were initiated before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (local time at the called party’s location)." Lyft is an American company offering ride-hailing services, motorized scooters, bicycle-sharing systems, and rental cars in the United States and select cities in Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faaris K. Uddin, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. Faaris K. Uddin, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL33301 Telephone: (813) 340-8838 E-mail: zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com faaris@jibraellaw.com MARINEMAX INC: Class Settlement in Lomedico Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDRO LOMEDICO and KEVIN J. NIBLOCK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. MARINEMAX, INC., Case No. 8:24-cv-01784-MSS-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Mary Scriven entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. For settlement purposes only and pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(3), and (e), the Court provisionally certifies a class in this matter defined as follows: "All natural persons who were identified to receive a notification letter from MarineMax, Inc. or Newcoast as a result of the Data Incident." Excluded from the Settlement Class are all attorneys and employees of Settlement Class Counsel, any judicial officer to whom this case is assigned, and persons who validly opt out of the settlement by following the procedures set forth herein. Sandro Lomedico and Kevin J. Niblock are provisionally designated and appointed as the Settlement Class Representatives. The Court provisionally finds that the Settlement Class Representatives are similarly situated to absent Settlement Class Members, and therefore typical of the Class, and that they will be adequate Settlement Class Representatives. The Court finds that Mariya Weekes of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC and Brittany Resch of Strauss Borrelli PLLC are experienced and adequate counsel and are hereby provisionally designated as Settlement Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). A Final Approval Hearing shall be held on June 17, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. MarineMax operates as a recreational boat dealer in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=019DHl at no extra charge.[CC] MARRIOTT INT'L: Class Cert Hearing in Cahill Continued to July 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA CAHILL, v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-05065-FLA-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha entered an order denying the renewed joint stipulation to continue deadline to file Plaintiff's motion for class certification but, on its own motion. -- The deadline to hear the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is continued to July 4, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. As set forth in the court's standing order, any request for a continuance must set forth specific facts detailing the parties' efforts to litigate this case and complete discovery and demonstrating they could not have reasonably completed discovery and all remaining litigation tasks within the time allowed. This detailed showing must demonstrate the work still to be performed reasonably could not have been accomplished within the applicable deadline(s). General statements are insufficient to establish good cause. The parties fail to establish good cause for a continuance. First, scheduling a mediation does not establish good cause for a continuance. More importantly, the parties fail to explain why only a small amount of discovery has been completed, despite the fact that the action was filed almost a year ago on April 29, 2024. Lastly, while the parties contend they "could not have reasonably completed the filing of discovery motions and the depositions of all Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses," they fail to explain why they haven’t completed any Rule 30(b)(6) depositions or filed any discovery motions. Marriott is an American multinational company that operates, franchises, and licenses lodging brands that include hotel, residential, and timeshare properties. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UfIsG8 at no extra charge.[CC] MASTERCARD INC: Continues to Defend Merchant Class Suit in Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 continues to defend itself from the merchant class suit in California federal court. In 2016, a proposed U.S. merchant class action complaint was filed in federal court in California alleging that Mastercard, Visa, American Express and Discover (the "Network Defendants"), EMVCo, and a number of issuing banks (the "Bank Defendants") engaged in a conspiracy to shift fraud liability for card present transactions from issuing banks to merchants not yet in compliance with the standards for EMV chip cards in the United States (the "EMV Liability Shift"), in violation of the Sherman Act and California law. Plaintiffs allege damages equal to the value of all chargebacks for which class members became liable as a result of the EMV Liability Shift on October 1, 2015. The plaintiffs seek treble damages, attorney's fees and costs and an injunction against future violations of governing law. The district court denied the Network Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, but granted such a motion for EMVCo and the Bank Defendants. In 2017, the district court transferred the case to New York so that discovery could be coordinated with the U.S. MDL Litigation Cases described above. In 2020, the district court issued an order granting the plaintiffs' request for class certification. The plaintiffs have submitted expert reports that allege aggregate single damages in excess of $1 billion against the four Network Defendants. The Network Defendants submitted expert reports rebutting both liability and damages and all briefs on summary judgment have been submitted. In September 2024, the district court denied the Network Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Mastercard is a payment card services company offering a range of payment transaction processing.[BN] MASTERCARD INC: Reduces Class Settlement from GBP10BB to GBP200MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Upmanyu Trivedi, writing for Claims Journal, reports that Mastercard Inc. unfairly reduced a GBP10 billion ($12.6 billion) class action case to a settlement of just GBP200 million, according to the firm that funded the lawsuit. The credit-card company "skillfully maneuvered" claimant Walter Merricks and his lawyers by offering an inferior settlement to end the case, according to the litigation funder Innsworth Advisors Ltd. The lawsuit alleged Mastercard charged consumers and businesses too much to use its cards. "To the extent that Innsworth's submissions make poorly aimed pot-shots at the negotiation process, they are hopeless," lawyers for Mastercard countered. "Innsworth's interests lie in maximizing its commercial recovery even if that entails a high-risk gamble," they said arguing the settlement is fair and reasonable. The legal drama follows the settlement in what was once the country's largest class action claim over the amount Mastercard charged consumers and businesses to use its cards. Merricks' lawyers have since acknowledged that "there was an overclaim" in his suit. The case highlights the tension facing courts in cases meant to maximize returns for consumers at a time when litigation funders are betting on a rise in class actions in the UK. The outcome of the case will likely set a precedent for how judges balance fair compensation and returns for those who foot the legal bill. "The potential settlement raises significant policy questions," Innsworth's spokesperson said. The intervention is aimed at getting clarity on the UK's class action regime for future cases and to ensure scrutiny of the proposed settlement, she said. "It is notable that none of the over 44 million class members have objected," Mastercard's lawyers said in their document. The company declined to comment beyond the legal filing. The GBP200 million settlement is a "very significant sum" out of which half is to be paid to consumers, according to lawyers for Merricks. The funder incurred legal bills worth around GBP45 million and would double the investment in six years if it gets the remaining GBP100 million, lawyers for Merricks said. "Mr. Merricks cannot accept that 89.5% of the settlement sum be paid to the funder as this would not be in the best interests of the class," his lawyers said. Merricks obtained a GBP10 million indemnity from Mastercard to cover his expenses to contest a legal case against him started by Innsworth, according to the documents. A spokesperson for Merricks declined to comment. Mastercard and its rival Visa Inc. have for years been the focus of civil complaints over the amount they charge consumers and businesses to use their cards. The case stems from an EU ruling that the interchange card fees the company levied for transactions were unfair and breached competition law. [GN] MATANUSKA-SUSITNA: Land Seeks to Certify Student Subclass --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as L. SHANE LAND and CHRISTI ANGELO, individually and as the parents of T.L., a minor child, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT; DAVID RUSSEL; ANGELA SNOW; and LAURA KELLY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00272-SLG (D. Alaska), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for certification of student subclass: The lawsuit alleges that the policies and practices of the MSBSD endanger and discriminate against students with disabilities. It seeks injunctive relief to remedy those deficient policies. The Plaintiff's claims are premised on the policies and practices of the District as a whole. These policies and practices apply to all members of the class. Even if class members experience varying degrees of harm from these practices, certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is appropriate because the injunctive relief—a change in District policy—would apply uniformly to the entire class and reduce their risk of harm. Accordingly, the motion to certify the Student Subclass under Rule 23(b)(2), which requires that "the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole." The Plaintiff proposes to certify a class of: "All current MSBSD students with an identified disability (including, but not limited to, students with an IEP or 504 plan) who have been subjected to a "restraint" or "seclusion" by District personnel. Matanuska-Susitna is a school district based in the city of Palmer, Alaska. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GnBrV4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Goriune Dudukgian, Esq. Nicholas Feronti, Esq. Aneliese Palmer, Esq. NORTHERN JUSTICE PROJECT, LLC 406 G Street, Suite 207 Anchorage, AK 99501 Telephone: (907) 308-3395 Facsimile: (866) 813-8645 E-mail: gdudukgian@njp-law.com nferonti@njp-law.com apalmer@njp-law.com MATANUSKA-SUSITNA: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Cert. ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as L. SHANE LAND and DR. CHRISTI ANGELO, individually and as the parents of T.L., a minor child, on behalf of themselves all those similarly situated, v. MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, DAVID RUSSELL, ANGELA SNOW, and LAURA KELLY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00272-SLG (D. Alaska), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting an unopposed extension of the deadline to file a motion for class certification on behalf of the Parent Subclass: -- The Plaintiffs request a 30-day extension of the deadline, for the Parent Subclass only, until March 17, 2025. Matanuska-Susitna is a school district based in the city of Palmer, Alaska. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WJ4Gxf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Goriune Dudukgian, Esq. Nicholas Feronti, Esq. Aneliese Palmer, Esq. NORTHERN JUSTICE PROJECT, LLC 406 G Street, Suite 207 Anchorage, AK 99501 Telephone: (907) 308-3395 Facsimile: (866) 813-8645 E-mail: gdudukgian@njp-law.com nferonti@njp-law.com apalmer@njp-law.com MCLANE COMPANY: McGowan Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PARIS MCGOWAN, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. MCLANE COMPANY, INC., a Texas corporation, et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-00689-JLS-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move ex parte for an order to extend her time to file the motion for class certification and all related deadlines, including the Defendants' deadline to file their opposition thereto, and the Plaintiff's reply thereto. The Plaintiff seeks to: 1. Extend the time within which she needs to file her Motion for Class Certification from Feb. 28, 2025 to Apr. 29, 2025; 2. Extend the time for the Defendants to file their opposition thereto from Apr. 11, 2025 to June 10, 2025; 3. Extend the time for the Plaintiff to file her reply thereto from May 9, 2025 to July 8, 2025. On June 19, 2024, the Plaintiff propounded discovery on the Defendants, which consisted of Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production of Documents. On Nov. 5, 2024, the Court issued an Order Granting McLane Company, Inc.'s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. McLane is an American wholesale supply chain services company that distributes products to convenience stores, discount retailers, wholesale clubs, drug stores, and military bases. The Defendants include MCLANE BEVERAGE DISTRIBUTION, INC., a Texas corporation; MCLANE FOODSERVICE DISTRIBUTION, INC., a North Carolina corporation; MCLANE FOODSERVICE, INC., a Texas corporation; MCLANE INTERSTATE WAREHOUSE, INC., a Texas corporation; MCLANE/SUNEAST, INC., a Texas corporation; MCLANE/WESTERN, INC., a Colorado corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4pHfrQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Talia Lux, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 The Defendants are represented by: Matthew C. Kane, Esq. Amy E. Beverlin, Esq. Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq. Sylvia J. Kim, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4508 Telephone: (310) 820-8800 Facsimile: (310) 820-8859 E-mail: mkane@bakerlaw.com abeverlin@bakerlaw.com ksakaue@bakerlaw.com sjkim@bakerlaw.com MDL 2873: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Cooper Class Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- SARA COOPER v. AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC, 2:25-cv-00358-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 18, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during her working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with Ulcerative Colitis and other injuries, as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products. The Defendants include ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.; and 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company. AGC is a wholly owned subsidiary of AGC Inc., a multinational corporation which manufacturers glass, electronic displays and chemical products. AGC manufactures, markets and sells fluoroproducts including Fluon (TM) fluoropolymer. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric W. Cracken, Esq. Steven D. Davis, Esq. TORHOERMAN LAW, LLC 210 S. Main Street Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 656-4400 Facsimile: (618) 656-4401 MDL 2873: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Deshler Class Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL DESHLER v. AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC, 2:25-cv-00356-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 18, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with Hypothyroidism and other injuries, as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products. The Defendants include ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.; and 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company. AGC is a wholly owned subsidiary of AGC Inc., a multinational corporation which manufacturers glass, electronic displays and chemical products. AGC manufactures, markets and sells fluoroproducts including Fluon (TM) fluoropolymer. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric W. Cracken, Esq. Steven D. Davis, Esq. TORHOERMAN LAW, LLC 210 S. Main Street Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 656-4400 Facsimile: (618) 656-4401 MDL 2873: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Eckman Class Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- SARA ECKMAN v. AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC, 2:25-cv-00359-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 18, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during her working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer and other injuries, as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products. The Defendants include ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.; and 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company. AGC is a wholly owned subsidiary of AGC Inc., a multinational corporation which manufacturers glass, electronic displays and chemical products. AGC manufactures, markets and sells fluoroproducts including Fluon (TM) fluoropolymer. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric W. Cracken, Esq. Steven D. Davis, Esq. TORHOERMAN LAW, LLC 210 S. Main Street Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 656-4400 Facsimile: (618) 656-4401 MDL 2873: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Osterhout Class Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- TODD OSTERHOUT v. AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC, 2:25-cv-00357-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 18, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with Hypothyroidism and other injuries, as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products, says the suit. The Defendants include ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.; and 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company. AGC is a wholly owned subsidiary of AGC Inc., a multinational corporation which manufacturers glass, electronic displays and chemical products. AGC manufactures, markets and sells fluoroproducts including Fluon (TM) fluoropolymer. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric W. Cracken, Esq. Steven D. Davis, Esq. TORHOERMAN LAW, LLC 210 S. Main Street Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 656-4400 Facsimile: (618) 656-4401 MDL 2918: Court Stays Deadlines Pending Appeal of Class Cert Order ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re: Hard Disk Drive Suspension Assemblies Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:19-md-02918-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maxine Chesney entered an order granting Defendants' administrative motion to stay all deadlines pending appeal of order granting class certification. -- All deadlines in this action are stayed pending the resolution of the Defendants' Petition to the Ninth Circuit. -- Unless the parties are otherwise advised, upon the resolution of the Defendants' Petition, the parties shall meet and confer, no later than 21 days from the date of the resolution, and file by that date the joint proposal set forth in the Court's class certification order. Proceeding without a stay in this case has the potential to prejudice Defendants, create unnecessary and duplicative work, unnecessarily burden the parties and Court, and drain judicial resources. The requested stay will neither prejudice f nor risk unduly delaying this litigation. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Hxc7ax at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2992: Bid Seal Portions of Class Hearing Transcript OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation, Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Gonzalo Curiel entered an order granting the Defendant's unopposed motion to seal portions of the class certification hearing transcript. The Court further orders the Court Reporter to apply redactions to the class certification hearing transcript. The Court concludes that compelling reasons exist to seal portions of the transcript. Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DTWJEb at no extra charge.[CC] MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Shoumon Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- TONY SHOUMON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND MANOR AUXILIARY, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00029-LAG (M.D. Ga., Feb. 14, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard the protected health information and personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and other similarly situated patients of Defendant including potentially tens of thousands of individual. On Nov. 8, 2024, the threat actor group called Embargo announced that it had stolen a trove of 1.15 terabytes of patient data from Defendant, which it then threatened to release to the public. The Data Breach was a double-extortion attack during which cybercriminals infiltrated a target's information systems, located valuable data, download that valuable data, and then perform a ransomware attack to further demand an additional payment in exchange for the restoration of the target's access to its own systems. The stolen data purportedly includes the names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, health insurance information, medical treatment information, and medical histories of approximately 120,085 individuals, the suit says. These are noisy operations that would have been discovered if Defendant had implement reasonable cybersecurity intelligence tools such as appropriate logging, monitoring, and alerting tools like endpoint detection and response, data loss prevention, and intrusion detection. Because of the Defendant's failures, the Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members have suffered a severe invasion of privacy and must now face a substantially increase in identity theft and fraud for years to come, the Plaintiff contends. Shoumon is a patient of threDefendant and a resident and citizen of Bainbridge, The Defendant is an 80-bed hospital and a 107-bed long-term care facility.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel H. Wirth, Esq. ALONSO & WIRTH 1708 Peachtree Street, NW, Suite 303 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (678) 928-4472 E-mail: dwirth@alonsowirth.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com athomas@cohenmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com MENA HOSPITAL: Class Settlement in Rodriguez Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID RODRIGUEZ et al., v. MENA HOSPITAL COMMISSION d/b/a MENA REGIONAL HEALTH SYSTEM, Case No. 2:23-cv-02002-TLB (W.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge Timothy Brooks entered an order granting the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Court is persuaded that the settlement is the result of good faith, arm's length negotiation, and that it is sufficiently fair, reasonable, and adequate to warrant preliminary approval. 1. Solely for purposes of the Settlement, the Court conditionally certifies the following class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) ("Settlement Class"): "all natural persons residing in the United States who were sent a Notice Letter notifying them that their Private Information was compromised in the Data Incident." 2. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) all Persons who timely and validly request exclusion from the Class; (ii) the Judge assigned to evaluate the fairness of this settlement; and (iii) any other Person found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of initiating, causing, aiding or abetting the criminal activity occurrence of the Data Incident or who pleas nolo contendere to any such charge. 3. The Court appoints Bryan L. Bleichner of Chestnut Cambronne PA and Danielle Perry of Mason LLP as Co-Lead Class Counsel and Randy K. Pulliam as Liaison Counsel, having determined that the requirements of Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are fully satisfied by this appointment. 4. The Court hereby appoints Plaintiffs David Rodriguez, Carl Schoolfield, Tanada Smith, individually and on behalf of her minor children A.S. and K.S., Jessica Smedley, individually and on behalf of her minor children C.S. and A.S., Daniel Smedley, and Chris Cant as the Class Representatives for settlement purposes only on behalf of the Settlement Class Mena Regional is a 65-bed community hospital providing care to the communities of Mena, Polk County, and the surrounding counties. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ezswQt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Ste. 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Danielle L. Perry, Esq. Gary E. Mason, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisoncsin Avenue, NW, Ste. 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: dperry@masonllp.com gmason@masonllp.com lwhite@masonllp.com The Defendant is represented by: Timothy J. Lowe, Esq. MCDONALD HOPKINS 39533 Woodward Avenue, Suite 318 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 220-1359 E-mail: tlowe@mcdonaldhopkins.com - and - Patrick McDaniel, Esq. ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.A. 311 DeQueen Street Mena, AR 71953 Telephone: (479) 394-3091 E-mail: patrick@arklawyer.com META PLATFORMS: User Plaintiffs' Renewed Class Cert. Bid Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAXIMILIAN KLEIN, et al., v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order: -- granting in part Meta's motion to exclude Dr. Economides' expert opinions as to his opinions about antitrust injury; and -- denying the user plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification. The Court will address the associated sealing motions in a separate order. The parties are directed to file by Feb. 10, 2025, a proposed schedule for the remaining pretrial and trial dates. The parties' familiarity with the record is assumed. Although there is no doubt that Dr. Economides is a well-qualified economist, his opinion, among others, that Facebook users suffered antitrust injury because Meta did not pay them $5.00 a month for their personal data is unsupported by the record. His opinions and proposed testimony on antitrust injury are excluded under FRE 702, and the user plaintiffs' request to certify a class is accordingly denied. The Plaintiffs do not dispute that admissible expert testimony is essential to their ability to prove antitrust injury on a class-wide basis here, especially for an overcharge theory of the sort they advance, and that they rely entirely on Dr. Economides. But as demonstrated, Dr. Economides cannot provide admissible opinions on antitrust injury. Without those opinions, the user plaintiffs cannot establish that they have a class-wide method proving antitrust injury for either of their section 2 claims. This is enough to deny certification, and so "the Court declines to discuss the remaining Rule 23 factors." In this antitrust action, separate plaintiff groups of users and advertisers sued Meta Platforms, Inc. (Meta), for alleged anticompetitive conduct under the Sherman Act and California state law in connection with the Facebook social-networking app. Meta operates as a social technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uLDays at no extra charge.[CC] MOTT OPTICAL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Solis Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERTO SOLIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOTT OPTICAL GROUP, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00311 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 17, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.mottoptical.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" as the Plaintiff's central visual acuity with correction is less than or equal to 20/200. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which the Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State. The Defendant's Website offers products and services for online sale and general delivery to the public. The Website offers features which ought to allow users to browse for items, access navigation bar descriptions, inquire about pricing, and avail consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous items offered for sale.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com NASHVILLE, TN: Court Extends Discovery Deadline ----------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Trauger entered an order granting the joint motion to extend discovery deadline and deadline for the Plaintiffs to file motion for class certification. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PqZmMg at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONAL GENERAL: Plaintiffs Seek to File Exhibits Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDD KING, DIEDRE KING, ELMO SHEEN, and SHEILA LEE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INTEGON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INTEGON PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, MIC GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, PERSONAL EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, SEQUOIA INSURANCE COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 200, inclusive, Case No. 4:15-cv-00313-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting administrative motion to consider whether another party's material should be sealed: Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11, 79-5, and specifically 79-5(f), the Plaintiffs seek to seal certain portions of the exhibits to Plaintiffs' reply to opposition to renewed motion for class certification, which refer to material designated by the Defendants as "Confidential" and "Highly Confidential – Attorneys' Eyes Only" under the parties' Stipulated Protective Order as approved by the Court. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f), the National General Defendants, as the Designating Parties, bear the responsibility to establish that their designated material is sealable. This Administrative Motion pertains to information contained in Plaintiffs' Reply to Opposition to Renewed Motion for Class Certification as set forth in the Declaration of Michael F. Ram filed in conjunction with this Administrative Motion and detailed in the chart therein. National General is a Winston-Salem, North Carolina-based property and casualty insurance company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BUywrd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael F. Ram, Esq. Marie N. Appel, Esq. Shelby Serig, Esq. Abraham Barkhordar, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 358-6913 Facsimile: (415) 358-6923 E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com mappel@forthepeople.com sserig@forthepeople.com abarkhordar@forthepeople.com - and - Jeffrey B. Cereghino, Esq. CEREGHINO LAW GROUP LLP 649 Mission Street, Floor 5 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 433-4949 E-mail: jbc@cereghinolaw.com - and - W. Craig Bashein, Esq. John P. Hurst, Esq. BASHEIN & BASHEIN CO., L.P.A. Terminal Tower 35th Floor, 50 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 771-3239 NATIONAL GRID: Court Tosses 527 Lincoln, et al. Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- Judge Nina Gershon of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed the class action lawsuit captioned as 527 LINCOLN PLACE LLC and 1112 DEAN LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, -against- NATIONAL GRID USA and THE BROOKLYN UNION GAS COMPANY d/b/a NATIONAL GRID NEW YORK, Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-1708-NG-LB (E.D.N.Y.) without prejudice. Plaintiffs 527 Lincoln Place LLC and 1112 Dean LLC, who describe themselves as corporate landlords, bring claims on behalf of a putative class of certain National Grid customers against National Grid USA and The Brooklyn Union Gas Company d/b/a National Grid New York for breach of contract and violation of New York General Business Law Sec. 349. Plaintiffs allege that, under National Grid's gas tariff, which is reviewed and approved by the New York Public Service Commission, they have been assigned an incorrect service classification, corresponding to higher rates. Because it appears from the face of the complaint that at least one of the mandatory exceptions articulated in the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d) applies, the Court had concerns about whether it must decline to exercise its jurisdiction. Accordingly, on July 1, 2024, the Court ordered plaintiffs to show cause as to why it is not required to decline to exercise CAFA jurisdiction under the mandatory home state exception or the local controversy exception, or both. Plaintiffs predicate this Court's subject matter jurisdiction on CAFA, alleging that the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000; that some members of the putative class are citizens of states different from Defendants; and that the putative class consists of "thousands" of National Grid customers. The Court finds Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of establishing CAFA jurisdiction. Under the home state exception, a court shall decline to exercise CAFA jurisdiction where two-thirds or more of the proposed class are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed. Plaintiffs assert that the CAFA exceptions do not apply because, they suspect, some of the class members are out-of-state corporate landlords. They argue that, at least at this stage, they cannot determine whether greater than two-thirds of the class members are New York citizens, or inversely, whether less than one-third of the class members are out-of-state citizens. The Court says this argument is meritless because, on the face of the complaint, plaintiffs have pled out the possibility of CAFA jurisdiction. The class definition and the allegations in the complaint are limited to New York customers. Needless to say, if all members of the class are New York citizens, the exceptions apply, the Court concludes. The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over this action under the mandatory local controversy and home state exceptions to CAFA. This action is dismissed without prejudice. Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied as moot. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KrWaWD from PacerMonitor.com. NATIONAL GRID: Nightingale's Renewed Bid for Class Cert Tossed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT NIGHTINGALE, on Behalf of Himself and all others similarly situated, v. NATIONAL GRID USA SERVICE COMPANY, INC., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-12341-NMG (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Nathaniel Gorton entered an order denying the renewed motions of the Plaintiff, Robert Nightingale, for class certification and to certify questions of law to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. In his renewed motion for class certification, the Plaintiff seeks to represent the following class and subclass: The Class "All persons residing in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to whom, within four years prior to the filing of this action, (a) the Defendants initiated in-excess of two telephone calls regarding a debt within a seven-day period to the person's residence, cellular telephone, or other provided telephone number, and (b) the person received one of the calls." Sub-Class "All persons residing in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to whom, within four years prior to the filing of this action, (a) the Defendants initiated in excess of two telephone calls regarding a debt within a seven-day period to the person's residence, cellular telephone, or other provided telephone number pursuant to Program Codes NGR.USUT.FE.NER1BO or NGR.USUT.FE.NER5BO, and (b) the person received one of the calls." National Grid distributes electricity and gas energy. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zgogDt at no extra charge.[CC] NATROL LLC: Yamasaki Seeks to File Confidential Docs Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VENUS YAMASAKI, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. NATROL, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00182-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order permitting her to file under seal certain confidential documents in support of the Plaintiff's reply in support of motion for class certification, as follows: 1. An unredacted version of Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification, which quotes or discusses documents, which Natrol has designated Confidential and/or Confidential—Attorneys' Eyes Only. 2. Exhibit T to the Declaration of Annick M. Persinger, portions of which Natrol has designated Highly Confidential. 3. Exhibit V to the Declaration of Annick M. Persinger in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification, portions of which Natrol has designated Confidential— Attorneys' Eyes Only. 4. Exhibit W to the Declaration of Annick M. Persinger in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification, portions of which Natrol has designated Highly Confidential— Attorneys' Eyes Only. The Plaintiff is contemporaneously submitting unredacted and redacted versions of all of the documents listed above. Natrol is a seller of vitamins and dietary supplements. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w3jX9h at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Annick M. Persinger, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 254-6808 E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com - and - Hassan A. Zavareei Allison W. Parr TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com aparr@tzlegal.com - and - Stuart E. Scott Kevin Hulick SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP 1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 696-3232 E-mail: sscott@spanglaw.com khulick@spanglaw.com NESTLE USA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Illinois' GIPA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges Nestle USA, Inc. has violated an Illinois privacy law by requiring job applicants to disclose their family medical histories as a condition of employment. The 12-page Nestle lawsuit claims the company has collected family medical data from hundreds of prospective employees in direct violation of Illinois' Genetic Information Privacy Act (GIPA). The state law aims to protect Illinois residents from having their genetic information used against them in employment contexts, the class action suit explains. Per the case, the GIPA precludes employers from directly or indirectly soliciting or using genetic data as a condition of employment or during the application process. The plaintiff, a Nestle forklift driver residing in Illinois, says the company required him to undergo physical examinations as part of the hiring process. During the exams, the man was asked questions about his family medical history, including whether his family had a history of high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease and other conditions, the complaint states. Nestle never sought nor obtained the plaintiff's consent to request or collect this genetic information, the filing asserts. Moreover, the company did not notify the employee of his right to privacy under the GIPA or inform him that he was not legally required to divulge the sensitive data, the suit contends. By requesting that prospective employees disclose their family medical histories, Nestle has violated applicants' GIPA-protected privacy rights, the case charges. The lawsuit looks to represent anyone who applied for employment with Nestle USA, Inc. in Illinois and was required to undergo a medical examination at any point within the past five years. [GN] NEW YORK, NY: Plaintiffs' Expert Report Due March 21 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMOND LEWIS and AARON ORTEGA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-09460-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Denise Cote entered an scheduling order for pretrial proceedings: -- The Plaintiffs shall provide to the Feb. 18, 2025 Defendants a list of outstanding Discovery demands: -- The Parties shall meet and confer Feb. 21, 2025 regarding demands and submit letter of no longer than two pages detailing any remaining discrepancies: -- The Plaintiffs' expert report and March 21, 2025 disclosure of expert testimony: New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pFU8kW at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK: De Souza Sues Over Illegal Religious Intolerance ---------------------------------------------------------- Suzette De Souza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK; NEW YORK STATE OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES; WILLOW BAER, Acting Commissioner (in her official capacity); STEPHANIE THOMAS, Designee for Reasonable Accommodations (in her official and personal capacities); TERESA MEADOWS, Treatment Team Leader at Cleveland IRA (in her official and personal capacities); DAWN WILSON, Deputy Director of State Operations (in her official and personal capacities); SHERMAKE TANNIS, Regional Director of Human Resources (in his official and personal capacities); SHAUNA CARTER, Associate Director of Human Resources (in her official and personal capacities); and CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC., LOCAL 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Case No. 1:25-cv-01222 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 11, 2025), is brought seeking to halt the illegal practice of religious intolerance and retaliation that OPWDD and CSEA have pursued against sabbath observers. The State of New York, through its Office for People with Developmental Disabilities ("OPWDD"), violated federal laws protecting religious freedom, when it refused to accommodate the reasonable requests of its employee, Suzette De Souza, to adjust her work schedule so that she would not have to work on the sabbath, and then fired her for being absent from work on the sabbath, and in retaliation for pursuing her rights. As a Seventh Day Adventist, Ms. De Souza holds the sincere religious belief that she must not engage in secular work and other secular activities from sunset on Fridays until sunset on Saturdays so that she may focus her activities on religious worship. OPWDD, and the employees of OPWDD named as individual defendants, acting under color of state law, interfered with Ms. De Souza's right to free exercise of religion under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. These actions violated Ms. De Souza's rights. The actions of OPWDD and of its employees, also denied Ms. De Souza's rights to religious accommodation, and discriminated against her on the basis of religion, and constitute retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Human Rights Laws of New York State and New York City. The Plaintiff brings this action as a class action to correct the widespread injustice throughout OPWDD's workforce, arising from OPWDD's policy and practice of prohibiting its employees from practicing their sincerely held religious belief of strict sabbath observance, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for defendant OPWDD as a Direct Support Assistant, at the Cleveland Individualized Residential Alternative (IRA), in Brooklyn, New York. State of New York maintains and operates defendant OPWDD.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Harwood, Esq. Jesse Strauss, Esq. HARWOOD LAW PLLC 260 Madison Avenue, 16th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-867-6820 Fax: 212-937-3167 NEXTRACKER INC: Faces Securities Suit over SEC Disclosures ---------------------------------------------------------- Nextracker Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 31, 2025, that on December 27, 2024, a class action lawsuit alleging violations of federal securities laws was filed by a purported stockholder in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants the company and certain of the company's officers, alleging that defendants made false and misleading statements about its business, financial results and prospects. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief on behalf of the purported class. Nextracker Inc. and its subsidiaries is a provider of integrated solar trackers, foundations, and software solutions used in ground-mounted utility-scale and distributed generation solar projects around the world. NOCO COMPANY: Removes Beaudry Suit to N.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of PETER BEAUDRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE NOCO COMPANY, Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sonoma (Case No. 24CV07953) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 12, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01467 to the proceeding. The NOCO Company is an American privately held multinational corporation that designs, manufactures, and markets consumer electronics, automotive chemicals, plastics and various electrical components. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jon J. Pinney, Esq. Kyle D. Stroup, Esq. Antonio F. Dempsey, Esq. KOHRMAN JACKSON & KRANTZ LLP 1375 East Ninth Street, 29th Floor Cleveland, OH 414114 Telephone: 216.696.8700 Facsimile: 216.621.6536 Email: jjp@kjk.com kds@kjk.com afd@kjk.com - and - Lauren Kramer Sujeeth, Esq. ROGERS JOSEPH O'DONNELL 311 California Street, 10th Fl. San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 956-2828 Facsimile: (415) 956-6457 Email: lsujeeth@rjo.com OMNI FAMILY HEALTH: Ranjel Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case is styled as Dawn Ranjel, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Omni Family Health, Case No. 24CECG05572 was removed from the Fresno County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Feb. 12, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00192-SAB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Omni Family Health -- https://omnifamilyhealth.org/ -- is a growing network of state-of-the-art health centers located throughout Kern, Kings, Tulare, and Fresno counties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark D. Potter, Esq. James Michael Treglio, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 100 Pine Street Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 534-1911 Fax: (888) 422-5191 Email: mark@potterhandy.com jimt@potterhandy.com The Defendant is represented by: Ronald I. Raether, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER 100 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1500 Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: (949) 622-2722 Fax: (949) 622-2739 Email: ron.raether@troutman.com - and - Tambry L. Bradford, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 350 S. Grand Ave., Suite 3400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 928-9805 Email: tambry.bradford@troutman.com ONE NEVADA: Discriminatory Lending Settlement Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- MALDEF reports that a federal judge has granted preliminary approval of a class-action settlement between One Nevada Credit Union and recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and other immigrants who were denied full consideration for credit because of their immigration status. MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund) represents DACA recipients and other immigrants who comprise the settlement class. "All immigrants have legal rights; one of these is to be free of irrational discrimination," said Thomas A. Saenz, MALDEF president and general counsel. "This settlement provides one more reason for all businesses to comply with the law and treat all immigrants fairly, on a par with citizens." As part of the agreement, approved on Feb. 11, One Nevada has agreed to create a settlement fund of $76,000 to compensate the class of immigrants affected by the challenged policy. One Nevada will also change its policies and bring the credit union into compliance with state law as part of the agreement. The settlement is one of more than a dozen MALDEF has reached with financial institutions that deny services to DACA recipients and other immigrants because of their immigration status rather than their credit-worthiness. The settlement provides for $2,000 payments each to 38 class members. All of the class members are residents of Nevada. The credit union must also pay attorneys’ fees and other costs. "There are an estimated 11,000 DACA recipients who call Nevada home," said Eduardo Casas, MALDEF attorney. "This decision gets them all one step closer to full and equal participation in consumer credit markets." MALDEF and co-counsel, Kathia Quiros from GWP Immigration Law, filed the suit in September 2022 on behalf of Jorge Hernandez Castro, a DACA recipient. Hernandez 32, of Las Vegas, applied to One Nevada for an auto loan in July 2022. According to the lawsuit, One Nevada denied the loan to Hernandez because the social security card he obtained through DACA was for "work only" and because he was not a lawful permanent resident. Attorneys argued that One Nevada’s denial of a loan to Hernandez violated Section 1981 of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1866 which prohibits discrimination based on national origin, citizenship, and immigration status. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The court has set a final–approval hearing date of May 28. One Nevada is a member-owned credit union based in Las Vegas. It provides banking services, auto loans, mortgages, home equity loans, personal loans, and investment services. Since 2017, MALDEF has filed 20 lawsuits challenging the policies of financial institutions that discriminate against immigrants. [GN] PACS GROUP: Pension Fund Appointed Lead Plaintiff in Manchin Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Lewis J. Liman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the motion filed by 199SEIU Health Care Employees Pension Fund seeking appointment as lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER MANCHIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -v- PACS GROUP, INC., JASON MURRAY, DERICK APT, MARK HANCOCK, JACQUELINE MILLARD, TAYLOR LEAVITT, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, TRUIST SECURITIES, INC., RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, STEPHENS INC., KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS INC., OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC., and REGIONS SECURITIES LLC, Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-08636-LJL (S.D.N.Y.). Before the Court are competing motions from Christopher Manchin and 199SEIU Health Care Employees Pension Fund, each seeking appointment as lead plaintiff in a class action securities case against PACS Group, Inc. and certain other defendants. Each movant also requests that its respective retained counsel be appointed lead counsel for the class. The case alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Defendant PACS Group is a Delaware corporation that, through its subsidiaries, operates senior care facilities, skilled nursing facilities, and assisted living facilities in the United States. PACS Group's common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange. In April 2024, PACS Group filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a registration statement in connection with PACS Group's April 11, 2024 initial public offering. In September 2024, PACS Group filed a registration statement with the SEC in connection with PACS Group's Sept. 6, 2024 secondary public offering. On Nov. 13, 2024, Manchin filed suit against PACS Group, certain of its officers and directors, and certain of its underwriters. On Nov. 21, 2024, the New Orleans Employees' Retirement System filed suit against PACS Group, certain of its officers and directors, and certain of its underwriters. Both complaints alleged that the defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements in the IPO and SPO registration statements as well as in other statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about PACS Group's business, operations, and prospects. Both complaints identify the putative class period as April 11, 2024 through Nov. 5, 2024, inclusive. On Jan. 7, 2025, the Court consolidated the Manchin and New Orleans actions and ordered that all subsequent filings were to occur on the Manchin docket. On Jan. 13, 2025, Manchin, the Pension Fund, and Yongfen Min each moved for appointment as lead plaintiff Manchin argues that the Pension Fund should not be appointed as the sole lead plaintiff because the Pension Fund lacks standing to bring claims related to the April 2024 IPO. He argues that the Court should instead appoint Manchin and the Pension Fund as co-lead plaintiffs. According to Manchin, the Pension Fund lacks standing to allege the IPO claims because it purchased all its shares in or after the Sept. 6, 2024 SPO. The Court says Manchin's argument is without merit. Manchin does not demonstrate either that the Pension Fund is an inadequate lead plaintiff or that appointing Manchin co-lead plaintiff would serve the interests of the class. The Court therefore appoints solely the Pension Fund as the lead plaintiff. The Court finds the Pension Fund is the party with the largest financial interest that also satisfies all other requirements for appointment as lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The Court therefore appoints the Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and appoints its counsel, Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP, as class counsel. The Court denies the motions of Christopher Manchin and Yongfen Min. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SI8x4c from PacerMonitor.com. PAYPAL HONEY: Plaintiffs Seek to Appoint Girard Sharp As Counsel ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re PayPal Honey Browser Extension Litigation, Case No. 5:24-cv-09470-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on May 29, 2025, will move the Court, pursuant to its Order of Jan. 29, 2025, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), to appoint as Interim Class Counsel their attorneys with -- Girard Sharp LLP; Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP; and Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP, who seek to serve as Co-Lead Counsel and an Executive Committee consisting of Berger Montague PC, -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, DiCello Levitt LLP, Ellzey Kherkher Sanford Montgomery, LLP, Hausfeld LLP, Keller Rohrback -- LLP, Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC, Seeger Weiss LLP, and Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP. The Plaintiffs are online content creators: they are people and companies who create content that they post on platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok and they often have websites correlated with their content. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NRt9on at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dena C. Sharp, Esq. Adam E. Polk, Esq. Trevor T. Tan, Esq. Nina R. Gliozzo, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 - and - Nanci E. Nishimura, Esq. Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. Karin B. Swope, Esq. Jacob M. Alhadeff, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Rd #200, Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 - and - Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq. Roger N. Heller, Esq. Jason L. Lichtman, Esq. Sean A. Petterson, Esq. Danna Z. Elmasry, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 PAYPAL INC: Brodie Sues Over Unfair Business Practices ------------------------------------------------------ BRODIE THAT DOOD, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situate, Plaintiff v. PAYPAL, INC.; and PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-01476 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 12, 2025) alleges violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, when the consumer is connected to the website, the content creator's unique code is stored in a "tracking cookie" on the consumer's browser, identifying the content creator as the source of the referral. When the consumer makes a purchase, the merchant uses the cookie to link the sale to the content creator and credit the creator for the sale. Ultimately, the merchant pays the content creator a commission on the sale, which usually amounts to 1-20% of the sale price. PayPal disrupts this process and poaches affiliate commissions from all sales to consumers who use the Honey browser extension. PayPal does this by replacing the tracking cookies of content creators like Plaintiff with a PayPal cookie, which takes credit for the sale. Content creators are not notified that their tracking cookie has been replaced or that credit for their sale has been transferred to PayPal, and the followers who use the affiliate links have no way of knowing that the creator has not been credited with the sale. Online retailers are similarly in the dark and have no way to discern that a substitution has occurred. Accordingly, they pay PayPal, the owner of the cookie found on the follower's browser. This scheme has allowed PayPal to steal millions of dollars in commission from affiliate marketers like Plaintiff and the class members it seeks to represent, alleges the suit. PayPal, Inc. provides financial transaction processing services. The Company offers electronic payment processing services such as mobile payments and online invoicing. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dena C. Sharp, Esq. Adam E. Polk, Esq. Simon S. Grille, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Email: dsharp@girardsharp.com apolk@girardsharp.com sgrille@girardsharp.com - and - Benjamin J. Widlanski, Esq. Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq. Rachel Sullivan, Esq. Michael Lorigas, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor Miami, Florida 33134 Telephone: 305.372.1800 Fax: 305.372.1800 Email: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com tjl@kttlaw.com rs@kttlaw.com mlorigas@kttlaw.com - and - Jeffrey A. Neiman, Esq. Michael A. Pineiro, Esq. Brandon S. Floch, Esq. MARCUS NEIMAN RASHBAUM & PINEIRO LLP 2 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2530 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 400-4260 Facsimile: (757) 260-9857 Email: jneiman@mnrlawfirm.com mpineiro@mnrlawfirm.com bfloch@mnrlawfirm.com PF CALI: Class Cert Bid Filing in Strandholt Extended to August 15 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOEL STRANDHOLT and FRANK LAWSON, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. PF CALI PAYROLL, LLC; PF SUPREME, LLC d.b.a. PLANET FITNESS; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 8:24-cv-01256-CV-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Valenzuela entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed ex parte application to set the Plaintiffs' deadline to continue class certification and briefing-related deadlines as follows: Event New Date -- Deadline for the Plaintiff motion Aug. 15, 2025 for class certification: -- Deadline for the Defendant to file Sept. 12, 2025 Opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: -- Hearing for Class Certification: Sept. 26, 2025 A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1zSZ7v at no extra charge.[CC] PHILIPS RS NORTH: Martin Seeks to Stay Implementation of Agreement ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re PHILIPS RECALLED CPAP, BI-LEVEL PAP, AND MECHANICAL VENTILATOR PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. 2:21-mc-01230-JFC (W.D. Pa.), Pro Se Plaintiff Derrick Martin King asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to stay implementation of the private master settlement agreement for personal injury claims pending resolution of the proceedings in the third circuit court of appeals. The Plaintiff contends that the Court should stay implementation of the private master settlement agreement for personal injuries until the Third Circuit has ruled upon the mandamus petition (specifically whether or not the settlement should be done as a class action and subject to judicial review). For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff King prays the Court grant the relief requested herein On Sept. 28, 2023, the Plaintiff King filed a personal injury products liability complaint in an Ohio state court. On May 9, 2024, the MDL plaintiffs' lead counsel, steering committee, and the Philips defendants file a Joint Notice of Filing. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QMckpf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff appears pro se: Derrick Martin King 1445 Crestview Ave Akron OH 44320-4049 Telephone: (330) 867-3979 E-mail: dmking12370@hotmail.com POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Joseph Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MEGAN JOSEPH, on behalf of her minor children, B.J. and C.J., and EMILY KIDDER; and DALE KIDDER, on behalf of their minor children, E.K. and M.K., and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC.; and POWERSCHOOL GROUP, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00517-AC (E.D. Cal., Feb. 13, 2025) is an action alleging the Defendants' failure to secure and safeguard the confidential, personally identifiable information of millions of students, parents, caregivers, school faculty and staff. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards and protocols to protect its users' PII. PowerSchool also lacked proper controls to determine which students, parents, and faculty were impacted by the Data Breach. PowerSchool's failure to timely detect and report the Data Breach caused Plaintiffs and Class Members to be vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their PII. Even when PowerSchool finally notified the Plaintiffs and Class Members of their PII exfiltration, PowerSchool failed to adequately describe the Data Breach and its effects, as well as the measures it took to prevent data breaches from occurring in the future. In failing to adequately protect consumers' information, failing to adequately notify them about the breach, and obfuscating the nature of the breach, PowerSchool violated state and federal laws and harmed thousands of its current and former consumers, the suit added. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc. provides cloud-based software for K-12 education. The Company offers student information systems, enrollment, unified classroom, unified administration, unified talent, unified insights, and more. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Cadio Zirpoli, Esq. Christopher K.L. Young, Esq. Kevin E. Rayhill, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1505 San Francisco, CA 94108 Tel: (415) 500-6800 Email: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com cyoung@saverilawfirm.com krayhill@saverilawfirm.com - and - Robert Neary, Esq. Benjamin Widlanski, Esq. Gail McQuilkin, Esq. Daniel Herrera, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON, LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Floor 9 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Tel: (305) 372-1800 Email: rn@kttlaw.com bwidlanski@kttlaw.com gam@kttlaw.com dherrera@kttlaw.com POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Campbell Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ KAYELEEN CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC. and POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01549 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 13, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information including, but not limited to full names, Social Security numbers, grades, email addresses, telephone numbers, addresses, dates of birth, protected health information including medical information. With this action, the Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause Plaintiff and millions of other similarly situated persons as a result of a massive and preventable cyberattack of Defendant’s networks and/or systems. On Dec. 28, 2024, PowerSchool discovered that cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network servers and accessed and exfiltrated highly sensitive Private Information belonging to Plaintiff and Class Members which was unprotected and unencrypted. The Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for failing to ensure that Plaintiff and Class Members Private Information was maintained in a safe manner and at a minimum consistent with industry standards. Plaintiff Campbell is a resident and citizen of DeKalb County, Illinois. The Plaintiff was a 2017 graduate of a high school which used Defendant's software. PowerSchool provides cloud-based education software for K-12 education in the country. On its website, the Defendant touts that: "With over 90 of the top 100 school districts in the US using PowerSchool, we simply have more experience than anyone else in implementing educational technology, providing ongoing support and training, and releasing innovative features that support schools' and districts' evolving needs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: GKlinger@milberg.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. Nicholas U. Murphy, Esq. Amanda V. Boltax, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th Street N.W., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone:(202) 540-7200 E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com mboltax@hausfeld.com - and - Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street Fourteenth Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 E-mail: snathan@hausfeld.com POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Gauron Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey Gauron, on behalf of herself and as parent and guardian of her minor child, R.M., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:25-at-00220 (E.D. Cal., Feb. 13, 2025) alleges that PowerSchool failed to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information including, but not limited to, Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, contact information, dates of birth, medical information, Social Security numbers, grade information, and other related information. According to the notification email message Plaintiff's children's school district sent, hackers used a compromised credential to access PowerSchool's student information. 6. This Data Breach impacted minor children, their families, and teachers whose data was kept by PowerSchool and involved at least the following types of information: "individual's name, contact information, date of birth, limited medical alert information, Social Security Number (SSN), and other related information." PowerSchool is an EdTech platform deeply entrenched in schools and school districts across the United States. ] PowerSchool collects, stores, and analyzes students' sensitive data, which it acquires through its educational technology products that it sells to schools and school districts. The information PowerSchool takes from students includes everything from educational records and behavioral history to health data and information about a child's family circumstances. PowerSchool collects this highly sensitive information under the guise of educational support, but in fact collects it for its own commercial gain.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shana E. Scarlett, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com - and - Robert B. Carey, Esq. Leonard W. Aragon, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Telephone: (602) 840-5900 E-mail: rob@hbsslaw.com leonard@hbsslaw.com - and - Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq. Whitney K. Siehl, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (708) 628-4949 E-mail: whitneys@hbsslaw.com dank@hbsslaw.com PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Court Rules on Pryce's Summary Judgment Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Frederic Block of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in ruled on the plaintiff's partial summary judgment on liability on both class action claims and a remaining individual claim the case captioned as CECELIA PRYCE suing individually on her own behalf and representatively on behalf of a class of plaintiffs similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION; PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; and PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-1467 (E.D.N.Y.). Plaintiff Cecilia Pryce brought this class action lawsuit against Defendants Progressive Corporation, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, and Progressive Direct Insurance Company, alleging breach of contract, and violations of New York's Comprehensive Motor Vehicle Reparations Act, New York Insurance Law Sec. 5101 et seq. (the "No-Fault Statute"), and New York General Business Law Sec. 349 ("GBL Sec. 349"). On March 31, 2022, the Court certified a class with respect to Pryce's GBL Sec. 349 and breach-of-contract claims, but not the No-Fault Statute claim and dismissed Progressive Corporation and Progressive Direct Insurance Company from the case, leaving Progressive Casualty Insurance Company as the sole remaining defendant. Pryce has now moved for partial summary judgment on liability on both class action claims and a remaining individual claim against Progressive. Progressive has also separately moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of all claims. Also before the Court is Progressive's motion to exclude the expert testimony of Stephen M. Dripps and Chad L. Staller, who produced a report on the potential class size and damages. Breach of Contract There is no dispute that a valid insurance agreement between Pryce and Progressive existed at the time of her accident on July 7, 2015. There is likewise no dispute as to the Plaintiff's performance of the contract, i.e., her payment of premiums. Pryce contends that Progressive has breached its insurance contracts with the Class by using its current wage loss formula. Progressive contends that Pryce's motions should be denied and its own motion granted because Pryce has not provided evidence that she or any member of the Class were actually denied any claimed lost wage benefits by operation of Progressive's wage loss formula. It argues that to prevail on the breach-of-contract claim there must be uncontroverted evidence that Progressive failed to pay an amount owed under the auto insurance policy. However, this misstates the nature of the alleged breach, the Court notes. According to the Court, the class certification order makes plain that the "relevant injury" is "premature coverage exhaustion." The Court says Pryce is entitled to partial summary judgment on liability if there is no material fact in dispute as to whether Progressive's formula entailed Class members' PIP coverage exhausting earlier than it otherwise would have. Each Class member, by definition, had an insurance contract with Progressive. That contract provided that Progressive would cover each Class member's losses in conformity with the No-Fault Statute. Progressive's wage loss formula undisputably contravened the No-Fault Statute, the provisions of which were inherent in the contract. By applying this formula and counting improper, additional statutory offsets towards the exhaustion of Class members' Basic Economic Loss coverage, Progressive necessarily caused the "premature coverage exhaustion" that is the basis of the alleged contract injury, the Court concludes. GBL Sec. 349 Progressive argues that this allegation must be dismissed because Pryce's claimed injury is the same as that alleged in her breach-of-contract claim: failure to pay benefits on account of premature exhaustion of coverage. It argues that because the monetary loss underlying the alleged GBL Sec. 349 violation is the same loss undergirding the contract allegation, this claim must be dismissed. According to the Court, because there is no suggestion that Progressive willfully violated the No-Fault Statute, the damages to the Class are congruent. The Court grants Pryce's motion for partial summary judgment on liability only with respect to the breach-of-contract class claim. Pryce's individual claim is consolidated with this class claim. Progressive's motions for summary judgment are denied as academic. Additionally, Progressive's motion to exclude expert testimony is denied. The issues of damages and claims administration on the breach-of-contra t claim are referred to the magistrate judge for resolution. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1olxvi from PacerMonitor.com. Attorney for the Plaintiff: Kevin P. Fitzpatrick, Esq. MARSCHHAUSEN & FITZPATRICK, P.C. 73 Heitz Place Hicksville, NY 11801 Attorney for the Defendant: Kymberly Kochis, Esq. EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND 1114 Sixth Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10036 E-mail: kymberlykochis@eversheds-sutherland.com PSCU LLC: Seeks Dismissal of Brooks Suit ---------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUMMER BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PSCU, LLC, a Florida registered Company, and LONE STAR CREDIT UNION, a Texas credit union, Case No. 8:24-cv-02983-KKM-AAS (M.D. Fla.), the Defendants asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to dismiss and for more definite statement, or in the alternative, motion to strike class allegations or deny class certification: The Defendants contend that since all elements of the fraud exemption are satisfied, PSCU cannot be held liable for the fraud alert and Plaintiff fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Finally, with respect to the call alleged on Nov. 10, 2024, the Complaint acknowledges this call was with a live agent and falls outside the TCPA's artificial and pre-recorded voice prohibition. Therefore, Plaintiff failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and this case should be dismissed, the Defendants add. The Complaint seeks certification of the following class: Pre-recorded No Consent Class: "All persons throughout the United States (1) to whom PSCU placed, or caused to be placed, a call, (2) directed to a number assigned to a cellular telephone service, but not assigned to a Lone Star Credit Union customer or accountholder, (3) in connection with which PSCU used an artificial or prerecorded voice message identifying Lone Star Credit Union, (4) from four years prior to the filing of this case through the date of class certification." PSCU is the largest credit union service organization in the United States. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gLsquu at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jacqueline Simms-Petredis, Esq. Dana L. Robbins-Boehner, Esq. BURR & FORMAN LLP 201 North Franklin Street, Suite 3200 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 221-2626 E-mail: jsimms-petredis@burr.com Drobbins-boehner@burr.com RAINBOW LIGHT: Knowles Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- CARLTON KNOWLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAINBOW LIGHT NUTRITIONAL SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01239 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 11, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.rainbowlight.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Rainbow Light Nutritional Systems, LLC manufacturers pharmaceuticals. The Company offers multivitamins, iron, brain and heart, prenatal health, stress management, probiotics, allergens, dietary, and calcium tablets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal RAMACO RESOURCES: Blankenship Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Richard Blankenship, Ronald Wilson, Nicholas Sutherland, Glenn Ford, and Mitchell Bryant, individually and for others similarly situated v. RAMACO RESOURCES, INC., Case 2:25-cv-00088 (S.D.W. Va., Feb. 12, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid wages and other damages. The Plaintiffs and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek. However, the Defendant does not pay Plaintiffs and the other Hourly Employees for all their hours worked, including overtime hours. the Defendant does not pay Plaintiffs and the other Hourly Employees for the time they spend donning and doffing their safety gear and protective clothing, gathering and storing their tools and equipment, and washing-up, "off the clock," before and after their shifts. Additionally, the Defendant does not pay Plaintiffs and the other Hourly Employees at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay—based on all remuneration—for the hours they work in excess of 40 a workweek. Instead, the Defendant pays Plaintiffs and the other Hourly Employees non discretionary safety and retention 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 bonus pay scheme violates the FLSA by failing to compensate Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants. Ramaco owns, operates, and/or controls mines and related operations in West Virginia, Virginia, Wyoming, and Kentucky.[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 REALNETWORKS INC: Lead Plaintiff's Motion to Seal Granted --------------------------------------------------------- Judge Kymberly K. Evanson of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted the lead plaintiff's unopposed motion to seal in the case captioned as BARBARA STROUGO, Plaintiff(s), v. REALNETWORKS INC., et al., Defendant(s), Case No. 24-cv-00297-KKE (W.D. Wash.). Lead Plaintiff Richard Brender filed an amended class action complaint provisionally under seal, which references Defendant RealNetworks, Inc.'s business information designated confidential via an agreement of the parties. Brender simultaneously filed a motion to seal, which Defendants support. Brender also filed a redacted version of the amended complaint on the public docket. The earlier version of the complaint referenced the same confidential material that is in the amended complaint, and the Court previously granted a motion to seal that version of the complaint. Because the motion to seal complies with W.D. Wash. Local Civil Rule 5(g), the Court will grant it. The Court may seal judicial records when a party provides a compelling reason to keep information out of the public view. Defendants have met this burden by showing that the material referenced in the amended complaint is confidential, and that there is no less restrictive alternative to maintaining that information under seal. The Court finds that the need to protect that information outweighs the public right of access to court records, particularly because the Court's review of the redacted version of the amended complaint on the public docket indicates that the motion to seal is appropriately tailored. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FeftKW from PacerMonitor.com. RECOVER-CARE SHAWNEE: Bid to Certify FLSA Collective Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE VASQUEZ, et al., v. RECOVER-CARE SHAWNEE, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-02183-HLT-RES (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Holly Teeter entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to certify case as Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action and approve the settlement agreement. The case arises out of the Plaintiffs' employment with Defendants at various skilled nursing facilities across Kansas. The amended complaint alleges several wage-and-payment claims, including a timeclock rounding claim, a non-payment of bonuses claim, an underpayment of overtime claim, and an unpaid meal periods claim. The Plaintiffs assert these claims under the FLSA, the Kansas Wage Payment Act, and state law. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kWzRYk at no extra charge.[CC] REPRODUCTIVE GENETICS: Landmark Seeks to Clarify Obligations ------------------------------------------------------------ LANDMARK AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REPRODUCTIVE GENETICS INSTITUTE INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01528 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 13, 2025) is an action seeking a declaration respecting Landmark's coverage obligations owed to Defendant in connection with the lawsuit styled Noelia Donamaria, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Reproductive Genetic Innovations, Inc., filed in the United States District Court Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:24-cv-09535. Reproductive Genetics Institute Inc. offers infertility treatments. The Company offers and variety of services including infertility, egg donor, cord blood, and other associated services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin A. Lahm, Esq. Domonique R. Abrantes, Esq. WALKER WILCOX MATOUSEK LLP 1 North Franklin Street, Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 244-6700 Facsimile: (312) 244-6800 Email: klahm@walkerwilcox.com nabrantes@walkerwilcox.com SAFETY-KLEEN SYSTEMS: Graves Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Gregory Graves, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. SAFETY-KLEEN SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2025 CH 00145 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 12, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01501. The Plaintiff's Complaint contains one count, alleging a putative class action for five purportedly separate alleged violations of the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act ("GIPA").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. 8401 Crawford Ave., Suite 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Email: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 11 1/2 N. Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Email: james@simonsayspay.com The Defendant is represented by: Orly Henry, Esq. Angela R. Huisingh, Esq. Priya Gupta, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 321 North Clark Street, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: 312.372.5520 Facsimile: 312.372.7880 Email: ohenry@littler.com ahuisingh@littler.com prgupta@littler.com SAINT JOHN, NB: Faces Class Action Suit Over Police Sexual Abuse ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mia Urquhart of CBC New Brunswick reports that a lawsuit against the City of Saint John for sexual abuse by a police officer was back in court in the third week of February. The class-action suit, filed in 2013, is now in its final stages -- determining who qualifies and how much money they will receive. The class members, including representative plaintiff Bobby Hayes, are seeking damages from the city as the employer of Kenneth Estabrooks. Estabrooks worked as a police officer from 1953 to 1975 before he was transferred to the city works department after he admitted to sexual relationships with two teenage boys. He was eventually charged criminally, and in 1999 he was found guilty of four counts of indecent assault. He was sentenced to six years in prison, where he died in 2005. Now in its 13th year, the case has already been to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, which refused to hear the city's appeal last year. That meant the 2023 decision of the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick will stand -- that the City of Saint John is vicariously liable for the sexual abuse committed by Estabrooks while he was a police officer. The only thing left to be sorted out is who qualifies as a victim and how much they will get paid. But how to sort that out is still in dispute. Three days were set aside in the Court of King's Bench to come up with a protocol to follow for establishing awards. Sides 'diametrically opposed' At the beginning of a full day of legal arguments on Tuesday, February 18, Justice Darrell Stephenson described the two sides as being "diametrically opposed." One of the major sticking points is the cross-examination of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' lawyers were opposed to cross-examination, but the city's lawyer, Michael Brenton, insisted on having the option to question plaintiffs. Brenton used the example of a person claiming they're unable to work because of psychological damage caused by having been sexually assaulted by Estabrooks as a child. But, said Brenton, perhaps the person wasn't physically able to work because of a snowmobile accident. Brenton said he wants to ensure the right to cross-examine plaintiffs and potentially call other experts, such as medical doctors. After lawyers for both sides spoke during the lunch break, they came back seemingly more open to flexibility. The lawyers for the plaintiffs said they would make changes to their original position and present it to the court and to Brenton by the end of Wednesday, February 19. Brenton said he couldn't make any decisions without getting direction from the city and he didn't know if the issue could be added to the next Saint John Council agenda. The sides agreed to get together to see if a mutually acceptable protocol could be worked out. If they couldn't, Stephenson said he would impose one on the parties. "We need to bring this to a completion and we need to do so as soon as we can," said Stephenson. "We have a number of people who were clearly abused by Mr. Estabrooks . . . in the most heinous of circumstances, as the Court of Appeal referenced in their decision. That's why we need to get this on the road and we need to get this process completed ASAP." He said he is "keenly aware" of the age of claimants. The plaintiffs' lawyer, John McKiggan, pointed out that Estabrooks became a police officer almost 75 years ago, meaning the youngest plaintiffs are in their 60s, while the earliest claimants are in their 90s. All of the plaintiffs were minors at the time, said McKiggan. He said the exact number of plaintiffs isn't certain. He said his office has been contacted by 90 people and out of those he's been able to reach, "every one of them wanted to proceed." McKiggan told the court that some people are likely waiting before coming forward to find out what the court will decide about the process and what they will be subjected to, including cross-examination. [GN] SANTA CLARA, CA: Court Tosses Doe Privacy Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------- Judge William H. Orrick of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the case captioned as JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, Defendant, Case No. 23-cv-04411-WHO (N.D. Cal.) without prejudice after the plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint. In a prior Order, Judge Orrick agreed with defendant that the Class Action Fairness Act applies based on the face of the FAC and that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this action. According to the complaint, the Defendant disclosed protected health information through the deployment of various digital marketing and automatic software tools embedded in its website and patient portal that purposefully and intentionally disclose personal health information to Facebook, Google, and other third parties who exploit that information for advertising purposes. The Defendant's use of these tools caused personally identifiable information and the contents of communications exchanged between actual and prospective patients with Defendant to be automatically redirected to Facebook, Google, and other third parties in violation of those patients' reasonable expectations of privacy, their rights as patients, and their rights as citizens of California, says the suit. County of Santa Clara d/b/a Santa Clara Valley Medical Center operates multiple hospitals and clinics, including Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, O'Connor Hospital, St. Louise Regional Hospital, Valley Health Center San Jose, Valley Health Center Sunnyvale, Valley Health Center Gilroy, and Valley Health Center Milpitas. It also owns and operates both a website and patient portal for its patients, which can be accessed at https://scvmc.scvh.org/. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jq1sHA from PacerMonitor.com. SANTANDER CONSUMER: Brown Lawsuit to Remain in Federal Court ------------------------------------------------------------ Chief Judge Nancy Rosenstengel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois denied the plaintiff's motion to remand the case captioned as CRYSTAL BROWN, On Behalf of Herself and Those Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-CV-00665-NJR (S.D. Ill.) to the state court. This case concerns the sale of cars on credit. Plaintiff Crystal Brown filed this putative class action in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois, on Jan. 24, 2024. She brings this suit on behalf of herself and others who financed the purchase of a car that, unbeknownst to them, was encumbered by a preexisting lien. Defendant Santander Consumer USA, Inc. buys the financing contracts from the dealerships that sell these vehicles, thus making it Brown's and the putative class members' creditor. Brown's complaint asserts claims under the consumer protection statutes of 48 states (Count I), breach of warranty of title under the Uniform Commercial Code (Count II), negligent misrepresentation (Count III), and unjust enrichment (Count IV). Her individual damages consist of over $9,000 in monthly payments to Santander on the retail installment contract, traffic citations, insurance payments, fees, loss of time, inconvenience, annoyance, loss of creditworthiness and other damages. Class-wide damages include the sum of the amounts paid to Santander on retail installment contracts, the amount of any down payment made by the class members, the fair market value of any trade-in vehicle, and reasonable attorney's fees and expenses. Santander removed the case to the District Court, invoking federal subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d). Brown filed a motion to remand, arguing that Santander's jurisdictional arguments were speculative. Brown later filed an Emergency Motion for Leave to file a Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, which raised a separate and independent ground for remand: Santander's alleged failure to promptly notify the Circuit Court in St. Clair County of the removal to federal court. The District Court is satisfied that it has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Santander contends that the scope of its car financing business is sufficiently large to permit an inference of jurisdiction based on Brown's individual allegations and the scope of the two sub-classes she seeks to represent. Brown contends that Santander's jurisdictional allegations impermissibly rely on assumptions that may not be borne out. Specifically, she contends that the complaint only alleges more than 40 plaintiffs per sub-class and that it is far from certain that their damages will combine to reach CAFA's $5,000,000 threshold, exclusive of interest and costs. The District Court finds Santander has sufficiently alleged that several hundred plaintiffs, if not more, are within the putative class. This satisfies the numerosity requirement. The District Court emphasizes that in this case Santander has done much more than imply the necessary amount in controversy. It has outlined the scope of its car financing business (in the millions of transactions) and plausibly explained how the number of class members and their aggregate amount in controversy (based on the individual damages that Brown presented here) meets CAFA's requirements. The District Court finds that this case meets CAFA's amount in controversy threshold. Santander notified the state court that this case had been removed 28 days after the fact. The District Court is satisfied that Santander's delay in combination with the state court's non-substantive scheduling order does not frustrate the purpose of section 1446(d). Thus, Santander's notification to the state court was sufficiently prompt, the District Court concludes. Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Leave to file a Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Remand is granted, as the District Court has considered the arguments in that pleading. The District Court notes that Santander filed a motion to stay the proceedings in this case pursuant to Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Secs. 1 et seq. On March 20, 2024, the District Court granted Brown's consent motion to stay briefing on Santander's motion to stay so that it could resolve any jurisdictional issues first. Now that the District Court has verified its subject matter jurisdiction over the case, the stay on the briefing of Santander's motion to stay is lifted. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gqSSv0 from PacerMonitor.com. SELECT PORTFOLIO: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Mirabadi Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the appealed case captioned as FARAH MIRABADI, individual and on behalf of a class of other similarly situated individual, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., a Utah Corporation, Defendant - Appellee, and DOES, 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, No. 24-1487 (9th Cir.), Judges John B. Owens, Lawrence VanDyke and Anthony D. Johnstone of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissing all four claims in the class action. Farah Mirabadi filed a putative class action against Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. for its alleged violation of: (1) California's Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1788 et seq.; (2) California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200 et seq.; (3) California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1750 et seq; and (4) California contract law. SPS serviced Mirabadi's home mortgage loan and Mirabadi made her mortgage payments to SPS online through SPS's "EZ Pay" service. The EZ pay service charged Mirabadi a five-dollar fee each time she made a payment. After several months of using the EZ Pay service, Mirabadi sent a demand letter to SPS alleging that the EZ Pay fees violate California law. In response, SPS agreed not to charge Mirabadi any EZ Pay fees moving forward and to refund all EZ Pay fees that Mirabadi paid, totaling fifty dollars. After receiving SPS's response to her demand letter, Mirabadi filed a class action suit in California state court. SPS timely removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1332(d)(2), 1453(b). SPS then moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Mirabadi lacked statutory standing for her breach of contract, UCL, and CLRA claims because SPS refunded her fifty dollars of EZ Pay fees. SPS also argued that all four claims should be dismissed because Mirabadi failed to allege the necessary elements of each claim. The district court held that Mirabadi lacks statutory standing for her breach of contract, UCL, and CLRA claims because they require a showing of damages as an element, and regardless, Mirabadi failed to state a claim for all four causes of action. On appeal, Mirabadi argues only that the district court should have remanded the case under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(c) rather than dismissing it. In this case, the only prong in question is whether Mirabadi suffered an injury in fact. The Circuit Judges conclude that SPS did not refund Mirabadi interest on her payments and she therefore lost the time value of her money. As such, she suffered a cognizable injury in fact under Article III. Because Mirabadi has standing under Article III and there are no other impediments to the court's subject matter jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(c) does not apply, and the district court did not err in dismissing her case. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LQ650O SELECT REHABILITATION: Must File Class Cert Response by March 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE MCLAUGHLIN, CRYSTAL VANDERVEEN, JUSTIN LEMBKE, and SCOTT HARDT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. SELECT REHABILITATION, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00059-HES-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Harvey Schlesinger entered an order that: 1. The stay in this case is lifted; 2. Select must respond to Plaintiffs' Dec. 16, 2024, sanctions motion by Feb. 17, 2025; 3. The Plaintiffs may file a 15-page omnibus reply in further support of their Dec. 12, 2024 and Dec. 16, 2024 motions for sanctions within 14 days after Select responds to Plaintiffs' Dec. 16, 2024 sanctions motion; 4. Select will respond to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Rule 23 by March 10, 2025; 5. Plaintiffs will file a reply in further support of their motion for class certification under Rule 23 within 14 days after Select files its response. Select Rehabilitation provides comprehensive therapy services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NENooA at no extra charge.[CC] SPECIALIZED LOAN: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Withdrawn ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Butler v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01087 (D. Colo., Filed April 22, 2024), the Hon. Judge Philip A. Brimmer entered an order withdrawing the Defendant's motion to strike class allegations and deny class certification. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). SLS operates as a financial company.[CC] SPECIALIZED LOAN: Seeks to Strike Class Allegations in Butler Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYZHIMA BUTLER, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01087-PAB-SBP (D. Colo.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to strike class allegations and deny class certification. The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff cannot establish class certification is appropriate as to either the Rule 23 Nationwide Class or the Rule 23 Arizona Class, and the Court should strike Plaintiff’s class allegations and decertify the putative classes. The proposed classes are not ascertainable -- a prerequisite for class certification under Rule 23(a) -- because Plaintiff’s class definitions provide no objective criteria to determine who is in them. The proposed classes are also overbroad and necessarily include individuals who did not sustain any injury and therefore also lack standing, the Defendant adds. SLS was a financial company that managed or "serviced" mortgage loans. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G8f5IM at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Jason N.W. Plowman, Esq. Marielle A. Moore, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 15 West South Temple St., Suite 950 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Telephone: (801) 658-6085 E-mail: jason.plowman@ogletree.com marielle.moore@ogletree.com STATE FARM: Ellis Bid to Reply Tossed as Premature -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ellis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Company, Case No. 6:22-cv-01005 (M.D. Fla., Filed June 7, 2022), the Hon. Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. entered an order denying without prejudice as premature the Plaintiff's request for a reply. -- If one is necessary following Defendant's brief, the Plaintiff may renew her request with a showing of good cause. The nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Dispute. State Farm is a group of mutual insurance companies throughout the United States with corporate headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois.[CC] STATE FARM: Ellis Seeks to File Class Cert. Bid Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA ELLIS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Case No. 6:22-cv-01005-RBD-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the plaintiff's motion to leave to file provisionally under seal the following materials: -- The Plaintiffs motion for class certification; -- Class Cert. Motion: Expert Report of Phillip Johnson, Ph.D.; -- Class Cert. Motion: Transcript for the Deposition of Douglas A. Graff; -- Class Cert. Motion: Transcript for the Deposition of Julie Zoch; -- Class Cert. Motion: Transcript for the Deposition of Neal Lowell; and -- Class Cert. Motion: Expert Report of Kirk Felix. State Farm offers vehicle, auto, accident, homeowners, condo owners, renters, life and annuities, fire and casualty, health, disability, flood, business, and boat insurance products and services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RorniJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob L. Phillips, Esq. Joshua R. Jacobson, Esq. JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC 478 E. Altamonte Dr., Ste. 108-570 Altamonte Springs, FL 32701 Telephone: (407) 720-4057 E-mail: jacob@jacobsonphillips.com joshua@jacobsonphillips.com - and - Hank Bates, Esq. Lee Lowther, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 519 W. 7th Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-8505 E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com llowther@cbplaw.com - and - Christopher L Ayers, Esq. Scott A. George, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road, 6th Fl. Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (973) 639-9100 E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com cayers@seegerweiss.com sgeorge@seegerweiss.com - and - Edmund A. Normand, Esq. NORMAND PLLC 3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175 Orlando, FL 32803 Telephone: (407) 603-6031 Facsimile: (888) 974-2175 E-mail: ed@normandpllc.com STATE FARM: Ellis Suit Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA ELLIS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Case No. 6:22-cv-01005-RBD-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order that: (i) certifying the proposed Class defined as: "All persons who made a first-party claim on a policy of insurance issued by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company to a Florida insured who, from June 7, 2017, through the date an order granting class certification is entered, received compensation for the total loss of a covered vehicle, where that compensation was based on an appraisal report prepared by Audatex and the actual cash value was decreased based upon "typical negotiation" deduction(s) to comparable vehicle(s) used to determine actual cash value ("ACV")." (ii) appointing the Plaintiff as Class Representative and the undersigned as Class Counsel, and (iii) directing the Parties to submit a Joint Proposed Notice Plan within 14 days of the order granting class certification. In summary, overwhelming evidence confirms that State Farm’s imposition of the TNDs is wrong, invalid, inconsistent with both empirical evidence and market realities, and resulted in a windfall of tens of millions of dollars to State Farm at the expense of its insureds. Damages are a ministerial and formulaic calculation based on its own records: the difference between actual market value and the artificially deflated value calculated by State Farm through imposition of the TNDs. Without class treatment, given the cost of litigating alone, State Farm's insureds will have no realistic recourse and State Farm will be let off the hook for the millions of dollars it owes its Florida insureds. State Farm offers vehicle, auto, accident, homeowners, condo owners, renters, life and annuities, fire and casualty, health, disability, flood, business, and boat insurance products and services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mPKH2L at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob L. Phillips, Esq. Joshua R. Jacobson, Esq. NORMAND PLLC Orlando, FL 32814-0036 Telephone: (407) 603-6031 E-mail: jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com jjacobson@normandpllc.com - and - Hank Bates, III, Esq. Lee Lowther, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 519 W. 7th St. Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-8505 E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com llowther@cbplaw.com - and - Christopher L Ayers, Esq. Scott A. George, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road, 6th Fl. Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (973) 639-9100 E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com cayers@seegerweiss.com sgeorge@seegerweiss.com - and - Edmund A. Normand, Esq. NORMAND PLLC 3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175 Orlando, FL 32803 Telephone: (407) 603-6031 Facsimile: 888-974-2175 E-mail: ed@normandpllc.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 - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com STREAMLABS LLC: Settles Auto Renewal Class Suit for $4.4-Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that Streamlabs has agreed to pay $4,400,000 to settle a proposed class action lawsuit that claimed the software company deceptively enrolled consumers in automatically renewing subscriptions after they made what they thought was a one-time donation to a content creator. The Streamlabs settlement covers anyone in the United States who, between March 3, 2018 and May 17, 2022, was enrolled in a Streamlabs Pro automatic renewal subscription after adding a GIF or effect to their donation and was then billed a monthly charge for the subscription (after their first charge for their initial GIF or effect). The official website for the deal can be found at StreamlabsClassActionSettlement.com. Class members who submit a valid claim form online or by mail by March 31, 2025 will be eligible to receive a pro-rated refund for Streamlabs Pro subscription fees. To file a claim form online, head to this page. You'll be asked to provide the notice ID and confirmation code found on the personalized settlement notice you should have received, though you may still submit a claim form without this information. You can also download a PDF claim form to complete and return by mail. The Streamlabs Pro auto-renewal settlement was granted preliminary approval by the court in late August 2024. The court gave the settlement final approval on January 30, 2025. Consumers who file a timely, valid Streamlabs settlement claim form will receive a pro-rated share of the net settlement fund, based on the number of monthly payments they made to the defendant between March 3, 2018 and May 17, 2022, less any amounts that Streamlabs may have already refunded. According to the class action lawsuit against Streamlabs, the platform allows users to enhance donation alerts with GIFs or effects—such as hearts, stars, or confetti—when contributing money to their favorite streamers. The case alleged the defendant failed to adequately inform consumers that adding an effect to their contribution would sign them up for a Streamlabs Pro subscription and continuously charge them $5.99 per month until the plan was canceled. "As a result, [consumers] unknowingly end up with recurring charges on their credit or debit cards from Streamlabs for months or even years, leaving them confused, angry, and stressed by the charges," the complaint claimed. [GN] SUNPATH LTD: Bid to Extend Class Cert Answer Briefs Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Morales, et al., v. Sunpath Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01376 (D. Del. Filed Oct. 9, 2020), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Hall entered an order that: (1) The Defendants' motion to extend the deadline for filing their class certification answering briefs or, alternatively, for leave to file supplemental answering briefs, is denied without prejudice. -- As a preliminary matter, the Defendants' motion for an extension of the briefing deadline to March 31, 2025 is moot because Defendants timely filed their answering briefs on Feb. 7, 2025. (2) Having denied Defendants' request for an extension, the Defendant Mepco's related motion for an award of fees and costs is also denied without prejudice. (3) The Plaintiffs' motion to compel Mepco to produce documents responsive to Request for Production Nos. 54 to 55 is granted. (4) Plaintiffs' motion to compel Mepco to supplement its responses to Request for Production Nos. 49 to 53 and 56 to 70 is denied without prejudice. (5) The Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs is denied without prejudice. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). SunPath is a motor vehicle manufacturing company.[CC] TARGETED LENDING: Ironmen Mobile Sues Over Usurious Interest Rate ----------------------------------------------------------------- IRONMEN MOBILE MECHANIC, LLC; and SUSAN MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TARGETED LENDING CO. LLC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00135 (W.D.N.Y., Feb. 11, 2025) alleges violation of the New York General Obligations Law and New York Banking Law. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, the Defendant loaned to Plaintiff and permit it to finance a 2019 Ford Transit Van at the predatory interest rate of 18 percent, which is in excess of the usury cap imposed by New York Banking Law and which renders the contract void. The Defendants willingly and purposefully offered the Plaintiffs and members of the putative class lending contracts that contained high interest rates in violation of the usury limit under New York law. Targeted Lending Co. LLC. provides commercial equipment leasing and financing services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Jessica Rado, Esq. KLAFTER LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 Email: seth@klafterlesser.com jessica.rado@klafterlesser.com - and - Robert W. Murphy, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. MURPHY 440 Premier Circle, Suite 240 Charlottesville, VA 22901 Telephone: (954) 763-8660 Facsimile: (954) 763-8607 Email: rwmurphy@lawfirmmurphy.com TECTA AMERICA: Apicello Sues Over Failure to Prevent Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Apicello, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TECTA AMERICA CORP., Case No. 1:25-cv-01478 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 12, 2025), is brought against the Defendants failure to prevent the Data Breach and failure to properly maintained and adequately protected its systems which could have prevented the Data Breach. The Plaintiff and Class members provided certain Personally Identifying Information ("PII") to entities that do business with Defendant. As the nation's leading commercial roofing company, Defendant has an acute interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the PII entrusted to it, as Defendant is undoubtedly well-aware of the numerous data breaches that have occurred throughout the United States and its responsibility for safeguarding PII in its possession. According to Defendant, on October 1, 2024, Defendant "discovered suspicious activity in our environment." ("The Data Breach"). The Defendant did not inform affected individuals of the root cause of the Data Breach. The Defendant did not state why it took two weeks to detect unauthorized activity on its network, or why more than two months elapsed before it began notifying affected individuals. Defendant failed to prevent the data breach because it did not adhere to commonly accepted security standards and failed to timely detect that its databases were subject to a security breach. As a result of the Data Breach, on at least 5 occasions since the Data Breach, Plaintiff has been subjected to credit pulls, none of which were authorized by him. The credit pulls had a negative effect on his credit score, which in turn led to the denial of a bank loan that was needed for the purchase of a home. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's actions and omissions in failing to protect Plaintiff's PII, Plaintiff and the Class have been damaged, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was mailed a breach notification letter from Defendant indicating that his PII was compromised during the Data Breach. The Defendant represents that it "is the leading national commercial roofing company with 4,500 roofing professionals throughout 100 locations nationwide."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Steet, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: (215) 592-1500 cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Phone: (513) 345-8291 Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Patrick J. Brickman, Esq. Frank A. Bartela, Esq. DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., LPA 60 South Park Place Painesville, OH 44077 Phone: (440) 352-3391 Email: fbartela@dworkenlaw.com - and - Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514-1851 Phone: (516) 873-9550 Email: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com TETON ORTHOPAEDICS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Jeannette Boner, writing for Jackson Hole News & Guide, reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed in Teton County court against Teton Orthopaedics, alleging that a data breach at the office violated federal laws and compromised more than 13,400 patient records. An unknown number of other former patients have joined the suit as plaintiffs. Teton Orthopaedics did not return a request for comment. Teton Orthopaedics suffered a data breach between January and March 2024, according to court records. Personal information like social security numbers, birthdates, medical information and health insurance details were allegedly stolen using ransomware programming. Cybercriminals utilize ransomware to destabilize a computer system and hold sensitive information hostage until a monetary ransom is paid for the data's release. Court documents do not suggest that Teton Orthopaedics paid a ransom or negotiated for one. In December 2024, Teton Orthopaedics alerted those impacted by the cyber breach, acccording to court records. In a letter sent to impacted patients, the independent orthopaedic healthcare provider said it had contacted law enforcement. The letter to patients also says that the health care provider "engaged a national cybersecurity firm to assist in assessing the scope of the incident and took steps to mitigate the potential impact to the community." However, the lawsuit alleges that Teton Orthopaedics failed to sufficiently protect computer data, leaving patient's digital information vulnerable to cyberattacks. It further alleges that the data breach violates the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, that protects patients' sensitive health information. Data breaches on the rise Teton Orthopaedics was one of at least two orthopaedic health care providers targeted nationwide in 2024. The other was Excelsior Orthopaedics in New York, where 357,000 records were allegedly stolen by a third party in June 2024, according to The HIPPA Journal. The journal is a U.S. based publication that tracks health data breaches and other violations of the landmark health privacy law. Data breaches in the healthcare industry have climbed steadily over the decades, according to the Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights. Health care and public health agencies have been the most frequently targeted by ransomware attacks, according to a 2023 FBI report. Health care agencies offer cybercriminals more return on their theft, the FBI says. That's because the sale of medical records can be 10 to 50 times more valuable than credit card information. In 2023, 168 million health care records were exposed, stolen, or impermissibly disclosed, according to a report by The HIPAA Journal using information from the Department of Health and Human Services. Those records derived from 26 total health care data breaches. In 2024, 13 total data breaches affected an estimated 100 million individuals, or around 42% of the U.S population, according to The HIPAA Journal. That year, the largest healthcare data breach happened at the California-based Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., impacting 13.4 million records. In Wyoming, the federal government has an open investigation into only one cyber breach: An incident at the Elkhorn Valley Rehabilitation Hospital in Casper, impacting almost 4,000 records in March 2024. The largest healthcare data breach in Wyoming history happened in 2021, at the Wyoming Department of Health, according to the federal Department of Health and Human Services. That breach impacted 164,000 people. What's next? Aside from hoping the case improves cybersecurity meaures at Teton Orthopaedics, Pack and other plaintiffs hope to gain a lifetime of cybersecurity monitoring services. A jury trial has not yet been set by the court. Those who may be impacted by cybersecurity breaches can find support and next steps to take through the Federal Trade Commission's website at IdentyTheft.gov. [GN] TEVA PHARMA: Plaintiffs' Bid to Compel Discovery Granted in Part ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery responses in the case captioned as DENA BURGE, LEIGH HOCKETT, JORDAN FURLAN, CRISTINE RIDEY, PATRICIA SAWCZUK, and ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., TEVA PARENTERAL MEDICINES, INC., TEVA NEUROSCIENCE, INC., TEVA SALES & MARKETING, INC., and CEPHALON, INC., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-2501-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan.). Plaintiffs -- representing a proposed class -- allege Defendants and their co-conspirators entered an unlawful reverse payment settlement and conspired to safeguard their monopoly on Nuvigil, a wakefulness drug with the generic name Armodafinil. Plaintiffs allege Defendants agreed to stay out of the EpiPen market, allowing Mylan and Pfizer to maintain their EpiPen monopoly. In exchange, Plaintiffs contend, Mylan and Pfizer agreed to stay out of the Nuvigil market, allowing Defendants to maintain their Nuvigil monopoly. Based on these factual allegations, Plaintiffs assert four claims: (1) a Sherman Act claim; (2) claims for Conspiracy and Combination in Restraint of Trade under various state laws; (3) claims for Monopolization and Monopolistic Scheme under various state laws; and (4) a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claim. Plaintiffs request the Court enter an order compelling Defendants to produce responsive documents to RFP 10 "in full (including documents concerning statements considered or drafted, but not ultimately made)," and overrule Defendants' conditional non-privilege general objections. Plaintiffs' RFP 10 requests Defendants produce: All Documents relating to public statements regarding Teva's settlements of patent litigation related to the EpiPen, Nuvigil, or any other form of Armodafinil, whether or not actually made, including but not limited to drafts of such statements and/or Communications regarding such statements. Defendants asserted several objections to RFP 10, including an objection to the extent it purports to seek documents or information beyond the scope of Phase I Discovery. Defendants further object to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it calls for them to produce "all documents" and "drafts" of statements and/or communications. They further object to RFP 10 as overly vague and ambiguous to the extent it purports to seek documents relating to public statements "whether or not actually made." In this case, the Court finds drafts of public statements that were never actually made would be relevant to Plaintiffs' equitable tolling and fraudulent concealment allegations. Specifically, the allegation Defendants concealed or withheld information about their patent litigation settlements in their public statements. According to the Court, this discovery is relevant to Defendants' knowledge and timing of the information initially included in drafts of public statements but later removed prior to release to the public. Defendants' objections that RFP 10 is vague and ambiguous, beyond the scope of Phase I Discovery, and overly broad and unduly burdensome are therefore overruled, the Court holds. For these reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel with respect to RFP 10 is granted. Defendants shall serve a supplemental or amended response and produce documents responsive to Plaintiff's First RFP 10 in full, including documents concerning statements considered or drafted, but not ultimately made. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2pYKTr from PacerMonitor.com. TIKTOK INC: Faces Class Suit Over Data Protection Law Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jeric Alvin Cruz, writing for Media Laws, reports that four (4) cross-border class action suits against social media giants TikTok and X (formerly Twitter) have been recently filed in Germany, alleging violations of German and EU law, particularly the Digital Services Act (DSA), the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and the new Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act). The class action suits were filed by the Dutch Foundation for Market Information Research (Stichting Onderzoek Marktinformatie, or SOMI), a non-profit organization authorized to bring cross-border representative actions for consumers in the European Union. According to Spirit Legal, the Germany-based law firm representing SOMI, the alleged violations committed by TikTok and X include the following: -- Violations of TikTok: TikTok manipulates young users by using addictive design strategies, and misuses sensitive data to fuel its recommendation algorithms, violating the AI Act's ban on manipulative, deceptive, and exploitative AI systems and engaging in illegal surveillance through its in-app browser; -- Violations of X: X has failed to report data breaches and inform affected users, has not provided compensation, and unlawfully processes sensitive data for recommendation algorithms without legal basis; and -- Common violations by both platforms: Both TikTok and X facilitate the spread of disinformation, deepfakes, and misleading content during the election period. Key demands of the lawsuits are the following: -- Ban on unlawful profiling and processing of sensitive personal data for personalized content and advertising; -- Stronger child and youth protection measures against harmful content; -- Effective measures against disinformation and foreign interference to safeguard the integrity of democratic elections; -- Financial compensation for affected users: -- TikTok: Compensation ranging from EUR500 to EUR2,000 per user, with approximately 20 million users in Germany; and -- X: Compensation between EUR750 and EUR1,000 per user, with an estimated 11 million users in Germany. Under Directive (EU) 2020/1828, known as the Collective Redress Directive, qualified entities, such as SOMI, may seek both injunctive measures (to cease or prohibit unlawful practices) and redress measures (such as compensation) on behalf of consumers, in order to protect the collective interests of consumers within the European Union. Legal Spirit has encouraged affected users to register with the Federal Office of Justice in Bonn via the class action register, once available. Users can also sign up directly via SOMI's platforms. [GN] TIMBUK2 DESIGNS: Faces Uddin Class Suit Over Unwanted Phone Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- MUBASSAR UDDIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TIMBUK2 DESIGNS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00328-MMH (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 17, 2025) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant’s unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the Class members. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. On October 8 and November 29, 2024, the Defendant made telephone solicitations to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone. The Plaintiff contends that he never signed any type of authorization permitting or allowing the Defendant to send them telephone solicitations before 8 am or after 9 pm. 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)." The Defendant's unlawful conduct resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the Class members, the Plaintiff adds. Timbuk2 was founded in 2005. The company's line of business includes the manufacturing of textile bags.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (813) 340-8838 E-mail: zane@jibraellaw.com TRADE DESK: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit (the "Class Action") in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against The Trade Desk, Inc. ("Trade Desk" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TTD) and certain of its executive officers (collectively, "Defendants"). The Class Action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased Trade Desk Class A common stock between May 9, 2024 and February 12, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby (the "Class"). The Class Action filed by Saxena White is captioned United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers & Allied Workers Local Union No. 8 WBPA Fund v. Trade Desk, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-1396 (C.D. Cal.). Based in Ventura, California, Trade Desk provides global technology services, offering a self-service, cloud-based, ad-buying platform that allows marketers to plan, manage, optimize, and measure data-driven ad campaigns. Trade Desk's Class A common stock is listed and traded on the Nasdaq Global Select Market (NASDAQ) under the ticker symbol "TTD." Leading up to the Class Period, Trade Desk launched Kokai on June 6, 2023, a generative artificial intelligence ("AI") forecasting tool that enables users to more effectively deploy advertising spending. In a press release announcing the Kokai launch, Trade Desk described Kokai as a "co-pilot to the programmatic marketer" that digests over 13 million advertising impressions every second, helping "advertisers buy the right ad impressions, at the right price, to reach the target audience at the best time." Immediately after the Kokai launch, Trade Desk began rolling out Kokai (the "Kokai Rollout") which included transitioning clients to Kokai from the Company's older ad-buying platform Solimar. Trade Desk described the Kokai Rollout as the "largest platform overhaul" in the Company's history, while estimating that the Kokai Rollout "would take about a year to roll out in its entirety" from the June 2023 launch. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants continuously touted the value that the Kokai Rollout was providing to its clients, as well as Kokai's positive impact on the Company's revenue growth metrics. The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, including that: (1) Trade Desk was experiencing significant, ongoing, self-inflicted execution challenges rolling out Kokai, including transitioning clients to Kokai from the Company's older platform Solimar; (2) such execution challenges meaningfully delayed the Kokai Rollout; (3) Trade Desk's inability to effectively execute the Kokai Rollout negatively impacted the Company's business and operations, particularly revenue growth; and (4) as a result of the above, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. The truth emerged after markets closed on February 12, 2025, when Trade Desk issued a press release reporting fourth quarter 2024 revenue of $741 million—below the Company's previously issued guidance of $756 million and analysts' estimates of $759.8 million. On an earnings call, the Company's CEO admitted that Trade Desk had not yet transitioned all of its clients to Kokai, and was still "maintaining 2 systems, Solimar and Kokai." The CEO further conceded that "Kokai rolled out slower than anticipated," but also "in some cases, the slower Kokai rollout was deliberate." On this news, the price of Trade Desk Class A common stock dropped $40.31 per share, or more than 32%, from a closing price of $122.23 per share on February 12, 2025, to a closing price of $81.92 per share on February 13, 2025. If you purchased Trade Desk Class A common stock during the Class Period and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California no later than April 21, 2025. The lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in the Class Action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may contact Marco A. Dueñas (mduenas@saxenawhite.com), a Senior Attorney at Saxena White P.A., to discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the Class Action. You also may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in the Class Action. You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and inquire about actively joining the Class Action at www.saxenawhite.com. Saxena White P.A., with offices in Florida, New York, California, and Delaware, is a leading national law firm focused on prosecuting securities class actions and other complex litigation on behalf of injured investors. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous securities class actions nationwide, Saxena White has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of injured investors. CONTACT INFORMATION Marco A. Dueñas, Esq. mduenas@saxenawhite.com Saxena White P.A. 10 Bank Street, Suite 882 White Plains, New York 10606 Tel: (914) 437-8551 Fax: (888) 631-3611 www.saxenawhite.com [GN] TRANSMEDICS GROUP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set April 15 ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired TransMedics Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: TMDX) ("TransMedics" or the "Company") securities between February 28, 2023 and January 10, 2025 (the "Class Period"), charging the Company and certain senior executives with violations of the federal securities laws (collectively, "Defendants"). TransMedics investors have until April 15, 2025 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the TransMedics class action lawsuit. If you purchased or acquired TransMedics securities between February 28, 2023 and January 10, 2025, and suffered substantial losses, and you wish to obtain additional information or serve as lead plaintiff in this lawsuit, you may submit your information and contact us here: https://dicellolevitt.com/securities/transmedics/. You can also contact DiCello Levitt attorneys Brian O'Mara or Ruben Peña by calling (888) 287-9005 or emailing investors@dicellolevitt.com. Those who inquire by email are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. Case Allegations TransMedics is a commercial-stage medical technology company transforming organ transplant therapy for end-stage lung, heart, and liver failure patients. The Company developed the Organ Care System ("OCS") to transform organ preservation by replicating many aspects of the organ's natural living and functioning environment outside of the human body. TransMedics' logistics services include aviation transportation, ground transportation, and other coordination activities. The TransMedics lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements during the Class Period about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) TransMedics used kickbacks, fraudulent overbilling, and coercive tactics to generate business and revenue; (2) TransMedics engaged in unsafe practices, hid safety issues, and generally lacked safety oversight; and (3) the foregoing subjected TransMedics to heightened risk of scrutiny and regulatory risk. The truth began to emerge on February 21, 2024 when U.S. Representative Paul Gosar issued a letter accusing TransMedics of misconduct, including that "TransMedics is not a collaborative partner in transplantation as administrators continue to push back against its coercive tactics." The next day, The Daily Caller published an article highlighting the allegations in Representative Gosar's letter, noting that "TransMedics Aviation carries significantly higher costs than [hospitals'] current providers. Some transplant centers have reported being pressured to use TransMedics' captive aircraft, at nearly double the cost, or risk losing access to TransMedics' life saving device." On this news, the price of TransMedics stock fell by $2.18 per share, or 2.5%, to close at $84.81 per share on February 22, 2024. The truth was fully revealed on January 10, 2025 when Scorpion Capital issued a scathing report about TransMedics (the "Report"), claiming the Company overbills hospitals that use its services; stating the Company provides patients with organs previously rejected by reputable physicians through physicians who TransMedics paid; and verifying the allegations in Representative Gosar's letter. In particular, the Report details the Company's "OCS Liver, [is] a gimmick used not for any clinical benefit but for a) off-label use for scheduling [and] b) by questionable centers whom we believe receive kickbacks and organs in exchange for taking them on the device"; "TransMedics OCS devices are plagued by failures leading to the loss of a significant percentage of organs"; and "TransMedics data was always under scrutiny because of multiple violations . . . and warning letters . . . because the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] was aware that they are not conducting themselves in the most honest manner." On this news, the price of TransMedics stock fell by $3.74 per share, or 5.15%, to close at $68.81 per share on January 10, 2025. TransMedics stock then fell a further $4.76 per share, or 6.9%, to close at $64.05 per share on January 13, 2025. About DiCello Levitt At DiCello Levitt, we are dedicated to achieving justice for our clients through class action, business-to-business, public client, whistleblower, personal injury, civil and human rights, and mass tort litigation. Our lawyers are highly respected for their ability to litigate and win cases -- whether by trial, settlement, or otherwise -- for people who have suffered harm, global corporations that have sustained significant economic losses, and public clients seeking to protect their citizens' rights and interests. Every day, we put our reputations -- and our capital -- on the line for our clients. DiCello Levitt has achieved top recognition as Plaintiffs Firm of the Year and Trial Innovation Firm of the Year by the National Law Journal, in addition to its top-tier Chambers and Benchmark ratings. The New York Law Journal also recently recognized DiCello Levitt as a Distinguished Leader in trial innovation. For more information about the Firm, including recent trial victories and case resolutions, please visit www.dicellolevitt.com. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Media Contact Amy Coker 4747 Executive Drive, Suite 240 San Diego, CA 92121 (619) 963-2426 investors@dicellolevitt.com [GN] TRUSTCO BANK: $2.75MM Class Settlement Obtains Final Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Glenn T. Suddaby of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement in the consolidated case captioned as 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, Plaintiffs, v. TRUSTCO BANK, A FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-1030 (N.D.N.Y.). 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. The Court finds that: (a) the members of the Settlement Class are so numerous that joinder of all members would be impracticable, (b) the Action and proposed settlement raise issues of law and fact common to the claims of the Settlement Class members, and these common issues predominate over any issues affecting only individual Settlement Class members, (c) the Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class, (d) in prosecuting this Action and negotiating and entering into the Agreement, the Plaintiffs and their counsel have fairly and adequately protected the interests of the Settlement Class and will adequately represent the Settlement Class in connection with the Settlement, and (e) a class action is superior to other methods available for adjudicating the controversy. The Court appoints Deborah Livingston, Dena Scroggins, Robert Lamoureux, and Tammy Jenkins as the Class Representatives of the Settlement Class. The Court finds that Taras Kick of The Kick Law Firm, APC is a qualified and experienced attorney capable of adequately representing the Settlement Class, and he is finally approved as Class Counsel. 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. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sPlwvY from PacerMonitor.com. UNION PACIFIC: Continues to Defend Illinois BIPA Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Union Pacific 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 7, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) class suit. In December 2019, the Company received a putative class action complaint under the Illinois BIPA, alleging violation due to the use of a finger scan system developed and managed by third parties. While it believed that it has strong defenses to the claims made in the complaint and will vigorously defend ourselves, there is no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome. Union Pacific is a freight-hauling railroad that operates 8,300 locomotives over 32,200 miles routes in 23 U.S. states west of Chicago and New Orleans. UNITED STATES: Class Certification Granted in Davis Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Trevor N. McFadden of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification and appointment of counsel in the case captioned as KENNEDY DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01312-TNM (D.C.). Kennedy Davis is on parole. While serving his sentence, Davis filed this suit against the U.S. Parole Commission and the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency. His one-count Complaint alleges a violation of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 794. He challenges the Government's ongoing and system-wide failure to assess disabilities or make any reasonable accommodations at any point during the course of supervision. On top of this, Davis says the Government lacks any foundational system or policy for disability assessment and accommodation. So even if a disabled offender wants to request accommodation, there is no formal process to do so. Davis alleges these failures strip him and the proposed class of meaningful access to the benefits of supervision due to their disabilities. He requested, among other things, a preliminary injunction. The Court granted Davis's request, finding that he is likely to succeed on the merit. Davis now moves for class certification, hoping to expand his case to cover other disabled offenders. He proposes a class consisting of all people with a disability who are on or will be on parole or supervised release in the District of Columbia under the Commission's and CSOSA's supervision, and who need accommodations in order to have an equal opportunity to succeed on parole or supervised release. According to the Complaint, offenders with disabilities are especially susceptible to technical violations. Physical disabilities can impede mobility, making it difficult for an offender to travel to a mandatory check-in with his CSO. Chronic health conditions present similar difficulties and might require an offender to balance CSO check-ins with medical appointments or hospitalization. Then there are mental, intellectual, and developmental disabilities that may frustrate an offender's ability to grasp certain conditions or participate in required programs. Given these obstacles, Davis alleges that "people with disabilities are more likely to be found in violation of terms of supervision" than their nondisabled counterparts. The Government opposes certification and identifies a litany of supposed deficiencies with the proposed class. It says the proposed class does not share a common legal or factual foundation because the legal and factual underpinnings vary between the different stages and types of supervision. And it argues Davis's situation is atypical because his sentence of lifetime parole makes his claim distinguishable from the class's claims. It does, however, concede that it lacks a written policy requiring assessment and accommodation of disabilities. And it does not have any formal process through which an individual may seek such accommodations. The party seeking certification bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating his compliance with five requirements in Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 23(a) gives the first four requirements: (1) numerosity, meaning "the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable"; (2) commonality, meaning "there are questions of law or fact common to the class"; (3) typicality, meaning "the claims of the representative parties are typical of the claims of the class"; and (4) adequacy, meaning "the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." The Government does not dispute numerosity, and its own calculations show the proposed class easily satisfies the requirement. CSOSA estimates that between January 2022 and May 2023, at least 484 offenders under supervision had a mental disability. But the Rehabilitation Act applies equally to mental and physical disabilities. So that number is likely highly underinclusive because it does not account for individuals with physical disabilities. Thus, CSOSA's estimates provide a reasonable evidentiary basis to conclude the class will encompass hundreds of members or more. Applying "common sense" to this evidence, the Court finds that joining hundreds of plaintiffs is impracticable. So the proposed class is sufficiently numerous. The Court is satisfied that Davis and the proposed class members allege a common harm stemming from a common source -- discrimination from the Government's systemic failure to assess and accommodate disabilities. It is also unpersuaded by the Government's assertion that Davis's claim lacks typicality. On this front, the Government misapprehends the harm. Its arguments focus on the possible downstream effects of discrimination, but the discrimination itself is the harm. The proposed class also satisfies Rule 23(b) because Davis alleges a harm and seeks a remedy that apply uniformly across the class. Having found that Davis's proposed class meets all five requirements of Rule 23, the Court will certify a class consisting of all people with a disability who are on or will be on parole or supervised release in the District of Columbia under the supervision of the Commission and CSOSA supervision, and who need accommodations to have an equal opportunity to succeed on parole or supervised release. The Court appoints Davis's current lawyers as class counsel. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AiEe3x from PacerMonitor.com. UNITED STATES: Farrell Seeks to Certify Settlement Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERRILL FARRELL, JAMES GONZALES, JULIANNE "JULES" SOHN, STEPHAN "LILLY" STEFFANIDES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; LLOYD J. AUSTIN III, Secretary, United States Department of Defense, in his official capacity; CHRISTINE WORMUTH, Secretary, United States Army, in her official capacity; CARLOS DEL TORO, Secretary, United States Navy, in his official capacity; FRANK KENDALL, Secretary, United States Air Force, in his official capacity, Case No. 3:23-cv-04013-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying class for settlement purposes, granting final approval of the class action settlement, and awarding reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The proposed settlement class is the same as the class conditionally certified by the Court in its January 8, 2025, Order: "Veterans of the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, and U.S. Marine Corps who were administratively separated prior to Sept. 20, 2011, and whose most recent Service separation document shows their basis for discharge was sexual orientation, homosexual conduct, homosexual admission, homosexual marriage, similar language, or a policy title or number signifying separation for sexual orientation." The settlement permits the Plaintiffs to move for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $350,000, but is not conditioned upon the Court's approval of any attorneys’ fees or costs. Department of Defense provides the military forces needed to deter war, and to protect the security of the United States. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fjGas8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jocelyn D. Larkin, Esq. Lindsay Nako, Esq. Lori Rifkin, Esq. Fawn Rajbhandari-Korr, Esq. Meredith Dixon, Esq. IMPACT FUND 2080 Addison Street, Suite 5 Berkeley, CA 94704 Telephone: (510) 845-3473 Facsimile: (510) 845-3654 E-mail: jlarkin@impactfund.org lnako@impactfund.org lrifkin@impactfund.org fkorr@impactfund.org mdixon@impactfund.org - and - Elizabeth Kristen, Esq. LEGAL AID AT WORK 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 864-8848 Facsimile: (415) 593-0096 E-mail: ekristen@legalaidatwork.org - and - David K. Willingham, Esq. Rachel Yeung, Esq. Radha Manthe, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4433 Facsimile: (213) 443-4310 E-mail: dwillingham@kslaw.com ryeung@kslaw.com rmanthe@kslaw.com - and - Chelsea Corey, Esq. HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP 50 S. Tryon Street, Suite 700 Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (980) 771-8251 E-mail: chelsea.corey@haynesboone.com UNITED STATES: Fired Feds Challenges Trump's Illegal Mass Firings ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Katz, writing for Government Executive, reports that multiple law firms are moving forward with class action complaints to challenge the Trump administration's mass firings of recent hires and other employees on their probationary periods, claiming the terminations were illegal and the workers should be reinstated. Already thousands of employees have signed up to participate in the challenges, with impacted staff across government saying the stated reason for their firings -- poor performance -- is at odds with the administration's rhetoric and the sweeping nature of the dismissals. The terminations are ongoing and not expected to wrap up until Wednesday evening, February 19, according to the Office of Personnel Management, which is helping to orchestrate the personnel moves, but is likely to sweep up tens of thousands of employees. Alden Law Group, in partnership with Democracy Forward, is bringing a class-wide complaint to the Office of Special Counsel with employees from nine different agencies. The organizations called the complaint the first of its kind and designed to protect the merit-based system within the civil service. OSC is responsible for investigating prohibited personnel practices in the federal government, which include taking personnel actions based on factors other than job-related abilities. "Our civil servants do everything from keeping our food and medicine safe, to securing our borders, to improving our communities," said Skye Perryman, Democracy Forward's president. "We will use all legal tools available to protect them from arbitrary firings designed to politicize our government." If OSC finds in the class' favor, the case would then go to the Merit Systems Protection Board for corrective action. President Trump has fired the head of both OSC and MSPB, though in recent days federal judges have reinstated both to their positions. The Trump administration is now challenging the reinstatement of Hampton Dellinger, the head of OSC, before the Supreme Court. Danny Rosenthal, a partner at James and Hoffman, is leading a class action appeal directly to MSPB. While unusual, MSPB rules allow for class action cases. Rosenthal said since his firm announced its intention, it has been "like an avalanche of emails from people who are interested." James and Hoffman has so far heard from between 1,500 and 2,000 fired probationary employees and the firm hopes to file something in the near future. Employees have 30 days to submit appeals but if they do so individually they would likely forfeit their rights to join the class. James and Hoffman will not be charging any upfront costs to impacted individuals seeking to join. It doesn't seem like pursuing a federal career is worthwhile anymore. -- former Small Business Administration employee Federal workers across government told Government Executive they were keeping their options open, though none said they would walk away without some sort of challenge. Still, some are confronting the economic realities in which they now find themselves. One fired Transportation Department employee at the Federal Transit Administration said he would take his job back if reinstated, as all of his chain of command have advocated to happen. "But I have bills to pay so of course I am applying to new jobs," the now-former employee said. Federal employee unions cautioned their members to save and print out personnel files including any performance reviews, awards and commendation letters. Employees have been quickly losing access to their government emails and systems and would likely need such information to present upon appeal. Several employees said they are working directly with their unions to chart a course of action and the labor groups are contemplating the best response. The National Treasury Employees Union has sued over the probationary firings and a preliminary hearing took place in the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, February 18. A fired Environmental Protection Agency employee said they were in the midst of moving to a new state for his EPA job when the firing took place. They are now considering going back to work for their state environmental agency, but that would require being more than four hours away from their partner. "It took a lot to get this job and now it's about to be over so quickly even though I've done nothing wrong," the former employee said. EPA has fired nearly 400 employees, the agency said. Employees across government received virtually identical termination letters, which cited a lack of a skills match or poor performance. Many employees told Government Executive they had only received "outstanding" reviews or were so new they had not yet received a review. A terminated Small Business Administration employee said he was hired in an on-call role for emergency deployments and was fired for poor performance despite not yet being called into action. While the termination notices allege specific failures by the impacted employees, agencies have been open that they are taking the actions to fulfill Trump's agenda. An EPA spokesperson, for example, said, "President Trump was elected with a mandate to create a more effective and efficient federal government that serves all Americans, and we are doing just that." A second former SBA employee fired last week said they are going to fight the termination just to avoid any negative marks on their record. "I just want this termination removed from my record really," the former employee said. "Of course, it doesn't seem like pursuing a federal career is worthwhile anymore. It's a very sad state of affairs." [GN] UNIVERSITY MECHANICAL: Allmaras Suit to Remain in Federal Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Gonzalo P. Curiel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied the plaintiff's motion to remand the case captioned as BROCK ALLMARAS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY MECHANICAL & ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS, INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.: 24-cv-02021-GPC-SBC (S.D. Cal.) to the state court. The defendant's motion for judgment on pleadings is granted without leave to amend. On October 7, 2024, Plaintiff Brock Allmaras filed a complaint against University Mechanical & Engineering Contractors, Inc. pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") on behalf of himself and "all current and former non-exempt employees who worked for Defendants in California at any time from one year prior to the postmark date of the initial PAGA notice through date of trial." Plaintiff's various claims hinge on the general allegation that Defendant required Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees to complete work while off-the-clock, without compensation. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant committed the following violations: (1) minimum wage violations; (2) unpaid overtime; (3) unpaid paid sick leave ; (4) unpaid meal period premium wages; (5) unpaid rest period premium wages; (6) untimely payment of wages upon separation of employment; (7) non-compliant wage statements; (8) failure to reimburse employee expenses; (9) failure to provide employee records; and (10) failure to maintain accurate records. Plaintiff previously brought a putative class action against Defendant for the same underlying claims for which he now seeks PAGA penalties. In Allmaras v. Univ. Mech. & Eng'g Contractors, Inc. ("Allmaras I"), the Court ultimately dismissed all claims without leave to amend. The untimely payment of wages claim was dismissed as preempted under federal labor-contract law. The remaining claims were not preempted but were instead dismissed because they were subject to the applicable collective bargaining agreement's ("CBA") arbitration provisions. On Oct. 29, 2024, Defendant removed this case to federal court. On Feb. 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed the FAC. On Nov. 22, 2024, Plaintiff Brock Allmaras filed a motion for leave to amend the Complaint and filed a motion to remand the case to state court. Then, on Dec. 19, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Defendant then opposed the motion to remand on the same grounds upon which it moved for judgment on the pleadings. In its motion for judgment on the pleadings, Defendant requests judicial notice of two agreements entered into between Defendant and Plaintiff's union. Plaintiff opposes judicial notice on two grounds. First, he raises concerns about the fact that the Defendant did not request judicial notice of these documents at the motion to dismiss stage of Allmaras I. Second, Plaintiff complains that one of the MOUs was created on the eve of a litigation filing to try and gut this case. But these concerns do not bear on the question of judicial notice, and Plaintiff cites no case law to the contrary. Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant's request for judicial notice of the MOUs. Motion to Remand Plaintiff brings a single cause of action for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). Notably, the FAC removes allegations of untimely payment of wages during employment under Labor Code Secs. 204, 204b, and 210. In Allmaras I, this Court held that the claim for untimely payment of wages under Labor Code Sec. 204 was the only claim that was preempted under LMRA Sec. 301. Plaintiff argues that, because the Court found that all remaining claims were not preempted under Sec. 301, the Court now lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant argues that the Court has jurisdiction irrespective of whether the FAC includes a claim for untimely payment of wages during employment. It argues that the Court has jurisdiction to enforce the arbitration provisions of the PAGA waiver that the parties are subject to, irrespective of whether Sec. 301 preemption applies. Defendant also argues that the Court has jurisdiction to determine whether a Labor Code exemption applies. It contends that, to the extent Plaintiff's PAGA claim is based on alleged overtime, meal break, and paid sick leave violations, these underlying claims are preempted by Sec. 301. The Court finds that it is Sec. 301 preemption -- not the mere existence of a CBA with arbitration provisions -- that raises a federal question. The Court thus does not have jurisdiction to enforce CBA's arbitration provisions independent of Sec. 301 preemption. Defendant contends that the Labor Code Sec. 2699.6 exemption applies, and thus the PAGA action is preempted under LMRA Sec. 301. The Court finds that the CBA at issue provides "for the employee to receive a regular hourly pay rate of not less than 30 percent more than the state minimum wage rate." The CBA meets all the requirements of the Sec. 2699.6 exemption. Accordingly, Sec. 2699.6 does not apply to Plaintiff, and his right to recover exists solely as a result of the CBA. LMRA Sec. 301 therefore preempts Plaintiff's PAGA claim. Because Plaintiff's PAGA claim is preempted by LMRA Sec. 301, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to remand is denied. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pu1YHq from PacerMonitor.com. UPBOUND GROUP: Tracks Users' Websites Activities, Gabrielli Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN GABRIELLI and JAIME AYALA, individuals, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UPBOUND GROUP, INC.; and RENT-A-CENTER, Case No. 4:25-cv-00631-HSG (N.D. Cal., Jan. 17, 2025) concerns a privacy violation and total breach of consumer trust in violation of the California Invasion Of Privacy Act. According to the complaint, when consumers visit Defendants' websites (rentacenter.com, upbound.com, and acima.com, the Defendants display to them a popup cookie consent banner. The Defendants' cookie banners disclose that the Websites uses cookies but expressly give users the option to control how they are tracked and how their personal data is used. The Defendant's cookie banner discloses that the Websites use cookies but expressly gives users the option to control how they are tracked and how their personal data is used. The Defendant allegedly assures visitors that they can choose to "Reject Advertising Cookies." Like most internet websites, the Defendant designed the Websites to include resources and programming scripts from third parties that enable those parties to place cookies and other similar tracking technologies on visitors' browsers and devices and/or transmit cookies along with user data. However, unlike other websites, Defendant's Websites offers consumers a choice to browse without being tracked, followed, and targeted by third party data brokers and advertisers. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant's promises are outright lies, designed to lull users into a false sense of security. Even after users elect to "Reject Advertising Cookies," the Defendant surreptitiously enables several third parties -- including Google LLC, Meta Platforms, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, Epsilon Data Management, LLC Pinterest, Inc., BlueConic, Inc., and others (the "Third Parties') -- to place and/or transmit cookies that track users' Websites browsing activities and eavesdrop on users' private communications on the Websites. Upbound operates lease-to-own stores. The Company offers products such as furniture and accessories, consumer electronics, and appliances.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Todd Kennedy, Esq. Kali R. Backer, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com todd@gutridesafier.com kali@gutridesafier.com UTAH HIGH SCHOOL: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZACHARY SZYMAKOWSKI, an individual, and JOHANNA A. URIBE, on behalf of FELIPE A. URIBE, a minor, on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of allegedly similarly situated F-1 students, v. UTAH HIGH SCHOOL ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATION, INC., a Utah nonprofit corporation, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00751-RJS-CMR (D. Utah), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending their time to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification until after the Court has adjudicated the Defendants' motion to stay. An extension of time would promote judicial economy because the Court's ruling on the Defendants' motion to stay will determine whether the parties will continue pouring resources into the District Court proceeding, or whether the parties' litigation efforts will be entirely dedicated to the case on appeal. Extending the time for the Defendants to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for class Certification would also prevent the inconsistency of the parties engaging in briefing efforts during the pendency of Defendants' Motion to Stay -- which suspends all other case activity falling within its requested relief. If the Motion to Stay is granted, all further briefing will be stayed. If the Motion to Stay is not granted, the Court can then provide a schedule for the remaining briefing on the pending certification motion. Absent an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the Defendants' memorandum opposing that motion would be due Feb. 18, 2025. Utah High School Activities Association is an organization of 138 high schools in the U.S. state of Utah that sponsor athletic activities. The Defendants include ROBERT CUFF, an individual; MARILYN RICHARDS, an individual; AMBER SHILL, an individual; BURKE STAHELI, an individual; DAVID WARREN, an individual; DAVID LUND, an individual; ZACK MCKEE, an individual; PAUL SWEAT, an individual; LUKE RASMUSSEN, an individual; JERRE HOLMES, an individual; JASON SMITH, an individual; MIKE MEES, an individual; DEVIN SMITH, an individual; BRYAN DURST, an individual; and BRENT STRATE, an individual. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SEMcSA at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: D. Craig Parry, Esq. Chaunceton Bird, Esq. Daniel J. Nelson, Esq. PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS, P.C. 101 South 200 East, Suite 700 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 532-7840 Facsimile: (801) 532-7750 E-mail: cparry@parrbrown.com cbird@parrbrown.com djnelson@parrbrown.com - and - Mark O. Van Wagoner, Esq. 2455 E. Parleys Way, Suite 200 Salt Lake City, UT 84109 Telephone: (801) 328-2200 E-mail: movw@comcast.net UTAH: Jakeman Sues Over Termination of Parental Rights ------------------------------------------------------ DAVID AMMON JAKEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STATE OF UTAH; UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE; ATTORNEY GENERAL DEREK BROWN; UTAH JUDICIAL COUNCIL; GOVERNOR SPENCER J. COX; UTAH STATE SENATE; SENATE PRESIDENT J. STUART ADAMS; UTAH HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; HOUSE SPEAKER MIKE SCHULTZ; COMMISSIONER JESS L. ANDERSON, UTAH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; UTAH ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS; UTAH COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-10 Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00102-DAK (D. Utah, Feb. 11, 2025) seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as any other appropriate relief, to prevent the continued enforcement of these statutory provisions, which unlawfully infringe on the due process and equal protection rights of Plaintiff and the proposed class members. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Utah Code 78B-7-804(3), (4), and (5) violate the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution by allowing for the de facto permanent termination of parental rights without adhering to required constitutional safeguards. The Plaintiff also asserts that even when the prohibitions included in the permanent "continuous protective orders" issued pursuant to these statutes fall short of effecting a de facto termination of parental rights, they nonetheless still violate the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution by allowing for significant and substantial interference with parental rights without complying with required constitutional safeguards. Utah is a state in the western United States. It is one of the Mountain States, sharing the Four Corners region with Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Jakeman, Esq. 57 N Arch More St., Saratoga Springs, UT 84043 Telephone: (509) 306-2673 Email: dajakeman@gmail.com jakemandav@gmail.com VECTRARX MAIL: Failed to Secure Personal Info, Ingegneri Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Adriano Ingegneri, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VectraRX Mail Pharmacy Services, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, Case No. 4:25-cv-00071-RCC (D. Ariz., Feb. 14, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted the Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information and Protected Health Information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed on Feb. 6, 2025. The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. Accordingly, as a result of the Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. The Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information. On Dec. 13, 2024, the Defendant discovered unusual activity on its IT Network. 3 In response, Defendant launched an investigation with the assistance of third-party cybersecurity expert to determine the nature and scope of the incident. The Defendant is a mail-order pharmacy that is headquartered in Oro Valley, Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ty D. Frankel, Esq. Patricia N. Syverson, Esq. FRANKEL SYVERSON PLLC 2375 E. Camelback Road, Suite 600 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Telephone: (602) 598-4000 E-mail: ty@frankelsyverson.com patti@frankelsyverson.com - and - Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. Mark Svensson, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: ek@zlk.com msvensson@zlk.com VECTRARX MAIL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Beatrice Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH BEATRICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VECTRARX MAIL PHARMACY SERVICES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00058-JAS (D. Ariz., Feb. 12, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its customers. According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' personally identifiable information or "PII", from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired by data thieves, says the suit. VectraRx Mail Pharmacy Services LLC operates as a specialized mail-order pharmacy headquartered in Oro Valley, Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 Email: abm@murphylegalfirm.com VENTURE GLOBAL: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Venture Global, Inc. ("Venture" or the "Company") (NYSE: VG) securities via the initial public offering held on or about January 24, 2025 and/or thereafter and traceable thereto. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for the Company's investors under the federal securities laws. The Complaint alleges that Defendants touted the Company's innovative and disruptive approach, which they stated is both scalable and repeatable, allowing the Company to bring liquefied natural gas (LNG) to the global market years faster and at a lower cost. The Complaint alleges that Defendants further discussed the development of Venture's five natural gas liquefaction and export projects near the Gulf of Mexico in Louisiana, utilizing their unique "design one, build many" approach. The Complaint further alleges that therefore, the initial public offering represented to the public that Venture had the customer backing to implement its projects, allowing for the Company to deliver LNG to the world. The Complaint further alleges that contrary to these representations, Venture's business and prospects were called into question when TotalEnergies CEO, Patrick Pouyanne, announced that he had been approached by Venture to determine if TotalEnergies would be interested in a long-term supply contract for liquefied natural gas from the Calcasieu Pass terminal in Louisiana, but had rejected the offer. The Complaint alleges that according to news reports, Mr. Pouyanne stated in pertinent part that: "I don't want to deal with these guys, because of what they are doing . . . I don't want to be in the middle of a dispute with my friends, with Shell and BP." The Complaint further alleges that Mr. Pouyanne also cited a lack of trust with respect to Venture. The Complaint alleges that according to Mr. Pouyanne, "The price of the LNG was so low . . . I said to my colleague, 'How is it possible to pay $1 less than the rest of the market? What is the trick?'" According to the Complaint, Venture is currently facing legal challenges from existing large clients, such as BP and Shell, due to delays in fulfilling supply contracts. The Complaint further alleges that because Defendants' ability to deliver LNG to the world and to continue development of Venture's five natural gas liquefication and export projects depends on customer contracts, such as those mentioned above, Defendants' failure to account for and address these trust and legal challenges caused statements in Venture's public offering documents to be false and/or materially misleading at the time of the initial public offering. According to the Complaint, in response to these news reports, Venture's stock price declined from $19.68 per share on February 5, 2025 to $17.48 per share on February 6, 2025. The Complaint alleges that Venture's stock currently trades at or around $16.00 per share, which is well below its $25.00 per-share initial public offering price. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Venture should contact the Firm prior to the April 18, 2025 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more information about the firm. [GN] VICTORIA: Suit Against Police Over Use of Capsicum Spray Begins --------------------------------------------------------------- Harvey Biggs of ABC News reports that a class action led by a protester who was capsicum sprayed during a 2019 rally has begun before the Supreme Court of Victoria. Lawyers representing protesters have argued the use of the spray was unlawful and excessive. What's next? Lawyers for Victoria Police are set to argue the use of the spray was lawful as the trial continues. Lawyers representing protesters who were capsicum sprayed outside a mining conference in 2019 have told a Victorian court the officers' use of the spray was a "total overreach". Scuffles broke out between officers and demonstrators outside the International Mining and Resources Conference at the Melbourne Exhibition Centre on October 30, 2019. Police used capsicum spray to break up the climate activists as officers tried to arrest two protesters who had scaled poles on the outside of the building. The class action claims the use of capsicum spray was unlawful and excessive, and that protesters were not causing an immediate threat to police officers or the public. In opening the class action for lead plaintiff Jordan Brown, Fiona Forsyth KC told the court her client had suffered physical and psychological harm due to being sprayed in the head during the protest. "He was standing still with his back to police," Ms Forsyth told the court. "He wasn't engaging aggressively with anyone, he wasn't posing a threat to anyone, he wasn't interfering with any arrest. He was just standing there. "But he was sprayed directly in the head and in the face with a harmful and excruciatingly painful and debilitating substance essentially just to get him to move." Police stepped over the line, lawyer says Ms Forsyth argued the case is an example of police using OC (oleoresin capsicum) spray to disperse a crowd of protesters "just to move them". She said this was "something that is not consistent with any of the police's own policies and manual, and is not justified in the law". Lawyers for Victoria Police argued the use of spray was lawful, and that Mr Brown was part of a group who hindered police in carrying out arrests. "We will be pointing to the fact that Mr Brown, along with others, to speak colloquially, piled in to that area, locked arms, stayed there, knew what police were doing, and actively resisted their attempts to apprehend the climber" said counsel for the defendant Sam Hay KC. The state argued the use of force was not disproportionate. Outside court, special counsel Grahame Best, who is also representing Mr Brown, said the class action was hoping to show that police committed battery when they sprayed Mr Brown. "You will have heard submissions about police using OC foam to disperse a crowd rather than [using force] proportionate to the threat that they faced, so if he is found to have suffered battery then we are hoping that's part of the finding," he said. The court was played police body worn camera footage of the incident. Lawyers for the plaintiff also detailed the effects OC spray can have on the human body, and Victoria Police's protocols for using it. "The police don't have carte blanche to spray whenever they want to," Ms Forsyth told the court. "There are very clear restrictions and guard rails in Victoria around the use of force under the Crimes Act and under the charter, and they have to be respected and complied with. "This is example of police stepping over that line." The trial continues. [GN] VIVE FINANCIAL: Muse Sues Over Illegal Electronic Fund Transfers ---------------------------------------------------------------- SADE MUSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VIVE FINANCIAL LLC and DOES 1-20, Case No. 2:25-cv-01259 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 13, 2025) is class action complaint brought by the Plaintiff pursuant to the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. In early 2024, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Defendant, whereby Defendant would deduct funds from Plaintiff’s account on a reoccurring basis -- once per month. However, in or around mid-2024, Plaintiff withdrew her authorization for auto-withdrawals. The Plaintiff canceled her auto-withdrawal authorization because Defendant attempted to make multiple, unauthorized withdrawals on a monthly basis, rather than one single monthly withdrawal as Plaintiff previously authorized. The Plaintiff seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendants debiting Plaintiff's and also the putative Class members' bank accounts on a recurring basis without obtaining a written authorization signed or similarly authenticated for preauthorized electronic fund transfers from Plaintiff’s and also the putative Class members' accounts, thereby violating Section 907(a) of the EFTA. Vive was a company engaged in the business of providing financial services to consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21031 Ventura Blvd, Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com WALMART INC: Monge Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Irene Monge, individually‚ on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. WALMART INC., AND DOES 1 TO 50, Case No. CIVRS24030304 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 12, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01232. The Plaintiff purports to bring the State Action on behalf of a putative "Class" as well as a "Recovery Period Subclass," a "Meal Period Subclass," a "Rest Period Subclass," a "Personnel File Subclass," a "Waiting Time Subclass," and a "Quota Subclass."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Tritia M. Murata, Esq. Monica A. Rodriguez, Esq. Allyson D. Bach, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 27th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899 Email: TritiaMurata@dwt.com MonicaRodriguez@dwt.com AllysonBach@dwt.com - and - Melissa C. Rake, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 50 California Street, 23rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 276-6500 Facsimile: (415) 276-6599 Email: MelissaRake@dwt.com WALT DISNEY: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Streaming Monopoly ----------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Jewett of Top Class Actions reports that Cole Unger filed a class action lawsuit against The Walt Disney Co. Why: Unger claims Disney violated federal and state antitrust laws by allegedly suppressing competition in the market for streaming live pay television (SLPTV). Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in the New York federal court. The Walt Disney Co. monopolizes the market for streaming live pay television by suppressing competition, a new class action lawsuit alleges. Plaintiff Cole Unger's class action lawsuit claims Disney uses its ownership of ESPN to extract monopoly rents in the streaming live pay television market through anticompetitive tactics. Unger argues Disney makes streaming services carry its non-ESPN content to access ESPN, which forces the services to include ESPN as part of their cheapest package for consumers, inflating prices by means of most favored nation clauses and providing anticompetitive rebates to affiliated streaming services, such as Disney-owned Hulu. "These anticompetitive tactics restrain competition from rivals to Disney's Hulu in the SLPTV market and force independent streaming services, such as Fubo, to charge higher prices to their customers than they would in a free market," the class action says. Unger wants to represent a nationwide class and state repealer class of consumers who paid for a FuboTV subscription between Jan. 1, 2021, and the present. Disney uses ESPN to 'set a price floor' in streaming market, class action claims Unger argues Disney's carriage agreements with its SLPTV competitors allow the company to use ESPN and Hulu to set a price floor in the streaming market and inflate prices market-wide by raising the prices of its own products. "And this is exactly what Disney has done since it took operational control of Hulu in May of 2019," the Disney class action says. "Disney uses its control over the Relevant Market to drive costs up for competitors like Fubo." Unger claims Disney is guilty of unjust enrichment and violating the Sherman Antitrust Act and various state antitrust laws. The plaintiff demands a jury trial, requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of actual, treble and exemplary damages for himself and all class members. Fubo filed an antitrust lawsuit against Disney, Fox Corp., Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. and their affiliates early last year over claims their announced joint sports streaming venture copied Fubo's idea and blocked the company. The plaintiff is represented by Gregory S. Asciolla, Alexander E. Barnett, Jonathan S. Crevier and John M. Shaw of DiCello Levitt LLP and Joseph J. DePalma, Mindee J. Reuben and Steven J. Greenfogel of Lite DePalma Greenberg & Afanador LLC. The Disney class action lawsuit is Unger, et al. v. The Walt Disney Co., Case No. 1:25-cv-00375, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN] WEDDLE BROS: Funderburk Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Darrin Funderburk, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. WEDDLE BROS. CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00163 (M.D. Tenn., Feb. 12, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendants unpaid overtime wages. The Plaintiff and the collective action members were each paid an hourly wage and were eligible for bonuses based on their attendance and hours of work. Plaintiff and the collective action members were, and continue to be, paid overtime wages when they worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, however, Defendant failed to properly calculate their regular rate of pay when determining overtime wages. Specifically, Defendant failed to include bonus payments in its computation of the regular rate for overtime pay to Plaintiff and the collective action members. As a result, Plaintiff and the collective action members were regularly denied earned overtime wages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a machine operator on the TVA project. Weddle Bros. is a general construction company headquartered in Bloomington, Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Martin D. Holmes, Esq. Autumn L. Gentry, Esq. DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC Fifth Third Center 424 Church Street, Suite 800 Nashville, TN 37219 Phone: (615) 244-6538 Email: mdholmes@dickinsonwright.com agentry@dickinsonwright.com YOUNG'S MARKET: Court Narrows Claims in Bonilla Labor Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as CECILIO BONILLA, Plaintiff, v. YOUNG'S MARKET COMPANY, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-03489-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward Chen of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part the defendants' motion to dismiss as to all claims, except for the claim for PAGA Penalties of unpaid cellphone usage reimbursement under Labor Code Section 2802. The Court compels the plaintiff's remaining individual claim to arbitration and stays the plaintiff's remaining representative pending the resolution of the arbitration. Plaintiff Cecilio Bonilla has been a commercial truck driver since 2012 and is still currently employed by Defendant Young's Market Company, LLC. At all relevant times, Plaintiff has been a member of Teamster Local Union No. 431. Defendants are nationwide wine and spirit distributors. Defendants provide interstate warehousing and transportation services for alcoholic beverage producers. Plaintiff's employment is largely governed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement between Young's Market Company, LLC, d/b/a Republic National Distributing Company of California (including both Defendants), and the Teamster Local Unions including but not limited to No. 431. On April 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Superior Court for the State of California, Alameda County. On June 10, 2024, Defendants removed the case. He alleges multiple labor code violations and that he was not compensated for all minimum wages because Defendants' timekeeping and/or payroll policies and practices resulted in Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees not being compensated for all hours actually worked. Specifically, he alleges that on or about December 2023, Defendants transitioned their payroll management system, which led to Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees not being timely provided with wage statements and/or paychecks, and for some pay periods, they were not provided with any wage statements or paychecks at all. Thus, Plaintiff alleges that he and others worked off-the-clock without compensation. The Complaint contains one cause of action to Violation of Labor Code Secs. 2698, et seq. ("PAGA"). Plaintiff seeks PAGA penalties for: (1) Failure to Pay All Earned Wages; (2) Violating "Labor Code Sec. 423.6;" (3) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (4) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; (5) Failure to Provide Meal Periods or Pay Premiums in Lieu Thereof; (6) Failure to Provide Rest Periods or Pay Premiums in Lieu Thereof; (7) Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements; (8) Failure to Pay Final Wages Timely; (9) Failure to Provide Paid Sick Leave; and (10) Failure to Pay Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA") Section 301 preempts all claims that are based on, or require the interpretation of, a collective bargaining agreement. Defendant argues, and Plaintiffs concede by failing to raise any rebuttal in their Opposition, that the majority of Plaintiff's claims are preempted by the LMRA, and therefore should be dismissed. At the hearing on this Motion, Plaintiff conceded that 8 of their 11 claims were preempted, except for the following three claims: (3) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages, (7) Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements; and (10) Failure to Pay Reimbursements for Cellphone Expenses. The Court agrees that Plaintiff's claims for Labor Code violations for failure to pay overtime wages (Labor Code 510), failure to provide meal periods or pay premiums in lieu thereof (Labor Code 512), failure to provide rest periods or pay premiums in lieu thereof (Labor Code 226.7), failure to pay sick leave (Labor Code 245-246), failure to pay final wages upon termination (Labor Code 201-202), failure to pay wages timely during employment (Labor Code 204), and failure to maintain accurate records (Labor Code 1174), are all preempted by Section 301 and are therefore, dismissed. Additionally, Plaintiff's claim the non-existent "section 423.6" of the Labor Code is also dismissed for failure to state a claim. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0lWKNo from PacerMonitor.com. ZANDER GROUP: Seeks to Suspend Remaining Deadlines in Jones ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM H. "CHIP" JONES, II, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ZANDER GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00687 (M.D. Tenn.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order suspending the remaining deadlines pending resolution of the motion to dismiss and the class certification motion. Accordingly, if the Court grants the instant Motion, the Defendants suggest that the parties submit a joint status report no later than 14 days after both of the Pending Motions have been decided (to the extent that any viable claims remain) in order to propose a new schedule for the remaining case deadlines. The Defendants' counsel has conferred with the Plaintiff's counsel regarding the instant motion, which the Plaintiff opposes. Because the Court's rulings on the Pending Motions necessarily will define the scope of the litigation, the Defendants submit that dispositive motions should not be due until after both of the Pending Motions have been decided, and that fact discovery should remain open in the meantime. This approach will ensure that there is adequate time for Defendants to fully understand and assess the scope of this action and any viable claims that Plaintiff (and potentially the putative class) may have against Defendants, for Defendants to answer the Second Amended Complaint (if necessary), and for Defendants to prepare any dispositive motions (if appropriate). The Defendants' motion to dismiss was fully briefed as of July 12, 2024. The Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion was fully briefed as of Dec. 9, 2024. The current deadline for the Parties to complete all written discovery, depose all fact witnesses, and file all motions related to fact discovery is Feb. 28, 2025 The current deadline for the Parties to file dispositive motions in this matter is March 28, 2025, and the current trial date in this matter is Aug. 26, 2025. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uuo2wI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seamus T. Kelly, Esq. David J. Goldman, Esq. MUSIC CITY LAW, PLLC 1033 Demonbreun Street, Suite 300 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 200-0682 The Defendants are represented by: Lars C. Golumbic, Esq. Sarah M. Adams, Esq. Shaun A. Gates, Esq. Lawrence A. Brett, Esq. GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED 1701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Ste. 1200 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 861-6615 Facsimile: (202) 659-4503 E-mail: lgolumbic@groom.com sadams@groom.com sgates@groom.com lbrett@groom.com - and - Mark E. Stamelos, Esq. FORDHARRISON LLP 150 Third Ave South, Suite 2010 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 574-6700 Facsimile: (615) 574-6701 E-mail: mstamelos@fordharrison.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 ***