/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250226.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, February 26, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 41 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Cassidy Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama 3M COMPANY: Geissler Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Thomas Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 635 REALTY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Bajramaj Suit Claims ALLIED WASTE: Cortes Suit Removed to C.D. California AMERICAN HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Deadline Extended to April 14 APPLE INC: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal ASSURED HEALTH GROUP: Human TCPA Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri AT&T INC: Austin Suit Transferred to D. Montana BACKCHECKED LLC: Peralta Hits Unauthorized Personal Info Access BEAZER HOMES: Fogle Suit Removed to D. South Carolina BECHTEL CORP: Faces Rayburn Suit Over Unpaid Overtime for Riggers BELLINGHAM MARINE: Lopez Suit Removed to E.D. California BONPOINT USA: Hernandez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind BRICKELL LANDINGS: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property BROOKLYN BEDDING: Filing for Class Cert in Phillips Due June 16 CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Lopez Suit Removed to C.D. California CARLETON COLLEGE: Ortiz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CARNEGIE MELLON: Pfingsten Seeks Initial OK of Settlement CENTRUS ENERGY: Continues to Defend McGlone Class Suit in Ohio CLAIRE'S STORES: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hernandez Says CLIENTS ON DEMAND: Davis Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass CLIENTS ON DEMAND: Seeks Leave to File Class Docs Under Seal COMPREHENSIVE ENT: Faces Cano Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Longman Class Action Dismissed CONSTELLATION BRANDS: Faces Securities Class-Action Lawsuit DELAWARE VALLEY: Senior Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store DELOITTE LLP: Sorensen Class Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. E.I. DU PONT: Must File Class Cert Answering Brief by March 7 EXPOSURE IS EVERYTHING: Smith Case Referred to Magistrate Judge FORD MOTOR: Faces Benson Suit Over Defective Vehicle Batteries FRESHWORKS INC: Sundaram Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Class Cert Bid Reply Extended to April 15 GRANITE COUNTY, MT: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to April 7 GUEZ DELI: Faces Soto Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. HEARST TELEVISION: Bid Strike Expert Report in Therrien Tossed HOLIDAY INN: Plaintiffs' Bid to Certify Class Tossed HOME DEPOT: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment v. Mathews ICF TECHNOLOGY: Mondello Seeks to Certify Class Under Florida Law JAXXON LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Product Promotion JOHN HARDY: Young Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store KANSAS CITY: Overcharges Insurance Policyholders, Zanten Suit Says KEURIG DR PEPPER: Faces Class Suit Over Coffee Makers Warranty LAURA'S ORIGINAL: Cabrera Sues Over Protein Cookies' False Ads LG ELECTRONICS: Ranges Have Front-Mounted Knobs, Solari Alleges MATANUSKA-SUSITNA: Class Cert Bid in Land Extended to March 17 MAZDA MOTOR: Settlement in Duffy Get Initial OK MCMURRY UNIVERSITY: Plaintiffs Seek to Suspend Class Cert Deadlines MGP INGREDIENTS: Bronstein Sues Over Misleading Statements MINNESOTA: Settles Tax Forfeiture Class Action for $109-Mil. NASH ENGINEERING: Settlement Approval Hearing Scheduled for April 9 NATIONAL TIRE: Vega Class Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA NESTLE USA: Winfield GIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Ill. NEW GENERATION: Ponce Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA NEWSBANK INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Employee Data Breach NORTHBAY HEALTHCARE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Callen Says NORTHWEST SURGICAL: Fails to Protect Patients' Data, Methvin Says NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES: Stewart Sues Over Deceptive Supplements NVIDIA CORP: Tobias Suit Seeks Prelim. OK of Settlement Deal OCTAGOS HEALTH: Ghuyen Seek to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA OMNOVA NORTH AMERICA: Moncavage Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania OPENDOOR TECHNOLOGIES: Feb 28 Class Cert Bid Filing Sought PAPA STAR: Ruggiero Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA PATTERSON WAREHOUSES: Brimley Seeks OK of Class Notice Facilitation PRODUCE EXPERIENCE: Rodriguez Suit Seeks Minimum Wage Under FLSA R.C. BIGELOW: Newton Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd SAZERAC CO: Koonce Seeks to Certify Class of New York Purchasers SAZERAC CO: Pizzaro Seeks to Certify Class of New York Purchasers SEBASTIAN'S PIZZERIA: Veleva Wins Bid for Conditional Class Cert. SENTRY INSURANCE: Coto Suit Removed to D. New Mexico SENTURE LLC: Roy Class Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA SEYBOTH TEAM: Iudiciani Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid SMART POOL: Underpays Pool Maintenance Specialists, Balmer Says SPOT PET: Faces Tucker Suit Over Blind's Equal Access to Website STOCKTON REGIONAL: Camilosa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SUNSHINE GASOLINE: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property TAIKAI INC: Esteban Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL TAPESTRY INC: Nguyen-Wilhite's Bid for Class Cert Tossed TARGET CORP: Misleads Investors, Class Action Suit Alleges TENNESSEE: Murphy Suit Seeks Declaratory Action & Injunctive Relief TOWNSEND FOODS: Smith Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA TRANS UNION: Saucedo's Bid to Certify Class Tossed TURTLEBOX AUDIO: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Senior Alleges TWITTER INC: Seeks to Impose Sanctions on Schobinger TYSON FOODS: Attorney General Files Motion to Intervene Class Suit U.S. STEEL: Judge Grants Prelim Approval on Class Settlement UNITED NETWORK: Seeks to File Opposition Docs Under Seal UNITED STATES: Bid to Dismiss L.N.P. Class Action Tossed UNIVERSAL LENDERS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Shannon Says UNIVERSAL TELEVISION: Ferguson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. VECTRARX MAIL: Failed to Secure Personal Info, Kessler Says VECTRARX MAIL: Failed to Secure Personal Info, Maynor Says VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Taylor Sues Over Selling Consumer Data WALGREEEN COMPANY: Imposes Illegal Tobacco Surcharges, Roman Claims WASTE RESOURCES: Dao Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WHOLE FOODS: Seeks to Seal Confidential Non-Public Material WILMINGTON TRUST: Parties Must Complete Discovery by Feb. 28 WORLDMARK THE CLUB: Tillis FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California WYOMING MALL: Rolon Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective [^] Class Action Money & Ethics Conference 2024 Attendees ********* 3M COMPANY: Cassidy Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Pete J. Cassidy, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 01-cv-24-904712 was transferred from the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on Feb. 13, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00244-GMB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A Anderson, Esq. Gregory Cade, Esq. Kevin B McKie, Esq. Yahn Eric Olson, esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9206 Email: gary@elglaw.com GregC@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com yolson@elglaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Harlan Irby Prater, IV, Esq. M. Christian King, Esq. William Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN WHITE 400 20th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 581-0714 Fax: (205) 581-0799 Email: hprater@lightfootlaw.com cking@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Geissler Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Michael K. Geissler, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00144 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Feb. 13, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00844-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A Anderson, Esq. Gregory Cade, Esq. Kevin B McKie, Esq. Yahn Eric Olson, esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9206 Email: gary@elglaw.com GregC@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com yolson@elglaw.com 3M COMPANY: Thomas Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Joseph Thomas, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00143 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Feb. 13, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00843-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A Anderson, Esq. Gregory Cade, Esq. Kevin B McKie, Esq. Yahn Eric Olson, esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9206 Email: gary@elglaw.com GregC@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com yolson@elglaw.com 635 REALTY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Bajramaj Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- HASAN BAJRAMAJ and KOSOVARE BAJRAMAJ, Plaintiffs v. 635 REALTY LLC and PALUSH MARKU, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01022 (S.D.N.Y., February 5, 2025) is a class action seeking recovery against Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Articles 6 and 19 of the New York State Labor Law and their supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations. The Plaintiffs were employed as porters, handymen, and superintendents at Defendants' property from 2021 through August 2024. They assert that they were required to work in excess of 40 hours per week, but never received an overtime premium of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for those hours. Moreover, Defendants' breach of these obligations injured Plaintiffs by denying them the right to know the conditions of their compensation, resulting in the underpayment of wages, says the suit. 635 Realty LLC is a real estate agency based in New York City, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul Liggieri Esq. L & D LAW P.C. 11 Broadway, Suite 615 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 374-9786 E-mail: Paul@Ldlawpc.com ALLIED WASTE: Cortes Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sergio Cortes, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALLIED WASTE SERVICES OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV33824 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 13, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01276. The Complaint asserts the following 8 causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum Wage; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Breaks; Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Irene V. Fitzgerald, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 5200 North Palm Avenue, Suite 302 Fresno, CA 93704.2225 Phone: 559.244.7500 Facsimile: 559.244.7525 Email: ifitzgerald@littler.com - and - Heidi E. Hegewald, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101.3577 Phone: 619.232.0441 Facsimile: 619.232.4302 Email: hhegewald@littler.com - and - Jackson A. Zimmerman, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 949.705.3000 Facsimile: 949.724.1201 Email: jzimmerman@littler.com AMERICAN HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Deadline Extended to April 14 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAN ARINATWE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN HEALTH ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 0:24-cv-61678-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of the March 7, 2025, Class Certification motion deadline to April 14, 2025, and for any such further relief this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. The Plaintiff submits that the sought modest enlargement is well justified under the circumstances and will serve the interests of judicial economy. The requested 38 day extension of the March 7, 2025, class certification deadline to April 14, 2025, will allow the parties with adequate time to determine if resolution is viable or if the required path is litigating class certification and arbitration motions. Neither party will be prejudiced by the requested extension. Further, the parties do not anticipate that this requested extension would affect the discovery schedule. On Dec. 10, 2024, the Court granted the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to extend joinder deadline, or, in the Alternative, Schedule a Deadline for Class Certifications. American Health is a provider of clinical laboratory services to long term care in the United States. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sDvUDg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zev Antell, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 E-mail: zev@butlercurwood.com - and - Timothy Coffield, Esq. COFFIELD PLC 106-F Melbourne Park Circle Charlottesville, VA 22901 Telephone: (434) 218-3133 Facsimile: (434) 321-1636 E-mail: tc@coffieldlaw.com - and - Jordan Richards, Esq. Michael Miller, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS – JORDAN RICHARDS PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllsc.com michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Jillian C. Postal, Esq. SAUL EWING LLP 200 E. Las Olas Blvd. Suite 1000 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (305) 428-4500 Facsimile: (305) 374-4744 E-mail: jillian.postal@saul.com Susan.lewis@saul.com APPLE INC: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALASDAIR TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. APPLE INC., a California corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-07495-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its administrative motion to file under seal portions of its opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification and of Exhibits B, C, D, E, F, H, I,1 J, K, and L to the Declaration of Camila A. Tapernoux filed in support of Apple's Opposition. The relief requested by Apple is specific and narrowly tailored to seal information that is protectable as trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. Apple seeks to seal limited references in its Opposition and supporting exhibits that reflect propriety, highly confidential information regarding Apple's software development, troubleshooting, and operation, and regarding Apple's data analytics practices. Apple designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal computers, tablets, wearables, and accessories worldwide. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TqBNzy at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Claudia M. Vetesi, Esq. Alexis A. Amezcua, Esq. Camila A. Tapernoux, Esq. Katie Viggiani, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 E-mail: CVetesi@mofo.com AAmezcua@mofo.com CTapernoux@mofo.com KViggiani@mofo.com ASSURED HEALTH GROUP: Human TCPA Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Daniel A. Human, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Assured Health Group, LLC, Case No. 25SL-CC00388 was removed from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on Feb. 13, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00183-RHH to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Assured Health Group -- https://assuredhealthins.com/ -- is a leading health insurance agency that specializes in helping consumers navigate the complexities of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Matthew D. Guletz, Esq. THOMPSON COBURN LLP - St. Louis One US Bank Plaza, 28th Floor St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 552-6311 Fax: (314) 552-7000 Email: mguletz@thompsoncoburn.com AT&T INC: Austin Suit Transferred to D. Montana ----------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Latosha Austin, Natasha McIntosh, Roscoe Eldridge, Debby Worley, Gilbert Criswell, and others similarly situated v. AT&T Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00272 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana on Feb. 13, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00022-BMM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. AT&T Inc. -- https://www.att.com/ -- is an American multinational telecommunications holding company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shana Khader, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 770-2146 Email: skhader@tzlegal.com - and - Amy Elisabeth Keller, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Ste Eleventh Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 214-7900 Email: akeller@dicellolevitt.com - and - James Devlan Geddes, Esq. GOETZ, GEDDES & GARDNER, P.C. 35 N. Grand P.O. Box 6580 Bozeman, MT 59771 Phone: (406) 587-0618 Email: devlan@goetzlawfirm.com - and - Jason S. Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO AND RATHOD LLP 412 H. St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 Email: jrathod@classlawdc.com - and - John C. Heenan, Esq. HEENAN & COOK 1631 Zimmerman Trail Billings, MT 59102 Phone: (406) 839-9091 Fax: (406) 839-9092 Email: john@lawmontana.com - and - Raphael Graybill, Esq. GRAYBILL LAW FIRM, PC 300 4th Street North Great Falls, MT 59401 Phone: (406) 452-8566 Email: raph@graybilllawfirm.com BACKCHECKED LLC: Peralta Hits Unauthorized Personal Info Access --------------------------------------------------------------- KARLO PERALTA and RAVEN JACKSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BACKCHECKED LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00391-ESW (D. Ariz., February 5, 2025) arises out of the targeted attack and data breach on Defendant's network that resulted in unauthorized access to the highly sensitive data of Plaintiffs and similarly situated customers. The Plaintiffs bring this class action lawsuit to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII that Defendant collected and maintained, and for Defendant's failure to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiffs and other Class Members that their PII had been subject to the unauthorized access of an unknown, unauthorized party. As a result of the data breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a present, heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft for the rest of their lives, says the suit. BackChecked LLC is a background screening platform with its principal place of business in Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One W. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 990-2218 E-mail: cardoso@kolawyers.com BEAZER HOMES: Fogle Suit Removed to D. South Carolina ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Micah J. Fogle, Tiffany N. Fogle, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Beazer Homes LLC also known as: Beazer Homes Corp, Case No. 2025CP0800119 was transferred from the Berkeley County Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Feb. 13, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00830-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Real Property for Property Damage. Beazer Homes USA, Inc. -- https://www.beazer.com/ -- is a home construction company based in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Amanda Morgan Blundy, esq. BLUNDY LAW FIRM 234 Seven Farms Drive, Suite 111-A Charleston, SC 29492 Phone: (843) 867-6050 Email: ablundy@blundylawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: James E Weatherholtz, Esq. WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (CHA) 5 Exchange Street PO Box 999 Charleston, SC 29402 Phone: (843) 722-3400 Fax: (843) 723-7398 Email: james.weatherholtz@wbd-us.com BECHTEL CORP: Faces Rayburn Suit Over Unpaid Overtime for Riggers ----------------------------------------------------------------- HENRY RAYBURN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BECHTEL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00265 (E.D. Va., February 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Rayburn worked for the Defendant as a rigger in Port Arthur, Texas from approximately April 2024 until January 2025. Bechtel Corporation is an engineering, procurement, construction, and project management company headquartered in Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Joseph Goodson, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 3033 Wilson Blvd., Ste. 763 Arlington, VA 22201 Telephone: (202) 919-5952 Facsimile: (202) 919-5952 Email: tjosephgoodson@hkm.com - and - Taylor A. Jones, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 1201 Fannin St., Ste. 202 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (832) 446-9403 Facsimile: (832) 356-2684 Email: tjones@hkm.com BELLINGHAM MARINE: Lopez Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Alberto Lopez, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. BELLINGHAM MARINE INDUSTRIES, INC., a Washington corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CU25-00363 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Solan, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Feb. 13, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00518-JDP. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts the following nine causes of action on behalf of himself and all current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant within the State of California at any time during the period from four years preceding the filing of this Complaint to final judgment: Unpaid Overtime, Unpaid Meal Period Premiums, Unpaid Rest Period Premiums, Unpaid Minimum Wages, Final Wages Not Timely Paid, Inaccurate Wage Statements, Unreimbursed Business Expenses, Violation of the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Violation of California Business & Professions Code and in Violation of California Labor Codes.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Joanna Macmillan, Esq. Eric W. Witt, Esq. Nicolas W. Tomas, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310.909.7775 Fax: 424.465.6630 Email: jmacmillan@constangy.com ewitt@constangy.com ntomas@constangy.com BONPOINT USA: Hernandez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BONPOINT USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00641 (E.D.N.Y., February 5, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, us.bonpoint.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The website also contained a host of broken links, which is a hyperlink to a non-existent or empty webpage. For the visually impaired this is especially paralyzing due to the inability to navigate or otherwise determine where one is on the website once a broken link is encountered, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff now 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. Bonpoint USA, Inc. operates the website that offers children's clothing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com BRICKELL LANDINGS: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ---------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. BRICKELL LANDINGS, LLC; and ABUIN CORP., d/b/a CORAL RESTAURANT, Case No. 1:25-cv-20672-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 13, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property and restaurant and bar business within the commercial property. Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the busines located within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and the business located within the commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff and others similarly situated. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. BRICKELL LANDINGS, LLC, owns, operates, and oversees the Commercial Property, its general parking lot and parking spots specific to the businesses therein, located in Miami Dade County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beverly Virues, Esq. Armando Mejias, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, Fl 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com Secondary Emails: amejias@lawgmp.com jacosta@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com BROOKLYN BEDDING: Filing for Class Cert in Phillips Due June 16 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN PHILLIPS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BROOKLYN BEDDING LLC and NIGHT US LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-03781-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an order granting the Parties' stipulation, and setting the following case schedule through class certification: Event Deadline Night's Responsive Pleading Deadline: Mar. 4, 2025 Fact Discovery Cutoff: June 2, 2025 Motion for Class Certification: June 16, 2025 Opposition(s) to Class Certification: Aug. 4, 2025 Class Certification Reply: Aug. 25, 2025 Class Certification Hearing: Sept. 16, 2025 Brooklyn operates as a home furnishing store. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yRGqB8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Simon Franzini, Esq. Grace Bennett, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: simon@dovel.com grace@dovel.com CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Lopez Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Francisco Lopez, an individual and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. CAPSTONE LOGISTICS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; LARRY MEJIA MACIAS, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2500026 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 13, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-00416. The Plaintiff bases his claims on alleged violations of the California Labor Code. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that Defendants allegedly violated the Labor Code by: failing to pay Plaintiff and other putative class members all wages, including minimum and overtime wages; failing to provide Plaintiff and other putative class members meal periods; failing to provide Plaintiff and other putative class members rest periods; failing to provide Plaintiff and other putative class members recovery periods; failing to pay Plaintiff and other putative class members waiting time penalties; for failing to produce accurate wage statements; for violating California's quota laws; and for unfair competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq. Jennifer A. Riley, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3700 Chicago, IL 60603-3433 Phone: +1 312 499 6700 Fax: +1 312 499 6701 Email: gmaatman@duanemorris.com jariley@duanemorris.com - and - Nick Baltaxe, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5450 Phone: +1 213 689 7400 Fax: +1 213 403 6511 Email: nbaltaxe@duanemorris.com CARLETON COLLEGE: Ortiz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ JOSEPH ORTIZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARLETON COLLEGE, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00117 (W.D.N.Y., February 5, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.carleton.edu/, 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 and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, prohibiting discrimination against the blind. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on January 15, 2025, in an attempt to purchase the Mens Champion gl Carleton College Replen Powerblend Hood, from Defendant, and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping and recreational experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, the 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 Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Carleton College operates the website that provides information about its athletics, sports teams, schedule of team games, roster of team participants, game statistics, team news, purchasing admission tickets for team sporting events, viewing videos of team sporting events, website terms and conditions, and the sale of online retail goods like college and team merchandise.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal CARNEGIE MELLON: Pfingsten Seeks Initial OK of Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABIGALE PFINGSTEN and ANOKHY DESAI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00716-RJC (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an Order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23: (1) Preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement on behalf of the Settlement Class Members according to the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement; (2) Provisionally certifying, for purposes of the Settlement only, the following Settlement Class: "All students who were assessed tuition and/or fees to attend at least one in-person course(s) during the Spring 2020 semester at CMU but had their course(s) moved to remote learning." (3) Preliminarily appointing Named Plaintiffs Abigale Pfingsten and Anokhy Desai as Settlement Class Representatives; (4) Preliminarily appointing Gary F. Lynch and Nicholas A. Colella of Lynch Carpenter, LLP, and Philip L. Fraietta of Bursor & Fisher, P.A. as Class Counsel to act on behalf of the Settlement Class and the Settlement Class Representative with respect to the Settlement; (5) Approving the Parties’ proposed settlement procedure, including approving the Parties’ selection of RG/2 Claims Administration LLC as Settlement Administrator and approving the Parties' proposed schedule; and (7) Granting such other and further relief as may be just and appropriate. Carnegie is a private research university in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eqO6lZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: Gary@lcllp.com NickC@lcllp.com - and - Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com CENTRUS ENERGY: Continues to Defend McGlone Class Suit in Ohio -------------------------------------------------------------- Centrus Energy 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 McGlone class suit in the United States District Court in the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. On May 26, 2019, the Company, Enrichment Corp., and six other DOE contractors who have operated facilities at the Portsmouth GDP (including, in the case of the Company, the American Centrifuge Plant site located on the premises) were named as defendants in a class action complaint filed by Ursula McGlone, Jason McGlone, Julia Dunham, and K.D. and C.D., minor children by and through their parent and natural guardian Julia Dunham (collectively, the "McGlone Plaintiffs") in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The complaint seeks damages for alleged off-site contamination allegedly resulting from activities on the Portsmouth GDP site. The McGlone Plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of (i) all current or former residents within a seven-mile radius of the Portsmouth GDP site and (ii) all students and their parents at the Zahn’s Corner Middle School from 1993-present. The complaint was amended on December 10, 2019 and on January 10, 2020 to add additional plaintiffs and new claims. On July 31, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the case. The court dismissed ten of the fifteen claims and allowed the remaining claims to proceed to the next stage of the litigation process. On August 18, 2020, the McGlone Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint and notice of dismissal of three of the individual plaintiffs. On March 18, 2021, the McGlone Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint to add new plaintiffs and allegations. On March 19, 2021, the court granted the McGlone Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint to include Price-Anderson Act and eight other state law claims. On May 24, 2021, the Company, Enrichment Corp., and the other defendants filed their motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 31, 2022, the court granted the Company's motion in part by dismissing claims brought on behalf of the minor children but allowed the other claims to proceed. As such, the discovery stage of litigation is continuing. On April 28, 2022, the Company, Enrichment Corp., and the other defendants filed their answer to the fourth amended complaint. The Company believes that its operations at the Portsmouth GDP site were fully in compliance with the NRC's regulations. Further, the Company and Enrichment Corp. believe that any such liability should be indemnified under the Price-Anderson Act. The Company and Enrichment Corp. have provided notifications to DOE required to invoke indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act and other contractual provisions. Centrus Energy Corp. (www.centrusenergy.com) supplies nuclear fuel for use in nuclear power plants and works to develop and deploy advanced centrifuge technology to produce enriched uranium for commercial and government uses, including for national security. CLAIRE'S STORES: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hernandez Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLAIRE'S STORES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00637 (E.D.N.Y., February 5, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.claires.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The website also contained a host of broken links, which is a hyperlink to a non-existent or empty webpage. For the visually impaired this is especially paralyzing due to the inability to navigate or otherwise determine where one is on the website once a broken link is encountered, says the suit. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Claire's Stores, Inc. is an American retailer of accessories, jewelry, and toys primarily aimed toward tween and teen girls. The company owns and operates the website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com CLIENTS ON DEMAND: Davis Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENDRICK DAVIS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CLIENTS ON DEMAND, LLC, and RUSSELL RUFFINO, Case No. 2:23-cv-10541-MWC-SSC (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on May 2, 2025, will move the Court for certification of the following proposed class and subclass: Class: "All natural persons in the United States who, within the applicable statute of limitations period until the date notice is disseminated, purchased an eight-week program from Clients on Demand and who have not received a full refund of their purchase price." Voidable SAMP Contract Subclass: "All members of the Class who purchased an eight-week program from Clients on Demand within one year before the filing of this Class Action Complaint until the date notice is disseminated." Clients on Demand is a sales and marketing education and training company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WCFdg7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: A. Lorraine Weekes, Esq. Kevin Kneupper, Esq. A. Cyclone Covey, Esq. KNEUPPER & COVEY, PC 17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Telephone: (512) 420-8407 E-mail: lorraine@kneuppercovey.com kevin@kneuppercovey.com cyclone@kneuppercovey.com CLIENTS ON DEMAND: Seeks Leave to File Class Docs Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENDRICK DAVIS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CLIENTS ON DEMAND, LLC, and RUSSELL RUFFINO Case No. 2:23-cv-10541-MWC-SSC (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiff's application for leave to file under seal: The Plaintiff Kendrick Davis, by and through his undersigned counsel, applies to this Court, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 79-5.2.2(b), to either (1) allow the Plaintiff to file the documents identified below under seal in support of his motion for class certification; or (2) alternatively and preferably, for relief from the requirements of the Protective Order such that these documents may be filed publicly. As Judge Christensen stated when she entered the protective order: There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. The Plaintiff requests that the Court deny the instant application and instead grant Plaintiff relief from the Protective Order to file unsealed versions of the Subject Materials, i.e., (1) An unredacted version of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification; and (2) Exhibits 1, 5, and 7 to the declaration of A. Lorraine Weekes in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification. The parties agreed on a Stipulated Protective Order entered by this Court on June 25, 2024, which governs this action. Pursuant to the Order, the Defendants have designated certain information and documents produced during discovery as "CONFIDENTIAL." Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification includes reference to and quotation of information obtained from documents that the Defendants have designated as "CONFIDENTIAL." The Plaintiff does not believe that any of the materials at issue should have been designated as confidential in the first place because they do not truly protect confidential information and do not reflect business or trade secrets or any other categories of information for which "good cause" for sealing exists. Instead, the Defendants here have engaged in a common and highly inappropriate practice, which is to designate every single page of their document productions as confidential under the protective order. Included among those documents Defendants designated confidential are the Exhibits 1, 5, and 7 to the Declaration of A. Lorraine Weekes. Clients on Demand is a sales and marketing education and training company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XdgjHw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: A. Lorraine Weekes, Esq. Kevin Kneupper, Esq. A. Cyclone Covey, Esq. KNEUPPER & COVEY, PC 17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Telephone: (512) 420-8407 E-mail: lorraine@kneuppercovey.com kevin@kneuppercovey.com cyclone@kneuppercovey.com COMPREHENSIVE ENT: Faces Cano Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- Louis Cano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Comprehensive ENT Center of Texas PA, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00166-ADA (W.D. Tex., February 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information and protected health information of approximately 50,000 individuals. Between March 15 and March 28, 2024, the Defendant's computer networks were accessed by an unauthorized third-party and the private information of Plaintiffs and Class Members was compromised. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information -- which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure -- was compromised due to the data breach, says the suit. As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, the suit alleges. Comprehensive ENT Center of Texas PA is a plastic surgeon and ENT specialist.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Tanner R. Hilton, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 4131 North Central Expressway, Suite 900 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (800) 237-1277 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com trh@federmanlaw.com CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Longman Class Action Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Thomas C. Longman, on July 31, 2024, filed a Verified Class Action Complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and the members of the board of directors of the Company, captioned Longman v. Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc, et al., CA. No. 2024-0811-NAC. In the Action, Plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 15, 2023, by and among Condor Holdings LLG a Delaware limited liability company, Condor Merger Sub Inc., a Delaware corporation, and the Company was not approved in accordance with 8 Del. C. Sec. 251 under the reasoning of the Court of Chancery's decision in Sjunde AP-Fonden v. Activision Blizzard, Inc. While the Company and the Board deny all of the allegations of wrongdoing in the Complaint and believe that the Board's adoption of the Merger Agreement complied with Delaware law, on December 20, 2024, in order to eliminate any potential uncertainty and ambiguity created by the Complaint and the Activision decision, pursuant to Sections 204 and 147 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, the Board approved and adopted resolutions ratifying its approval of the Merger Agreement and the Company's entry into the Merger Agreement. On December 27, 2024, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, providing statutory notice of the ratification pursuant, to Section 204. The Form 8-K and accompanying notice are publicly available and are incorporated herein by reference. As a result of the Mooting Resolutions, Plaintiff agreed that the Action is moot. On February 3, 2025, the Court entered a Stipulation and Order providing that the Action would be dismissed with prejudice only as to Plaintiff. The Company has agreed to pay $160,000 in fees and expenses to Plaintiff's counsel. The Court has not passed on the amount of fees and expenses to.be paid to Plaintiff's counsel. Plaintiff's counsel are Lynda Grant of the Grant Law Firm PLLC, (212) 292-4441 and Howard Longman of Longman Law, P.C., (973) 994-2315. The Company's counsel are Kristin Murphy of Latham & Watkins LLP, (714) 540-1235, and Ryan Stottmann of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, (302) 351-9430. CONSTELLATION BRANDS: Faces Securities Class-Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Andrea Deckert, writing for Rochester Business Journal, Constellation Brands is facing a federal securities class-action lawsuit from an investor who alleges the company misled investors about the growth in its Wine and Spirits division. Plaintiff Macaria Meza -- who is represented by NYC law firm Levi & Korsinsky LLP -- filed the lawsuit against the Rochester-based company, CEO Bill Newlands and CFO Garth Hankinson Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. The proposed class includes investors who purchased shares of Constellation between April 11, 2024 and Jan. 8. According to the complaint, defendants provided investors with material information concerning Constellation's full year 2024 fiscal results and financial outlook for 2025, which was based in material part on the defendants' enhanced focus on improving mix, inventory and sales execution in its Wine and Spirits business, specifically focusing efforts within its premium and above brands to drive more consistent growth. This caused the plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Constellation's securities at artificially inflated prices, the complaint contends. Additionally, defendants made investments in media spend and price promotions as well as adjustments in sales capabilities to support distributor partners. The plaintiff, who brought the action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated investors, seeks to recover losses sustained in connection with defendants' fraud, according to the complaint. A Constellation Brands' spokesperson said the company does not comment on pending litigation or lawsuits. [GN] DELAWARE VALLEY: Senior Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ----------------------------------------------------------------- MILAGROS SENIOR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DELAWARE VALLEY UNIVERSITY INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01242 (S.D.N.Y., February 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, the New York General Business Law, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://delval.edu/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: lack of alternative text, empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Delaware Valley University Inc. is a private university that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal DELOITTE LLP: Sorensen Class Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled MATTHEW SORENSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DELOITTE LLP, DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV00369, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on February 12, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01223 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged practice of intercepting and transmitting website visitors' data to third parties without consent in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and California Unfair Competition Law. Deloitte LLP is a professional services company headquartered in New York. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Wynter L. Deagle, Esq. Anne-Marie D. Dao, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 12275 El Camino Real, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 720-8900 Facsimile: (858) 509-3691 Email: wdeagle@sheppardmullin.com adao@sheppardmullin.com - and - Samuel Z. Hyams-Millard, Esq. Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 434-9100 Facsimile: (415) 434-3947 Email: shyams-millard@sheppardmullin.com E.I. DU PONT: Must File Class Cert Answering Brief by March 7 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Banks, et al., v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01672 (D. Del., Filed Sept. 6, 2019), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Hall entered an order granting in part the Defendants' emergency motion for extension of time to file their class certification opposition. -- The Defendants' answering brief on the motion for class certification shall be due on or before March 7, 2025. -- The Plaintiffs' reply brief shall be due on or before May 2, 2025. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Product Liability. DuPont is an American multinational chemical company first formed in 1802 by French-American chemist and industrialist Eleuthere Irenee du Pont de Nemours.[CC] EXPOSURE IS EVERYTHING: Smith Case Referred to Magistrate Judge --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JODY SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EXPOSURE IS EVERYTHING LLC d/b/a Fluent, Case No. 1:25-cv-00425-RA-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ronnie Abrams entered an order referring case to Magistrate Parker for the following purpose: General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non- dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement) Specific Non-Dispositive Motion/Dispute: Class certification (if any) A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VugH4v at no extra charge.[CC] FORD MOTOR: Faces Benson Suit Over Defective Vehicle Batteries -------------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD BENSON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY & CAMEL GROUP (USA) BATTERY, INC. and related corporate entities, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00627 (E.D. Pa., February 5, 2025) seeks to remedy various violations in connection with Defendants' manufacturing, marketing, advertising, selling, warranting, and servicing of the Class Vehicles and Class Batteries under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. According to the complaint, the Class Vehicles have malfunctions regarding their batteries. Specifically, the defective 12-volt batteries (manufactured by Camel Group Battery of China), have an internal weld and cast-on-strap (COS) susceptible to failure which could cause sudden power loss and stalling. The Plaintiff has never been informed of any recalls or defects related to his vehicle's battery by anyone affiliated with Ford and has heard of the battery defects on social media and in the news, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons who purchased: 1) 2021-2023 Ford Bronco Sport; or 2) 2022-2023 Ford Maverick equipped with a 12-volt battery powered by Camel Group Battery. Ford Motor Company designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, services, repairs, sells, and leases vehicles, including the Class Vehicles, nationwide. Ford Motor Company is the warrantor and distributor of the Class Vehicles in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart A. Carpey, Esq. CARPEY LAW, P.C. 600 W. Germantown Pike, Suite 400 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 Telephone: (610) 834-6030 E-mail: scarpey@carpeylaw.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com FRESHWORKS INC: Sundaram Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOHAN R. SUNDARAM, v. FRESHWORKS INC., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-06750-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will ask the Court on July 18, 2025: (i) certifying pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure a Class of: "all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of Freshworks Inc. pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with Freshworks' initial public offering (the "IPO" or the "Offering"), and who were damaged thereby"; (ii) appointing Lead Plaintiff Mohan R. Sundaram as Class Representative; and (iii) appointing Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP as Class Counsel. The Plaintiff Sundaram purchased 1,000 shares of Freshworks' common stock in the IPO on Sept. 23, 2021. Freshworks is a "software as a service" ("SaaS") company that offers businesses cloud-based marketing, sales, support, and information technology solutions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4lS363 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: William C. Fredericks, Esq. Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq. Mandeep S. Minhas, Esq. John T. Jasnoch, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 233-6444 E-mail: wfredericks@scott-scott.com tlaughlin@scott-scott.com mminhas@scott-scott.com jjasnoch@scott-scott.com - and - Brian J. Schall, Esq. SCHALL LAW FIRM 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 301-3335 E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Class Cert Bid Reply Extended to April 15 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DeCostanzo v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-04869 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 29, 2021), the Hon. Judge Nusrat Jahan Choudhury entered a scheduling order: -- The deadline for the parties to file their respective replies in support of Plaintiff's motion for class certification and Defendants' motion for summary judgment is extended to April 15, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. GSK plc is a British multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology company with headquarters in London.[CC] GRANITE COUNTY, MT: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to April 7 ------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Kathleen DeSoto entered an order granting the Plaintiffs unopposed motion to extend the class certification motion deadline as follows: Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: April 7, 2025 Defendant's response regarding class May 7, 2025 certification: Plaintiffs' reply regarding class May 21, 2025 certification: All other deadlines in the Scheduling Order remain unchanged. Granite is a rural natural-resource supported county in central Western Montana. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XduvFe at no extra charge.[CC] GUEZ DELI: Faces Soto Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------- FRANCY SOTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GUEZ DELI GROCERY CORP. (D/B/A LR80 DELI GROCERY), LUIS RODRIGUEZ, and BENJAMIN RODRIGUEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01243 (S.D.N.Y., February 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay proper minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide accurate wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Soto was employed by the Defendants at LR80 Deli Grocery from approximately October 1, 2012, until on or about January 6, 2025. Guez Deli Grocery Corp. is the owner and operator of a deli called LR80 Deli Grocery, located at 80 W. Kings Bridge Road, Bronx, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 HEARST TELEVISION: Bid Strike Expert Report in Therrien Tossed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES THERRIEN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HEARST TELEVISION, INC. Case No. 1:23-cv-10998-RGS (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Richard Stearns entered an order: -- denying Hearst's motion to strike the expert report and testimony of Dr. Vallina-Rodriguez and Therrien's motion for class certification; and -- allowing Hearst's motion to strike the expert report of Dr. Polakis. To the extent Dr. Vallina-Rodriguez's opinions constitute legal conclusions or are based on insufficient anecdotal evidence, they may be subject to a proper motion in limine or appropriate objection at trial. On this record and at this stage of the case, the court denies the motion to strike the report and testimony of Dr. Vallina-Rodriguez. Therrien proposes a class defined as follows: "All persons in the United States that (i) downloaded one of the Class Apps onto their mobile phone, (ii) enabled location permissions for the Class App for at least 250 sessions over a period of at least one month, and (iii) watched at least ten (10) videos between May 5, 2021, and April 16, 2024 (the "Class Period"). The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant unlawfully disclosed his personally identifiable information -- including a record of every video he had viewed on Hearst's Apps -- to two third parties, Braze and Google, in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). HTV local news and weather programming in 28 local markets and offers station-specific mobile phone Apps for Android and iOS. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kPl4ub at no extra charge.[CC] HOLIDAY INN: Plaintiffs' Bid to Certify Class Tossed ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELIQUE L. LINGARD and SUDARIEN D. SMITH, v. HOLIDAY INN CLUB VACATIONS, INC. and WILSON RESORT FINANCE, LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-00323-JSS-RMN (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Julie Sneed entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion in limine to exclude the expert report and testimony of Paul Habibi is denied. 2. The Defendants' motion to exclude the opinions of the Plaintiffs' proposed expert Christopher Young is granted. 3. The Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is denied. On or before March 14, 2025, the Plaintiffs shall file a third amended complaint which omits class action allegations. Therefore, a class action is not a superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy because military servicemembers like Plaintiffs who seek to void their timeshare contracts may bring individual actions. Plaintiffs bring this proposed consumer class action on behalf of themselves and other military servicemembers who are similarly situated against Defendants for alleged violations of the Military Lending Act (MLA). The Plaintiffs and the proposed class members purchased timeshare interests from Defendants. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3), Plaintiffs move to certify the following class and subclass: MLA Class: "All persons who have entered into Timeshare Purchase Agreements to purchase one or more timeshare interests in the Orange Lake Revocable Trust, in substantially the same form as Exhibit C, after Feb. 24, 2018[,] and who were identified as an active duty servicemember or a dependent within a [Department of Defense (DoD)] Man[p]ower database on the contract date." Default Subclass: "All members of the MLA Class whose accounts are or were delinquent as evidenced by [Holiday Inn Club Vacations (HICV)] imposing a "use restriction" on their timeshare interest for nonpayment." Holiday is in the business of selling timeshare plans to consumers throughout the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=04DyAP at no extra charge.[CC] HOME DEPOT: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment v. Mathews ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARIN MATHEWS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., v. HOME DEPOT USA, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-02605-ELR (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Eleanor Ross entered an order granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court dismisses as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, the Defendant's motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of Jason Wells, and the Defendant's motion to substitute expert witness. The Court directs the Clerk to enter judgment for the Defendant and terminate this case. The Defendant is entitled to summary judgment because there is no genuine dispute of material fact that Plaintiffs waived their claims under the Agreement by failing to provide written notice. Thus, because the Plaintiffs failed to notify the Defendant in writing of their disputed credit card charges within 25 days of receiving their final invoices, they have "irrevocably waived" their "right[s] to dispute such amounts." Therefore, the Plaintiffs' claims are barred as a matter of law, the Court says. The Plaintiffs Darin Mathews and Ronald Reeves bring this putative class action against the Defendant, alleging breach of contract claims on behalf of individuals who rented tools from the Defendant pursuant to a "form" contract that is "materially identical" in the Defendant's stores throughout the United States. Home Depot operates home improvement retail stores. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rvvdBq at no extra charge.[CC] ICF TECHNOLOGY: Mondello Seeks to Certify Class Under Florida Law ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER MONDELLO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ICF TECHNOLOGY, INC., ACCRETIVE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC., Case No. 8:24-cv-01037-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- certifying the following class brought under Florida law: "All persons who, at any time from April 30, 2019 continuing through entry of judgment in this case, worked as Performers for ICF Technology, Inc. and/or Accretive Technology Group, Inc. in Florida"; and -- appointing Charles J. Kocher, Esq. of McOmber McOmber & Luber, P.C. as Class Counsel. The Plaintiff and the Class Members perform on a live adult chat website platform called Streamate, which is operated by the Defendants and offers its member-customers free chat rooms and paid chat rooms with the Performers. The Defendants allegedly misclassify the Performers as independent contractors. Because they are actually employees, the Defendants violated the Florida Minimum Wage Act ("FMWA") and the Florida Constitution by failing to pay its Performers, including the Plaintiff and the Class Members, wages for time working in the "free chat," where Streamate member-customers enter a Performer's chat room, chat and see their stream. Additionally, the Defendants violated 29 U.S.C. section 203(m)(2)(B) and Section 24(b) of Article X of the Constitution of Florida by retaining tips belonging to the Performers, including the Plaintiff and the Class Members. Tips are the sole property of the employee but most of the tips were withheld here on a class-wide basis. ICF is a streaming and processing service provider. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YquTdz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephanie A. Casey, Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A. 255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 476-7400 Facsimile: (305) 476-7444 E-mail: scasey@colson.com - and - Charles J. Kocher, Esq. Tyler J. Burrell, Esq. Gaetano J. DiPersia, Esq. MCOMBER MCOMBER & LUBER, P.C. 50 Lake Center Drive, Suite 400 Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone: (856) 985-9800 E-mail: cjk@njlegal.com tjb@njlegal.com gjd@njlegal.com JAXXON LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Product Promotion ------------------------------------------------------------- ALIN POP, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. JAXXON, LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-00311 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 17, 2025) is a nationwide class action seeking monetary damages, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief from the Defendant for illegally promoting JAXXON products on social media using undisclosed paid endorsements from various influencers. The action is arising from the deceptive, unfair and misleading promotion of JAXXON products throughout the United States via social media platforms like Instagram. During the Class Period, many influencers misrepresented the material connection they have with JAXXON by promoting, endorsing, and recommending JAXXON products without disclosing the fact that they were paid to do it, a practice that is highly unfair and deceptive. In order to artificially inflate the prices for the JAXXON products, JAXXON devised a scheme in which carefully selected influencers will endorse the JAXXON products, by tagging or recommending them, while pretending they are disinterested consumers. While having large audiences, the influencers involved are not known to a significant portion of the viewing public, none of them having over 10 million followers, says the suit. Among the influencers deceptively promoting and endorsing JAXXON are: Alexis Reynoso, Emily Sears, Emily Tanner, Georgina Mazzeo, Kaylyn Slevin, Madisynn Whisler, Mariana Morais, Natalia Barulich, Nicole Cruz, Pauline Jackson, Sammy Draper, Sofia Baverly, Taylor Gallo, and others. JAXXON products are sold online, with most of their customers being social media users exposed to undisclosed endorsements and misleading advertising.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William M. Aron, Esq. ARON LAW FIRM 15 West Carrillo Street, Suite 217 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 618-1768 E-mail: bill@aronlawfirm.com - and - Keith L. Gibson, Esq. KEITH GIBSON LAW, P.C. 586 Duane Street, Suite 102 Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Telephone: (630) 677-6745 E-mail: keith@keithgibsonlaw.com - and - Bogdan Enica, Esq. KEITH GIBSON LAW, P.C. 1200 N Federal Hwy, Ste.300 Boca Raton FL 33432 Telephone: (305) 306-4989 E-mail: bogdan@keithgibsonlaw.com JOHN HARDY: Young Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store ---------------------------------------------------------------- LESHAWN YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHN HARDY USA INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01269 (S.D.N.Y., February 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://johnhardy.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: lack of alternative text, empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. John Hardy USA Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal KANSAS CITY: Overcharges Insurance Policyholders, Zanten Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ PETER M. VAN ZANTEN and DWAIN E. VITTETOE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KANSAS CITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00095-JAM (W.D. Mo., February 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract and conversion. According to the complaint, the Defendant breached the written provisions of its life insurance policies by deducting charges from the Plaintiffs' cash value accounts in excess of the amounts specifically permitted by the policies. The Defendant has caused material harm to the Plaintiffs and the proposed Class and Subclasses by improperly draining monies they have accumulated in the cash value accounts under their policies, says the suit. Kansas City Life Insurance Company is an insurance firm, with its principal place of business in Kansas City, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick J. Stueve, Esq. Bradley T. Wilders, Esq. Lindsay Todd Perkins, Esq. Ethan M. Lange, Esq. David A. Hickey, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 Email: stueve@stuevesiegel.com wilders@stuevesiegel.com perkins@stuevesiegel.com lange@stuevesiegel.com hickey@stuevesiegel.com - and - John J. Schirger, Esq. Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq. SCHIRGER FEIERABEND, LLC 4520 Main Street, Suite 1570 Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 561-6500 Facsimile: (816) 561-6501 Email: schirger@SFlawyers.com feierabend@SFlawyers.com KEURIG DR PEPPER: Faces Class Suit Over Coffee Makers Warranty -------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Jewett of ClassAction.org reports that a group of consumers filed a class action lawsuit against Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. and Keurig Green Mountain Inc. Why: The group argues Keurig shortened the warranty period on its coffee makers by starting it on the date of purchase instead of the date of delivery, as required by California law. Where: The Keurig warranties class action lawsuit was filed in a California federal court. Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. and Keurig Green Mountain Inc. have been shortchanging consumers by starting the warranty period on their coffee makers on the date of purchase instead of the date of delivery, a new class action lawsuit alleges. A group of consumers claims Keurig is depriving consumers of the warranty's full benefit, especially for online shoppers who typically receive their goods after the date of purchase. "This strategic decision short-changes consumers the full length and value of their warranties as permitted by law," the Keurig class action says. The consumers want to represent a California class of those who purchased one or more Keurig products between July 1, 2023, and the date of the class action certification, where product(s) were delivered after the date of purchase. Keurig warranties deprive consumers of full benefit of warranty, class action says The consumers argue Keurig's actions save the company the added time and expense required to properly track and administer warranties from the date of delivery. "Furthermore, this decision creates a chilling effect which prevents consumers who would otherwise have valid warranty claims from pursuing them. As a result, Defendants benefit from fewer warranty claims," the Keurig warranties class action says. The group claims Keurig is guilty of violating California's Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiffs demand a jury trial and request declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of actual and punitive damages for themselves and all class members. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission fined Keurig $1.5 million last year and ordered the company not to file inaccurate information in its annual reports to the agency, after accusing Keurig of making misleading statements about the recyclability of its K-Cup coffee and tea pods. Have you purchased a Keurig product and have questions concerning the warranty? Let us know in the comments! The plaintiffs are represented by Ryan L. McBride and Jonathan Gil of Kazerouni Law Group APC and Adib Assassi and Veronica Cruz of Assassi & Cruz Law Firm PC. The Keurig class action lawsuit is Itzhak, et al. v. Keurig Dr Pepper Inc., et al., Case No. 8:25-cv-00235, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] LAURA'S ORIGINAL: Cabrera Sues Over Protein Cookies' False Ads -------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN A. CABRERA, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAURA'S ORIGINAL BOSTON BROWNIES, INC. dba BHU FOODS, a California corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00262-BEN-VET (S.D. Cal., February 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, and violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The complaint alleges that Protein Cookies, double dark chocolate and chocolate chip flavors, which are manufactured, packaged, labeled, advertised, distributed, and sold by Defendant, are misbranded and falsely advertised because they feature deceptive protein claims on the front label and misrepresent the percent of Recommended Daily Value of protein contained in each serving. Consumers such as Plaintiff who viewed the Products' labels reasonably understood the Products to contain 11 or 12 grams of fully bioavailable, high-quality protein, comprising 22 or 24 percent of the Recommended Daily Value of protein. The Plaintiff claims that the representation was false. He further asserts that he suffered economic injury by Defendant's fraudulent and deceptive conduct. Laura's Original Boston Brownies, Inc., dba Bhu Foods, is a California corporation with its principal place of business in San Diego.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles C. Weller, Esq. CHARLES C. WELLER, APC 11412 Corley Court San Diego, CA 92126 Telephone: (858) 414-7465 Facsimile: (858) 300-5137 LG ELECTRONICS: Ranges Have Front-Mounted Knobs, Solari Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- ANGEL SOLARI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LG ELECTRONICS USA INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01300 (D.N.J., Feb. 17, 2025) arises from the Defendant's breach of its duties and warranties. The Plaintiff contends that when a manufacturer sells a product, it has a duty to ensure that the product functions properly and safely for its advertised use and is free from defects. When a manufacturer discovers a defect, it must explicitly disclose the defect and make it right or cease selling the product. When a product manufacturer provides a warranty, it must stand by that warranty, but the Defendant failed to do so. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself, and all other similarly situated persons who purchased any of the following models of LG Slide-In Ranges and Freestanding Ranges sold from 2015 through January 2025 for between $1,400 and $2,650.1 ("Recalled Ranges"). The action is brought to remedy various violations of law in connection with Defendant’s manufacturing, marketing, advertising, selling, and warranting of the Recalled Ranges. Specifically, the front-mounted knobs on the recalled ranges can be activated by accidental contact by humans or pets, posing a fire hazard2 ("the Defect"). On Feb. 6, 2025, LG recalled about 500,000 ranges of the above referenced Recalled Ranges. The Defendant designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, services, repairs, and sells Ranges, including the Recalled Ranges, nationwide. The Defendant is the warrantor and distributor of the Recalled Ranges in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Furia, Esq. Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: 803-222-2222 Facsimile: 843-494-5536 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com MATANUSKA-SUSITNA: Class Cert Bid in Land Extended to March 17 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Land, et al., v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00272 (D. Ala., Dec. 4, 2023), the Hon. Judge Sharon L. Gleason entered an order granting the unopposed motion for extension of time: -- The deadline for a motion for class certification on behalf of the Parent Subclass is extended to March 17, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Rehabilitation Act. The Defendant is a school district based in the city of Palmer, Alaska. It serves 40 schools across Mat-Su Borough.[CC] MAZDA MOTOR: Settlement in Duffy Get Initial OK ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATHERINE DUFFY, ET AL. v. MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. Case No. 3:24-cv-00388-BJB-CHL (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Benjamin Beaton entered an order that: -- The Court finds on a preliminary basis under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that the settlement memorialized in the "Settlement Agreement" is fair, reasonable, and adequate. -- The Court has considered the pleadings and arguments made by Plaintiffs in support of the motion for preliminary approval and finds that the proposed Settlement Class described in the Settlement Agreement is proper and should be provisionally certified for settlement purposes. Solely for the purposes of the proposed Settlement, the following Settlement Class is hereby provisionally certified pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "All residents of the continental United States, Hawaii, Alaska, and all United States territories who currently own or lease, or previously owned or leased, a Settlement Class Vehicle originally purchased or leased in the continental United States, Hawaii, Alaska, or any United States Territory." Solely for the purposes of the proposed Settlement, the Court preliminarily approves Benjamin F. Johns of Shub & Johns LLC and Andrew W. Ferich of Ahdoot & Wolfson P.C.to be appointed as Class Counsel. The Court also hereby preliminarily approves Duffy, Edlin, Mulcahy, and Hall as the Class Representatives. -- Per the request of the Parties, the Court appoints JND Legal Administration LLC as the Claims Administrator. -- A hearing, for purposes of determining whether the Settlement should be finally approved, shall be held before this Court on Friday, Aug. 1, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. Catherine Duffy, Matthew Edlin, Lawrence Mulcahy, and Paula Hall are current and former owners or lessees of Mazda vehicles equipped with the "Mazda Connect Infotainment System." Mazda Motor offers new and used cars, vans, trucks, sport utility vehicles, parts, and accessories, as well as financing, maintenance, and repair services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=y7dXW9 at no extra charge.[CC] MCMURRY UNIVERSITY: Plaintiffs Seek to Suspend Class Cert Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re McMurry University Data Incident Litigation, Case No. 1:25-cv-00002-H (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their unopposed motion to suspend any and all deadlines to move for class certification in the Consolidated Case No. 1:25-cv-002-H until the entry of a Civil Scheduling Order. The motion seeks to clarify the issue by asking the Court to suspend any class certification deadlines in the Consolidated Action until such deadline is set by the Court in a Civil Scheduling Order following a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) conference. Clarifying the deadline in this manner will promote efficiency by setting a class certification briefing schedule that fits within a broader case schedule approved by this Court. The Plaintiffs have conferred with Defendant, and Defendant does not oppose this Motion. The Plaintiffs have attached a proposed order for the Court's consideration. On Feb. 5, 2025, the Court entered an Order consolidating three putative class action cases brought against McMurry University that involve an alleged data breach that occurred in June of 2024. McMurry University is a private institution that was founded in 1923. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TVAlqK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Tanner R. Hilton, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 4131 North Central Expressway, Suite 900 Dallas, TX Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com trh@federmanlaw.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 MGP INGREDIENTS: Bronstein Sues Over Misleading Statements ---------------------------------------------------------- Neil R. Bronstein, As Trustee for The Bronstein Children Partnership, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MGP INGREDIENTS, INC., DAVID COLO, DAVID S. BRATCHER, and BRANDON M. GALL, Case 1:25-cv-01330 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2025), is brought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), as well as SEC Rule 10b-5, on behalf of all individuals and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of MGPI between May 4, 2023 and October 30, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"), including sellers of MGPI put options during the Class Period as a result of the Defendants' false and misleading statements. During the COVID-19 pandemic, alcohol consumption in the United States increased dramatically compared to pre-pandemic times as Americans grappled with the stress and isolation of the pandemic. MGPI capitalized on this trend by increasing its liquor production and sales, which boosted the Company's financial results. By late 2022, however, demand for liquor began to weaken and spirits destocking was occurring industry-wide. Defendants nevertheless assured investors that MGPI had already "cycled through that" and sold a significant portion of its inventory. Defendants claimed that MGPI's exposure to overstocking was less than its competitors, and that destocking was "not a core issue" because Defendants had properly monitored and managed the Company's inventory levels. Investors began to learn the truth about MGPI's financial condition and prospects on February 22, 2024, when MGPI issued disappointing guidance for fiscal year 2024 sales. Following this news, MGPI's stock price fell precipitously, declining $13.65 per share, or 14.86%, from a closing price of $91.83 per share on February 21, 2024 to close at $78.18 per share on February 22, 2024. Defendants continued to make false and misleading statements downplaying the impact of inventory levels on MGPI's performance. On October 17, 2024, MGPI surprised the market again when it reported disappointing preliminary sales for the third quarter ending September 30, 2024 and lowered its guidance for fiscal 2024. On October 31, 2024, MGPI finally revealed that softening sales and excess inventories would have an "even greater impact" on the Company's sales and profitability in 2025 than it previously forecasted, forcing MGPI to scale back certain operations and lower its revenue and earnings guidance for the year. Following the news, MGPI's stock price fell another $8.27 per share, or 14.69%, from its closing price of $56.31 on October 30, 2024 to close at $48.04 on October 31, 2024. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, Plaintiff and other class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased and acquired MGPI securities during the Class Period. MGPI is a company that produces and supplies premium distilled spirits, branded spirits, and food ingredients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Chiplock, Esq. Sharon M. Lee, Esq. 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013-1413 Phone: (212) 355-9500 Facsimile: (212) 355-9592 MINNESOTA: Settles Tax Forfeiture Class Action for $109-Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------ Will Fritz of Top Class Actions reports that Minnesota has agreed to a $109 million settlement to resolve claims that it failed to compensate property owners for surplus value when their properties were forfeited for nonpayment of property taxes. The Minnesota property tax settlement benefits anyone who held any ownership interest, lien or other security interest in a property that was forfeited to the state of Minnesota in the last several years for nonpayment of property taxes and for which there was surplus value. The settlement covers properties in Hennepin County that were forfeited between Aug. 16, 2012, and Dec. 31, 2023; properties in St. Louis County that were forfeited between June 2, 2016, and Dec. 31, 2023; and properties in all other Minnesota counties that were forfeited between June 23, 2016, and Dec. 31, 2023. The Minnesota forfeiture class action lawsuit claimed the state failed to compensate property owners for surplus value that existed when their properties were forfeited for nonpayment of property taxes. This allegedly caused financial damages to Minnesota homeowners. In Minnesota, property taxes are generally administered at the county level. However, the Minnesota Department of Revenue may provide resources and administration on a state level. The state of Minnesota hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $109 million to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the Minnesota property tax settlement, class members can receive up to 90% of the surplus value of their forfeited property, plus interest starting from the date of forfeiture. A property's value at the time of forfeiture can be determined with a property's sale price, the assessor's estimated market value or an appraisal. If multiple claims are made for an eligible property, the surplus value will be allocated among the claimants based upon their order of priority under Minnesota law. Those who owned severed mineral rights for a property will receive $300 per parcel plus interest, while former lienholders will receive a settlement payment up to the amount of the lien value as of the date of forfeiture plus interest. All settlement payments may be reduced on a pro rata basis depending on the number of claims filed. The deadline to opt out of or object to the settlement was Nov. 8, 2024. The final approval hearing for the Minnesota forfeiture settlement was scheduled for Dec. 16, 2024. In order to receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by June 6, 2025. Who's Eligible The settlement benefits those who held any ownership interest, including a valid lien or other security interest, in a parcel of real property or severed mineral rights that was forfeited to the state of Minnesota for nonpayment of property taxes during the following time periods: -- Minnesota properties in all other counties forfeited between June 23, 2016, and Dec. 31, 2023 -- Hennepin County properties forfeited between Aug. 16, 2012, and Dec. 31, 2023 -- St. Louis County properties forfeited between June 2, 2016, and Dec. 31, 2023 Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase Deeds, mortgages, property tax statements, notices of assessment, trust documents, lien documents, etc. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 06/06/2025 Case Name Tyler, et al. v. Hennepin County, et al., Case No. 62-CV-19-6012, in the Second Judicial District Court for Ramsey County, Minnesota Final Hearing 12/16/2024 Settlement Website MNTaxForfeitureSettlement.com Claims Administrator Tyler v. Hennepin County c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC P.O. Box 5324 New York, NY 10150-5324 (833) 522-3374 Class Counsel Charles R Watkins David Guin GUIN STOKES & EVANS LLC Vildan A Teske TESKE LAW PLLC Garrett Blanchfield Roberta A Yard REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD Defense Counsel Liz Kramer SOLICITOR GENERAL Peter J Farrell DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL [GN] NASH ENGINEERING: Settlement Approval Hearing Scheduled for April 9 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In re The Nash Engineering Co., Debtor, Case No. 25-0055-JCH UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT NOTICE OF HEARING DATE AND OBJECTION DEADLINE ON MOTION TO (I) APPROVE SETTLEMENT STIPULATION AND BUY-BACK OF INSURANCE POLICIES POTENTIALLY COVERING ASBESTOS-RELATED CLAIMS AGAINST THE NASH ENGINEERING COMPANY AND (II) ENTER INJUNCTION Gearge Roumeliotis, the Chapter 7 trustee of the bankruptcy estate of The Nash Engineering Company, Bankruptcy Case No. 21-50644, pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut, has filed a motion to approve a settlement of claims against Century Indemnity Company and Pacific Employers Insurance Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, Case No. 25-0055-JCH. The Motion requests approval of a settlement under which, in summary, the Insurers will (I) pay $9 million to TNEC s bankruptcy estate in exchange for releases of the Insurers and ther affiliates by the bankruptcy estate, (il) buy back llability insurance policies (as identified in the Motion) issued by Insurers, free and clear of any interest in the policies held by the bankruptcy estate or any holder of an Asbestos Personal Injury Claim (as defined in the Motion, and including personal Injury and wrongful death claims against TNEC) covered or allegedly covered by the policies, and (ili) receive the benefit of an Injunction permanently enjoining assertion of specified claims against the Insurers or they affiliates, including Asbestos Personal Injury Claims. Copies of the Motion, the Settlement Stipulation, and related filings may be obtained at the District Court's website (WWW.ctd.uscourts.gov) or by sending a written request to counsel for the Trustee, Taruna Garg (tgarg@harrisbeachmurtha.com). YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE MOTION AND SETTLEMENT STIPULATION AND THE ORDER APPROVING THE SETTLEMENT STIPULATION AND ENTERING THE INJUNCTION. If you wish to object to approval of the Settlement Stipulation or entry of the Injunction, you must file an Objection with the District Court by 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time on March 13, 2025. Any such objection should be filed with the District Court at eci.ctd.uscourts.gov or at the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, 141 Church Street, New Haven, CT 06510, and served counsel for the Trustee, Taruna Garg (tgarg@harrisbeachmurtha.com), and counsel to the Insurers, Mark Plevin mplevin@plevintumer.com). A hearing on the Motion will be held on April 9, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time at the District Court, Courtroom One, 141 Church Street, New Haven, CT 06510. The April 9, 2025 hearing may be continued to a later date or cancelled if the Trustee so requests, without further notice except as provided on the District Court’s website. To file a proof of clakn electronically against the TNEC bankruptcy estate, please visit https://www.ctb.uscourts.gov/epoc. About Nash Engineering Co. Nash Engineering Co. is a Connecticut pump manufacturer. Nash Engineering Co. sought relief under Chapter 7 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. D. Conn. Case No. 21-50644) on October 19, 2021. Honorable Bankruptcy Judge Julie A Manning handles the case. NATIONAL TIRE: Vega Class Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------- MARVI VEGA, and other similarly situated individuals v. NATIONAL TIRE STORES, INC., and DANYAL HABIB, Case No. 1:25-cv-20727 (S.D. Fla., Feb. 17, 2025) seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as mechanic from December 2022 and is presently employed by the Defendant. National Tire operates as an accessories stores. The Company offers tires, wheels, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julisse Jimenez, Esq. THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 482-147 E-mail: julisse@legalopinionusa.com NESTLE USA: Winfield GIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Ill. --------------------------------------------------- The case styled DERRENCE WINFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NESTLE USA, INC., Case No. 2025-CH-00148, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on February 12, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01494 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of soliciting and obtaining genetic information as a precondition of employment or preemployment application in violations of the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act. Nestle USA, Inc. is a food & beverage company headquartered in Virginia. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Matthew D. Provance, Esq. Marcia E. Goodman, Esq. Anastasiya K. Lobacheva, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 71 S. Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 782-0600 Email: mgoodman@mayerbrown.com mprovance@mayerbrown.com alobacheva@mayerbrown.com - and - Carmine L. Zarlenga, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K. Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 263-3000 Email: czarlenga@mayerbrown.com NEW GENERATION: Ponce Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Ponce, Daniel Zumba and Fernanda Romero, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated v. New Generation Auto Parts 2 LLC, Chris "Doe" and Antonio "Roe," Case No. 1:25-cv-00888 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2025) seeks to recover compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory minimum wage, compensation for unpaid wages for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay as required by law, and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Plaintiffs seek to prosecute their FLSA claims as a collective action on behalf of a collective group of persons defined as follows: "All persons who are or were formerly employed by Defendants in the United States at any time since Feb. 17, 2022, to the entry of judgment in this case the "Collective Action Period"), selling and/or delivering machinery/parts to mechanics and who were not paid statutory minimum wages and/or overtime compensation at rates at least one-and-one-half times the regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty hours per workweek, and/or spread-of-hours premium pay for hours worked a shift lasting in excess of ten hours from start to finish (the "Collective Action Members").[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Samuel, Esq. THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM 1441 Broadway, Suite 6085 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 563-9884 E-mail: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com NEWSBANK INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Employee Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kathryn M. Rattigan of Robinson & Cole LLP, writing to National Law Review, reports that last week, a class action was filed against NewsBank, Inc., a Florida-based news database company, related to a 2024 breach of employee personal information. NewsBank provides a database of archived news publications utilized by libraries, higher education institutions, and other organizations. NewsBank suffered a security incident affecting its employees' personal information between June and July 2024. The lead plaintiff claims that, as an employee of NewsBank from January 2023 to November 2024, they were required to provide their personal information (i.e., name, date of birth, Social Security number, and financial account information) as part of their employment. The lead plaintiff alleges they now face a heightened risk of identity theft due to the breach. The complaint states, "Plaintiff and class members must now and for years into the future closely monitor their medical and financial accounts to guard against identity theft. The risk of identity theft is not speculative or hypothetical but is impending and has materialized as there is evidence that the plaintiff's and class members' private information was targeted, accessed, has been misused, and disseminated on the dark web." The lawsuit alleges claims of negligence, breach of implied contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. Additionally, the lawsuit alleges that NewsBank failed to follow its policies, including those outlined in its website Privacy Policy, stating that NewsBank had implemented security procedures to protect personal information from unauthorized access, use, and disclosure. The class seeks over $5 million in damages and injunctive relief, requiring NewsBank to implement enhanced security measures and provide affected individuals with lifetime identity theft protection services. The complaint alleges that "[o]nce private information is exposed, there is virtually no way to ensure that the exposed information has been fully recovered or contained against future misuse [. . . ] For this reason, plaintiff and class members will need to maintain these heightened measures for years, and possibly their entire lives, as a result of defendant's conduct." [GN] NORTHBAY HEALTHCARE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Callen Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DEBORAH CALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHBAY HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00327 (E.D. Cal., February 5, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed in January 2025. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf all those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. Through this complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed during the data breach. NorthBay Healthcare Corporation is a nonprofit healthcare organization headquartered in Fairfield, California, that provides 24-hour emergency care, intensive care, acute care, and advanced surgical and diagnostic services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com - and - Courtney Maccarone, 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: cmaccarone@zlk.com msvensson@zlk.com NORTHWEST SURGICAL: Fails to Protect Patients' Data, Methvin Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES METHVIN and JENNIFER CANTERBURY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. NORTHWEST SURGICAL SPECIALISTS, P.C., A WASHINGTON PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION d/b/a REBOUND ORTHOPEDICS & NEUROSURGERY, Case No. 3:25-cv-05130 (D. Wash., Feb. 17, 2025) arises from Defendant's continued failure to protect its patients' highly sensitive data. The Defendant is a medical practice that operates 10 clinics in Washington and Oregon1 providing orthopedic and neurosurgical care. As such, Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information -- about its current and former patients. In 2018, the Defendant suffered a data breach that it did not reveal to patients for five months. But that hacking was not an isolated incident -- rather, it was simply part and parcel of Defendant’s pattern of negligence data security. Because in 2024, the Defendant experienced a second data breach. This class action arises from that second data breach (the "Data Breach"). The Plaintiffs are Data Breach victims, having received a breach notice. They bring this class action on behalf of themselves, and all others harmed by Defendant’s misconduct. The exposure of one's PII/PHI to cybercriminals is a bell that cannot be unrung. Before this data breach, the private information of Defendant’s patients was exactly that -- private. Not anymore. Now, their private information is forever exposed and unsecure. The Defendant failed its duties when its inadequate security practices caused the Data Breach. In other words, Defendant’s negligence is evidenced by its failure to prevent the Data Breach and stop cybercriminals from accessing the PII/PHI. And thus, Defendant caused widespread injury and monetary damages. Thus, cybercriminals copied and stole the Defendant's current and former patients' highly sensitive PII/PHI, including medical information; health insurance information; Social Security numbers; financial account information; driver license numbers; passport numbers; and dates of birth, the suit alleges. The Defendant is a health care provider offers “customized treatment plans and an array of surgical, nonsurgical, and expert medical care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N Michigan Ave, Suite 1610 Chicago, I: 60611-4501 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 863-1109 E-mail: straussborrelli.com sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES: Stewart Sues Over Deceptive Supplements -------------------------------------------------------------- Amy Lynn Stewart, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Nutramax Laboratories Consumer Care, Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-00253-CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla., Feb. 17, 2025) alleges that the Defendant sells the Cosamin Product by deceiving the public about the Products' ingredients, potency, and consumption benefits pursuant to the Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Nutramax is a South Carolina based company, with its principal place of business in Lancaster, South Carolina, that markets Cosamin DS, Cosamin ASU, Cosamin Sport, and Cosamin Muscle & Joint supplement products (Cosamin) for joint comfort and relief from pain. Accordingly, the Defendant claims on their website (cosamin.com) that its Cosamin products have many purported benefits such as "Cosamin is scientifically proven to help promote joint comfort, by helping to protect the cartilage that cushions your joints and eases movement." The Defendant misled Plaintiff and Class Members into believing the Products effectively relieve joint pain. These claims are false and misleading, says the suit. The Plaintiff and members of the classes purchased the Product(s) for their ingredients, potency, and effects, and paid a premium for Defendant's Product over comparable products that were not promoted with the misrepresentations at issue. The Defendant's representations concerning the Products are allegedly unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent, and have the tendency or capacity to deceive or confuse reasonable consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Wright, Esq. Kelly Mata, Esq. THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A. 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 350 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 514-0904 E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com kellymata@wrightlawoffice.com NVIDIA CORP: Tobias Suit Seeks Prelim. OK of Settlement Deal ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRISTINA TOBIAS, ANTHONY BRIGGS, ANN MACDONALD and DAVID CALDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NVIDIA CORPORATION, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF NVIDIA CORPORATION, THE NVIDIA CORPORATION 401(K) PLAN BENEFITS COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-30. Case No. 4:20-cv-06081-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement between the Defendants, NVIDIA Corporation, the Board of Directors of NVIDIA Corporation, the NVIDIA Corporation 401(k) Plan Benefits Committee and the Plaintiffs; (2) preliminarily certifying the proposed Settlement Class; (3) approving the proposed notice plan; and (4) setting a final approval hearing at least 90 calendar days after the entry of a preliminary approval order. The Revised Motion addresses the Court's concerns in its January 16, 2025 Order (ECF No. 135) denying without prejudice, the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The proposed Settlement Class is defined as follows: "All persons, except Defendants and their immediate family members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan who participated in the Plan, at any time between Aug. 28, 2014 through the date of the Preliminary Approval Order." The Class excludes NVIDIA Corporation, the Board of Directors of NVIDIA Corporation, the NVIDIA Corporation 401(k) Plan Benefits Committee. In the operative Complaint, filed in on October 24, 2023, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are fiduciaries of the Plan and breached duties owed to the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries by: (1) failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost; and (2) maintaining certain funds in the Plan despite the availability of identical or similar investment options with lower costs and/or better performance histories. Nvidia is an American multinational corporation and technology company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Rv27Ud at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Wells, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com jayw@capozziadler.com - and - Daniel L. Germain, Esq. ROSMAN & GERMAIN LLP 5959 Topanga Canyon Boulevard, Suite 360 Woodland Hills, CA 91367-7503 Telephone: (818) 788-0877 Facsimile: (818) 788-0885 E-mail: germain@lalawyer.com - and - Peter A. Muhic, Esq. MUHIC LAW LLC 923 Haddonfield Road, Suite 300 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: (856) 324-8252 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: peter@muhiclaw.com OCTAGOS HEALTH: Ghuyen Seek to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- NATHALIE NGUYEN, Plaintiff v. OCTAGOS HEALTH, INC., SHANTI BANSAL, MD, Case No. 216946751 (Fla. Cir, Miami Dade Cty., Feb. 17, 2025) is a class action seeking to recover unpaid minimum wage and/or overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and others similarly situated worked for Defendants as non-exempt customer service representatives and inside sales representatives from approximately November 2020 through July 2024. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff, and others similarly situated any wages for straight time or overtime pay for any hours in excess of 40 weekly. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff straight time and minimum wages for all hours worked. The Defendants owe Plaintiff straight time and overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 weekly, the lawsuit says. Octagos provides a cloud-based platform that aggregates remote and in-person interrogations for all cardiac rhythm management (CRM) manufacturers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Remer, Esq. REMER, GEORGES-PIERRE & HOOGERWOERD PLLC 2745 Ponce De Leon Blvd. Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 416-500 E-mail: jremer@rgph.law OMNOVA NORTH AMERICA: Moncavage Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kevin Moncavage, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. OMNOVA NORTH AMERICA INC., and OMNOVA SOLUTIONS INC., Case No. 24120283 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Feb. 13, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00778. In the Complaint, Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"), by failing to pay for time associated with engaging in the "pass down" process to transfer work from the outgoing shift to the incoming shift, as well as for walking time within a manufacturing facility operated by Defendants in Auburn, Pennsylvania (the "Auburn Facility").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel F. Thornton, Esq. Jasmine Williams, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. Three Parkway 1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1350 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: 267-319-7802 Email: daniel.thornton@jacksonlewis.com jasmine.williams@jacksonlewis.com - and - Andrew N. Howe, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL, LLP 100 Berwyn Park 850 Cassatt Road, Suite 110 Berwyn, PA 19312 Phone: 610-408-6034 Email: andrew.howe@dinsmore.com OPENDOOR TECHNOLOGIES: Feb 28 Class Cert Bid Filing Sought ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Opendoor Technologies Incorporated Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:22-cv-01717-MTL (D. Ariz.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion updating the court on mediation and requesting an extension of time to file motion for class certification: The Parties submit this joint letter updating the Court regarding the status of the mediation held on Feb. 7, 2025. The Parties stipulate and agree to the following and respectfully request that the Court enter an Order consistent with the Parties' agreement in substantially the form submitted herewith: a. The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification no later than Feb. 28, 2025. b. The Defendants shall file their opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification no later than April 18, 2025. c. The Plaintiffs shall file their reply in support of their motion for class certification no later than May 19, 2025. Opendoor provides digital platform for residential real estates. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fwIcxe at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael P. Canty, Esq. James T. Christie, Esq. Nicholas Manningham, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 E-mail: mcanty@labaton.com jchristie@labaton.com nmanningham@labaton.com - and - Daniel P. Thiel, Esq. CLARK HILL PLC 14850 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 500 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (480) 684-1100 Facsimile: (480) 684-1199 E-mail: dthiel@clarkhill.com - and - Aaron L. Castle, Esq. VANOVERBEKE MICHAUD & TIMMONY P.C. 79 Alfred Street Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 578-1200 E-mail: acastle@vmtlaw.com - and - Casey E. Sadler, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Robert M. Kort, Esq. John C. Gray, Esq. LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP 201 East Washington Street, Suite 1200 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: 602-262-5331 E-mail: rkort@lewisroca.com jgray@lewisroca.com - and - Adam S. Hakki, Esq. Lyle Roberts, Esq. George E. Anhang, Esq. Billy Marsh, Esq. ALLEN OVERY SHEARMAN STERLING US LLP 599 Lexington Ave New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 848-4000 E-mail: ahakki@aoshearman.com lyle.roberts@aoshearman.com george.anhang@aoshearman.com billy.marsh@aoshearman.com - and - Michael J. Farrell, Esq. Maureen Beyers, Esq. BEYERS FARRELL PLLC 99 East Virginia Avenue, Suite 220 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 738-3022 E-mail: mfarrell@bfazlaw.com mbeyers@bfazlaw.com - and - Jonathon Rosenberg, Esq. William Sushon, Esq. Amy S. Park, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 E-mail: jrosenberg@omm.com wsushon@omm.com apark@omm.com PAPA STAR: Ruggiero Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA RUGGIERO, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. PAPA STAR, LP d/b/a PAPA JOHN'S, Case No. 3:25-cv-00397-X (N.D. Tex., Feb. 17, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, instead of reimbursing Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, the Defendant uses a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks. The Defendant operates numerous Papa John's Pizza franchise stores. The Defendant employs delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their customers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew McCarley, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 11300 North Central Expressway, Suite 550 Dallas, TX 75243 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 E-mail: wage@foresterhaynie.com PATTERSON WAREHOUSES: Brimley Seeks OK of Class Notice Facilitation ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRITTANY BRIMLEY and TRAVIS FAISON, Individually, and on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. PATTERSON WAREHOUSES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02307-MSN-cgc (W.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order granting their motion for the facilitation of notice, pursuant to 29 U.S.C section 216 (b). The Plaintiff seeks the Court to enter an Order authorizing notice to be sent to the following individuals: "All current and former hourly, non-exempt warehouse employees or other non-exempt employees with similar job duties who the Defendant employed at any facility owned and/or operated by the Defendant from May 13, 2021, until resolution of this action." The Plaintiffs further request the Court enter an order tolling the FLSA statute of limitations for putative collective member's claims and requiring Defendant to produce the name and last known contact information for all of the potential opt-in plaintiffs, as described in the Memorandum and authorize the facilitation of the Proposed Notice and Consent Form, attached to the Memorandum, to all members of the putative collective in the method and manner described in the Memorandum. Patterson serves retail manufacturers, food and beverage producers, raw materials suppliers, and web fulfillment resellers in the United States. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BI32U6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. Joshua Autry, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com jautry@jsyc.com PRODUCE EXPERIENCE: Rodriguez Suit Seeks Minimum Wage Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARIELA RODRIGUEZ, JESUS ROBERTO RAMIREZ SOTO, and LILIANA LIMON MUNOZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PRODUCE EXPERIENCE INC. (D/B/A PRODUCE EXPERIENCE), US FRESH CORP. (D/B/A US FRESH), GONZALO JARAMILLO, DAVID JARAMILLO, JUANITA BERMUDEZ, and JORGE CUBERO, Case No. 1:25-cv-01363 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2025) alleges that the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiffs and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs seek certification of this action as a collective action on behalf of themselves, individually, and all other similarly situated employees and former employees of Defendants pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendants. The Defendants own, operate, or control a produce store, located at 601 Drake St, Bronx, NY 10474 under the name "Produce Experience" (formerly known as "US Fresh").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 R.C. BIGELOW: Newton Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAUDIA NEWTON and BRANDY LEANDRO, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. R.C. BIGELOW, INC. and DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:22-cv-05660-LDH-SIL (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Steven Locke recommends that the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification be granted in part and denied in part. The Court recommends that the motion for class certification be granted with respect to Plaintiffs' claims arising under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law sections 349 and 350 and denied with respect to the Plaintiffs' claims for breach of express warranty, common law fraud, and intentional misrepresentation. Furthermore, based upon the recommended modification of the class period, the Court recommends that the Camellia Sinensis Class be amended to include: "All natural persons who purchased at least one 18/20 count box of Bigelow Early Grey Black Tea Caffeine, Green Tea Caffeine, Constant Comment Black Tea Caffeine, Green Lemon Tea Caffeine, Vanilla Chai Black Tea Caffeine, English Tea Time Black Tea Caffeine, Spiced Chai Black Tea Caffeine, French Vanilla Black Tea Caffeine, or Vanilla Caramel Black Tea Caffeine, labeled as "Manufactured in the USA 100% American Family Owned" at a retail store in the State of New York, at any time from Feb. 20, 2020 to Aug. 5, 2021." The Court further recommends that the proposed Herbal Tea Class be amended to include: "All natural persons who purchased at least one 18/20 count box of Bigelow Cozy Chamomile, Lemon Ginger, Lavender Chamomile, Sweet Dreams, or Orange & Spice, labeled as "Manufactured in the USA 100% American Family Owned," at a retail store in the State of New York at any time from Feb. 20, 2020 to Aug. 5, 2021." The Plaintiffs allege that the packaging of certain of the Defendant's tea products contains a label that falsely and deceptively states, "Manufactured in the USA 100% American Family Owned." Bigelow is a specialty tea company with headquarters in Fairfield, Connecticut and domestic manufacturing facilities in Fairfield, Connecticut, Louisville, Kentucky, and Boise, Idaho. A copy of the Court's report and recommendation dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q8xtV5 at no extra charge.[CC] SAZERAC CO: Koonce Seeks to Certify Class of New York Purchasers ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CINDY KOONCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SAZERAC COMPANY, INC., Case No. 7:23-cv-04323-KMK (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an Order pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b), and (c): 1. Certifying a class of New York purchasers of the Defendant's Bay malt beverage as follows: "All persons who purchased the Parrot Bay Malt Products in the State of New York at any time during the period May 24, 2020, to the date of judgment." 2. Appointing Cindy Koonce as representative of the Class; and 3. Appointing Reese LLP, Sheehan & Associates, P.C., Bursor & Fisher, P.A., and Laukaitis Law LLC as Class Counsel. Sazerac is a privately held American alcoholic beverage company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G4WoGn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd., Suite 412 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10158 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com - and - Charles D. Moore, Esq. Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 121 N. Washington Ave., 2nd Floor Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 E-mail: cmoore@reesellp.com mreese@reesellp.com - and - Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Jenna L. Gavenman, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com jgavenman@bursor.com SAZERAC CO: Pizzaro Seeks to Certify Class of New York Purchasers ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON PIZARRO and LARRY ZIELINSKI, individually on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SAZERAC COMPANY, INC. (RE: SAZERAC CONSUMER LITIGATION), Case No. 7:23-cv-02751-KMK (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an Order pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b), and (c): 1. Certifying a class of New York Purchasers of Defendant's Fireball malt beverage as follows: "All persons who purchased the Fireball Malt Products in the State of New York at any time during the period April 2, 2020, to the date of judgment. 2. Appointing Sharon Pizarro and Larry Zielinski as representatives of the Class; and 3. Appointing Reese LLP, Sheehan & Associates, P.C., Bursor & Fisher, P.A., and Laukaitis Law LLC as Class Counsel. Sazerac is a privately held American alcoholic beverage company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OwrC63 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd., Suite 412 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10158 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com - and - Charles D. Moore, Esq. Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 121 N. Washington Ave., 2nd Floor Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 E-mail: cmoore@reesellp.com mreese@reesellp.com - and - Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Jenna L. Gavenman, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com jgavenman@bursor.com SEBASTIAN'S PIZZERIA: Veleva Wins Bid for Conditional Class Cert. ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALENTINA VELEVA on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. SEBASTIAN'S PIZZERIA INC. doing business as Lazzara's Pizza, SEBASTIAN LAZZARA, and TONY LAZZARA, Case No. 1:24-cv-04930-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification, court-authorized notice pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA, and an Order directing the Defendants to produce specifically requested information for potential members of the collective. Accordingly, the Defendants shall provide to the Plaintiff's counsel the names, last known addresses, last known phone numbers, last know email addresses, dates of employment, and position(s) held for all potential members of the collective as previously defined in this Order. The Plaintiff's counsel may arrange to have the notice disseminated, via mail, via email, and/or text messages, to all potential members of the collective. Given the modest factual showing required at this stage, the Court finds the Plaintiff's allegations sufficient for now, subject of course to decertification or division into subclasses based on discovery. The Plaintiff brings this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") against the Defendants. The Plaintiff seeks conditional collective certification for claims under the FLSA on behalf of herself and all non-exempt service employees who participated in the tip pool (i.e. servers) employed at Lazzara's Pizza on or after June 28, 2021, who have not previously released all of their FLSA claims within the statute of limitations period. The Plaintiff formerly was employed by the Defendants to work as a server from January 2024 to June 2024. Sebastian's is a New York for-profit Corporation that owns and operates Lazzara’s Pizzeria in midtown Manhattan. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N9oSj2 at no extra charge.[CC] SENTRY INSURANCE: Coto Suit Removed to D. New Mexico ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Maria Coto, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals v. SENTRY INSURANCE COMPANY, a/k/a SENTRY INSURANCE A MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a/k/a SENTRY INSURANCE, DAIRYLAND INSURANCE COMPANY, and VIKING INSURANCE COMPANY OF WISCONSIN, Case No. D-412-CV-2025-00005 was removed from the New Mexico Fourth Judicial District Court, County of San Miguel, to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico on Feb. 13, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00160. According to Plaintiff, Defendant breached contractual obligations owed to their New Mexico policyholders; breached duties owed to New Mexican insureds under the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; failed to disclose one or more material facts in connection with the marketing or sale of the insurance policies at issue; and misled or deceived their policyholders in connection with the marketing or sale of the policies at issue.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alicia M. Santos, Esq. O'BRIEN & PADILLA, P.C. 6000 Indian School Road NE Suite 200 Albuquerque, NM 87110 Phone: (505) 883-8181 Facsimile: (505) 883-3232 Email: asantos@obrienlawoffice.com SENTURE LLC: Roy Class Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- BENJAMIN ROY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SENTURE, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00090-DJH (W.D. Ky., Feb. 17, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Kentucky Wage and Hour Act. The Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members are those similarly situated persons who worked for Senture in call centers or remotely at any time during the relevant time periods through the final disposition of this matter, and have not been paid for all hours worked nor the correct amount of wages, including overtime, in violation of state and federal law. Although Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members have routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, they 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, the lawsuit says. Senture is a subsidiary of one of the Teleperformance. To provide their services, Senture employed (and continues to employ) numerous Call Center Employees -- including Plaintiff and the individuals that make up the putative or potential class.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Carter Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610 Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com - and - Anne L. Gilday, Esq. THE LAWRENCE FIRM, PSC 535 Madison Avenue, Suite 500 Covington, KY 41011 Telephone: (859) 578-9130 Facsimile: (859) 578-1032 E-mail: anne.gilday@lawrencefirm.com SEYBOTH TEAM: Iudiciani Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Louis Iudiciani, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. The Seyboth Team Real Estate Inc. d/b/a Century 21 Limitless, Case No. 1:23-cv-00443-MSM-LDA (D.R.I.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order to extend the deadline for him to file a motion for class certification from March 20, 2025 by one month, to April 21, 2025. Accordingly, in order to avoid prejudicing Plaintiff and depriving him of the ability to effectively brief his motion for class certification, and to account for Defendant's ongoing discovery delays, the Plaintiff requests that the Court extend the deadline for the Plaintiff to file his motion for class certification by an additional month or Plaintiff to obtain that necessary outstanding discovery, for the Plaintiff to depose the Defendant's Rule 30(b)(6) representative, and for the Plaintiff to provide that necessary discovery to an expert. On Jan. 20, 2025, Defendant produced an incomplete data set tied to some of the discovery requests at issue, and—cognizant of the Court's repeated denial of Plaintiff's efforts to seek Court intervention—the parties are continuing to meet and confer regarding the outstanding discovery. Moreover, despite requesting dates for Rule 30(b)(6) deposition and providing a draft notice of deposition on October 14, 2024, ultimately resulting in Plaintiff unilaterally setting a deposition for February 18, 2025, it was only on Feb. 13, 2025, that Defendant finally provided its earliest available date for a deposition: Feb. 27, 2025. The Plaintiff requires more time to gather necessary information through discovery in order to file his motion for class certification. On Feb. 14, 2025, counsel for Plaintiff conferred with counsel for Defendant, who confirmed that Defendant did not oppose Plaintiff’s request. Seyboth is a real estate office located in East Providence, RI. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FOv4hd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher M. Lefebvre, Esq. THE CONSUMER AND FAMILY LAW CENTER OF CLAUDE F. LEFEBVRE & CHRISTOPHER M. LEFEBVRE, P.C. 2 Dexter Street Pawtucket, RI 02860 Telephone: (401) 728-6060 E-mail: Chris@lefebvrelaw.com - and - Alex D. Kruzyk, Esq. PARDELL, KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO, PLLC 7500 Rialto Blvd., Suite 1-250 Austin, TX 78735 Telephone: (561) 726-8444 E-mail: akruzyk@pkglegal.com SMART POOL: Underpays Pool Maintenance Specialists, Balmer Says --------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDON BALMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SMART POOL SERVICES, LLC Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00498 (S.D. Tex., February 5, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed by the Defendant to Plaintiff and others similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant paid Plaintiff Balmer and other SPS employees like him a piece rate and an hourly rate. Balmer and other employees like him regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in a week but SPS did not pay them the proper overtime rate for their overtime hours. In addition, SPS improperly paid the Plaintiff and collective a "piece rate" when the work performed was not appropriate for a piece rate and no agreement existed between the employees and the employer about the piece rate, says the suit. Plaintiff Balmer worked for SPS from October 2022 to present as a pool maintenance specialist. Smart Pool Services, LLC is a swimming pool services company in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Verde, Esq. Ashley B. Reilly, Esq. THE VERDE LAW FIRM, PLLC 12012 Wickchester Ln, Ste 330 Houston, TX 77079 Telephone: (713) 909-4347 Facsimile: (713) 588-2431 E-mail: josh@verde-law.com SPOT PET: Faces Tucker Suit Over Blind's Equal Access to Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- HENRY TUCKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPOT PET INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01268 (S.D.N.Y., February 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://spotpet.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: lack of alternative text, empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Spot Pet Insurance Services, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal STOCKTON REGIONAL: Camilosa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stockton Regional Rehabilitation Hospital, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Rachel Perez Camilosa, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Stockton Regional Rehabilitation Hospital, LLC, Ernest Health ES, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0002244 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Feb. 13, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Stockton Regional Rehabilitation Hospital -- https://stocktonrehab.com/ -- is part of Ernest Health, a network of rehabilitation and long-term acute care hospitals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Jason ill, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF J. JASON HILL, A.P.C. 5356 W Falls View Dr. San Diego, CA 92115-1426 Phone: 619-917-9772 Email: jjasonhillapc@gmail.com SUNSHINE GASOLINE: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property -------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. SHARICH LLC and BURGER KING COMPANY LLC D/B/A BURGER KING #00007, Case No. 1:25-cv-20659-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 13, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendants' commercial retail plaza (hereinafter the "Commercial Property") being inaccessible to people who are disabled. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendants' property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and commercial restaurant business within the subject restaurant in violation of the ADA and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial property and commercial restaurant. The barriers to access at Defendants' commercial property and commercial restaurant business have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate. SHARICH LLC, owns, operates, and oversees the commercial property, with all areas open to the public.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com TAIKAI INC: Esteban Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL ------------------------------------------------------------- GONZALO TORIBIO ESTEBAN, JAIME BASURTO DE LA CRUZ, MARCOS OLIVER AGUILAR, VALENTIN APARICIO (A.K.A LUIS CASTILLO), JOSE JUAREZ TIBURCIO, and RAFAEL BASURTO DE LA CRUZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TAIKAI INC (D/B/A MOMOYA), KWANG HO LEE, and JENNIFER LEE, Case No. 1:25-cv-01366 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs have worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they have worked. Rather, the Defendants have failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium, says the suit. Plaintiffs Tiburcio and Esteban have been employed as delivery workers, cooks, and food preparers at the Defendants' restaurant. The Defendants own, operate, or control a sushi restaurant, located at 427 Amsterdam Avenue, New York City. The Defendants Kwang Ho Lee and Jennifer Lee, serve or served as owners, managers, principals, or agents of Defendant Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 TAPESTRY INC: Nguyen-Wilhite's Bid for Class Cert Tossed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUONG THU NGUYEN-WILHITE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. TAPESTRY, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-03339-JLR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer Rochon entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Because Plaintiff has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the Rule 23(a) requirement of typicality or the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements of predominance and superiority have been satisfied, Plaintiff's motion for class certification is DENIED. The Plaintiff seeks certification of the following Rule 23(b)(3) class: "All persons with an address in the United States and its Territories about whom (1) Defendant obtained a background check for employment purposes from Feb. 17, 2018 until the date of the court's class certification order, (2) the background check included a 'decisional' score," and "(3) Tapestry applied an 'On Hold' status following internal adjudication of the background check." On Feb. 17, 2023, the Plaintiff initiated her lawsuit in state court, which the Defendant timely removed to this Court on April 20, 2023. In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Tapestry routinely relies on consumer background reports "to take adverse employment actions" against job applicants and current employees without first providing those individuals with "sufficient and timely notification and a copy of the report and a summary of rights" as required by section 1681b(b)(3) of the FCRA. The Plaintiff began working at a Coach store in Palo Alto, California, in March 2022, before resigning in July 2022 because she was moving away from the area. Tapestry operates retail stores throughout the United States for several brands, including Coach. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wNonrl at no extra charge.[CC] TARGET CORP: Misleads Investors, Class Action Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- America First Legal (AFL) and Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, in partnership with Boyden Gray PLLC and Lawson Huck Gonzalez PLLC, filed a major class-action lawsuit against Target Corporation on behalf of the State Board of Administration of Florida. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleges Target knowingly misled and defrauded investors by concealing the financial risks of its radical LGBTQ activism, costing shareholders tens of billions of dollars. The lawsuit alleges that Target violated Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose known risks of customer backlash to its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) mandates, which culminated in its radical and extreme 2023 Pride Campaign. It further alleges that Target actively misled investors by claiming to monitor the social and political risks posed by its DEI and ESG initiatives. In reality, Target was only monitoring its alignment with left-wing activist groups. The fallout from Target's unlawful conduct was swift and catastrophic. Following the launch of Target's 2023 Pride Campaign, Target's stock price plummeted — wiping out $10 billion in market value in just ten days and erasing $25 billion in shareholder value over the course of six months, its worst performance and longest losing streak in 23 years. This is the second lawsuit brought by AFL, Boyden Gray PLLC, and Lawson Huck Gonzalez PLLC against Target for securities fraud. The first case, filed in August 2023, remains ongoing after a federal judge denied Target's motion to dismiss the case in December 2024, ruling that the company may have violated federal securities laws. With this new lawsuit, AFL, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, and the State Board of Administration of Florida are taking decisive action to hold Target accountable for violating federal law, defrauding its investors, and prioritizing radical activism over financial responsibility to shareholders. Statement from America First Legal Senior Vice President Reed D. Rubinstein: "Target misled and defrauded its investors, destroying billions in shareholder value to serve its management's corrosive, radical, and deeply destructive social agenda. America First Legal is proud to continue this fight with our co-counsel Lawson Huck and Boyden Gray. We would like to thank Attorney General James Uthmeier for his leadership in bringing Florida into this fight to protect Florida's hard-working citizens from abuse and financial loss at the hands of woke corporate elites," said Reed D. Rubinstein. Statement from Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier: "Corporations that push radical leftist ideology at the expense of financial returns jeopardize the retirement security of Florida's first responders and teachers. My office will stridently pursue corporate reform so that companies get back to the business of doing business—not offensive political theatre. We appreciate America First Legal's assistance in the fight to keep Florida's investments safe," said Attorney General Uthmeier. Statement from Florida Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis: "We've seen time and time again that when companies prioritize performative virtue signaling and wokeness over profitability, they alienate customers, lose market value, and erode shareholder trust—all while pretending their activism carries no financial risk. It's unacceptable and Florida is fighting back on behalf of taxpayers and investors that have had enough. Businesses like Target need to focus on the bottom line and do right by their customers, not some ESG overlords. Thank you to Governor DeSantis and the SBA for leaning forward on this issue," said Jimmy Patronis. Statement from Jason Gonzalez, Managing Partner at Lawson Huck Gonzalez, PLLC: "This lawsuit will not only recover investor losses caused by Target's misrepresentations, it will deliver a strong message to corporate America to stop engaging in radical activism at the expense of shareholders and instead focus on doing their job of providing high quality goods and services and maximizing stock value," said Jason Gonzalez. Statement from Jonathan Berry, Managing Partner of Boyden Gray PLLC: "When Target went all-in on DEI, shareholders paid the price. With our co-counsel America First Legal and Lawson Huck Gonzalez PLLC, we intend to help every possible person harmed by Target's choice to put politics over business," said Jonathan Berry. [GN] TENNESSEE: Murphy Suit Seeks Declaratory Action & Injunctive Relief ------------------------------------------------------------------- SEAN MURPHY, DENISE PAGELS and V.M., A.M., E.M., A.M., minors by next of friend and parents SEAN MURPHY AND DENISE PAGELS, as well as all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. KELLY STEPHENS, RYAN ORME, ANNE BROWN, GRETCHEN ABRUZZO, as well as all other Defendants not yet known, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00063 (E.D. Tenn., February 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for declaratory action and injunctive relief from local rule. The Plaintiffs bring this class action complaint to seek an Order declaring the actions of the Defendants unconstitutional as they are outside their authority to make. The unlawful actions complained of herein strike directly at litigant's rights afforded to them under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution, to wit the right to a fair and impartial tribunal in the cases they file in these courts. The Plaintiffs herein have a fundamental constitutionally protected right which the Defendants have deprived them of, the suit says. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Russ Egli, Esq. THE EGLI LAW FIRM 11109 Lake Ridge Drive, FL3 Knoxville, TN 37934 Telephone: (865) 304-4125 Facsimile: (865) 274-8872 - and - Van R. Irion, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF VAN R. IRION First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Ste. 700 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 766-4040 TOWNSEND FOODS: Smith Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- APRIL SMITH, individually, and on behalf of herself and other similarly situated current and former employees v. TOWNSEND FOODS, INC., and BILL TOWNSEND, Individually, Case No. 4:25-cv-00008 (E.D. Tenn., Feb. 17, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages owed to Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly-paid employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Providing Urgent Maternal Protection Act (Pump Act). The Defendants own and operate Captain "D's" franchised restaurants in Manchester, Murfreesboro, and Smyrna, Tennessee. The Defendants employed Plaintiff Smith as an hourly-paid employee at their Captain "D's" restaurant in Manchester, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. Joshua Autry, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com jbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com jautry@jsyc.com TRANS UNION: Saucedo's Bid to Certify Class Tossed -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALERIANO SAUCEDO, v. TRANS UNION LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-04891-EKL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Eumi Lee entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion to certify the proposed class on Plaintiff's injunctive relief claim. Because he has not presented evidence of a "a real and immediate threat of repeated injury" as to Trans Union, the Plaintiff fails to demonstrate standing to pursue the requested injunctive relief. Murthy, 603 U.S. at 58. Since injunctive relief is the only form of relief sought on behalf of the putative class, the Plaintiff cannot establish Article III standing for purposes of this motion. The Court therefore denies the motion to certify the proposed class. The Plaintiff asserts claims against Trans Union for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), and the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). The Plaintiff alleges that his personal information was stolen in a 2021 data breach by third-party Flagstar Bank. In July 2022, the Plaintiff ordered a credit report from Trans Union. On August 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit. TransUnion is an American consumer credit reporting agency. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DydGPA at no extra charge.[CC] TURTLEBOX AUDIO: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Senior Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ FRANK SENIOR, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TURTLEBOX AUDIO LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01370 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://turtleboxaudio.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because the Defendant's interactive website, including all portions thereof or accessed, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant’s corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, the 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 is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually-impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind’s 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually-impaired persons live in the State of New York. 5. The Defendant operates the Turtlebox Audio 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, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal TWITTER INC: Seeks to Impose Sanctions on Schobinger ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK SCHOBINGER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. TWITTER, INC. and X CORP., Case No. 3:23-cv-03007-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants, on March 27, 2025, will move the Court for an order imposing sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, and 28 U.S.C. Section 1927, and the Court's inherent power, as follows: 1. The Defendant requests that the Court order sanctions against the Plaintiff and his counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, for their filing of and continuing to litigate Plaintiff's frivolous Rule 23 motion for class certification and reply brief filings, despite receiving documents that Defendant produced during discovery on July 12, 2024, revealing that Plaintiff's claims lack any merit. Defendant requests an award all attorneys' fees and costs that it has incurred in connection with such filings. 2. Defendant requests that the Court order sanctions against Plaintiff's counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1927 for Plaintiff's counsel's reckless and bad faith conduct, and unreasonable and vexatious multiplying of this proceeding since receiving documents that Defendant produced during discovery on July 12, 2024, revealing that Plaintiff's claims lack any merit. Defendant requests an award of all attorneys' fees and costs that it has incurred since July 12, 2024, and that it continues to incur in this case going forward. 3. Defendant requests that the Court order sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel pursuant to the Court's inherent power, based on Plaintiff and his counsel's reckless and bad faith conduct that has undermined the integrity of this judicial proceeding. Defendant requests an award of all attorneys' fees and costs that it has incurred since July 12, 2024, and that it continues to incur in this case going forward. Twitter, officially known as X since 2023, is a social networking service. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DWkhuf at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Eric Meckley, Esq. Brian D. Berry, Esq. Ashlee N. Cherry, Esq. Kassia Stephenson, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 Telephone: (415) 442-1000 Facsimile: (415) 442-1001 E-mail: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com brian.berry@morganlewis.com ashlee.cherry@morganlewis.com kassia.stephenson@morganlewis.com TYSON FOODS: Attorney General Files Motion to Intervene Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Cameron Emanuel-Burns, writing for FinTech Futures, reports that Attorney General Andrew Bailey filed a motion to intervene in a class-action lawsuit against Tyson Foods on Tuesday, February 19. If granted, Bailey's involvement will allow him access to confidential documents currently being withheld by Tyson Foods and key depositions taken by the prosecuting attorneys. Bailey aims to join the suit through permissive intervention, which will require the court to approve. The case, which is being processed in New Madrid County, began when four farmers under contract with Tyson sued after the closure of a chicken processing plant in Dexter. The case, first filed in December 2023, alleges that Tyson breached the farmers' contracts, leaving them with millions of dollars in debt. [GN] U.S. STEEL: Judge Grants Prelim Approval on Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ Mike Darnay of CBS News reports that an Allegheny County judge has given preliminary approval to a class action settlement from U.S. Steel for people who live near the Edgar Thomson Steel Works plant in Braddock. A class action settlement was filed in 2022 that alleged that the Edgar Thomson plant had created a nuisance for people who live nearby and said the the air was polluted and contaminated because of the facility. The settlement, which calls for $1.5 million being made available for anyone who lives within approximately one mile of the facility from November 2020 on, has now been agreed to and has been approved by the court. People who live within that one mile area around the facility can make a claim for a payment, object to the settlement, opt out of the settlement, or choose to do nothing. Anyone wishing to make a claim for payment must do so before March 31 and people wishing to opt out or object must do so by March 17. Forms to make a claim for payment can be found online. As part of the settlement, U.S. Steel is denying all legal claims and have agreed to spend $4.6 million on what are being called "environmental improvement measures." [GN] UNITED NETWORK: Seeks to File Opposition Docs Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY RANDALL, v. UNITED NETWORK FOR ORGAN SHARING and CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, Case No. 2:23-cv-02576-MEMF-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order permitting them to file certain documents in support of their joint opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification under seal. United Network is the private, non-profit organization that manages the organ transplant system in the US. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v6lzNM at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jon P. Kardassakis, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 250-1800 Facsimile: (213) 250-7900 E-mail: Jon.Kardassakis@lewisbrisbois.com - and - Daniel M. Blouin, Esq. Thomas G. Weber, Esq. Shawn R. Obi, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703 Telephone: (312) 558-5600 Facsimile: (312) 558-5700 E-mail: dblouin@winston.com tgweber@winston.com sobi@winston.com UNITED STATES: Bid to Dismiss L.N.P. Class Action Tossed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as L.N.P., on his own behalf and on behalf of his dependent children P.D.P. and L.D.P. and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MARTIN O'MALLEY, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, and THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-01196-MSN-IDD (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Michael Nachmanoff entered an order denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court further entered an order that briefing on class certification is on or before Feb. 28, 2025, and the Defendants shall file any response to the Plaintiff's supplemental brief on or before March 7, 2025. The Plaintiff contends that the Social Security Administration ("SSA") has been applying the wrong formula in calculating social security benefits that are payable to children of parents who retire before reaching the full retirement age. This Court agrees. Given the Court's conclusion that the SSA has departed from the text of the statute, see Section III.A, the Court finds that it would not be appropriate to use either the date Parisi was decided or the date the SSA adopted Parisi's reasoning in dual entitlement cases as the class start date. Accordingly, the Court will direct the parties to further brief the class certification issue in light of the Court's ruling, with the burden on the Plaintiff to define the class—including the relevant class period. L.N.P. brings this suit as a class action on behalf of himself, his children, and other similarly situated persons, alleging violations of Section 403 and 20 C.F.R. section 403.403. The Plaintiffs have proposed the following definition for their class: (i) dependent, younger than 18 years old children, or (ii) dependent children who have not attained the age of 19 at a time while s/he is still a full-time elementary or secondary school student, of an individual entitled to old-age benefits (who presented a claim for and receives or received such Social Security benefits as a result), who are eligible to receive monthly child's insurance benefits (hereinafter the "eligible child" or "eligible children"), and as applicable, their legal representative and/or representative payee for purposes of the Social Security Act, where the eligible child(ren) (x) is/are entitled to and is/are receiving, or has/have received, child’s insurance benefits under the Social Security Act based on the earnings record of an individual who has presented a claim for old-age insurance benefits prior to his/her full retirement age and thus is entitled to and is receiving, or was entitled to and has received, old-age insurance benefits under the Social Security Act, (y) under such circumstances that the eligible child(ren) may be entitled to past-due benefits (z) that SSA now needs to pay such past-due benefits to the eligible A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aMoUAM at no extra charge.[CC] UNIVERSAL LENDERS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Shannon Says -------------------------------------------------------------- AKEEM SHANNON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL LENDERS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01639 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 17, 2025) arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant, which held certain personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and other customers of Defendant, the putative class members. The Data Breach occurred on Nov. 7, 2024. The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included certain personal information of Defendant's customers, including Plaintiff. Universal informed Plaintiff that the information may have included his "name and Social Security number" or financial account number, or driver's license. The Private Information was acquired by cyber-criminals who perpetrated the attack and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals. The Defendant has reported to the Maine Attorney General's office that the personal information of 19,575 individuals was affected in the data breach. The Data Breach resulted from the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which it was entrusted for business relationships. the The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information was subjected to unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what type of information was accessed. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief including improvements to Defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, and adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendant. Accordingly, the Plaintiff sues Defendant seeking redress for their unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for negligence. The Defendant is a financial lending provider serving the retail automotive industry. In the ordinary course of doing business, customers must provide (and Plaintiff did provide) Defendant with sensitive, personal, and private information, including his or her Social Security number and financial account information.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean Short, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, Arkansas 72211 Telephone: (800) 615-4946 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: sean@sanfordlawfirm.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com UNIVERSAL TELEVISION: Ferguson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Universal Television LLC. The case is styled as Daniel Matthew Ferguson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Universal Television LLC, Case No. 25STCV03963 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 13, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Universal Television is one of the largest and most successful television production companies in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank H. Kim, Esq. KIM LEGAL, APC 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Ste. 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90010-2013 Phone: 323-482-3300 Email: fkim@kim-legal.com VECTRARX MAIL: Failed to Secure Personal Info, Kessler Says ----------------------------------------------------------- Shawn Kessler, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. VectraRx Mail Pharmacy Services, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00078-RM (D. Ariz., Feb. 17, 2025) seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the alleged injuries it inflicted on the Plaintiff and potentially thousands of other similarly situated persons. Accordingly, the Defendant was negligent in maintaining its data security and cybersecurity training and maintenance. This inadequacy and negligence led to a data breach . Because of the Defendant's negligence and inadequate cyber and data security, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive and confidential personal information was exposed to cybercriminals. The data that Defendant exposed to cybercriminals was highly sensitive. The exposed data included (at least) personal identifying information and protected health information like dates of birth, Rx numbers, Rx information, dates of service, and/or Social Security numbers. The Defendant collected Private Information and then maintained that sensitive data in a negligent and/or reckless manner. As evidenced by the Data Breach, Defendant negligently and inadequately maintained its network -- rendering it easy prey for cybercriminals, says the suit. The Plaintiff contends that the risk of the Data Breach was known to Defendant. Thus, Defendant was on notice that its inadequate data security created a heightened risk of exposure, compromise, and theft. The Defendant is a limited liability company that provides home delivery of medications.[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 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com VECTRARX MAIL: Failed to Secure Personal Info, Maynor Says ---------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Maynor, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VectraRx Mail Pharmacy Services, L.L.C., Case No. 4:25-cv-00076-SHR (D. Ariz., Feb. 17, 2025) arises out of the Defendant's failures to implement reasonable and industry standard data security practices to properly secure, safeguard, and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. Accordingly, the Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack to compromise the Defendant's network (the Data Breach) that, upon information and belief, contained personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and other individuals. The Data Breach occurred on Dec. 13, 2024, and the Defendant began sending notice letters to Class members on Feb. 6, 2025. According to the Notice of Data Breach that Defendant sent to Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant admits it experiences unusual activity in its server. The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included certain personal or protected health information of individuals whose Private Information was maintained by Defendant, including the Plaintiff. The Defendant allegedly breached its duties and obligations by failing, in one or more of the following ways: (1) failing to design, implement, monitor, and maintain reasonable network safeguards against foreseeable threats; (2) failing to design, implement, and maintain reasonable data retention policies; (3) failing to adequately train staff on data security; (4) failing to comply with industry-standard data security practices; (5) failing to warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendant's inadequate data security practices; and (6) failing to encrypt or adequately encrypt the Private Information. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief including improvements to Defendant’s data security systems, future annual audits, as well as long-term and adequate credit monitoring services funded by the Defendant, and declaratory relief. The Defendant is a limited liability company that provides home delivery of medications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A One W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Taylor Sues Over Selling Consumer Data -------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Jewett of Top Class Actions reports that Susan Taylor filed a class action lawsuit against Verizon Communications Inc. Why: Taylor alleges Verizon sold customer data to third parties without consent. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in a New York federal court. Verizon Communications sold customer data to third parties without customer consent, a new class action lawsuit alleges. Plaintiff Susan Taylor's class action lawsuit claims Verizon sold customer data to third-party advertisers, data brokers and other companies without obtaining proper consent from its customers. Taylor argues the information allegedly disclosed by Verizon, including browsing history, location data and app usage, aided in creating detailed profiles for targeted advertising. "The identification of sensitive and private characteristics of individual customers from the location data sold or disclosed by Defendant constitutes an unwarranted invasion of Plaintiff's and Class Members' privacy," the Verizon class action says. Taylor wants to represent a nationwide class of consumers whose Customer Proprietary Network Information and other personally identifiable information was collected, disclosed and/or sold by Verizon without their knowledge or consent. Verizon's privacy policy misleading, class action says Taylor argues Verizon failed to provide customers with a meaningful choice or opportunity to opt out of these data collection practices. The lawsuit further claims Verizon's privacy policy was misleading, as it suggested that any data shared with third parties was de-identified or aggregated to prevent individual identification. "Although Defendant contends the information it uses and the insights it develops do not identify customers individually, such claims are misleading," the class action says. Taylor claims Verizon is guilty of negligence, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy and violating the Federal Wiretap Act. The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of actual, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages for herself and all class members. Two consumers filed a separate class action lawsuit against Verizon last year over claims the company captured and stored customer voiceprints without providing adequate disclosures and obtaining the required consent. Has Verizon sold your information without your consent? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiff is represented by Philip J. Furia and Jason P. Sultzer of Sultzer & Lipari PLLC and Paul J. Doolittle of Poulin Willey Anastopoulo. The Verizon class action lawsuit is Taylor, et al. v. Verizon Communications Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01081 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN] WALGREEEN COMPANY: Imposes Illegal Tobacco Surcharges, Roman Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXIS J. ROMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALGREEEN COMPANY and the WALGREEN HEALTH AND WELFARE COMMITTEE, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01504 (N.D. Ill., February 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and breach of fiduciary duty. The case arises from the Defendants' practice of charging a tobacco surcharge that unjustly forces certain employees to pay higher premiums for their health insurance. The Walgreen Health and Welfare Plan does not provide the required reasonable alternative standard, and even if it did, it has failed to adequately notify employees about the availability of such an alternative in all its Plan communications. Consequently, the Defendants' tobacco surcharge violates ERISA's anti-discrimination provisions by imposing additional costs on employees who use tobacco products without meeting the legal requirements for a bona fide wellness program. As a result of the imposition of the unlawful and discriminatory tobacco surcharge, the Defendants enriched themselves at the expense of the Plan, resulting in it receiving a windfall, says the suit. Walgreen Company is a healthcare and pharmaceutical retailer headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle D. McLean, Esq. Oren Faircloth, Esq. Scott Haskins, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: kmclean@sirillp.com ofaircloth@sirillp.com shaskins@sirillp.com WASTE RESOURCES: Dao Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Waste Resources, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Anakaren Dao, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Waste Resources, Inc., CPE HR Inc., Case No. 25STCV04102 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 13, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Waste Resources -- https://wasteresources.com/ -- provides trash, recycling, and organics collection services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com WHOLE FOODS: Seeks to Seal Confidential Non-Public Material ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARA SAFARI, PEYMON KHAGHANI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and FARM FORWARD, on behalf of the general public, v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, WHOLE FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation, MRS. GOOCH’S NATURAL FOOD MARKETS, INC., doing business as Whole Foods Market, a California Corporation, Case No. 8:22-cv-01562-JWH-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order: -- sealing confidential non-public material contained in Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend second amended class action complaint and confidential non-public material contained in the Atkin Declaration in support of the Defendants' opposition, -- appointing Class Representative, and -- appointing Class Counsel. The Defendants bring this application under both Local Rule 79-5.2.2(b), to apply to seal documents designated by third parties as confidential under the Stipulated Protective Order entered in this case, and under Local Rule 79- 5.2.2(a), to seal documents which Defendants themselves have designated confidential under the Stipulated Protective Order. Document Portion to be Filed Under Seal Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Page – 3:13-14, Motion to Certify Class, Appoint 10:16-17 Class Representative, and Appoint Class Counsel Declaration of Wes Rose in Support of Page 2:8, 2:10-19, Defendants' Opposition. Designated 3:9-10, 4:8 CONFIDENTIAL by Defendants. Rose Opposition Decl., Ex. 100, Entire Document Defendants' Contract with Country Natural Beef. Designated CONFIDENTIAL by Defendants. On Dec. 16, 2022, Food In-Depth, a third-party, produced FOODID000001 in response to a subpoena in this matter and designated this document CONFIDENTAIL pursuant to the parties' stipulated protective order. On Jan. 29, 2025, Global Animal Partnership ("GAP"), a third-party, produced GAP0020320-20328 in response to a subpoena in this matter and designated this document CONFIDENTIAL pursuant to the parties' stipulated protective order. Whole Foods retails organic and natural foods. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bA76p7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Brian R. Blackman, Esq. J.T. Wells Blaxter, Esq. David P. Adams, Esq. BLAXTER | BLACKMAN LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 1110 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 500-7700 E-mail: bblackman@blaxterlaw.com wblaxter@blaxterlaw.com dadams@blaxterlaw.com WILMINGTON TRUST: Parties Must Complete Discovery by Feb. 28 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARLOW HENRY, on behalf of the BSC Ventures Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, v. WILMINGTON TRUST, N.A. BRIAN C. SASS, and E. STOCKTON CROFT IV, Case No. 1:19-cv-01925-JLH (D. Del.), the Parties ask the Court to enter a scheduling order deadlines: -- The deadline for the parties to complete expert discovery is Feb. 28, 2025. -- A 5-day trial is scheduled to commence on June 9, 2025. -- The only matter pending before the Court other than trial is Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class. -- On Feb. 7, 2025, the Parties reached a class settlement in principle. Wilmington Trust operates as a full-service bank. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ih30DV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory Y. Porter, Esq. Ryan T. Jenny, Esq. Patrick O. Muench, Esq. David A. Felice, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson St., NW, Ste. 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com rjenny@baileyglasser.com pmuench@baileyglasser.com dfelice@baileyglasser.com - and - Daniel Feinberg, Esq. Todd Jackson, Esq. Mary Bortscheller, Esq. FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW LLP 2030 Addison Street, Suite 500 Berkeley, CA 94704 Telephone: (510) 269-7998 E-mail: dan@feinbergjackson.com todd@feinbergjackson.com mary@feinbergjackson.com The Defendants are represented by: Albert H. Manwaring, IV, Esq. Kirsten A. Zeberkiewicz, Esq. MORRIS JAMES LLP Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500 Wilmington, DE 19899 Telephone: (302) 888-6868 E-mail: amanwaring@morrisjames.com kzeberkiewicz@morrisjames.com - and - Kevin J. Connors, Esq. MARSHALL DENNEHEY, P.C. Nemours Building 1007 N. Orange St., Suite 600 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 552-4302 E-mail: kjconnors@mdwcg.com WORLDMARK THE CLUB: Tillis FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Monica G. Tillis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Worldmark, the Club, Wyndham Resort Development Corporation, Travel Leisure Co., Does 1-100 inclusive, Case No. 24STCV27226 was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 13, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01247-MWF-JDE to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. WorldMark by Wyndham is the developer & marketer of WorldMark, The Club, the world's third-largest vacation ownership program.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Kemar Robinson, Esq. ROBINSON ZERMAY LLP 777 South Alameda, 2nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90021 Phone: (269) 470-5916 Email: AK@RobinsonZermay.com The Defendant is represented by: Kendall Erin Waters, Esq. Mary Margaret Driscoll, Esq. Tony Tootell, Esq. FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP 555 South Flower Street Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 972-4500 Fax: (213) 486-0065 Email: kwaters@foley.com mdriscoll@foley.com ttootell@foley.com WYOMING MALL: Rolon Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCHESCA ROLON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. WYOMING MALL HIBACHI RESTAURANT, INC., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00232-KM (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) certifying, for settlement purposes only, the PA Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3); (2) certifying, for settlement purposes only, the FLSA Collective; (3) appointing Plaintiff as the class and collective representative and CWG as "Class Counsel"; (4) granting preliminary approval of the proposed settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement; (5) approving the form and content of, and directing the distribution of, the proposed Class Notice; and (6) setting a date for a Final Approval Hearing within 60 days after entry of a Preliminary Approval Order. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b8Vu8v at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Wells, III Stephen E. Connolly CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP 101 Lindenwood Drive, Suite 225 Malvern, PA 19355 Telephone: 610-822-3700 Facsimile: 610-822-3800 E-mail: gwells@cwglaw.com sconnolly@cwglaw.com [^] Class Action Money & Ethics Conference 2024 Attendees --------------------------------------------------------- Registration is now open for the 9TH ANNUAL CLASS ACTION MONEY & ETHICS CONFERENCE (CAME 2025), to be held May 7-8, 2025, at The Harmonie Club, New York City. Once a year, the top industry experts gather together to discuss the latest topics and trends in class action. This value-packed event features special presentations from keynote speakers and live panel discussions with industry experts, and provides networking opportunities with other professionals. The CAME 2024 edition was attended by the industry's Who's Who. Last year's conference attendees include: Firm/Organization Firm/Organization ----------------- ----------------- A.B. Data, Ltd. Lake Avenue Capital Alvarez & Marsal Levi & Korsinsky LLP Analytics Consulting LLC Levine Law, LLC Angeion Group Lieff Cabraser Heimann Atticus Administration LLC & Bernstein, LLP Avenue 33, LLC Locke Lord LLP Beasley Allen Law Firm LTIMindtree Beer Marketer's Insights Lynch Carpenter LLP Berger Montague PC MarGrady Research Blank Rome Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC Bloomberg Law Messing & Spector LLP Brann & Isaacson Milberg BRG Miller Kaplan Broadridge Morgan Lewis Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney New York Law Journal Butsch Roberts & Associates New York Legal Assistance Group Cardtable Enterprises New York Times Certum Group New York University Citi Law Firm Group O’Melveny & Myers LLP ClaimScore Orr Taylor Cohen Milstein Otterbourg P.C. Cooley LLP PacerMonitor Cozen O'Connor Parabellum Capital, LLC CPT Group Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton Darrow & Garrison LLP DCirrus Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP Dealpath PJT Partners Disability Rights Michigan Pollock Cohen LLP Duane Morris LLP Public Justice Dukas Linden Public Relations Red Bridges Advisors LLC EisnerAmper Riverdale Capital Esquire Bank Sadaka Law Farra & Wang PLLC Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law Flexpoint Ford Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP Foley & Lardner LLP Simpluris Foster Yarborough PLLC Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher George Feldman McDonald, PLLC & Flom LLP Gernon Law Slarskey LLC Giftogram Steptoe Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Tremendous Hausfeld Tristate Capital Bank Hook Point UConn Law injuryclaims.com - Verus LLC Typhon Interactive Wall Street Journal Integrity Administration Western Alliance Bank Janove PLLC Wilkie Farr & Gallagher LLP KCC Winston & Strawn LLP Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check Wollmuth Maher & Deutsch LLP King & Spalding Working Solutions Kirkland & Ellis X Ante Register for CAME 2025 at https://www.classactionconference.com Breakfast and lunch included. This year's conference will kick off with an OPENING NIGHT COCKTAIL RECEPTION on May 7 from 5-7 p.m. also at The Harmonie Club. Enjoy specialty cocktails and hors d'oeuvres with other professionals attending the conference. There is no additional cost to attend the opening reception. The reception is included in the cost of conference registration so join us! Missed last year's event? Check the CAME 2024 conference agenda at https://www.classactionconference.com/agenda.html Videos of the conference are available on-demand at https://www.classactionconference.com/2024-video-replays.html For sponsorship opportunities, contact: Will Etchison Tel: 305-707-7493 E-mail: will@beardgroup.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***