/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250304.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, March 4, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 45
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Allowed to Seal Exhibits in Opposition to Class Cert
3M COMPANY: Osborn Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Ross Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Wallace Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Yoakum Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
A&S HOME: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Hernandez Suit Says
ADDSHOPPER INC: Court Narrows Claims in Lineberry Suit
ALCON LABORATORIES: Faces Class Suit Over Systane Eye Drops Recall
AMAZON.COM INC: Fodor Sues Over Illegal Employment Practices
AMERICAN FAMILY: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid
APPLE FEDERAL: Class Action Settlement in VIFM Gets Initial Nod
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Entitled to Attorneys' Fees in Hoffman Suit
AUTOMATTIC INC: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Unfair Business Practices
BILL WISE'S: Thomas Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Laborers
BLOOMINGDALES.COM LLC: Faces Class Suit Over TikTok Data Sharing
BYTEDANCE INC: Class Certification Denied in Young, et al. Suit
CAPITAL ONE: Faces Willoughby Suit Over Clients' Compromised Info
CARNEGIE MELLON: Class Settlement in Pfingsten Gets Initial Nod
CHARLES SCHWAB: Class Settlement in Corrente Suit Gets Initial Nod
CHRISTIE'S INC: Settlement Class in Data Breach Suit Certified
CIGNA GROUP: Parties Seek Extension of Fact Discovery Deadline
CP SANIBEL: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Suit Says
CUMBERLAND FARMS: Faces Price Wage-and-Hour Suit in D.R.I.
DEEP SEA: Faces Simon Wage-and-Hour Suit in California State Court
DH INSURANCE: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls, Tillery Says
DHI GROUP: Plan Provision Violates Delaware Law, Harrison Says
EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Faces Elliott Suit Over Drop in Share Price
EVERYTHING BREAKS: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Suit for $995,000
FEDLOAN STUDENT: Judge Tosses Student Loan MDL
GMO-Z.COM: Court Narrows Claims in Donovan, et al. Securities Suit
GOLF WANG: Trippett Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
HUMBOLDT INDEPENDENT: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Fraser Says
ILLINOIS: Walsh Sues Over Unconstitutional Transport Vehicle Use
JOHNS MANVILLE: Faces Midwest Class Suit Over Calsil Monopoly
LION ELECTRIC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Frost Says
MAYRYAN LLC: Vega Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Faces Wade Suit Over Data Breach
MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
NANA JACQUELINE: Faces Young Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
NATURES BAKERY: Martin Sues Over Fig and Oatmeal Bars' False Ads
NEVRO CORP: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Globus Medical
NEW YORK: Whitely Seeks to Recover Overtime Premium Pay
O'CONNOR CORP: Smeaton Sues Over Failure to Secure Customers' Info
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL: Averts TRO Against New Email System
PARCHED HOSPITALITY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Isakov Says
PAYPAL INC: Moran Sues Over Improper Business Practices
PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Patients Abuse
PUBLIX SUPER: Faces Koutouzis Suit Over Deceptive Pricing Schemes
QUANTUM COMPUTING: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
RETAILMENOT INC: Steals Content Creators' Commissions, Suit Says
RICHMOND REDEVELOPMENT: Faces Class Action Over Rent Exemptions
ROADWORK AHEAD: Underpays Construction Workers, Rufino Suit Says
ROC OPCO: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Retinol Products
RYOBI TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Suit Over Mowers' Fire Risk
S.E. COMBINED: Ballack Wage-and-Hour Suit Remanded to State Court
SAVOYA LLC: Court Tosses Cuhadar, et al. Labor Lawsuit
SIMONMED IMAGING: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach
SIMONMED IMAGING: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Dobson Alleges
SKSINGH INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ordonez Alleges
SOFO FOOD: Moore Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Order Selectors
SOUTHERN CO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Austin Alleges
STORYBUILT LLC: Class Certification Granted in Urbina WARN Suit
TEA & BEE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Henry Suit Alleges
TENAGLIA & HUNT: Isaacs Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
TESLA MOTORS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defects in Australia
TILRAY BRANDS: Court Tosses Counterclaim in Blue, et al. Suit
TOYOTA MOTORS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Tacoma Brake Lines
TRIPLE T CONCEPTS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Vega Says
UMASS MEMORIAL: Doe Privacy Suit Removed to D. Mass.
UNITED SYSTEMS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Geda Alleges
VIKING CHEMICAL: Faces Chavez Suit in Illinois Cir. Court
WTFN INC: Faces Class Suit Over Pure Instinct Pheromone Fragrances
YOTO INC: Faces Smith Class Action Suit in S.D.N.Y.
*********
3M COMPANY: Allowed to Seal Exhibits in Opposition to Class Cert
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EARL PARRIS, JR.,
individually, and on behalf of a class of persons similarly
situated, and CITY OF SUMMERVILLE, GEORGIA, Intervenor-Plaintiff v.
3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00040-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon.
Judge Thomas Thrash, Jr. entered an order granting motion to file
under seal Exhibits A, B, D, E, F, G, H, I and J to its Opposition
to Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
3M Company operates in the fields of industry, worker safety, and
consumer goods.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0cMhUi at no extra
charge.[CC]
3M COMPANY: Osborn Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edward S. Osborn and Denise Osborn, his wife, and other similarly
situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE
NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;) DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case
No. 2:25-cv-00291-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 16, 2025), is brought for
damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio-persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Edward S. Osborn regularly used, and was thereby
directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires
during his working career and was diagnosed with kidney cancer
and/or other medical related conditions as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave, Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-224-9400
Facsimile: 732-224-9494
3M COMPANY: Ross Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Raynondo C. Ross, Sr. and Jule Ross, his wife, and other similarly
situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE
NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;) DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case
No. 2:25-cv-00289-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 16, 2025), is brought for
damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio-persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Raynondo C. Ross, Sr. regularly used, and was thereby
directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires
during his working career and was diagnosed with kidney cancer
and/or other medical related conditions as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave, Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-224-9400
Facsimile: 732-224-9494
3M COMPANY: Wallace Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------
Edward A. Wallace, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-00305-RMG
(D.S.C., Jan. 16, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluoro octane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during her working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
pancreatic cancer, kidney cancer, and high cholesterol as a result
of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Hochman, Esq.
THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC
5411 McPherson Rd Ste. 110
Laredo, TX 78041
Phone: (956) 704-5187
Facsimile: (956) 368-1343
3M COMPANY: Yoakum Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Alan Yoakum, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-00298-RMG
(D.S.C., Jan. 16, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluoro octane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during her working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
thyroid disease and high cholesterol as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Hochman, Esq.
THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC
5411 McPherson Rd Ste. 110
Laredo, TX 78041
Phone: (956) 704-5187
Facsimile: (956) 368-1343
A&S HOME: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Hernandez Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
JUAN HERNANDEZ, on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v.
A&S HOME CARE, INC. dba COMFORT KEEPERS, a California stock
corporation; and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV04755 (Feb.
19, 2025) alleges that the Defendants failed to compensate
Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees for all hours worked pursuant
to the California Labor Code.
Mr. Hernandez has been employed by the Defendants as a Caregiver, a
full-time nonexempt position, from October 18, 2024 to present
day.
A&S Home is a healthcare service provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elliot J. Siegel, Esq.
Julian Burns King, Esq.
KING & SIEGEL LLP
724 South Spring Street, Suite 201
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Telephone: (213) 465-4802
Facsimile: (213) 465-4803
E-mail: elliot@kingsiegel.com
julian@kingsiegel.com
- and -
Bardia A. Akhavan, Esq.
AKHAVAN & ASSOCIATES
15760 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1720
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (855) 463-4733
E-mail: bardia@baalaw.com
ADDSHOPPER INC: Court Narrows Claims in Lineberry Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABBY LINEBERRY, et al., v.
ADDSHOPPER, INC., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01996-VC (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order granting in part and
denying in part Addshoppers' and Peet's Coffee's motion to dismiss
the first amended complaint.
The Plaintiffs' CDAFA claims and Cook's CIPA claim against Peet's
are dismissed. The plaintiffs stated they are no longer pursuing
the UCL claims so those are dismissed as well. These claims are
dismissed without leave to amend given the case schedule and the
fact that plaintiffs have already had a chance to amend. The
remaining CIPA claims are not dismissed.
AddShoppers is the provider of social media apps and customized
share buttons for ecommerce websites.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AK46YM at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALCON LABORATORIES: Faces Class Suit Over Systane Eye Drops Recall
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that Alcon Laboratories
faces a proposed class action lawsuit after it recalled one lot of
its Systane lubricant eye drops due to a dangerous fungal
contamination.
According to the 18-page lawsuit, the defendant's recall affects
Systane Lubricant Eye Drops Ultra PF, Single Vials On-the-Go,
specifically 25-count packages with the lot number 10101 and a
September 2025 expiration date.
In an announcement published by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration on December 23, 2024, Alcon specifies that the
recall was initiated following a consumer complaint about "foreign
material" observed inside a sealed single-use vial.
The defendant determined the material was "fungal in nature" and
could potentially cause eye infections, the case relays. Alcon
urges consumers to stop using the recalled eye drops immediately,
as infections may be vision-threatening and even life-threatening
for immuno-compromised individuals, the announcement states.
The plaintiff, a Colorado resident, says she bought the adulterated
Systane eye drops with the assumption that the product was sterile,
as advertised on the item's packaging. The woman claims she had to
seek medical treatment after the eye drops caused her to experience
red eyes, ocular swelling, itching and discharge.
Per the filing, the plaintiff and other consumers would not have
purchased the Systane eye drops had they known there was a risk the
product may contain a pathogen that poses a significant and severe
health risk. The complaint asserts that affected consumers are
entitled to refunds, which Alcon's recall did not directly offer.
"[Alcon's] failures to timely disclose the Product's fungal
contamination amount to negligent omission, and its representations
that the Product was safe, STERILE, and of acceptable quality
amount to negligent misrepresentation," the Systane eye drop recall
lawsuit claims.
The suit argues that the fungal contamination was a result of
issues in Alcon's manufacturing processes, quality control or
packaging. Although the defendant remains silent about the precise
reason for the eye drops' contamination, the product's active
ingredient, polyethylene glycol, can serve as a carbon source for
fungi, the case notes.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone who purchased Alcon's Systane
Lubricant Eye Drops Ultra PF, Single Vials On-the-Go (25 count) in
Colorado for personal use. [GN]
AMAZON.COM INC: Fodor Sues Over Illegal Employment Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT FODOR, as an individual and on behalf of others similarly
situated and aggrieved v. AMAZON.COM INC., a Delaware corporation;
AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:25-cv-01738 (N.D.
Cal., Feb. 19, 2025) challenges systemic illegal employment
practices resulting in violations of the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff alleges that he and similarly situated former
employees were not paid for certain specific time worked as
required under California law after accepting the job offer and
prior to the start of their first scheduled paid shift.
Specifically, after acceptance of the job offer from Amazon and
being told that they were hired employees of Amazon, Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees were required by Amazon to attend a
New Hire Event. The New Hire Event is a mandatory unpaid work
orientation and onboarding at Amazon's facilities, which lasts a
minimum of 30 minutes.
Mr. Fodor was employed by the Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt
employee at an Amazon warehouse facility in Orland, California from
October 2023 to November 2023.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and the
following classes:
a. All former non-exempt employees of Defendants whose
employment with Defendants ended at any time since October
1, 2021 and (1) who applied for an hourly, non-exempt job
position with Defendants; (2) received an offer letter from
Defendants for an hourly, non-exempt position at Amazon
warehouses, distribution centers, and fulfillment centers
in California; and (3) attended an unpaid New Hire Event.
The Plaintiff specifically limits the Class to the unpaid
time for pre-first shift work resulting from mandatory
orientation and onboarding activities detailed herein and
specifically excludes any and all time after the first
scheduled shift.
b. All current and former non-exempt employees of Defendants
(1) who applied for an hourly, non-exempt job position with
Defendants; (2) received an offer letter from Defendants for
an hourly, non-exempt position at Amazon warehouses,
distribution centers, and fulfillment centers in California;
and (3) attended an unpaid New Hire Event during the period
of Oct. 1, 2023, to the present.
Amazon.com provides e-commerce services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
Kristen M. Agnew, Esq.
Max W. Gavron, Esq.
Kwanporn "Mai" Tulyathan, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 488-6555
Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
kagnew@diversitylaw.com
mgavron@diversitylaw.com
ktulyathan@diversitylaw.com
- and -
Cody R. Kennedy, Esq.
Tatiana Avakian, Esq.
MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Telephone: (818) 991-8080
Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
E-mail: ckennedy@marlinsaltzman.com
tavakian@marlinsaltzman.com
- and -
Peter M. Hart, Esq.
Ashlie E. Fox, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART
12121 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 525
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 439-9298
Facsimile: (509) 561-6441
E-mail: hartpeter@msn.com
ashlie.fox.loph@gmail.com
AMERICAN FAMILY: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KYLE HIRSCH, SARAH HIRSCH,
and DENNIS FRITTER, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Case No. 2:23-cv-04005-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order granting their joint motion to further extend the
class certification briefing deadlines by 30 days.
Event Current Proposed
Deadline Deadline
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Feb. 19, 2025 Mar. 19, 2025
Certification:
Opposition Brief: Mar. 29, 2025 Apr. 29, 2025
Reply Brief: Apr. 21, 2025 May 21, 2025
On Nov. 4, 2024, the parties engaged in formal in-person mediation
with Michael Ungar of UB Greensfelder, who has successfully
mediated multiple cases that are similar to the present one.
American Family is an American private mutual company that focuses
on property, casualty, and auto insurance.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tTD78V at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Erik D. Peterson, Esq.
ERIK PETERSON LAW OFFICES PSC
110 W. Vine Street, Ste. 300
Lexington, KY 40507
Telephone: (800) 614-1957
E-mail: erik@eplo.law
- and -
David T. Butsch, Esq.
Christopher E. Roberts, Esq.
BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC
7777 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 1300
Clayton, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 863-5700
Facsimile: (314) 863-5711
E-mail: Butsch@ButschRoberts.com
Roberts@ButschRoberts.com
- and -
J. Brandon McWherter, Esq.
MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
109 Westpark Drive, Suite 260
Brentwood, TN 37027
Telephone: (615) 354-1144
Facsimile: (731) 664-1540
E-mail: brandon@msb.law
- and -
T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq.
SNODGRASS LAW LLC
100 South Fifth Street, Suite 800
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 339-1421
E-mail: jsnodgrass@snodgrass-law.com
- and -
Douglas J. Winters, Esq.
THE WINTERS LAW GROUP, LLC
7700 Bonhomme, Suite 575
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 499-5200
Facsimile: (314) 499-5201
E-mail: dwinters@winterslg.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Leah Bruno, Esq.
Brian Cohen, Esq.
Mark Hanover, Esq.
Kristine M. Schanbacher, Esq.
Jake Thessen, Esq.
DENTONS US LLP
233 South Wacker Drive, Ste 7800
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 876-7456
E-mail: leah.bruno@dentons.com
brian.cohen@dentons.com
mark.hanover@dentons.com
kristine.schanbacher@dentons.com
jake.thessen@dentons.com
APPLE FEDERAL: Class Action Settlement in VIFM Gets Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VIRGINIA IS FOR MOVERS,
LLC, et al, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, V. APPLE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No.
1:23-cv-00576-DJN-IDD (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge David Novak
entered an order preliminarily approving class action settlement
and scheduling final approval hearing:
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 23(a) and
23(b)(3), and for purposes of settlement only, the Action is
preliminarily certified as a class action on behalf of the
following Settlement Classes:
-- APSN Fee Class:
"Members of Defendant who were assessed APSN Fees";
-- Regulation E Class:
"Members of Defendant who were assessed Regulation E Fees."
"APSN Fees" means overdraft fees that the Defendant charged and did
not refund on signature Point of Sale debit card transactions that
posted to Class Member accounts from Jan. 7, 2021 to March 31,
2024, where there was a sufficient available balance at the time
that the transaction authorized, but an insufficient available
balance at the time that the transaction was paid.
"Regulation E Fees" means overdraft fees that the Defendant
assessed and did not refund from April 28, 2022 to March 31, 2024
for debit card payments and ATM was withdrawals or transfers.
The Court finds and concludes pursuant to Rule 23, and for purposes
of settlement only, that Plaintiffs Virginia is for Movers, LLC,
and Abigail McAllister are adequate class representatives for the
APSN Fee Class and Abigail McAllister is an adequate representative
for the Regulation E Class and therefore certifies Plaintiffs as
Class Representatives on behalf of the Settlement Classes.
Class Counsel intends to seek an award of one-third of the Value of
the Settlement and a request for reimbursement of reasonable costs.
The Agreement also authorizes Plaintiffs to seek service awards of
$15,000.00. The Court will defer ruling on these amounts until the
Final Approval Hearing
The Settlement provides for Apple FCU to pay $2,500,000 into a
non-reversionary Settlement Fund and to forgive Uncollected Fees in
exchange for a release.
Apple FCU offers a range of credit cards with no annual fees, low
rates, and benefits like cash back, points, and enhanced fraud
protection.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fbR77W at no extra
charge.[CC]
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Entitled to Attorneys' Fees in Hoffman Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as JASON HOFFMAN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ARIZONA BEVERAGES
USA LLC, Defendant, Case No: 6:23-cv-1213-JSS-LHP (M.D. Fla.),
Judge Julie S. Sneed of the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida granted in part Arizona Beverages USA
LLC's motion for entry of an order designating it as the prevailing
party entitled to recover its attorneys' fees and costs after the
plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this action pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
Plaintiff brought this action against Defendant, contending
Defendant's marketing labels for its Arnold Palmer beverages were
misleading and deceptive. He asserted claims for violation of the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Sec.
501.201 (Count I), false and misleading advertising, Fla. Stat.
Sec. 817.41 (Count II), and fraud (Count III). Defendant moved to
dismiss the amended complaint, and thereafter, Plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Defendant moved for entry of an order
designating it as the prevailing party entitled to recover its
attorneys' fees and costs, which Plaintiff opposed.
On Oct. 2, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Leslie Hoffman
Price entered a report and recommendation recommending that
Defendant's motion be granted insofar as determining that Defendant
is the prevailing party entitled to attorneys' fees and costs on
the claim brought under Fla. Stat. Sec. 817.41
Plaintiff timely filed an objection to the report.
As correctly explained in the Magistrate Judge's report and
recommendation, the court's jurisdiction in this action is based on
the Class Action Fairness Act, which expanded federal diversity
jurisdiction for class actions.
The Court emphasizes that Florida substantive law applies to this
diversity action, and Florida courts have concluded that the
defendant is a prevailing party entitled to attorney's fees when
the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses his claim without prejudice.
The Court will overrule Hoffman's objections and accept and adopt
the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate
Judge.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3VgDrq from PacerMonitor.com.
AUTOMATTIC INC: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Unfair Business Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Montti, writing for Search Engine Journal, reports that a new
lawsuit seeking class action status alleges that WordPress
co-creator Matt Mullenweg and Automattic engaged in unfair business
practices to harm managed WordPress web host WP Engine (WPE) and
its customers.
According to the lawsuit:
"Plaintiff and the class seek equitable relief pursuant to Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17203 to end Defendants' wrongful practices
including requiring Defendants to cease its tortious interference
with contract."
. . . Plaintiff and the class also seek an order requiring
Defendants to make full restitution of all monies it received
through its wrongful conduct, along with all other relief permitted
under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec.Sec. 17200 et seq."
The lawsuit makes multiple claims against Mullenweg and
Automattic:
-- That defendants interfered with access to WordPress resources,
disrupting WPE customers.
-- Interfered with customers' ability to manage their websites
hosted on WP Engine (WPE).
-- The lawsuit claims that the actions were not legitimate
trademark enforcement efforts but a pretext for degrading WP
Engine's services and pressuring customers to leave.
-- The complaint also accuses the defendants of monopolistic
behavior, alleging that they wielded control over the WordPress
ecosystem for financial gain, harming WPE customers.
According to the legal filing:
"Defendants deliberately wielded their power over the WordPress.org
website like a cudgel, not only blocking access to the website but
stealing resources like the ACF plugin, forcing visitors to click a
checkbox asserting they are not associated with WPE, publishing WPE
customer website addresses in an attempt to pressure customers to
leave WPE, and repeatedly threatening future consequences including
the risk of additional service disruptions for class members who
did not leave WPE."
Why the Lawsuit Seeks Class Action Status
The legal filing asserts that the lawsuit qualifies for class
action certification based on allegations that Mullenweg and
Automattic engaged in conduct that harmed not just the plaintiff
but a broader group of WP Engine (WPE) customers. The plaintiff
contends that the defendants' actions, including interfering with
WPE's services, blocking access to essential WordPress tools,
disrupting and degrading service, and pressuring customers to leave
WPE, resulted in harm that, according to the lawsuit, meets the
criteria for class certification under Rule 23. The lawsuit claims
that WPE customers faced service disruptions, financial losses, and
potential security risks.
The justification for the class action is outlined in paragraph 58
of the lawsuit:
"Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Rules
23(a) and 23(b)(1)-(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on
behalf of himself, his business and a Nationwide Class defined as:
All persons in the United States who had ongoing active WPE
WordPress Web Hosting Plans on or before September 24, 2024 through
December 10, 2024."
The legal filing asserts that numerous public statements and court
records, including filings related to WP Engine, support the
allegation that the defendants caused harm to the plaintiff and the
alleged class. It then details the plaintiff's personal experiences
as further evidence of the alleged harm.
Section III, 'Plaintiff's Experiences,' outlines how the
defendant's actions harmed the plaintiff, Keller, including:
-- Service Disruptions
-- Business and Financial Impact
-- Personal Website Impact
-- Security Risks
-- Customer Relationship Concerns
-- Consideration of Alternative Hosting
The legal filing details that:
"Defendants' interference significantly impacted the business of
Plaintiff Keller. While Plaintiff Keller was happy with WPE
services and intended to continue using WPE services, the service
disruption and degraded service, coupled with repeated public
statements and threats made by Defendants, led Plaintiff to explore
moving his website and all those operated by his business to
another managed web host.
Plaintiff's livelihood revolves around building and operating
websites, and significant disruptions will impact his business
including his own capacity to fulfill his contractual obligations
to his own clients.
Plaintiff Keller's websites were significantly impacted by outages
despite WPE's attempts to create workarounds.
Plaintiff Keller has had to spend significant time and expense
responding to the service disruptions and degradations, preparing
for moving his and his clients' websites to a new host, and in
investigating a new host environment after a long and successful
prior partnership with WPE. He is not alone in the harm he has
suffered.
Plaintiff Keller's personal website was also significantly
impacted. Access to the WordPress backend was available
intermittently, and Plaintiff Keller received emails related to
this downtime.
Plaintiff Keller pays WPE $3,300 per year for its "Scale Plan," 2
additional websites, and GeoTargeting and Multi-Site services. Due
to Defendants' actions, Plaintiff Keller was unable to update his
website in a standard marketing cycle adjustment. Plaintiff Keller
had to spend time and expense to manage, update, and modify his
website as a result of Defendants cutting off WPE from the
WordPress ecosystem and therefore, did not receive the benefit of
his bargain with WPE as Plaintiff Keller had to do the work that he
pays WPE for."
A New Phase In Dispute Between Mullenweg/Automattic And WPE
This class action lawsuit is a new phase in the dispute between
Mullenweg, Automattic and WP Engine. It expands the legal battle to
include claims from individual customers. With allegations of
unfair competition, monopolistic behavior, and deliberate service
disruptions, the class action lawsuit adds another layer to a
dispute that has led some in the WordPress community to call for a
change in governance to the WordPress open source project. [GN]
BILL WISE'S: Thomas Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Laborers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH E. THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BILL WISE'S EXCAVATING, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00225 (W.D. Pa., February 18, 2025) is
a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment
and Collection Law, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a laborer in New
Freeport, Pennsylvania from February 7, 2019, through March 12,
2024.
Bill Wise's Excavating, Inc. is a construction firm, with a
principal place of business in New Freeport, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Email: gary@lcllp.com
- and -
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
Kalamazoo, MI 49007
Telephone: (269) 250-7500
Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Town Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com
- and -
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
Meghan Higday, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C.
1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 824-3828
Email: jm@melmedlaw.com
mh@melmedlaw.com
BLOOMINGDALES.COM LLC: Faces Class Suit Over TikTok Data Sharing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown of Bloomberglaw reports that Bloomingdales.com
LLC used online surveillance technology from TikTok Inc. to collect
the sensitive information of website visitors without their consent
in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, a proposed
federal class action said.
Lead plaintiff Kirra Hanson alleged that Bloomingdale's installed
the TikTok pixel on its website, a snippet of code that operates as
a "trap-and-trace device" that collects the dialing, routing,
addressing and signaling information generated by users.
The CIPA imposes civil liability and statutory penalties for the
installation of trap-and-trace software without consent or a court
order, according to a complaint filed Monday in the US District
Court for the Central District of California.
Bloomingdale's declined to comment.
The lawsuit comes two months after the US Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit against the
company under the wiretapping provisions of the CIPA after finding
that the plaintiff didn't show she suffered a concrete injury from
Bloomingdale's used of online tracking tools on its website.
Hanson said the TikTok software on the website "scans every website
for information, such as name, phone number and address, and
simultaneously sends the information to TikTok in order to isolate
with certainty the individual to be targeted."
TikTok also shares the information with the Chinese government, she
said.
"By sharing plaintiff's and class members' personal and
de-anonymized data with TikTok, defendant effectively 'doxed' them
to America's most formidable geopolitical adversary," the complaint
said.
Hanson seeks to represent a class of California residents whose
identifying information was sent to TikTok.
The lawsuit brings a single claim of violations of CIPA's
trap-and-trace provisions.
Hanson is seeking statutory penalties, injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees and costs, and pre-judgment interest.
Manning Law APC, Reuben D. Nathan of Newport Beach, Calif., and
Ross Cornell of Big Bear Lake, Calif. represent Hanson and the
proposed class.
The case is Hanson v. Bloomingdales.com LLC, C.D. Cal., No.
5:25-cv-00494, complaint filed 2/24/25. [GN]
BYTEDANCE INC: Class Certification Denied in Young, et al. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Vince Chhabria of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California denied the plaintiff's motion for
class certification in the case captioned as REECE YOUNG, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. BYTEDANCE INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
22-cv-01883-VC (N.D. Cal.).
The primary relief sought by Young on behalf of the class is
forward-looking: he wants the Court to order TikTok to institute
various protective measures to mitigate the risk that content
moderators will suffer psychological harm from reviewing disturbing
videos and photos. But Young has no standing to seek such relief in
federal court, the Court finds. According to the Court, he is no
longer employed as a TikTok moderator and has no intention of
returning to that work. He had already left his job by the time he
sued TikTok, so the "capable of repetition" doctrine is not
available to him. Furthermore, even if Young had quit after he
filed suit, he has not submitted sufficient evidence to support his
assertion that no monitor would remain in the job long enough to
pursue a class action, the Court concludes.
The secondary form of relief Young seeks is something he calls a
"medical monitoring fund." The Court notes there is no mention of
this proposed fund in the motion for class certification, much less
an explanation of how it would work. At the hearing, Young's
counsel explained that TikTok should be ordered to put money in a
fund that would be used to benefit the class in two ways: to
monitor all class members for signs of emotional distress, and to
provide people treatment (for example, therapy) in the event they
need it. Even after this explanation, the Court lacks the
information necessary to assess whether such a fund would be
feasible.
The Court finds Young has not shown that the question of whether
TikTok retained control over the moderators' work for the vendors
(or exercised that control) is apt to generate the same answer
across the class. Based on all the evidence (of how the software
works, how moderators were trained, who trained them, etc.),
perhaps it's possible that a jury could answer this question the
same way for all class members. But it's undisputed that TikTok had
much more direct involvement in the training and supervision of
moderators who worked for third-party agencies (TPAs). TikTok had
less involvement in the training and supervision of moderators who
worked for business process outsourcing vendors (BPOs). Only 335
people worked as moderators for TPAs, while more than 12,000 worked
for BPOs. The Court emphasizes that Young was one of the few who
worked for a TPA, and he's the only named plaintiff, which means
that the class certification motion is contemplating a trial where
the vast majority of class members could be effectively
unrepresented on a key threshold question in the case.
Even the number of TPA moderators -- 335 -- overstates the size of
the class that Young could represent, the Court states. That's
because more than two-thirds of these people signed arbitration
agreements with the TPAs.
One element of Young's negligence claim is breach -- that TikTok
breached the standard of care for minimizing exposure to disturbing
content, and/or for implementing measures to mitigate the
psychological impact of that exposure. The evidence in the record
creates some concern that this question could generate different
answers across the class, because moderators received different
explanations/warnings about the type of content they would be
exposed to, because there could be variation in the type/amount of
training they received, and because there may have been different
mitigation measures available at their particular jobs. According
to the Court, it's not clear that this concern alone would defeat
class certification -- it may be that the question could be
presented to the jury in a way that allows it to conclude that
TikTok breached its duty to all moderators (or to none of them),.
An additional element of Young's claim is demonstrating that
TikTok's alleged breach of the standard of care caused him harm.
The Court finds Young has not shown that the jury could make the
same finding on this element as to the entire class (or what would
remain of the class after accounting for the arbitration agreements
and the differences between TPAs and the BPOs).
The proposed class members worked in at least 24 different states,
with fewer than 400 of those class members living and/or working in
California. As TikTok now contends, the law of the state where a
given moderator worked will apply to that moderator's claim. That's
obviously correct. It's
not clear whether there are significant differences in the law of
the 24 states, but Young has not shown that there aren't, the Court
further finds.
The Court is also not convinced that the class action device would
be superior to individual adjudication in this context.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2Arlkh from PacerMonitor.com.
CAPITAL ONE: Faces Willoughby Suit Over Clients' Compromised Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW WILLOUGHBY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
CAPITAL ONE, N.A., AND CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., Defendants,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00302 (E.D. Va., February 18, 2025) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se,
invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, breach of
confidence, breach of fiduciary duty, and declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated individuals stored within their computer
systems following a data breach between August 11, 2022, through
May 22, 2023. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach.
As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class
members was compromised and damaged through access by and
disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the
suit.
Capital One Financial Corporation is a bank holding company,
headquartered in McLean, Virginia.
Capital One, NA is a national bank with its principal place of
business in McLean, Virginia.
Capital One Bank (USA), NA is a national bank with its principal
place of business in McLean, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lee A. Floyd, Esq.
Justin M. Sheldon, Esq.
BREIT BINIAZAN, PC
2100 East Cary Street, Suite 310
Richmond, VA 23223
Telephone: (804) 351-9040
Facsimile: (804) 351-9170
Email: Lee@bbtrial.com
Justin@bbtrial.com
- and -
William B. Federman, Esq.
Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com
jaw@federmanlaw.com
CARNEGIE MELLON: Class Settlement in Pfingsten Gets Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABIGALE PFINGSTEN and
ANOKHY DESAI on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00716-RJC
(W.D. Pa.), the Court entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
unopposed motion to preliminarily approve class action settlement,
certify the class, appoint class counsel, approve proposed class
notice, and schedule a final approval hearing.
For purposes of the proposed Settlement only, the Court
preliminarily finds and determines that the Action may proceed as a
class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, and provisionally certifies 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; excluding (i) any person who properly executes and
files a timely opt-out request to be excluded from the
Settlement Class; and (ii) the legal representatives,
successors or assigns of any such excluded person."
For purposes of the proposed Settlement only, the Court
preliminarily appoints Named Plaintiffs Abigale Pfingsten and
Anokhy Desai as Settlement Class Representatives.
For purposes of the proposed Settlement only, the Court
preliminarily appoints 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 Representatives with respect to the
Settlement. T
Carnegie is a private institution that was founded in 1900.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7uO8Qy 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
Philip L. Fraietta
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeffrey Weimer, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
225 Fifth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
CHARLES SCHWAB: Class Settlement in Corrente Suit Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN CORRENTE, et al.,
v. THE CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION, Case No. 4:22-cv-00470-ALM (E.D.
Tex.), the Hon. Judge Amos Mazzant entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement and for issuance of notice to the settlement class.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2) and for the purposes
of this Settlement only, the Action is preliminarily certified as a
class action on behalf of a class (the “Settlement Class”)
consisting of:
"Persons, entities, and corporations who are current U.S.
brokerage customers of Schwab or any of its affiliates,
including customers who previously held accounts at TD
Ameritrade."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (a) the Defendant; (b)
its employees, officers, directors, legal representatives,
heirs, successors, and wholly or partly owned subsidiaries or
affiliates; and (c) the judicial officers and their immediate
family members and associated court staff assigned to this
case.
The Plaintiffs are designated as class representatives on
behalf of the Settlement Class.
The Plaintiffs appear to have no conflict of interest with the
Settlement Class and allege that they suffered the same injury as
all Settlement Class Members.
The Court schedules the Fairness Hearing, to be held before the
Court on Thursday, August 28, 2025, at 9:00 a.m.
For purposes of this Settlement only, Ankura Consulting Group, LLC
is appointed as the Notice Administrator to supervise and
administer the notice procedure pursuant to the terms set forth in
the Stipulation and substantially in the form approved herein.
Charles Schwab provides a full range of brokerage, banking and
financial advisory services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ss48sI at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Yavar Bathaee, Esq.
BATHAEE DUNNE LLP
445 Park Avenue, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (332) 322-8835
E-mail: yavar@bathaeedunne.com
- and -
Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
BURKE LLP
402 West Broadway, Suite 1890
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 369-8244
E-mail: cburke@burke.law
CHRISTIE'S INC: Settlement Class in Data Breach Suit Certified
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned re Christie's Data Breach
Litigation, Case No. 1:24-cv-04221-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Jesse Furman entered an order granting class certification for
settlement purposes only.
The Settlement Agreement provides for a Settlement Class defined as
follows:
"All persons in the United States whose Private Information
was compromised as a result of the Data Breach and who were
sent notice of the Data Breach."
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IZCgIh at no extra
charge.[CC]
CIGNA GROUP: Parties Seek Extension of Fact Discovery Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SNYDER, et al., v. THE
CIGNA GROUP, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01451-OAW (D. Conn.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadlines for
completion of fact discovery and class certification briefing set
by the Court's scheduling order.
Event Original Proposed
Date Modified Date
Fact discovery closes: June 28, 2025 Feb. 27, 2026
Plaintiff's motion for class Aug. 22, 2025 April 22, 2026
Certification:
Opposition to motion for Oct. 21, 2025 June 22, 2026
class certification:
Replies to motion for class Dec. 22, 2025 Aug. 24, 2026
Certification:
On Nov. 2, 2023, the Plaintiffs Snyder, Wingo, and Whitney filed a
Class Action Complaint against Cigna alleging state-law claims and
ERISA claims.
Cigna moved to dismiss that complaint on Jan. 8, 2024. The
Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (FAC) on Feb. 6,
2024.
The FAC includes allegations on behalf of a new named Plaintiff,
Schultz, and new causes of action under D.C. state law and common
law.
Cigna is an American multinational for-profit managed healthcare
and insurance company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RcygJk at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Erin Green Comite, Esq.
Anja Rusi, Esq.
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
Amanda M. Rolon, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT
ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
156 South Main Street
Colchester, Connecticut 06415
Telephone: (860) 537-5537
E-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com
arusi@scott-scott.com
jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
arolon@scott-scott.com
- and -
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Michael A. Innes, Esq.
Jordan M. Steele, Esq.
Zachary S. Bower, Esq.
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI
BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
minnes@carellabyrne.com
jsteele@carellabyrne.com
zbower@carellabyrne.com
- and -
Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
Lisa Lamb Port, Esq.
Kelsey Sheronas, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ
MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
llambport@ktmc.com
ksheronas@ktmc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Joshua B. Simon, Esq.
Warren Haskel, Esq.
Dmitriy Tishyevich, Esq.
John J. Song, Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
One Vanderbilt Avenue
New York, NY 10017-3852
Telephone: (212) 547 5400
Facsimile: (212) 547 5444
E-mail: jsimon@mwe.com
whaskel@mwe.com
dtishyevich@mwe.com
jsong@mwe.com
- and -
Theodore J. Tucci, Esq.
Kevin P. Daly, Esq.
ROBINSON & COLE LLP
280 Trumbull Street
Hartford, CT 06103-3597
Telephone: (860) 275-8200
Facsimile: (860) 275-8299
E-mail: ttucci@rc.com
kdaly@rc.com
CP SANIBEL: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JULIAN DEBREGOSIAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CP SANIBEL, LLC; and CP SANIBEL
FEE OWNER, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00028-SPC-KCD (M.D.
Fla., Jan. 13, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants'
commercial property located at 17260 Harbour Pointe Drive, Fort
Myers, FL 33908, in Lee County, Florida, is not accessible to
mobility-impaired individuals in violation of ADA.
CP Sanibel, LLC was founded in 2007. The Company's line of business
includes operating public hotels and motels. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon A. Rotbart, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF BRANDON A. ROTBART, P.A.
11098 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 401-18
Miami, FL 33161
Telephone: (305) 350-7400
Email: rotbart@rotbartlaw.com
CUMBERLAND FARMS: Faces Price Wage-and-Hour Suit in D.R.I.
----------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL PRICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC., alias, and
SHIFTSMART, INC., alias, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00065
(D.R.I., February 18, 2025) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Rhode Island Payment of Wages Act, and the Rhode Island Minimum
Wage Act including worker misclassification, failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to keep accurate wage
records, and failure to provide breaks.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a store merchandiser and
cleaner from November 2023 until on or around January 20, 2025.
Cumberland Farms, Inc. is a store owner and operator, with its
principal office located at 165 Flanders Rd., Westborough, Mass.
Shiftsmart, Inc. is a store owner and operator, with its principal
place of business located at One World Trade Center, Suite 46L, New
York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Olayiwola O. Oduyingbo, Esq.
888 Reservoir Avenue, Floor 2
Cranston, RI 02910
Telephone: (401) 209-2029
Facsimile: (401) 217-2299
Email: Odu@odulawfirm.com
DEEP SEA: Faces Simon Wage-and-Hour Suit in California State Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
TASHAUNA RENEE SIMON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEEP SEA OIL, INC.; and DOES 1 to
100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV04619 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., February 18, 2025) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of California Labor Code's Private
Attorneys General Act including failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal period or
pay premium in lieu thereof, failure to provide rest period or pay
premium in lieu thereof, failure to timely pay wages, failure to
provide complete and accurate wage statements, and failure to pay
employees all wages due at time of termination/resignation.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in an hourly position
in Los Angeles, California from in or around January 2, 2023, until
on or about September 3, 2024.
Deep Sea Oil, Inc. is an oil extraction and production company
doing business in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
Jeffrey Klein, Esq.
Jovahn Wiggins, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 432-0000
Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
jklein@lelawfirm.com
jwiggins@lelawfirm.com
DH INSURANCE: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls, Tillery Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH TILLERY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DH INSURANCE GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
6:25-cv-00261 (M.D. Fla., February 18, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in a practice
of calling the telephone numbers of consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in an attempt to promote its products and services
without prior express written consent. As a result of the
Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff and Class members were harmed.
DH Insurance Group, LLC is a company that sells insurance products,
with its headquarters located in Palm Beach County, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
LEHRMAN LAW
6501 Park of Commerce Blvd., Suite 253
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Telephone: (754) 778-9660
Email: seth@lehrmanlaw.com
DHI GROUP: Plan Provision Violates Delaware Law, Harrison Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL HARRISON, Plaintiff v. DHI GROUP, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, BRIAN SCHIPPER, ART ZEILE, SCIPIO CARNECCHIA, JIM
FRIEDLICH, JOSEPH MASSAQUOI, JR., ELIZABETH SALOMON, KATHLEEN
SWANN, and DAVID WINDLEY, Case No. 2025-0185 (D. Del., Feb. 19,
2025) is a class action complaint brought by the Plaintiff on
behalf of himself and all other holders of the respective rights
against the Company and members of its Board, seeking a declaratory
judgment that the relevant plan provision violates Delaware law and
public policy and is invalid.
On Jan.28, 2025, the Company announced that its Board had, on that
date, adopted a stockholder rights plan in the form of a Section
382 Rights Plan (the "Rights Agreement"), as currently effective.
Pursuant to the Rights Agreement, the Board declared a dividend
distribution of one preferred stock purchase right for each
outstanding share of common stock of the Company. Under the Rights
Agreement, the Rights, and thus the right to receive certificates
evidencing the Rights, are presently transferable only in
connection with the transfer of the underlying shares of the
Company's common stock.
The Plaintiff brings this class action pursuant to Court of
Chancery Rule 23, on behalf of himself and the Class, consisting of
all holders of the Rights who have been injured or are threatened
with injury arising from Defendants' unlawful conduct, including,
but not limited to, Defendants' attempt to eliminate any liability
on the part of the Company's Board. The Class excludes Defendants
and any members of their immediate families and their legal
representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in
which Defendants have or had a controlling interest.
Michael Harrison is a holder of the Company's Rights and their
respective underlying shares of the Company's common stock.
DHI is a provider of AI-powered career marketplaces and software
services that focus on connecting technologists with employers. The
Individuals Defendants are officers of the company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
1000 N. West Street, Suite 1500
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 984-3800
E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com
- and -
Brian P. Murray, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Avenue, Suite 358
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
- and -
Werner R. Kranenburg, Esq.
KRANENBURG
80-83 Long Lane
London EC1A 9ET
United Kingdom
Telephone: (44) 20-3174-0365
EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Faces Elliott Suit Over Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOUGLAS ELLIOTT, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EDISON INTERNATIONAL, PEDRO J. PIZARRO, and
MARIA RIGATTI, Case No. 2:25-cv-01383 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 19, 2025) is
a federal securities class action brought on behalf of all persons
or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Edison publicly
traded securities from Feb. 25, 2021, through Feb. 6, 2025,
inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
Throughout the class period, Edison claimed that SCE uses its
Public Safety Power Shutoffs program to "proactively de-energize
power lines to mitigate the risk of catastrophic wildfires during
extreme weather events." On Jan. 7, 2025, a fire began in the area
of Eaton Canyon (the "Eaton Canyon Fire") in the unincorporated
census designated place in Los Angeles County, California, called
Altadena, within a half mile from the intersection of North
Altadena Drive and Midwick Drive in Pasadena, California. The
transmission circuit in Eaton Canyon, as well as related hardware
fixtures, devices, structures, components, property, easements, and
rights of way were part of an electrical transmission system
(“ETS") owned, designed, constructed, installed, inspected,
maintained and/or controlled by Defendant Edison or its subsidiary
SCE.
Following the outbreak of the Eaton Canyon Fire, on January 8,
2025, Edison stated in a press release that its "distribution lines
immediately to the west of Eaton Canyon were de-energized well
before the reported start time of the fire, as part of SCE's Public
Safety Power Shutoff program."
However, on Jan. 12, 2025, Edison admitted that there were "no
interruptions or operational/electrical anomalies in the 12 hours
prior to the fire’s reported start time until more than one hour
after the reported start time of the fire."
On Jan. 13, 2025, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles alleging that
the fires originated from Edison's power lines. The complaint
included eye-witness accounts and photographs that showed the fire
was started by Edison's electrical equipment.
On this news, Edison share prices dropped by $1.28, or
approximately 2.4%, on Feb. 6, 2025. The Plaintiff and the other
Class members have suffered significant damages due to the
Defendants' false and misleading statements and omissions, the suit
says.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Exchange Act
by publishing false and misleading statements to artificially
inflate the Company's stock price.
Edison is the parent holding company of Southern California Edison
Company and Edison Energy Group, Inc. SCE is an investor-owned
public utility primarily engaged in the business of supplying and
delivering electricity to an approximately 50,000 square mile area
of southern California. Edison Energy Group is a holding company
for Edison Energy.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 785-2610
Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
EVERYTHING BREAKS: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Suit for $995,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Everything Breaks agreed to a
$995,000 nationwide class action lawsuit settlement to resolve
claims that it violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA) with unsolicited telemarketing calls.
The Everything Breaks class action settlement benefits individuals
who received two or more telephone solicitation calls from
Everything Breaks within a 12-month period despite their number
being on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 31 days.
Consumers took legal action against Everything Breaks, arguing the
company violated the TCPA with unsolicited telemarketing calls. The
TCPA prohibits telemarketers from calling consumers whose phone
numbers are on the registry.
Everything Breaks is a warranty company that offers protection
plans for electronics, appliances, vehicles and more. According to
the company's website, Everything Breaks provides "the most
comprehensive and affordable protection plans" on the market.
The company has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a
$995,000 class action settlement to resolve these allegations.
Under the terms of the Everything Breaks class action settlement,
class members can receive a cash payment.
Class members who submit a valid claim form will be entitled to an
equal share of the net settlement fund of $995,000. Exact payments
will vary depending on the number of participating class members.
According to the settlement website, each claimant is estimated to
receive between $36 and $144.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is March 25, 2025.
The final approval hearing for the Everything Breaks TCPA class
action lawsuit settlement is scheduled for June 4, 2025.
In order to receive a settlement payment, class members must submit
a valid claim form by April 9, 2025.
Who's Eligible
Individuals who received two or more telephone solicitation calls
from Everything Breaks within a 12-month period despite their
number being on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 31
days.
Potential Award
Exact payments will vary depending on the number of participating
class members. According to the settlement website, each claimant
is estimated to receive between $36 and $144.
Proof of Purchase
All individuals in the United States who, during the Class Period:
(a) received two or more telephone solicitation calls made by or
on behalf of the Defendant:
1. on a phone number listed on the National Do Not Call
Registry for at least 31 days at the time of the calls, or
2. within a 12-month period, with at least one call
occurring after being marked as "DNC," "Do Not Call," or "Already
Covered" in the Defendant's records;
(b) have a phone number included in EBI_000029 or EBI_000030;
and
(c) had their phone number obtained by the Defendant in the same
manner as the Plaintiff's phone number.
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
04/09/2025
Case Name
Stephan Campbell, et al. v. Everything Breaks Inc., Case No.:
2:23-cv-00861-GMN-EJY in the United States District Court District
Of Nevada
Final Hearing
06/04/2025
Settlement Website
CampbellTcpaSettlement
Claims Administrator
Campbell v. Everything Breaks Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 301132
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1132
admin@CampbellTCPASettlement.com
(888) 726-1345
Class Counsel
Max S. Morgan
THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC
Defense Counsel
Sean P. Flynn
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI [GN]
FEDLOAN STUDENT: Judge Tosses Student Loan MDL
----------------------------------------------
Judge Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the motions
filed by Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency and the
United States Department of Education and Secretary of Education to
dismiss the consolidated case IN RE: FEDLOAN STUDENT LOAN SERVICING
LITIGATION, MDL NO. 18-2833 (E.D. Pa.). This matter is dismissed
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Xea6o0 from PacerMonitor.com.
GMO-Z.COM: Court Narrows Claims in Donovan, et al. Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Analisa Torres of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part
GMO-Z.com Trust Company, Inc. motion to dismiss the
case captioned as KENNETH DONOVAN, HUSSIEN KASSPY, and JOHN BRAMBL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, -against- GMO-Z.COM TRUST COMPANY, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 23-cv-08431-AT (S.D.N.Y.) under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Plaintiffs, Kenneth Donovan, Hussien Kassfy, and John Brambl, bring
this putative class action against Defendant, GMO-Z.com Trust
Company, Inc., alleging that GMO Trust violated federal securities
laws and state consumer protection laws 1n connection with the
offer of a digital asset known as GYEN. They bring claims claims
under Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C.
sec. 771(a)(1), for alleged violations of Sections 5(a) and S(c) of
the Act, id. Secs. 77e(a), (c), as well as claims under New York
General Business Law Secs. 349 and 350, the California Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200 et seqg., and
the California False Advertising Law, id. Sec. 17500 et seg.
GMO Trust is the issuer of a digital asset known as GYEN, described
by GMO Trust and others as a stablecoin.
According to GMO Trust, GYEN is a 100% fiat-collateralized
stablecoin designed to be anchored to the value of the Japanese
yen, such that one GYEN is always redeemable for one JPY.
GMO Trust launched GYEN for purchase and redemption in March 2021.
A few months later, GMO Trust partnered with Binance and Coinbase
-- two of the world's largest digital asset exchanges -- to make
GYEN available for trading on their platforms. Binance listed GYEN
for purchase and trading on its exchange beginning on May 12, 2021.
On Nov. 16, 2021, Coinbase publicly listed GYEN for purchase and
trading on its exchange.
Donovan purchased GYEN for the first time on May 12, 2021. He paid
more than $335,000 for tokens at an elevated price that,
unbeknownst to him, did not reflect the value at which the coins
could be redeemed. Within hours after Donovan's order was filled,
the price of GYEN on Binance returned to its peg with JPY, causing
Donovan's GYEN to lose more than 90 percent of its value on
Binance, which was not recovered.
Brambl and Kassfy purchased GYEN for the first time on Nov. 16 and
17, 2021, respectively. Brambl paid approximately $175,000 for
tokens at an elevated price that, unbeknownst to him, did not
reflect the value at which the coins could be redeemed. Shortly
after Brambl's order was filled, his GYEN lost more than 66 percent
of its value on Coinbase, which was not recovered. Kassfy paid
approximately $113,000 for tokens at an elevated price that,
unbeknownst to him, did not reflect the value at which the coins
could be redeemed. Within hours after Kassfy's order was filled,
his GYEN lost more than 70 percent of its value on Coinbase, which
was not recovered.
Plaintiffs Donovan and Kassfy filed this action in the Northern
District of California on May 12, 2022, bringing claims against
Coinbase Global, Inc., and Coinbase Inc., as well as GMO Trust. On
Aug. 25, 2022, Plaintiffs amended their complaint, naming Brambl as
an additional plaintiff. According to Plaintiffs' second amended
complaint, they purport to bring their claims on behalf of a class
of "all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
GYEN cryptocurrency issued between Dec. 29, 2020, through the
present and were damaged as a result."
By order dated Jan. 6, 2023, the Honorable Trina L. Thompson
granted Coinbase's motion to compel Plaintiffs' claims against
Coinbase to arbitration and to stay the federal district court
proceedings as to Coinbase pending the arbitration. On July 13,
2023, by stipulation of Plaintiffs and GMO Trust, Judge Thompson
severed Plaintiffs' claims against GMO Trust from those against
Coinbase and transferred the claims against GMO Trust to this Court
under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1404(a).
Whether Plaintiffs Purchased Securities
Under Section 5 of the Securities Act, it is unlawful for any
person, directly or indirectly, to offer to sell, offer to buy or
purchase, or sell a security unless a registration statement is in
effect or has been filed with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission as to the offer and sale of such security to
the public.
Plaintiffs argue that they purchased an unregistered security
--GYEN -- not directly from GMO Trust, but as a direct result of
GMO Trust's solicitation of GYEN purchases on secondary markets for
its own financial gain. GMO Trust contends that even if Plaintiffs'
factual allegations are true, the GYEN that Plaintiffs purchased
was not a security as defined by the Act.
The Court finds Plaintiffs have not established that they
personally purchased securities, nor that GYEN was offered in an
investment-contract ecosystem, in which a reasonable purchaser
would expect to earn profits based on the efforts of others
regardless of where or how they purchased GYEN or what they did
with it. The Court, therefore, finds that the allegations of the
complaint fail to state a claim under Section 12(a) of the
Securities Act because they do not establish that a reasonable
purchaser of GYEN on Binance or Coinbase would expect to earn
profits derived solely from the efforts of others.
Accordingly, GMO Trust's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' first cause
of action is granted.
Jurisdiction Under the Class Action Fairness Act
Although Plaintiffs do not specifically allege CAFA jurisdiction
within the complaint, it appears that the requirements of CAFA are
satisfied based on the allegations of the complaint. Plaintiffs
allege that GMO Trust and at least one plaintiff are citizens of
different states. They purport to bring claims on behalf of
"thousands of GYEN purchasers." And, according to Plaintiffs, the
members of their proposed class "collectively lost untold millions"
when the price of GYEN on Binance and Coinbase became untethered
from the value of JPY. Based on these allegations, the Court finds
it reasonably probable that CAFA jurisdiction is proper.
Violations of GBL Secs. 349 and 350
Plaintiffs' second and third causes of action assert that GMO
Trust's representations and omissions with respect to GYEN were
deceptive acts and practices in violation of GBL Sec. 349 and false
and misleading advertising in violation of GBL Sec. 350.
The Court finds the complaint's allegations suffice to make out
violations of GBL Secs. 349 and 350. Accordingly, GMO Trust's
motion to dismiss claims two and three of the complaint is denied.
Violations of the California UCL and FAL
Plaintiffs' fourth and fifth causes of action allege that GMO
Trust's representations and omissions with respect to GYEN
constituted unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent conduct in violation
of the California UCL and false advertising in violation of the
California FAL.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have stated claims under the
California FAL and each independent prong of the California UCL.
GMO Trust's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' fourth and fifth causes
of action is, therefore, denied.
Plaintiffs' claim under Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act is
dismissed for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend to be
sought within 21 days of the date of this order, the Court holds.
GMO Trust's motion is denied in all other respects.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BTVkNX from PacerMonitor.com.
GOLF WANG: Trippett Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALFRED TRIPPETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOLF WANG RETAIL, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-01371 (S.D.N.Y., February 18, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York State Civil Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law,
and declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.golfwang.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not
limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, ambiguous link texts,
inaccurate focus order, ambiguous link texts, unclear labels for
interactive elements, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, the denial
of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the
requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.
Golf Wang Retail, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and
services in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, PC
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
HUMBOLDT INDEPENDENT: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Fraser Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN FRASER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HUMBOLDT INDEPENDENT PRACTICE ASSOCIATION,
Case No. 1:25-cv-01756 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 19, 2025) arises from
Defendant's failure to secure the personally identifiable
information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and
the members of the proposed Class, who are current and former
customers of the Defendant.
The Defendant partners with health care providers to assist with
administrative services. On Feb. 12, 2025, the Defendant notified
Plaintiff of a data security incident on its system. The Defendant
determined that between June 26, 2024, and July 1, 2024, an
unauthorized actor acquired contents of an email account, which
contained the Private Information of Defendant's customers.
The Private Information intruders accessed and infiltrated from
Defendant's systems included, at the very least names, contact
information such as mailing addresses, emails, telephone numbers,
dates of birth, driver's licenses, medical diagnosis or conditions,
and health insurance information.
As a direct and proximate result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff
and Class Members have suffered actual and present injuries,
including but not limited to: (a) present, certainly impending, and
continuing threats of identity theft crimes, fraud, scams, and
other misuses of their Private Information; (b) diminution of value
of their Private Information; and (c) loss of benefit of the
bargain (price premium damages).
As a condition of receiving a healthcare plan or services, the
Plaintiff and Class Members were required to provide Defendant with
their sensitive and confidential Private Information, including
their names, mailing addresses, emails, telephone numbers, dates of
birth, driver’s licenses, medical diagnosis or conditions, and
health insurance information, the suit asserts.
The Humboldt IPA provides leadership in working with health plans
and health care providers to ensure that medical care is
provided.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: cardoso@kolawyers.com
ILLINOIS: Walsh Sues Over Unconstitutional Transport Vehicle Use
----------------------------------------------------------------
KODY WALSH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. LATOYA HUGHES, Acting Director of the Illinois
Department of Corrections, in her official capacity, JEREMIAH
BROWN, Warden of Lawrence Correctional Center, in his individual
and official capacities, and JOHN DOE, in his individual capacity,
Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00194 (S.D. Ill., February 10, 2025)
is a class action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, challenging
Defendants' unconstitutional and unreasonable use of a transport
vehicle that subjects inmates to unacceptable and unreasonable pain
and risk of injury.
According to the complaint, Lawrence Correctional Center routinely
transports its inmates in vehicles that can be fairly described as
torture chambers on wheels -- locked boxes that sit on the
wheelbase of a van, with no shock absorbers and no cushions, that
are bolted onto a vehicle's chassis. As a result, when the van
strikes any object in the road or hits a pothole, the passengers in
the box are bounced around, says the suit.
Lead Plaintiff Walsh and numerous other inmates have been forced to
ride in these "transport cages" on hours-long trips to medical
facilities and courthouses.
Plaintiff Kody, on behalf of himself and a Class of similarly
situated inmates, brings claims of unlawful and unconstitutional
conduct by Defendants by requiring Class members to ride in these
transport cages for hours at a time.
Latoya Hughes is the acting director of the Illinois Department of
Corrections. She is sued in her official capacity.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan Marsh, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JORDAN MARSH
5 Revere Drive Suite 200
Northbrook, IL 60062
Telephone: (224) 220-9000
E-mail: jordan@jmarshlaw.com
JOHNS MANVILLE: Faces Midwest Class Suit Over Calsil Monopoly
-------------------------------------------------------------
MIDWEST INSULATION SERVICES INC., on behalf of itself and those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNS MANVILLE CORPORATION, Case
No. 1:25-cv-00534-NRN (D. Colo., Feb. 19, 2025) is a class suit
brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of itself and similarly-situated
United States purchasers of calsil thermal pipe insulation sold by
Johns Manville through its United States distributors.
The action seeks class injunctive relief under federal
monopolization law and the law of estoppel for indirect calsil
purchasers, as well as damage relief for an indirect purchaser
damage class pursuant to State indirect-purchaser, monopolization
law and the law of estoppel.
In the federal matter Chase Manufacturing, Inc. v. Johns Manville
Corp. No. 19-cv-00872 -MEH (D. Colo.), the jury found that JM has
monopolized an antitrust calsil relevant market under Sherman Act.
The market encompasses the sale in the United States of calsil
thermal pipe insulation used by industrial facilities, including
power plants and oil refineries, to insulate pipes transporting
materials at temperatures up to 1200 degrees Fahrenheit.
On May 14, 2024, the District Court entered a $21 million Final
Judgment awarding treble lost profit damages to plaintiff Chase
Manufacturing, Inc. (doing business as Thermal Pipe Shields, Inc.),
a JM competitor. The judgment was subsequently adjusted by the
Court to $18.45 million.
The Chase Manufacturing judgment gives rise to collateral estoppel
as to the monopolization violation for the benefit of the alleged
proposed federal injunctive class, and the indirect purchaser
damage class alleged herein under State monopolization law.
As to the latter, the Plaintiff as proposed class representative
will show the Court the antitrust price injury and damages
materially caused to members of the class by the established JM
monopolization. Under the law of collateral estoppel, JM is barred
from relitigating that it has monopolized the United States calsil
relevant market.
In the alternative, the Plaintiff will show the Court as follows.
Industrial facilities transitioned away from asbestosis in the
1970s to safer insulation alternatives, including calsil.
Calsil is "hydrous calcium silicate" that can be form-fitted for
diverse sizes and shapes of industrial equipment, such as pipes and
tanks. It is heat-resistant, durable, noncombustible, and
anticorrosive.
JM is the dominant purveyor of this calsil thermal pipe insulation
in the United States with a 97% market share in the calsil relevant
market. JM is also the exclusive manufacturer of calsil in the
United States.
Until 2018, JM was not only the sole United States calsil
manufacturer but also the exclusive domestic calsil supplier. It
sells calsil to JM thermal-pipe-insulation distributors in the
United States including those in Nebraska. In turn, these United
States JM distributors sell calsil to industrial users and
insulation contractors ("indirect purchasers") based on project
specifications.
In March 2018, TPS entered the United States calsil market with a
competing product. As did JM's calsil, TPS's complied with ASTM
standards, withstood temperatures up to 1200 degrees Fahrenheit,
and allowed for formfitting for various industrial uses.
TPS's calsil came with other advantages. For one, TPS priced its
calsil 20% to 25% less than JM priced its calsil. For another,
because TPS used a different manufacturing process than JM, TPS’s
calsil was stronger and more flexible.
Midwest Insulation is an indirect purchaser of JM calsil resident
in Omaha, Nebraska which has been purchasing substantial amounts of
JM calsil from JM distributors over the last four years.
Johns Manville is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway,
Inc. JM manufactures and sells construction products, including
mechanical insulation products such as calsil.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Stephen Berry, Esq.
Berry Law PLLC
1100 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 645
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 296-1212
E-mail: sberry@berrylawpllc.com
LION ELECTRIC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
BNN Bloomberg reports Quebec-based electric-vehicle manufacturer
Lion Electric Co. is facing a class-action lawsuit from
shareholders who allege the company misled investors and
misrepresented its financial health, leading to artificially
inflated stock prices.
"Damages suffered by the members of the proposed group are the
direct and immediate result of the false and misleading
representations, omissions and failures to provide continuous
information by the defendants," said the court filing dated Friday,
February 21.
The proposed securities class action claims Lion Electric,
headquartered in St-Jerome, Que., hid facts and details about its
order book and production capacities from investors. Class members
include those who invested in the company between May 7, 2021, and
Dec. 15, 2024.
"It was not until December 2024 that the full truth became known to
the market, such that there was no longer any artificial inflation
in the value of Lion Electric's securities attributable to the
defendants' misconduct," the document said.
With US$500 million in debt, Lion Electric obtained protection from
its creditors in December and is seeking a buyer with a
restructuring plan that would focus only on school buses and return
all manufacturing to Quebec. Earlier this month, a Quebec Superior
Court judge extended the company's creditor protection to April 4,
and bids on the company must be made by March 7.
Shareholders allege the company's alleged actions led to huge
financial losses for them, claiming that when Lion Electric's
struggles became public the stock lost 96 per cent of its value on
the Toronto and New York stock exchanges.
In an emailed statement on Monday, February 24, Patrick Gervais,
spokesman for Lion Electric, said, "Given the legal procedures, we
will not comment." The allegations in the class action have not
been tested and the lawsuit has not yet been authorized.
Among those named in the 101-page lawsuit are directors, officers,
auditors and underwriters of the company. The suit alleges that
when the company went public, Lion's bosses presented a positive
outlook on the business's productivity and profitability.
"Each time, Lion Electric's management reiterated that the
production rate was increasing, that the company's customers were
satisfied, that the order book was constantly growing and that Lion
Electric was on the path to profitability," the lawsuit says. "All
in all, Lion Electric's dream was on the way to becoming a
reality."
The company trumpeted deals with clients like with Amazon, Canadian
National Railway and Ikea. Some companies, such as Molson Coors and
Agropur, never had contracts with Lion -- but their logos appeared
on presentations to investors until May 2022, and were removed
without explanation.
Former employees say in the filing that vehicles were defective and
not up to customer expectations. "Its approach to producing
electric trucks did not reflect the pace of the market and was not
aligned with its order book and its facility size far exceeded its
needs and was not being maximized," the filing said.
The lawsuit also cited quarterly financial results and annual
results between 2021-24. It says that investors began learning
about the company's troubles in May 2023. The company's order book
was allegedly dwindling and deliveries were on the decline,
affecting revenue, growth and liquidity.
"During this period, Lion Electric's securities fell precipitously
as the artificial inflation caused by the defendants' misconduct
dissipated from the value of the company's securities, causing a
real economic loss to the members of the proposed class," the
filing reads.
The lead plaintiff in the class-action case is Adam Mulhall, a
member of Invest-Lion, a group representing investors. [GN]
LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Frost Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Luxottica of America Inc. d/b/a Ray-Ban, Case
No. 0:25-cv-00655 (D. Minn., Feb. 19, 2025) arises because the
Defendant's Website (www.ray-ban. is not fully and equally
accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in
violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the
effective communication and auxiliary aids and services
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its
implementing regulations as well as asserts a companion cause of
action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
The Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction requiring a change in
Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become,
and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a
civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota pursuant to Minn.
Stat. 363A.33, Subd. 6 and Minn. Stat. section 363A.29, subd. 4
(2023); damages, and a damage multiplier pursuant to Minn. Stat.
section 363A.33, subd. 6 (2023), and Minn. Stat. section 363A.29,
subd. 4 (2023).
The Defendant has physical Ray-Ban store locations within and
around the United States. The Defendant offers glasses and
accessories for sale including, but not limited to, sunglasses,
eyeglasses, and prescription eyewear.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
HRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 South 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
E-mail: chad@throndselaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
MAYRYAN LLC: Vega Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
----------------------------------------------------------
NORBERTO VEGA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAYRYAN, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-01134 (D.N.J., February 10, 2025) is a civil rights action
against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain,
and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
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. These access barriers effectively
denied Plaintiff the ability to use and enjoy Defendant's website
the same way sighted individuals do.
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.
Triple T Concepts, LLC operates the website that offers
contemporary Italian and seafood-influenced menu.[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
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Faces Wade Suit Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------
MORGAN WADE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND MANOR AUXILIARY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00021-LAG (M.D. Ga., February 10, 2025)
is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly
secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and
protected health information of Plaintiff and other current and
former patients of Defendant, the putative class members, that it
collected and maintained as part of its regular business
practices.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose
private information was compromised as a result of Defendant's
failure to: (i) adequately protect the Private Information of
Plaintiff and Class Members; (ii) warn Plaintiff and Class Members
of Defendant's inadequate information security practices; and (iii)
effectively secure hardware containing the private information
using reasonable and effective security procedures free of
vulnerabilities and incidents. The Defendant's conduct amounts at
least to negligence and violates federal and state statutes.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff sues Defendant seeking redress for its
unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for: (i) negligence, (ii)
negligence per se, (iii) breach of implied contract, and (iv)
unjust enrichment.
Memorial Hospital and Manor Auxiliary, Inc. is a Georgia-based
corporation that provides various health care services to
individuals across Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Allison E. McCarthy, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ALLIE MCCARTHY
1055 Prince Avenue, Suite 2
Athens, GA 30606
Telephone: (678) 637-3201
Facsimile: (888) 645-6243
E-mail: attorneymccarthy@gmail.com
- and -
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, PLLC
5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20015-2052
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Facsimile: (202) 686-2877
E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com
MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on February 12, 2025, it filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States ("U.S.") District Court
for the Central District of California against Mullen Automotive
Inc. ("Mullen" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:MULN) and certain of its
officers. The Complaint alleges that Mullen and certain officers
made materially false and/or misleading statements and omissions in
violation of the federal securities laws and seeks to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder throughout the Class Period, which is between February
3, 2023, and February 13, 2025. Following these materially false
and misleading statements and/or omissions, several disclosures
revealed the truth of Mullen's operations and brought to light the
falsities behind Defendants' statements. As a result, Mullen saw a
significant drop in the value of its share prices (NASDAQ:MULN).
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Mullen
investors who purchased its securities during the Class Period. You
may move the Court no later than Monday April 15, 2025, to serve as
lead plaintiff for the Class. However, to do so, you must meet
certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA).
Federman & Sherwood is a highly sought after law firm with years of
experience in securities class actions and a highly skilled staff.
Managing Partner, William B. Federman, has served as counsel for
many shareholders and handled over sixty class action suits.
If you want to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:
Tashia Poore
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Email to: tdp@federmanlaw.com
Or, visit the firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com [GN]
NANA JACQUELINE: Faces Young Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LESHAWN YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NANA JACQUELINE INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-01197 (S.D.N.Y., February 10, 2025) is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://nanajacqueline.com/, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York
City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business
Law.
During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on
February 7, 2025, in an attempt to purchase an Angelica Feather
Coat (Pink) from Defendant and to view the information on the
website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that
denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted
person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered
to the public and made available to the public. She was not able to
add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without
alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, the
suit says.
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.
Nana Jacqueline Inc. operates the website that provides information
about Defendant's clothing, as well as other types of goods,
pricing, delivery, locations, and hours of operation.[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
NATURES BAKERY: Martin Sues Over Fig and Oatmeal Bars' False Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM J. MARTIN and ALEJANDRA GAMBOA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATURES BAKERY,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01377 (C.D. Cal., February 18,
2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, unjust enrichment, and breach of
implied warranty of merchantability.
The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Fig Bars and
Oatmeal Crumble Bars. According to the complaint, the products are
misbranded and falsely advertised because the Defendant implies
that they are healthy and conducive to health and physical
well-being, despite containing 11 to 16 grams of added sugar per
serving. The Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers would not
have purchased the products or would have paid less for them had
they known the truth, says the suit.
Natures Bakery, LLC is a food products company, with its principal
place of business in Reno, Nevada. [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
Email: legal@cweller.com
NEVRO CORP: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Globus Medical
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating:
-- Nevro Corp. (NYSE: NVRO), relating to the proposed merger with
Globus Medical. Under the terms of the agreement, Globus Medical
will acquire all shares of Nevro for $5.85 per share.
Click here for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/nevro-corp-nvro/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Logility Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. (Nasdaq: LGTY), relating
to the proposed merger with Aptean. Under the terms of the
agreement, Aptean will acquire all of Logility’s outstanding
common stock for $14.30 per share in an all-cash transaction.
Click here for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/logility-supply-chain-solutions-inc-lgty/.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Aerovate Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: AVTE), relating to a
proposed merger with Jade Biosciences. Under the terms of the
agreement, pre-merger Aerovate stockholders are expected to own
approximately 1.6% of the combined company, while pre-merger Jade
stockholders are expected to own approximately 98.4% of the
combined entity.
Click here for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/aerovate-therapeutics-inc-avte/. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Playa Hotels & Resorts N.V. (Nasdaq: PLYA), relating to the
proposed merger with Hyatt Hotels Corporation. Under the terms of
the agreement, Hyatt will acquire all outstanding shares of Playa
for $13.50 per share in cash.
ACT NOW. The Tender Offer expires on April 25, 2025.
Click here for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/playa-hotels-resorts-n-v-plya/ It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and
we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a
national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
NEW YORK: Whitely Seeks to Recover Overtime Premium Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
FELICIA WHITELY, SCOTT DEFALCO and GABRIELLE WALLS on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF
NEW YORK, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00750 (E.D.N.Y., February 10,
2025) is a collective action on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all
other similarly situated Officers employed by the New York City
Police Department who participated in the Paid Detail Program (PDP)
and were not paid the overtime premium pay for their PDP
assignments under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Pursuant to its Paid Detail Program, the NYPD staffs police
officers, detectives, sergeants, and lieutenants at private
businesses throughout New York City. The NYPD profits off of the
employment of their Officers who are performing their NYPD duties
at whatever Vendor the NYPD assigns them. Officers on a PDP
assignment are nearly always working in excess of 40 hours in the
week of the PDP assignment(s), and Plaintiffs and those similarly
situated have not been paid the overtime premium required by the
FLSA for those hours, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs are residents of the State of New York, County of
Queens, and have been employed by the Defendants as police
officers, detectives, sergeants, and lieutenants at private
businesses.
The City of New York is a municipal corporation that controls and
oversees, inter alia, the operations of the NYPD throughout its
five boroughs.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Scola, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN A. SCOLA, PLLC
90 Broad Street Suite 1023
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (917) 423-1445
E-mail: jscola@johnscolalaw.com
- and -
Nathaniel K. Charny, Esq.
CHARNY & WHEELER P.C.
42 West Market Street
Rhinebeck, NY 12572
Telephone: (845) 876-7500
E-mail: ncharny@charnywheeler.com
- and -
Megan S. Goddard, Esq.
GODDARD LAW PLLC
39 Broadway, Suite 1540
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (646) 964-1178
E-mail: Megan@goddardlawnyc.com
- and -
Jack Jaskaran, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JACK JASKARAN, PLLC
80 Broad Street, No. 0892
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 658-0127
O'CONNOR CORP: Smeaton Sues Over Failure to Secure Customers' Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
GARY SMEATON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. O'CONNOR CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-10401 (D. Mass., February 18, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract,
invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated individuals stored within its computer
system following a data breach between November 23, 2024, and
December 1, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach.
As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class
members was compromised and damaged through access by and
disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the
suit.
O'Connor Corporation is a construction and general contracting firm
based in Canton, Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christina Xenides, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
1005 Congress Avenue, Suite 925-C36
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 265-5622
Email: cxenides@sirillp.com
- and -
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
Neil P. Williams, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
Email: tbean@sirillp.com
nwilliams@sirillp.com
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL: Averts TRO Against New Email System
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Randolph D. Moss of the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia denied the plaintiff's motion for a temporary
restraining order in the case captioned as JANE DOE, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Defendant, Case No.
25-cv-00234-RDM (D.C.).
In late January 2025, the Office of Personnel Management began to
test a new capability allowing it to send important communications
to all civilian federal employees from a single email address, and
OPM subsequently began using this new system to send messages to
most if not all individuals with Government email addresses. That
new system uses the email address HR@opm.gov and is known as the
"Government-Wide Email System" or "GWES." This putative class
action challenges the process by which OPM implemented this new
system.
Plaintiffs are two federal executive branch employees and five
other individuals who have ".gov" email addresses but are not
executive branch employees. They contend that in the rush to adopt
this new system, OPM at first entirely failed to comply with
Section 208 of the E-Government Act of 2002, which requires the
preparation of a Privacy Impact Assessment before initiating a new
collection of certain information using information technology.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary
restraining order, which asks the Court to enjoin OPM from
continuing to operate the GWES or any computer system connected to
it prior to the completion and public release of a required legally
sufficient PIA.
Plaintiffs argue OPM's failure to prepare a meaningful PIA has left
vast amounts of private information, including the government email
addresses of millions of individuals (which reveal their names and,
at least in some cases, their employers) at risk of disclosure in
the event that the GWES is hacked.
OPM, for its part, contends that it was not required to prepare a
PIA because, on OPM's reading, Section 208 does not apply to the
collection of information about government employees, as opposed to
about members of the public.
On Feb. 7, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that made
two significant changes to their case. First, they added five new
plaintiffs, each of whom has a .gov email address, but none of whom
work in the executive branch of the United States government. .
Second, Plaintiffs challenged the adequacy of the Feb. 5 PIA.
On Feb. 11, 2025, OPM responded both by opposing Plaintiffs' motion
for a TRO and by moving to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended complaint
for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
Judge Moss explains that Plaintiffs premise their motion for
preliminary relief on two alleged injuries: first, that they are
suffering an ongoing injury simply because their information is
being stored on an insecure system, and second, that their
information is more vulnerable to hacking because it is in a system
that is vulnerable to hacking. Plaintiffs, however, have failed to
carry their burden with respect to establishing that they have a
substantial likelihood of standing based on either injury, let
alone that those injuries are certain enough and great enough to
warrant preliminary injunctive relief.
Plaintiffs have failed to offer any evidence, other than news
stories and a podcast, in support of their motion, and, instead,
suggested (incorrectly) that the Court should simply treat their
as-yet uncontroverted allegations as true.
More is required to satisfy Article III, and more is required to
demonstrate, as Plaintiffs must do to obtain emergency injunctive
relief, that they are likely to succeed in establishing standing to
sue. The Court finds the information that Plaintiffs have offered
does not satisfy Plaintiffs' burden of showing that they face a
concrete and impending risk that their .gov email addresses will be
misappropriated in the absence of emergency injunctive relief—or
that their proposed relief would redress that risk. This is not to
say that Plaintiffs will not be able to establish standing at a
later stage of the proceeding. But they have failed to carry their
burden for purposes of obtaining a TRO. The Court, accordingly,
concludes that Plaintiffs' motion for a TRO fails because they have
not shown that they likely have standing to sue.
The Court further concludes that Plaintiffs' motion fails for a
second, related reason. They have failed to carry their burden of
demonstrating that, absent emergency relief, they are like to
suffer an irreparable injury.
Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of demonstrating that
they are likely to incur some irreparable injury if the Court does
not enjoin OPM from operating the GWES without first preparing a
more robust and accurate PIA. The Court will, accordingly, deny
Plaintiffs' motion.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JWZe6h from PacerMonitor.com.
PARCHED HOSPITALITY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Isakov Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMON ISAKOV, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Parched Hospitality Group, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01407
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 19, 2025) alleges that Parched Hospitality failed
to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website,
https://holeinthewallnyc.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the services
Parched Hospitality Group provides to their non-disabled customers
through its website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal
access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and
services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations,
is a violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the suit says.
Holeinthewallnyc.com provides to the public a wide array of the
services, price specials and other programs offered by Parched
Hospitality Group. Yet, Holeinthewallnyc.com allegedly contains
significant access barriers that make it difficult if not
impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the
website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind
and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the
website.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher H. Cohen, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC
Telephone: (718) 914-9694
Flushing, NY 11367
68-29 Main Street,
E-mail: acohen@ealg.law
PAYPAL INC: Moran Sues Over Improper Business Practices
-------------------------------------------------------
JOSE MORAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PAYPAL INC.; and PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00476-BLF (N.D. Cal., Jan. 14, 2025)
alleges violation of the California's Unfair Competition Law.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, unbeknownst to the
Plaintiff and the other Affiliate Marketers in the proposed Class,
however, PayPal has been serially interfering with this economic
relationship and stealing for itself Affiliate Commissions that
properly belong to the Affiliate Marketers.
Through a browser extension that it owns and controls, called the
"Honey Browser Extension," PayPal has implemented a practice
whereby it replaces the Affiliate Marketer's affiliate ID with
PayPal's own affiliate ID during the customer's checkout process,
thus diverting the Affiliate Commissions to itself, even though it
did not promote the product. By this practice, PayPal stole and
continues to steal Affiliate Commissions from at least thousands of
Affiliate Marketers.
As a result, the Plaintiff faces future harm in the form of PayPal
continuing to poach his Affiliate Commissions by exploiting
last-click attribution through the Honey Browser Extension.
PayPal, Inc. provides financial transaction processing services.
The Company offers electronic payment processing services such as
mobile payments and online invoicing. PayPal serves customers
worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
Roger N. Heller, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Email: ecabraser@lchb.com
rheller@lchb.com
- and -
Jason L. Lichtman, Esq.
Danna Z. Elmasry, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
Email: jlichtman@lchb.com
delmasry@lchb.com
PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Patients Abuse
------------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Gilstrap, writing for WUSA9, reports that a new class
action lawsuit has been filed against the Psychiatric Institute of
Washington (PIW), alleging a years-long pattern of patient
mistreatment. The lawsuit, brought by a local woman on behalf of
other former patients, claims mistreatment occurred after
involuntary hospitalizations at the facility.
The lawsuit follows investigations and reports from the Council of
the District of Columbia, patient advocacy group DC Disability
Rights, and other concerned parties. It alleges a systemic pattern
of neglect and abuse at PIW, including the falsification of patient
medical records, unlawful involuntary hospitalizations, failure to
provide necessary treatment, chronic understaffing, and unsafe
living conditions. The class action also highlights concerns over
Universal Health Services, Inc. (UHS), the owner of PIW, and its
alleged prioritization of profits over patient well-being.
"In this case, we've alleged that the Psychiatric Institute of
Washington and their corporate leadership at Universal Health
Services will stop at nothing to increase the number of patients
and maximize profits and shareholder value, regardless of the
impact on their patient population," said Drew LaFramboise,
principal at Joseph Greenwald & Laake, and attorney for the
plaintiff.
UHS has been the subject of multiple investigations and lawsuits in
recent years. The D.C. City Council Committee on Health held a
hearing on October 28, 2024, focusing on PIW and the District's
oversight of the facility. Additionally, a 2022 U.S. Senate Finance
Committee investigation found that residential behavioral health
providers, including UHS, aimed to "optimize per diems by filling
large facilities to capacity and maximize profit by concurrently
reducing the number and quality of staff in facilities." In 2020,
the U.S. government settled a lawsuit against UHS for $122 million
over alleged violations of the federal False Claims Act. That
lawsuit accused UHS of inadequate staffing, improper patient
restraint and seclusion, failure to discharge patients when
hospitalization was no longer necessary, and deficiencies in
psychotherapy and discharge planning, particularly concerning
federal health insurance beneficiaries.
"We are proud to represent our client and others who may come
forward in their search for accountability from the Psychiatric
Institute of Washington for claims of systematic, involuntary
hospitalization and other harm," said Veronica Nannis, principal at
Joseph Greenwald & Laake and attorney for the plaintiff.
The Psychiatric Institute of Washington is the only private
psychiatric hospital in Washington, D.C., located at 4228 Wisconsin
Avenue, NW. Universal Health Services, Inc., the largest owner and
operator of for-profit hospitals in the United States, is
headquartered in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
The case, filed on behalf of a class of former patients, seeks
damages and a jury trial. Further developments in the lawsuit are
expected as proceedings move forward. [GN]
PUBLIX SUPER: Faces Koutouzis Suit Over Deceptive Pricing Schemes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Koutouzis, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated individuals v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., Case No.
1:25-cv-20767 (S.D. Fla., Feb. 19, 2025) is a class action suit
brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated individuals who were overcharged by Publix for
foods that were sold through various deceptive pricing schemes.
According to the complaint, Publix falsely claimed that foods sold
by weight, such as meats, cheeses, and deli products, weighed
materially more than the actual weight of the products.
Specifically, when a price reduction is advertised for one of the
Products, instead of charging the reduced sale price multiplied by
the weight of the product, Publix' point of sale checkout system
automatically increases the weight of the product, so that the
consumer does not receive the sale price.
For example, during the week of Jan 18, 2025, Publix advertised
that Publix Extra Lean Pork Tenderloin was on sale for $4.99 per
pound, for a savings of $2.00 per pound, from its regular price of
$6.99 per pound, says the suit.
Publix is an employee-owned company in the United States. It
operates throughout the Southeastern United States, with locations
in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, North
Carolina and Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Russo, Esq.
THE RUSSO FIRM
1001 Yamato Road, Suite 106
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (844) 847-8300
E-mail: anthony@therussofirm.com
- and -
James C. Kelly, Esq.
THE RUSSO FIRM
244 5th Avenue, Suite K-278
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 920-5042
E-mail: jkelly@therussofirm.com
QUANTUM COMPUTING: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Quantum Computing Inc. ("QCI" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:QUBT) and certain officers. The class action, filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and
docketed under 25-cv-01457, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired QCI securities between March 30, 2020 and
January 15, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.
If you are an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired QCI
securities during the Class Period, you have until April 28, 2025
to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A
copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To
discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free,
Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares
purchased.
QCI is an American company that purportedly utilizes non-linear
quantum optics to deliver quantum products for high-performance
computing applications. The Company has a history of reinventing
its business to align with shifting popular trends in the
technology industry.
Since its founding in 2018, QCI has shifted its focus from
quantum-computer-ready software services to commercializing quantum
photonic technology and related devices, to integrating this
technology and devices with artificial intelligence ("AI")
applications, to producing thin film lithium niobate ("TFLN")
quantum computing chips.
In September 2023, QCI announced that it had selected a five-acre
site in Arizona State University's ("ASU") Research Park in Tempe,
Arizona for its purported "Quantum Photonic Chip Foundry" to
produce TFLN chips, which Defendants purportedly expected QCI to
mass produce by late 2024 to early 2025.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly touted QCI's
business dealings and contracts with various entities, including
employee staffing solutions company Quad M Solutions, Inc. ("Quad
M") and millionways, Inc. ("millionways"), purportedly a leading AI
firm, as well as QCI's purported "long-standing strategic
partnership" with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
("NASA"). Defendants represented that each such deal, contract, or
partnership resulted from QCI's ability to substantially aid a
given use-case through its differentiated quantum computing
technologies, products, and/or services.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Defendants overstated the capabilities of QCI's
quantum computing technologies, products, and/or services; (ii)
Defendants overstated the scope and nature of QCI's relationship
with NASA, as well as the scope and nature of QCI's NASA-related
contracts and/or subcontracts; (iii) Defendants overstated QCI's
progress in developing a TFLN foundry, the scale of the purported
TFLN foundry, and orders for the Company's TFLN chips; (iv) QCI's
business dealings with Quad M and millionways both qualified as
related party transactions; (v) accordingly, QCI's revenues relied,
at least in part, on undisclosed related party transactions; (vi)
all the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to have a significant
negative impact on QCI's business and reputation; and (vii) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On November 27, 2024, Iceberg Research ("Iceberg") published a
report alleging that QCI's press releases concerning its TFLN
foundry, as well as purchase orders for the Company's TFLN chips,
were a sham. In support of these allegations, Iceberg cited
communications with a university professor who had ordered the
Company's TFLN chips, photos of the address at which the Company's
purported TFLN foundry was located per QCI's website-which showed
only what appeared to be an office building-and communications with
ASU Research Park building management.
On December 9, 2024, Iceberg published a second report addressing
QCI, noting that, although QCI "ha[d] shared photos online of what
it claims to be its foundry[,]" "this setup looks more like a
laboratory" and "is a far cry from a foundry ready for ‘mass
production' on what [QCI] said would be ‘five acres within the
extensive 320-acre research park hosted by ASU[.]'" The same report
further noted that "[f]rom 2021 to 9M24, [QCI] reported
insignificant levels of revenue, despite various claims, such as
being a NASA sub-contractor."
On this news, QCI's stock price fell $0.46 per share, or 5.8%, to
close at $7.47 per share on December 9, 2024.
Then, on January 16, 2025, Capybara Research ("Capybara") published
a report alleging, inter alia, that QCI had overstated its ties to
NASA and fabricated revenues through multiple related-party
transactions, particularly with Quad M and millionways. The
Capybara report also alleged that QCI's products were fake, citing
comments by former QCI personnel; and that QCI was pumping its
stock price with false and misleading press releases, citing
discussions with QCI's former employees, QCI's associates and prime
contractors, and NASA personnel. Moreover, the Capybara report
alleged that QCI had never purchased the five-acre parcel at the
ASU Research Park for its TFLN foundry, citing ASU Research Park
management.
On this news, QCI's stock price fell $1.72 per share, or 14.89%,
over the following two trading sessions, to close at $9.83 per
share on January 17, 2025.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members.
See www.pomlaw.com. [GN]
RETAILMENOT INC: Steals Content Creators' Commissions, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUST JOSH, INC., and all others similarly situated v. RETAILMENOT,
INC. and ZIFF DAVIS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01422-UA (S.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 19, 2025) alleges that RetailMeNot's Extension is designed to
steal commissions from online content creators, including but not
limited to website operators, online publications, YouTubers,
influencers, and other creators in the online community.
Creators earn money by directing their followers and viewers to
specific products and services, which are linked on their
respective platforms and social medial channels. A link used to
purchase a particular product at a particular e-commerce site is
called an "affiliate link." When a Creator's followers and viewers
purchase products and services using an affiliate link, the Creator
gets credit for the referrals and earns commissions on the sales.
Online retailers work with Creators through affiliate marketing
programs, which rely on tracking tags and affiliate marketing
cookies in order to determine who gets credit for online referrals
and product sales. The Creator is given a specific web link to
share with their followers and audience, and if someone clicks on
that link, the Creator’s unique affiliate marketing cookie
populates and credits the Creator with the sale. However, the
RetailMeNot Extension cheats Creators out of commissions they are
entitled to during the checkout process, says the suit.
According to the Defendants, the RetailMeNot Browser Extension is a
free all-in-one savings tool that automatically scans the internet,
tests, and applies coupon codes and cash back offers, every time
you shop.
RetailMeNot's Extension is easily downloaded on desktop and laptop
computers and can also be used on mobile devices including both
phones and tablets. Because of this, the RetailMeNot extension is
appealing to customers looking for a discount on a product or
service they are already interested in purchasing and have already
added to their online shopping cart, the suit alleges.
The Plaintiff contend that RetailMeNot programmed its Extension to
systematically appropriate commissions that belong to Creators,
like Plaintiff and Class members. It does so by substituting its
own affiliate marketing identity code into a shopper's cookie in
place of the creator's affiliate marketing identity code, and this
happens even though the customer used the Creator's specific
affiliate web link to purchase a product or service.
The Plaintiff is a Creator whose commission payments were allegedly
misappropriated by RetailMeNot. The Plaintiff brings this case on
his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated to
recover the damages they have sustained and enjoin RetailMeNot's
wrongful conduct going forward.
RetailMeNot, Inc. is an American multinational company
headquartered in Austin, Texas, that maintains a collection of
coupon web sites.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street
Fourteenth Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 357-1100
E-mail: snathan@hausfeld.com
- and -
Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
Karin B. Swope, Esq.
Jacob M. Alhadeff, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY
1809 7th Avenue, Suite 1610
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 802-1272
Facsimile: (206) 299-4184
E-mail: tloeser@cpmlegal.com
kswope@cpmlegal.com
jalhadeff@cpmlegal.com
RICHMOND REDEVELOPMENT: Faces Class Action Over Rent Exemptions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that Richmond
Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA) faces a proposed class
action lawsuit over its alleged failure to inform public housing
residents experiencing financial hardship about their right to
request rent exemptions.
According to the 27-page case, federal law allows public housing
authorities (PHA) to set a minimum monthly rent of no more than $50
for low-income tenants. Residents have the right to seek an
exemption from this minimum rent should they experience economic
hardship that prevents them from making payments, the suit
explains. In such cases, PHAs are statutorily required to
"immediately grant" hardship exemptions to qualifying households,
the filing says.
The complaint claims RRHA, the largest PHA in Virginia, has denied
residents this benefit by failing to provide potentially eligible
tenants with adequate notice of their right to request a hardship
exemption. This oversight, the RRHA lawsuit asserts, has resulted
in the systematic overcharging of the defendant's most economically
disadvantaged residents.
"When residents paying minimum rent experience financial hardship,
RRHA's Illegal Overcharge Practice places them in an impossible
position, where they must pay rent they cannot afford, forego other
life necessities, or risk eviction and homelessness," the suit
contends.
Per the filing, there are hundreds of families in the Richmond area
paying minimum rent to RRHA while wholly unaware that they can
request a rent exemption should they face a qualifying financial
hardship. Under the federal Housing Act, a qualifying hardship
could include situations where, for example, a family would be
evicted for nonpayment of minimum rent, a resident has lost
eligibility for governmental assistance, or household income has
decreased due to changed circumstances, the complaint relays.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development instructs PHAs
to communicate tenants' right to a hardship exemption at admission
and reexamination, during direct conversations with families who
may qualify, and via door hangers, community bulletin boards,
postcards, simple request forms and other easily accessible means,
the case says. The suit argues that RRHA's only exemption
disclosures are buried within its lease agreement and Admissions
and Continued Occupancy Policy.
"Unsurprisingly, RRHA can document only one instance since 2019
where a resident has even requested relief under the hardship
exemption," the case claims.
The lawsuit looks to represent any current or former residents of
RRHA-owned, -- operated or --9controlled public housing units who
resided in those units at any point since February 2020, whose rent
is now, has been during the last five years, or will be set at the
minimum rent. {GN}
ROADWORK AHEAD: Underpays Construction Workers, Rufino Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDO RUFINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROADWORK AHEAD INC., STACI GENERAL
CONTRACTING LLC, LS GROUP CONSTRUCTION INC., and LUIGI STASI,
Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00928 (E.D.N.Y., February 18, 2025) is
a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to
pay overtime wages, failure to provide notice at time of hiring,
and failure to provide accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a welder, mechanic, load
operator, and maintenance staff from approximately November 2016
until May 7, 2024.
Roadwork Ahead Inc. is a construction company located in New York.
Staci General Contracting LLC is a construction company located in
New York.
LS Group Construction Inc. is a construction company located in New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, PC
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
ROC OPCO: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Retinol Products
----------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit captioned as Vales et al. v. RoC Opco LLC alleges
that RoC Retinol Correxion Deep Wrinkle Serum Cleanser fails to
deliver the promised skincare benefits associated with retinol.
The 25-page RoC skincare lawsuit explains that because the retinol
rinse-off cleanser is designed to be applied and washed off
immediately, there is minimal contact between retinol and the skin.
According to the suit, retinol -- commonly used in cosmetics for
its potential anti-aging properties -- requires "long-term,
consistent exposure to the skin" to work. By design, rinsing off
the product soon after applying it prevents any meaningful contact
with the skin, the case claims.
"Washing off retinol within seconds after application means the
retinol will not and cannot provide the advertised benefits," the
complaint asserts.
The filing contends that RoC has exploited consumers' lack of
understanding about retinol products and misled them into believing
the rinse-off cleanser would provide the skincare benefits
associated with the purportedly anti-aging ingredient.
In addition, the lawsuit alleges that the company has failed to
appropriately package, ship or store the retinol products, which
require strict storage conditions to remain effective. Per the
suit, the items must be stored in aluminum tubes under controlled
atmospheric conditions to eliminate exposure to heat, light and
trace metals.
"RoC does not properly package, ship or store the subject retinol
product," the case charges. "As a result, by the time a consumer
purchases the subject products, the retinol is no longer active."
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who
purchased the RoC retinol rinse-off cleanser within the applicable
statute of limitations period. [GN]
RYOBI TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Suit Over Mowers' Fire Risk
------------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Shaak, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action lawsuit has been filed after nearly 246,000 Ryobi push
mowers were recalled this month due to a fire risk.
According to the 24-page class action suit, defendants Ryobi
Technologies, Inc. and parent company TTI Outdoor Power Equipment,
Inc. touted that the Ryobi 40-Volt Brushless 21" Cordless
Walk-Behind Mowers were safe and effective for their intended use
despite knowing that a push-on connector inside the battery
terminal can overheat, posing a fire hazard.
Per the case, Hong Kong-based TTI issued a recall on February 6,
2025 of 10 models of the battery-powered Ryobi push mowers after
receiving 97 reports of overheating while the mower was in use,
including five reports of fires and two burn injuries.
The Ryobi mower recall covers model numbers RY401014BTLUS,
RY401014US, RY401140US, RY401015BTLUS, RY401015US, RY401150US,
RY401140US-Y, RY401150US-Y, RY401020, and RY401200 with serial
numbers KC21032D010001 through KC21327N999999, the recall notice
states. A mower's model and serial number can be found inside the
green mower housing, according to the notice.
The Ryobi push mower lawsuit says consumers have been advised to
immediately stop using the recalled mowers, which were sold from
February 2021 to January 2025, and contact TTI for a free
replacement. However, in order for a consumer to receive a
replacement mower, they must cut the handle wire cable in two spots
and submit photos of the cut wire and the mower's serial number to
TTI, the suit relays.
Per the case, TTI's requirement that customers submit proof of
ownership (such as a serial number or receipt) potentially leaves
some buyers "without recourse."
Further, the lawsuit claims that replacement Ryobi mowers are
expected to be "tool-only," meaning they do not come with a battery
or charger.
"Seemingly, the Defendants believe the battery and charger used
prior will work with the replacement mower," the complaint states.
The proposed class action lawsuit contends that anyone who
purchased the "worthless and dangerous" products has suffered
damages, including risk of injury. The plaintiff, a Louisiana
resident, says he would not have bought the machine, or paid as
much for it, had he known of the apparent battery defect.
"Plaintiff intended to purchase a Product that would be safe for
normal use, but instead was sold a dangerous fire hazard that
eventually overheated and melted," the complaint reads.
The Ryobi mower recall class action lawsuit looks to cover anyone
in the United States who purchased a Ryobi 40V push mower within
the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN]
S.E. COMBINED: Ballack Wage-and-Hour Suit Remanded to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mark C. Scarsi of the United States District Court for the
Central District of California granted the plaintiff's motion to
remand the case captioned as Ballack v. SLE. Combined Servs. of
Cal., Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-10980-MCS-AGR (C.D. Cal.) to the San
Luis Obispo County Superior Court.
Plaintiff Marykay Ballack brought this putative wage and hour class
action against her former employer, Defendant S.E. Combined
Services of California, Inc., doing business as Chapel of the
Roses, in the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court, and Defendant
removed it to this Court. Plaintiff moves to remand.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff is a California resident who
worked for Defendant as a nonexempt employee. Plaintiff alleges
Defendant
violated various California labor laws, asserting seven claims:
(1) failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, Cal. Lab.
Code Sec. 226.7;
(2) failure to pay overtime and minimum wages, Sec. 1194;
(3) failure to indemnify business expenses, Sec. 2802;
(4) failure to keep accurate records, Sec. 226;
(5) failure to pay final wages at termination, Secs. 201-04;
(6) violation of the California Private Attorneys General Act of
2004, and
(7) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law.
Plaintiff seeks to represent a class and various subclasses of
people who worked for Defendant in California as nonexempt
employees since Oc. 9, 2020, and she brings her PAGA claim as a
representative action.
Plaintiff questions whether the CAFA amount-in-controversy
threshold is satisfied, arguing that Defendant's estimates in the
notice of removal rely upon implausible, unwarranted assumptions
about its potential liability. The Court agrees. The amount in
controversy is not clear from the face of the complaint. Defendant,
revising its estimates in response to the motion, submits that
Plaintiff's claims place approximately $5–7 million in
controversy. Defendant's evidence to support its estimates of the
amount placed in controversy by Plaintiff's claims rests on
speculation and conjecture, which does not suffice to meet its
burden to show jurisdiction lies in this Court.
Judge Scarsi holds that Defendant has not substantiated the
assumptions undergirding its estimates of the amount in
controversy. The Court cannot determine that the
amount-in-controversy requirement for jurisdiction under CAFA is
met. Remand is warranted.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xxNcWE from PacerMonitor.com.
SAVOYA LLC: Court Tosses Cuhadar, et al. Labor Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joseph A. Marutollo of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York granted Savoya, LLC's motion to
dismiss the amended complaint in the case captioned as HENRY
HUSEYIN CUHADAR and GURHAN ERGEZER, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SAVOYA, LLC and DOES 1
THROUGH 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-03615-JAM
(E.D.N.Y.) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Plaintiffs Henry Huseyin Cuhadar and Gurhan Ergezer are drivers
that were employed by Defendant.
Defendant, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Dallas, Texas, provides chauffeured ground
transportation services to high-end clients in the New York City
Metropolitan area, and nationwide.
Defendant allegedly considers the drivers who provide those
services independent contractors rather than employees.
Plaintiffs allege that as a result of the misclassification of its
drivers as independent contractors, Defendant has failed to
reimburse them for employment-related expenses. They also claim
Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiffs for overtime hours in
excess of 40 hours per week in the state of New York and for
minimum wage compensation for all hours worked despite often
working more than ten hours a day more than 40 hours a week,
including late nights, weekends, and holidays.
Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated against Defendant Savoya, LLC and unknown
"Does 1 through 50, inclusive," as owners and/or officers of
Defendant. They bring claims, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, 29 U.S.C. Secs. 201 et seq., and the New York Labor Laws, N.Y.
Lab. Law Secs. 190 et seq., 650 et seq., arising out of Defendant's
alleged failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages, as well as
its alleged involvement in improper kickbacks that resulted in the
failed reimbursement of expenses. Plaintiffs further allege that
Defendant failed to provide "spread of hours" pay under the NYLL.
They also bring state law claims related to Defendant's purported
failure to comply with notice and recordkeeping requirements and
its alleged unlawful deductions.
Defendant moves the Court pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss
Plaintiffs' claims, alleging that the Eastern District of New York
is not the proper forum. Specifically, Defendant alleges that the
employment contract between Plaintiffs and Defendant contained a
forum selection clause that rendered Dallas County, Texas as the
sole and exclusive venue for all proceedings arising out of the
contract. Accordingly, Defendant asserts that the forum selection
clause is binding because it was reasonably communicated and
mandatory in nature, that it covers the claims presently at issue,
that all Plaintiffs are bound by the provision, and that Plaintiffs
cannot rebut the presumptive enforceability of the provision as set
forth by the Supreme Court in M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.,
407 U.S. 1, 10 (1972).
Plaintiffs oppose Defendant's motion. They argue that Defendant's
arguments are unfounded, that its duties arise under wage laws
rather than the contract, that the forum selection clause was not
reasonably communicated, and that its enforcement would be
unreasonable and unjust in contravention of New York's public
policy.
The Court finds the forum selection clause was reasonably
communicated to Plaintiffs. The clause was contained in the main
body of the agreement in standard font and in formatting
conventions consistent with the rest of the contract.
Defendant has also shown that the forum selection clause at issue
is mandatory and not permissive. The clause unequivocally confers
exclusive jurisdiction to the designated forum and incorporates
obligatory venue language, a reading that Plaintiffs do not
challenge.
The Court is not persuaded that a federal court in Texas will be
unable to serve the underlying policies upon which the NYLL is
based such that the forum selection clause, as agreed to by
Plaintiffs, is unreasonable. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to
carry their heavy burden of proof in challenging the presumptive
enforceability of the forum selection clause.
The Court concludes the forum selection clause contained in the
employment agreement between Plaintiffs and Defendant is
enforceable.
The Court therefore dismisses the instant action without prejudice
so that Plaintiffs can re-file in the appropriate forum.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IlPR1M from PacerMonitor.com.
SIMONMED IMAGING: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marty Stempniak of Radiology Business reports that SimonMed Imaging
allegedly failed to protect patients' personal information ahead of
a recent ransomware attack, according to a class action lawsuit
filed Friday, February 21, 2025.
Radiology Business reported news of the breach Feb. 14, with the
Scottsdale, Arizona, practice claiming it had interrupted hackers
before they encrypted data. A week later, Maricopa County resident
Rosemary Hamermaster has now filed suit against SimonMed seeking a
jury trial and damages of more than $5 million.
Hacker group Medusa has reportedly claimed credit for the attack,
contending it has hundreds of GBs of data from the practice's
patients.
"This action arises from defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard plaintiff's and hundreds of thousands of similarly
situated class members' sensitive protected health information and
personal identifying information, which as a result, is now in a
notorious criminal ransomware group's possession," according to the
complaint, filed Feb. 21 in an Arizona district court.
SimonMed -- which employs about 200 radiologists working across 170
sites in 11 states -- reiterated its comments from earlier this
month when the attack occurred.
"We believe we interrupted an attempted ransomware attack, but no
data was encrypted. We are fully operational, as we immediately
remediated and contained the situation," Jenna Lloyd, chief
marketing officer, told Radiology Business.
According to previous reports, data involved in the breach included
dates of birth, medical and diagnostic images and Social Security
numbers, among other things. Medusa was reportedly seeking $1
million in cryptocurrency in exchange for the information, but it
is unclear whether SimonMed paid the hacker group.
Plaintiff attorneys claim at least 132,000 individuals were
impacted by the incident. They're seeking punitive damages,
attorney fees, a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The
later could include SimonMed disclosing the full nature of the
cyberattack and types of information exposed.
"The data breach has caused plaintiff to suffer fear, anxiety and
stress, which has been compounded by the fact that defendant has
still not fully informed her, or even the public, of key details
about the data breach's occurrence or the information stolen," the
complaint states.
The cyberattack is one of several recently suffered by radiology
practices over the past year. Pinehurst Radiology Associates in
North Carolina reported a data breach earlier this month, as did
University Diagnostic Medical Imaging in the Bronx, New York. Along
with ransomware demands, some have been forced to issue hefty
payments for purportedly failing to protect patient information. In
October, East River Medical Imaging PC of New York was ordered to
pay $1.85 million to settle a class action lawsuit stemming from a
cyberattack. [GN]
SIMONMED IMAGING: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Dobson Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
STAR DOBSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SIMONMED IMAGING, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-00527-SPL (D. Ariz., Feb. 14, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard sensitive information of its patients.
The Plaintiff allege in the complaint that the Data Breach was a
direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and
reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to
protect its patients' Private Information from a foreseeable and
preventable cyber-attack.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk
because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the Private
Information that Defendant collected and maintained has been
accessed and acquired by data thieves. 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.
SimonMed Imaging Inc. provides diagnostic imaging services. The
Company offers computed tomography scans, intravenous pyelogram,
mammography, magnetic resonance imaging and angiogram, ultrasound,
upper gastrointestinal, and fluoroscopy services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cristina Perez Hesano, Esq.
PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7508 N. 59th Avenue
Glendale, AZ 85301
Telephone: (602) 730-7100
Facsimile: (602) 794-6956
Email: cperez@perezlawgroup.com
- and -
Mariya Weekes, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (786) 879-8200
Facsimile: (786) 879-7520
Email: mweekes@milberg.com
SKSINGH INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ordonez Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Sksingh, Inc. captioned as
MARIA ORDONEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SKSINGH, INC., Defendant, Case No.
CU25-00346 (Cal. Super., Solano Cty., Jan. 13, 2025).
The suit arises from the Defendant's failure to pay proper wages.
Sksingh, Inc. manufactures construction equipment, bending machine,
and similar interlocking machine. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Horton, Esq.
NEWMAN & HORTON LLP
1918 East Los Angeles Avenue
Simi Valley, CA 93065
SOFO FOOD: Moore Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Order Selectors
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIELLE MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOFO FOOD CO., ANTONIO SOFO & SON IMPORTING
CO., and SOFO FOODS OF OHIO, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
3:25-cv-00331 (N.D. Ohio, February 18, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants at their Toledo, Ohio
distribution center as an Order Selector from approximately October
2021 through June 9, 2024.
Sofo Food Co. is a food manufacturer, with a principal place of
business in Toledo, Ohio.
Antonio Sofo & Son Importing Co. is a food manufacturer, with a
principal place of business in Toledo, Ohio.
Sofo Foods of Ohio, LLC is a food manufacturer, with a principal
place of business in Toledo, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Corey Asay, Esq.
HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
312 Walnut Street, Suite 1600
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 318-4496
Facsimile: (513) 318-4496
Email: casay@hkm.com
SOUTHERN CO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Austin Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
KESHIA AUSTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHERN COMPANY GAS; and AGL SERVICES
COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00801-JPB (N.D. Ga., Feb. 14,
2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Austin was employed by the Defendants as a customer
service representative.
Southern Company Gas operates utility networks. The Company
distributes and transports liquified and compressed natural gas to
residential and commercial users. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
A. Lee Parks, Jr., Esq.
John L. Mays, Esq.
PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C.
1355 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2000
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 873-8000
Facsimile: (404) 873-8050
Email: lparks@pcwlawfirm.com
- and -
Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq.
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
The Heritage Building, Suite 250
34555 Chagrin Boulevard
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 696-5000
Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
Email: matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com
anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
STORYBUILT LLC: Class Certification Granted in Urbina WARN Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Judge David Alan Ezra of the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas granted the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification in the case captioned as REBECCA PLANTE,
BRITTANY GONZALEZ, GERARDO URBINA, Individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. STORYBUILT, LLC, PSW REAL
ESTATE LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01021-DAE (W.D. Tex.).
On Aug. 30, 2023, Plaintiffs Rebecca Plante, Brittany Gonzalez, and
Gerardo Urbina, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, initiated this putative class action based on Defendants
StoryBuilt, LLC and PSW Real Estate LLC's alleged violations of the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec.
2101, et seq. and for breach of contract. Storybuilt is a real
estate development, commercial development, urban infill, and
architecture company, and PSW is the real estate investment arm of
Storybuilt. Plaintiffs allege that these entities operate as a
single integrated enterprise, which operated as the employer of
Plaintiffs and Class Members. On July 31, 2023, Defendants
terminated Plaintiffs as a part of a mass layoff of approximately
eightythree employees without sufficient advance notice after
failing to pay their wages for nearly two months.
Defendants claimed advance notice was not possible because of
"unforeseeable business and financial circumstances," but
Plaintiffs allege those circumstances were foreseeable, thus
necessitating a proper WARN notice prior to termination.
Plaintiffs seek to certify this case as a class action,
designate Plaintiffs as Class Representative and Plaintiffs'
counsel as class counsel; a declaration that Defendants violated
the claims asserted; damages and attorneys fees; pre- and
post-judgment interest; and any other just and proper relief.
On Aug. 26, 2024, Plaintiffs moved to certify a class of
approximately 83 former employees who were terminated as part of
the July 31, 2023, mass layoff, so that they may then move for
default judgment against Defendants. Plaintiffs move to certify a
class defined as: "all former employees of Defendants throughout
the United States who were terminated as a result of a ‘mass
layoff,' as defined by the WARN Act, without 60 days advance
written notice, beginning in July 2023."
On Jan. 7, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Howell issued a
Report and Recommendation that this Court grant the motion.
Given that the Magistrate Judge's proposal aligns more closely with
Plaintiffs' allegations of a single mass layoff date, the Court
finds no clear error and will adopt the Magistrate Judge's proposed
class definition of "all former employees of Defendants throughout
the United States who were terminated as a result of a ‘mass
layoff,' as defined by the WARN Act, without 60 days advance
written notice, beginning on July 31, 2023."
The Court also finds no clear error with the Magistrate Judge's
conclusions that Plaintiffs have satisfied the Rule 23(a)
conditions. The proposed class includes about eighty-three
individuals, which district courts have held sufficient to
establish numerosity. Although there will likely be factual
variation as to damages owed to each class member because of
variations in their last pay, legal and factual questions arising
out of the mass layoff are common to the class. The Magistrate
Judge also properly concluded that because Plaintiffs' claims are
premised on Defendants' failure to provide adequate notice violated
both the WARN Act and the class members' employment contracts,
Plaintiffs have met the typicality requirement. Finally, the
Magistrate Judge correctly concluded Plaintiffs have satisfied the
adequacy requirement by demonstrating they share the same interests
as the class and are committed to representing the class.
The Court also finds no clear error with the Magistrate Judge's
conclusions that Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule 23(b)(3)'s
requirements. As the Magistrate Judge correctly notes, common
issues predominate in this case since "factual and legal issues
that will drive the outcome of the class members' WARN Act claims
will be decided under identical legal standards and can be resolved
using common evidence."
Accordingly, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's
conclusions and recommendation are neither clearly erroneous nor
contrary to law.
The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
as the opinion of the Court and grants Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification. The certified class is defined as "all former
employees of Defendants throughout the United States who were
terminated as a result of a ‘mass layoff,' as defined by the WARN
Act, without 60 days advance written notice, beginning on July 31,
2023."
Plaintiffs Rebecca Plante, Brittany Gonzalez, and Gerardo Urbina
are appointed class representatives, and Kaplan Law Firm, PLLC is
appointed as class counsel.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jNYyYf from PacerMonitor.com.
TEA & BEE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Henry Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTANCE HENRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated Plaintiff v. Tea & Bee Company, LLC, Case No.
1:25-cv-01691 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 19, 2025) alleges that Tea & Bee
Company failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website, https://www.saratogateaandhoney.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and
visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services Tea & Bee Company provides to
their non-disabled customers through its website. The Defendant's
denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore
denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction
with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the suit alleges.
Saratogateaandhoney.com provides to the public a wide array of the
goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Tea &
Bee Company. Yet, Saratogateaandhoney.com contains significant
access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind
and visually-impaired customers to use the website. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Reyes, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC
68-29 Main Street,
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (630) 478-0856
E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law
TENAGLIA & HUNT: Isaacs Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
---------------------------------------------------------
JANIKHA ISAACS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TENAGLIA & HUNT, P.A., Defendant, Case No.
3:25-cv-00397-MAS-RLS (D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2025) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The
case is assigned to Judge Michael A. Shipp and referred to
Magistrate Judge Rukhsanah L. Singh.
Tenaglia & Hunt, P.A. is a full service regional law firm devoted
to delivering results. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
17 Sylvan Street Suite 102B
Rutherford, NJ 07070
Telephone: (201) 507-6300
Email: lh@hershlegal.com
TESLA MOTORS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defects in Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
Disgruntled Tesla owners in Australia have launched legal
proceedings in the Federal Court against Elon Musk's car
manufacturer, claiming the company sold vehicles with major defects
while also over-promising on the abilities of its cars.
The consumer action filed against Tesla Motors Australia by
Australian firm JGA Saddler targets the sales of Model 3 and Y cars
manufactured by the US-based Tesla Inc.
Both those models accounted for more than 40 per cent of Australian
EV sales in 2024 despite the surge of Chinese brands entering the
EV market.
The class action will target three alleged problems with the Model
3 and Y cars, including 'phantom braking', poor battery range and
lack of autonomous driving.
"Tesla made promises about their vehicles' safety, performance and
features such as their 'full self-driving', but it appears some of
these promises are falling flat," JGA Saddler director Rebecca
Jancauskas told AAP. [GN]
TILRAY BRANDS: Court Tosses Counterclaim in Blue, et al. Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick of the Delaware Chancery
Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the pleadings
and motion to dismiss the counterclaim in the case captioned as
MICHAEL BLUE, CHRISTIAN GROH, and BRENDAN KENNEDY
Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants, v. TILRAY BRANDS, INC. and
PRIVATEER EVOLUTION, LLC, Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs, C.A.
No. 2023-0821-KSJM (Del. Ch.).
The parties dispute whether a court-approved settlement of a prior
stockholder suit released the defendants' claims against the
plaintiffs under a guarantee. The plaintiffs request a declaratory
judgment that the claims were released. The defendants counterclaim
for breach of the guarantee. This decision enters judgment on the
pleadings for the plaintiffs on their claim for declaratory
judgment and dismisses the defendants' counterclaim.
Plaintiffs Michael Blue, Christian Groh, and Brendan Kennedy
founded Privateer Holdings, Inc., an investment firm in the
cannabis industry.
In July 2016, Docklight Brands, Inc., a Privateer portfolio
company, entered into an agreement with Marley Green, LLC to
license intellectual property owned by the Estate of Bob Marley.
Docklight, in turn, licensed the Marley Green intellectual property
to Tilray Brands, Inc., which was also a Privateer portfolio
company at the time, and to Tilray's wholly owned subsidiary, High
Park Holdings, Ltd. In exchange for rights over Marley-branded
cannabis products, Tilray and High Park agreed to make royalty
payments to Docklight sufficient to fund Docklight's payment
obligations to Marley Green.
Tilray went public through an initial public offering on July 19,
2018. After the IPO, Plaintiffs held a controlling interest in
Tilray through Privateer. In 2019, Privateer and Tilray effected a
reorganization to give Plaintiffs liquidity and eliminate the
overhang of Privateer's control stake, while avoiding the potential
tax consequences associated with dissolving Privateer.
To effectuate the Reorganization, Plaintiffs, Privateer, and Tilray
entered into several agreements, including: an Agreement and Plan
of Merger and Reorganization and a guarantee agreement. The
agreements were executed together on Sept. 9, 2019. Under the
Merger Agreement, Privateer would merge with and into Privateer
Evolution, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Tilray. Privateer's
stockholders, including Plaintiffs, would then be issued Tilray
stock. Through the Founders' Guarantee, Plaintiffs assumed
Privateer's obligations under the Original Guarantee.
After Tilray announced the Reorganization, two sets of Tilray
stockholders filed claims for breach of fiduciary duty in this
Court challenging the Reorganization. The Court consolidated the
actions on July 17, 2020, and the stockholder plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint on July 17, 2020 .
After Plaintiffs commenced the Reorganization Litigation, Tilray
combined with Aphria, Inc., and Aphria directors comprised a
majority of Tilray's board of directors.
The Court denied a motion to dismiss the Reorganization Complaint
on June 1, 2021. In response, the Board formed a special litigation
committee to determine whether to pursue the claims in the
Reorganization Complaint. The Court stayed the Reorganization
Litigation to allow the SLC to conduct its investigation. The SLC
investigated the claims for over a year, interviewing twenty
witnesses, reviewing over 100,000 documents, and meeting twenty-two
times. A team of lawyers from a well-respected firm advised the
SLC
On May 27, 2022, the SLC reported to the Court that it had
concluded its investigation and determined that it was in Tilray's
best interest to mediate the claims. The parties agreed to mediate
before a prominent Delaware attorney in
private practice.
After months of mediation, the Reorganization Litigation parties
reached a settlement agreement. On Dec. 20, 2022, the parties
executed the Stipulation of Compromise, Settlement and Release,
setting out the terms of a settlement that was approved by the
Court on March 8, 2023.
Under the Settlement Stipulation, Plaintiffs agreed to pay $39.9
million to Tilray in exchange for a Release of Released Claims. In
relevant part, the Settlement Stipulation defined Released Claims
as claims that are related to the Reorganization and the Merger
Agreement and the allegations and events described in the
Reorganization Complaint.
Meanwhile, on May 29, 2020, Docklight sued Tilray and High Park for
breach of the License Agreement. Docklight's suit was pending
during the SLC's investigation. On July 12, 2023, Marley Green
demanded that Privateer Evolution perform under the Original
Guarantee. On July 17, 2023, Tilray demanded that Marley Green
perform under the Founders' Guarantee. The Founders refused the
Demand on the ground that the Release discharged their obligations
under the Founders' Guarantee.
Plaintiffs filed this action on August 11, 2023, seeking a
declaration that any of the obligations they once had under the
Founders' Guarantee were released under the Settlement. Tilray and
Privateer Evolution, filed their Answer and a Counterclaim for
breach of the Founders' Guarantee. Plaintiffs moved for judgment on
the pleadings on their claim and to dismiss the Counterclaim.
Plaintiffs have moved for judgment on the pleadings as to their
claims under Court of Chancery Rule 12(c). They have also moved to
dismiss the Counterclaim under Court of
Chancery Rule 12(b)(6).
Plaintiffs argue that the Release unambiguously covers the
Founders' Guarantee because, at a minimum, it is "related to" both
the Reorganization and the Merger Agreement. Defendants deny that
the Release covers the Founders' Guarantee, argue that the Release
is ambiguous, and say that extrinsic evidence favors their
position. Defendants further argue that, even if the plain language
of the Release unambiguously covers the Founders' Guarantee, it may
not extend to the Demand as a matter of law because Delaware law
prohibits overbroad releases in settlements of representative
litigation.
Chancellor McCormick says, "Nothing prohibits a release of
contractual obligations (e.g., those under the Founders'
Guarantee), even where efforts to enforce that agreement (e.g., the
Demand) have not yet occurred. A class or derivative settlement can
release parties from contractual obligations."
The Court finds the language of the Settlement Stipulation
unambiguously covers the Demand. As a matter of law, the scope of
the Release can encompass the Demand. Therefore, Plaintiffs' motion
for judgment on the pleadings and motion to dismiss the
Counterclaim are granted.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7YX18m
TOYOTA MOTORS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Tacoma Brake Lines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action lawsuit questions the effectiveness of a recall of
certain model year Toyota Tacoma pickup trucks over the potential
for mud and dirt build-up to clog rear brake lines, which can
possibly cause brake failure.
The 22-page class action suit was filed after defendant Toyota
Motor North America earlier this month recalled over 106,000
2024-2025 four-wheel drive Tacoma pickups equipped with 16-inch
brakes and 17-inch wheels over concerns that mud and dirt build-up
can catastrophically clog the vehicles' rear brake lines.
The filing contends that the Toyota Tacoma recall, which includes a
free replacement of the rear brake hoses, will cost drivers hours
of their time and leave them "burdened with a vehicle that has been
devalued" by the automaker's actions. The lawsuit argues that the
Toyota Tacoma recall "leaves more questions than answers" regarding
the vehicles' safety.
"Unless Defendants are to issue a more comprehensive recall to
truly fix the root cause of the Defect, it is foreseeable, and
should be expected, that the Class Vehicles' braking systems will
fail once again," the complaint says. "Defendants' recall is no
more than an ineffective waste of time as there is no true fix for
the defect."
The filing notes that in addition to the amount of time spent to
repair the Toyota Tacoma brake line problems, drivers must spend
time and money to transport themselves and their recalled vehicles
to a certified Toyota mechanic.
The lawsuit charges that the Toyota recall "amounts to tens of
thousands of hours and dollars needlessly taken" from impacted
Tacoma drivers.
Car and Driver reported on February 12 that the Toyota Tacoma
recall "comes as the result of potential rear brake failure due to
poor wheel clearance on select models." In particular, recall
documents show that Tacoma pickups with four-wheel drive, 17-inch
wheels and 16-inch rear brakes might allow dirt or mud to
accumulate inside the wheel drum, which over time could wear
through the "too-close brake line and cause a brake fluid leak,"
the publication said.
Affected Tacoma owners are expected to be notified of the recall by
mail in March or April of this year, Car and Driver relays.
The Toyota Tacoma recall lawsuit looks to cover all individuals in
the United States who bought a 2024-2025 Toyota Tacoma equipped
with four-wheel drive, 16-inch brakes and 17-inch wheels. [GN]
TRIPLE T CONCEPTS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Vega Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
NORBERTO VEGA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRIPLE T CONCEPTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-01136 (D.N.J., February 10, 2025) is a civil rights action
against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain,
and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
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. These access barriers effectively
denied Plaintiff the ability to use and enjoy Defendant's website
the same way sighted individuals do.
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.
Triple T Concepts, LLC operates the website that offers a menu of
classic American fare, craft beers and cocktails.[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
UMASS MEMORIAL: Doe Privacy Suit Removed to D. Mass.
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOHN DOE, LISA COLLETON, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. UMASS MEMORIAL HEALTH
CARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2384CV02448-BLS1, was removed from
the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the
County of Worcester to the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on February 10, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-40022 to the
proceeding.
Plaintiff John Doe's complaint challenged UMass Memorial's routine
on-line practices as illegal wiretapping under the Massachusetts
Wiretap Act. He also raised claims of invasion of privacy, breach
of fiduciary duty and/or common law duty of confidentiality, breach
of express contract, breach of implied contract, and unjust
enrichment.
Plaintiffs' amended complaint includes a federal claim against
UMass Memorial for violations of the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act.
UMass Memorial Health Care, Inc. is a non-profit healthcare network
based in Worcester, Massachusetts, operated by the University of
Massachusetts.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
James H. Rollinson, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
127 Public Street Suite 2000
Cleveland, OH 44116
Telephone: (216) 621-0200
Facsimile: (216) 626-0740
E-mail: jrollinson@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1801 California Street Suite 4400
Denver, CO 80202-2662
Telephone: (303) 764-4013
Facsimile: (303) 861-7805
E-mail: pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Elizabeth A. Scully, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
Washington Square, Suite 1100
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-5304
Telephone: (202) 861-1500
Facsimile: (202) 861-1783
E-mail: escully@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Stephen T. Paterniti, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
75 Park Plaza, 4th Floor
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 305-1221
E-mail: Stephen.Paterniti@jacksonlewis.com
UNITED SYSTEMS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Geda Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
DONATO GEDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED SYSTEMS FIRE AND SECURITY, LLC; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25CV106688
(Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., Jan. 13, 2025) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.
Plaintiff Geda was employed by the Defendants as a staff.
United Systems Fire and Security, LLC provides fire and life safety
solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
William Wilkinson, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101
Pasadena, CA 91103
Telephone: (818) 230-7502
Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
VIKING CHEMICAL: Faces Chavez Suit in Illinois Cir. Court
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Viking Chemical Co. captioned
as CHAD CHAVEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VIKING CHEMICAL CO., Defendant, Case No.
2025-LA-0000017 (Ill. Cir., Winnebago Cty., Jan. 13, 2025).
Viking Chemical Company distributes chemical products and services.
The Company offers acid salts, acetic acid reagent, anti-foams,
bleach, chlorine liquid, and sodium nitrate chemical products, as
well as custom blending, customized logistics, and laboratory
testing services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by Mark R. Miller, Esq..
WTFN INC: Faces Class Suit Over Pure Instinct Pheromone Fragrances
------------------------------------------------------------------
INDIA WINSLOW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. W.T.F.N. INC. and OUI LAB, INC., Case No.
2:25-cv-01393 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 19, 2025) alleges that the
Defendants make, sell, and market Pure Instinct brand pheromone
fragrances and other pheromone products for both men and women
where each Product is prominently labeled with the word
"Pheromone," and Defendants' marketing materials, including their
website and product descriptions, claim that the Products contain
"human-compatible pheromones. capable of influencing moods,
emotions, and affection and triggering social responses.
Like other consumers, when Plaintiff bought the Products, she read
and relied on the representations that the Products contain
pheromones which are capable of being detected and thereby
influencing and/or attracting others. She would not have purchased
the Products or paid the price she did for the Products if she knew
this was false and misleading. As such, the Plaintiff has been
financially injured as a direct result of Defendants' false and
misleading marketing practices.
The Defendants sell a plethora of pheromone Products, including
perfume sprays, perfume oils, body sprays, colognes, and massage
lotions that they market as "pheromone" or "pheromone infused."
The Plaintiff purchased the Pure Instinct True Blue Pheromone Body
Spray from Amazon.com in March of 2022.
Oui Lab owns and operates the website IntiMD.com and holds itself
out as the owner of several personal care products including the
Products at issue in this complaint. Oui Lab, as the owner of
IntiMD, is also responsible for monitoring the support email listed
on WTFN's website (support@intimd.com).
The Defendants, through their agents, are responsible for the
manufacturing, advertising, marketing, labeling, distribution, and
sale of the Products in California and throughout the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
Katherine Phillips, Esq.
Ammad Bajwa, Esq.
TREEHOUSE LAW, LLP
3130 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 555
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Telephone: (310) 751-5948
E-mail: bheikali@treehouselaw.com
kphillips@treehouselaw.com
abajwa@treehouselaw.com
YOTO INC: Faces Smith Class Action Suit in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Yoto Inc. captioned as AMBER
SMITH; ALICE MINTZ; and CATHERINE RAHIMIAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. YOTO INC., Case No.
1:25-cv-00295-JLR (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2025). The case is assigned
to Judge Jennifer L. Rochon.
Yoto Inc. provides identity verification services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel Dashiell Smith, Esq.
SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC
867 Boylston Street
5th Floor #1520
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 377-7404
Email: joel@skclassactions.com
- and -
Stacey Anne Van Malden, Esq.
5114 Post Road
Bronx, NY 10471
Telephone: (718) 601-2652
Facsimile: (212) 966-0588
Email: staceyl11@optonline.net
The Defendant is represented by:
Nicholas Roberti, Esq.
26 East Lake Road
New Fairfield, CT 06812
Telephone: (203) 448-6327
Email: nickroberti96@gmail.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 ***