/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250317.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, March 17, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 54 Headlines ABCD RESTAURANTS: Williams Sues Over Inaccessible Property ABM INDUSTRY: Court Vacates May 15 Hearing in Linares AGATE SECURITY: Schultz Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages AGRESERVES INC: Puga Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AINSWORTH PET: Bid to Dismiss Goetz Class Suit Tossed AISIN MANUFACTURING: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Steinsultz ALLIED WASTE SERVICES: Cortes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ALTO PHARMACY: Muhammad Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification AMAZON WEB: Filing of Joint Status Report Due March 31 AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Filing in Rittman Extended to April 16 AMERICAN AIRLINES: Parties Anticipate Briefing on Bid to Dismiss AMERICAN RENAL: Futrell-Parham Sues Over Failure to Secure Data AMERICAN SOCIETY: Albert Sues Over Illegal Conspiracy & Competition ANTHONY FUSO: Nava Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. APPLE INC: Court Narrows Claims in Gamboa Suit ARIAT INTERNATIONAL: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California ASCEND WELLNESS: Holder Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ASCOT CHANG (USA): Wills Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ASKET INC: Morris Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BAXTER INT'L: Bid to Dismiss Reading Suit vs Hill-Rom Pending BAY CITY BRIDGE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Illegal Toll Fees BETTER DEBT SOLUTIONS: Austin Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia BIO-LAB INC: Class Certification Bid Due June 12, 2026 BLUE RIDGE: Gallek Sues Over Intrusive Telemarketing Calls BMO FINANCIAL: Shulak Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois BRADLEY UNIVERSITY: Seeks to File Notice of Supplemental Authority BRITISH AIRWAYS: Carney Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania BUREAU OF PRISONS: Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment Due April 8 BYTEDANCE INC: Armbruster Sues Over Unlawfully Collected Info CARDIOLOGY OF VIRGINIA: Blackburn Sues Over Unsecured Information CARFAX INC: Discloses Crash Reports to Third Parties, Lucas Says CARRIER CORPORATION: Bell Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Zarabi Family Trust Appointed as Lead Plaintiff CENCORA INC: Court Approves $700MM Opioid Class Suit Settlement CENTURYLINK INC: Bid for New Trial in Bultemeyer Tossed CENVEO WORLDWIDE: Jones Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CERTEGY PAYMENT: Stachewicz Seeks to File Exhibit 35 Under Seal CHARTER MANUFACTURING: Setliff Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Santos Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages CHUN H. LAM: Williams Sues Over Inaccessible Property CHW GROUP INC: Weingrad Files TCPA Suit in D. Oregon CONSUMER CELLULAR: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona CRAFT USA: Jaimes Suit Removed to C.D. California CRYSTAL OF AMERICA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Battle Says CUDDLE CLONES: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fernandez Says DAVIDS NATURAL: Class Cert Hearing in Schoeps Continued to Nov. 13 DAVITA INC: Lightner Seeks to Supplement Conditional Status Bid DEL MONTE: Class Cert Hearings in Vlacich Continued to May 8 DELTONA, FL: Anson Seeks Oral Argument on Bid to Certify Class DLP HARRIS: Brevard Suit Transferred to W.D. North Carolina DO&CO NEW YORK: Leyba Sues Over Improper Overtime Payment DOLLAR GENERAL: Carter Suit Removed to C.D. California DREXEL BUILDING: Bid to Amend Scheduling Order Tossed EHEALTHINSURANCE: Court Narrows Claims in Nichols Suit ELF COSMETICS: Faces Gonzales Class Suit Over Slack-Fill Scheme EPIC GAMES: Faces Gallardo Suit Over Fortnite Countdown Timers FANNIE MAE: $612.4-Mil. Jury Verdict in Net Worth Sweep Suit Upheld FCA US: Bell Sues Over Vehicles with Fire Defects FCA US: Faces Class Action Over Dodge Durango's Taillight Leaks FELLOW INDUSTRIES: Girtley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FIDELITY NATIONAL: Lead Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class Action FIDELITY NATIONAL: Mosser Suit Removed to M.D. North Carolina FLOWERS FOODS: Salgado Wins Conditional Class Certification Bid FORD MOTORS: Cars Have Defective Fuel Injectors, Frankowski Says GALDERMA LABORATORIES: Girtley Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website GIVAUDAN FLAVORS: Pre-Class Certification Depositions Due April 14 GLOBE LIFE: Elizarraras Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information GRAND CENTRAL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Sumlin Suit Says GREEN SPA: Website not Accessible to the Blind, Layne Suit Alleges GROUPE SEB: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fernandez Says HARVARD PILGRIM: Settles 2023 Data Breach Class Suit for $16-Mil. HOGAN PERSONNEL: Hill Suit Removed to C.D. California JECTNYC LLC: Tinkle Files Suit in E.D. New York JOHNSON HEALTH : Settles Treadmill Horsepower Suit for $600,000 JUDGMENT ACQUISITIONS: Class Cert Deadline Extended to June 2 KAYNE LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Clement Suit Alleges LET'S EAT: Hossain Seeks Conditional Collective Certification LIBERTY ONE: Ramirez Settlement Class Gets Conditional Status LITTLE BEET: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Isakov Suit Says LOANDEPOT.COM: Belardes Seeks to Continue Class Cert Hearing MASTEC SERVICES: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Byler Due June 27 MCDOWELL COUNTY, VA: Pritchard Files Suit in S.D. West Virginia MEDICAL BILLING: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Guerra Suit Says MFF-NW LLC: Arce Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messaging MIDTOWN COMICS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Isakov Alleges MMS GROUP: Allowed Leave to File Objections to Class Cert Bid NATIONAL BOARD: Giri Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal NATIONAL GRID: Constantine Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages NATIONAL HEALTH FOUNDATION: Menjivar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NEBRASKA WESLEYAN: Senior Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website NEW AMERICAN FUNDING: O'Connor Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection NEW YORK, NY: Campbell Bid to Certify Class Terminated NORTHERN IRON: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Pollution Standards OPENDOOR TECHNOLOGIES: Class Cert Sought in Securities Suit OTIS & FINN: Website Not Accessible to the Blind, Layne Suit Says PATTERSON WAREHOUSES: More Time to File Response Sought PENNSYLVANIA: Court Dismissed Amended Wyatt Complaint v. Judges PENSION SPECIALISTS: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Jordan Says POST GRADUATE: General Pretrial Management Entered in Ballentine REGAL CINEMAS: Class Certification Bid in Springett Due July 20 RHODES FARMING: Must File Class Cert Reply in Lopez by March 31 ROYAL MAIL: CAT Approves Class Action Over Anti-Competitive Claims SIEMENS MOBILITY: Class Cert Hearing Continued to June 26 SKIN CANCER: Website Inaccessible to the Blind Users, Claude Says SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS: Faces Shareholders' Class Action Lawsuit STELLANTIS NV: Cars Have Battery Defect, Fishon Suit Alleges STUDENT LOAN: Class Cert Reply Brief Extended to April 11 SWIFT BEEF: Garza Proceedings Stayed Until August 22 TAYLOR, MI: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in Flummerfelt TWITTER INC: Must Oppose Frederick-Osborn Class Cert Bid May 15 UIPATH INC: Severt Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action UNILEVER UNITED: Faces Class Action Over Knorr False Advertisement VALSOFT CORP: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Foster Alleges VALSOFT CORP: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Gerrits Alleges WESTFIELD, MA: Sullivan Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. WREN LOGISTICS: Colston Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA, NYLL [] Judge Certifies Class Suit Against Carpinteria Cannabis Grower ********* ABCD RESTAURANTS: Williams Sues Over Inaccessible Property ---------------------------------------------------------- Clinton Williams, and others similarly situated v. ABCD RESTAURANTS and HOSPITALITY LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00219 (E.D. Tex., March 4, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses against Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and its attendant regulations, the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG") as a result of the Defendant's inaccessible property. The Defendant refused to provide the Plaintiff and others similarly situated with sufficient ADA-compliant parking in the parking lot that serves ONE STOP. At the Plano location, there are no ADA-compliant van-accessible spaces on the shortest access route to the business. In addition, there are no ADA-required handicapped parking signs. Based on these facts, Defendant has denied Mr. WILLIAMS the ability to enjoy the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations at ONE STOP, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a person with a physical disability and mobility impairments. ABCD RESTAURANTS and HOSPITALITY LLC owns, manages, controls, and leases the improvements and building where the ONE STOP business is situated.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Tharpe, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF R. BRUCE THARPE, PLLC PO Box 101 Olmito, TX 78575 Phone: (956) 255-5111 Fax: (866) 599-2596 Email: rbtharpe@aol.com Questions@BruceTharpeLaw.com ABM INDUSTRY: Court Vacates May 15 Hearing in Linares ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Linares v. ABM Industry Groups LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00816 (E.D. Cal., Filed July 1, 2022), the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an order that the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is submitted without oral argument. Accordingly, the hearing set for May 15, 2025, is vacated. If the Court determines oral argument is necessary, it will be scheduled at a later date. The Plaintiff may still file a reply brief by April 14, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). ABM is a facility management provider in the United States founded in 1909 by Morris Rosenberg in San Francisco, California.[CC] AGATE SECURITY: Schultz Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Wayne Schultz, an individual, and others similarly situated v. AGATE SECURITY, INC., a Corporation; TORRA Y SCALES, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25LBCV00558 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 3, 2025), is brought in violation of Labor Codes and the Business and Professions Code for Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; Unpaid Rest Period Premiums; Non-Compliant Wage Statements; Failure to Pay Wages Upon Termination; Unpaid Overtime; and Unpaid Wages. The Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt hourly employee until March 2023. He did not receive compliant meal and rest breaks, and was not paid associated premiums for these non-compliant meal and rest breaks. Prior to that time, he consistently worked overtime hours, yet he was paid his regular hourly rate of pay. In March 2023, Plaintiff was switched to a salaried employee, although his duties remained the same. His new pay structure was supposed to be a base salary plus commission for accounts he brought into the company. Despite earning the commission, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff any of the commissions owed. As part of his work duties, Plaintiff was out in the field for most of his day, driving to and from different locations. He averaged driving 2,700 miles per month in his own vehicle. Defendant failed to reimburse Plaintiff for his mileage and wear and tear on his car. He was required to use his personal cell phone for work. There was no reimbursement for internet and data usage. He was required to use his personal computer. Again, Defendants failed to reimburse Plaintiff for his business expenses. The Plaintiff put in his notice of resignation on February 10, 2025. Defendants notified Plaintiff that he was terminated effective February 21, 2025. Defendants failed to issue Plaintiff his final paycheck upon the day of termination. To date, Defendants have not issued Plaintiff his final paycheck with all wages owed, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an Account Manager from January 2021 until February 21, 2025. Agate Security, Inc. and Torray Scales, are doing business in the County of Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq. Laurel N. Haag, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BUCHSBAUM & HAAG, LLP 100 Oceangate, Suite 1200 Long Beach, CA 90802 Phone: (562)733-2498 Email: brent@buchsbaumhaag.com laurel@buchsbaumhaag.com AGRESERVES INC: Puga Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AgReserves, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Armando Puga, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AgReserves, Inc., South Valley Farms, Case No. BCV-25-100769 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., March 3, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." AgReserves, Inc. -- https://www.agreserves.com/ -- is a multinational agriculture for-profit company ultimately owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and based in Salt Lake City, Utah.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Farrah Mirabel, Esq. LAW OFFICE FARRAH MIRABEL 1070 Stradella Rd, Los Angeles, CA 90077 Phone: 714-972-0707 Fax: 949-417-1796 Email: fmesq@fmirabel.com AINSWORTH PET: Bid to Dismiss Goetz Class Suit Tossed ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOUISE GOETZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., v. AINSWORTH PET NUTRITION, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-04799-JPO (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an order denying Defendants' motion to dismiss and to strike the nationwide class allegations. The Defendants shall file an answer to the First Amended Complaint within 14 days after the date of this opinion and order. The stay of discovery is lifted. The parties shall file a revised proposed case management plan within 21 days after the date of this opinion and order. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 16 and 25. The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs that resolving Defendants' objections "requires a more developed record on the facts and law" and is thus not ripe for decision at this time. The Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiffs' class allegations is therefore denied. The Plaintiffs brought this putative class action against Post Consumer Brands, LLC and Ainsworth Pet Nutrition, LLC, asserting violations of Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law ("GBL") and breach of warranty based on Defendants' allegedly false claims that their products were "natural" rather than synthetic. The Plaintiffs Goetz and Meierdiercks are New York residents who purchased the Defendants' products as recently as November 2022 and August 2024, respectively. Ainsworth Pet is an independent company with a sole focus on pets. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fQB7OH at no extra charge.[CC] AISIN MANUFACTURING: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Steinsultz ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHON STEINSULTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AISIN MANUFACTURING ILLINOIS, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-02331-SMY (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Staci Yandle entered a scheduling order as follows: Pretrial and Trial Deadlines: Dec. 3, 2026 Motions in limine must be filed no later than 21 calendar days before the final pretrial conference. Responses to motions in limine must be filed no later than 14 calendar days before the final pretrial conference. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(3) pretrial disclosures are due at least 30 days before the first day of trial. Objections are due 14 days after the disclosures are made. Aisin manufactures automotive parts and components. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gVEpm9 at no extra charge.[CC] ALLIED WASTE SERVICES: Cortes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied Waste Services of North America, LLC. The case is styled as Sergio Cortes, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Allied Waste Services of North America, LLC, Case No. 25STCV05731 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 28, 2025). Allied Waste North America, LLC provides non-hazardous solid waste management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 725 South Figueroa St., 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com ALTO PHARMACY: Muhammad Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as AFIYFAH MUHAMMAD, DARWIN WILSON, and DOMINIQUE SKINNER, collectively, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALTO PHARMACY LLC, JOHN DOES 1-10 (names being fictitious and used to connote an unidentified person responsible for this occurrence), JANE DOES 1-10 (names being fictitious and used to connote an unidentified person responsible for this occurrence) ABC CORPORATIONS (names being fictitious and used to connote unidentified entities responsible for this occurrence), Case No. 1:23-cv-11315-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an order, pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), granting their request for conditional certification of a collective class of similarly-situated employees, and granting such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Alto is a digitally-powered pharmacy. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j5Au6X at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tyrone Blackburn, Esq. T. A. BLACKBURN LAW, PLLC 1242 E. 80th Street, 3rd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11236 Telephone: (347) 427-5999 - and - Fred V. Charles, Esq. CHARLES LAW, P.C. 244 Fifth Ave., Suite 2717 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (646) 784-2708 E-mail: fcharles@charleslawpc.com AMAZON WEB: Filing of Joint Status Report Due March 31 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as AVELARDO RIVERA and YASMINE ROMERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00269-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Chun entered an order granting the Parties motion for Joint Status Report as follows. Event Current Proposed Deadline Deadline Plaintiff's rebuttal expert Mar. 4, 2025 Stayed disclosures regarding class certification issues: Completion of expert discovery Apr. 21, 2025 Stayed Regarding class certification Issues: Plaintiffs' deadline to file Jun. 5, 2025 Stayed motion for class certification: Parties' deadline to file None Mar. 31, 2025 Joint status report Amazon Web is a subsidiary of Amazon that provides on-demand cloud computing platforms and APIs to individuals, companies, and governments, on a metered, pay-as-you-go basis. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=F7TgBW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Wright A. Noel, Esq. CARSON NOEL PLLC 20 Sixth Avenue NE Issaquah, WA 98027 Telephone: (425) 837-4717 Facsimile: (425) 837-5396 E-mail: wright@carsonnoel.com - and - J. Eli Wade-Scott, Esq. Schuyler Ufkes, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: ewadescott@edelson.com sufkes@edelson.com - and - Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. Alec M. Leslie, Esq. Max S. Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com aleslie@bursor.com mroberts@bursor.com - and - Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. Samuel R. Jackson, Esq. CARNEY BATES AND PULLIAM, PLLC 519 West 7th Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-8505 E-mail: rpulliam@cbplaw.com sjackson@cbplaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Ryan Spear, Esq. Nicola Menaldo, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Telephone: (206) 359-8000 Facsimile: (206) 359-9000 E-mail: RSpear@perkinscoie.com NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Filing in Rittman Extended to April 16 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNADEAN RITTMANN et al., v. AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-01554-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Coughenour entered an order granting the joint stipulation to extend deadlines related to the issuance of notice to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective, the class certification motion, and the renewed motion to compel arbitration. 1. The date by which FLSA notice shall be issued is extended by 30 days, to March 30, 2025. 2. The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification and for the Defendants to file their renewed motion to compel arbitration, as outlined in the Court's Dec. 13 order, is extended by 30 days, to April 16, 2025. 3. The deadline for the Defendants to file their opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is extended by 30 days, to June 16, 2025. 4. The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their reply is extended by 30 days, to July 7, 2025. Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of products. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vXi409 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Jeremy Abay, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com hlichten@llrlaw.com jabay@llrlaw.com - and - Michael C. Subit, Esq. FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS LLP 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1200 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 682-6711 E-mail: msubit@frankfreed.com The Defendants are represented by: Jason C. Schwartz, Esq. Lucas C. Townsend, Esq. Dhananjay S. Manthripragada, Esq. Megan Cooney, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1700 M Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036-4504 Telephone: (202) 955-8500 E-mail: schwartz@gibsondunn.com ltownsend@gibsondunn.com dmanthripragada@gibsondunn.com mcooney@gibsondunn.com - and - Andrew DeCarlow, Esq. Richard G. Rosenblatt, Esq. James P. Walsh, Jr., Esq. Sarah Zenewicz, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 274-0154 E-mail: andrew.decarlow@morganlewis.com richard.rosenblatt@morganlewis.com james.walsh@morganlewis.com sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Parties Anticipate Briefing on Bid to Dismiss ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Airlines Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2025, that the consolidated securities class suit dismissal motion briefing is anticipated. On July 18, 2024, AAG and certain of its current and former officers were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, captioned Qawasmi v. American Airlines Group Inc., et al. The Qawasmi plaintiff purports to represent investors who acquired AAG securities between January 25, 2024 and May 28, 2024. On August 28, 2024, AAG and certain of its current and former officers were named as defendants in a second putative class action lawsuit filed in the same court, captioned Thornburg v. American Airlines Group Inc., et al. The Thornburg plaintiff purports to represent investors who acquired AAG securities between July 20, 2023 and May 28, 2024. Both the Qawasmi and Thornburg complaints assert violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegations that, during the relevant periods, AAG misrepresented and/or omitted material facts related to its financial outlook and certain commercial initiatives. On September 16, 2024, certain purported AAG investors moved for consolidation of the Qawasmi and Thornburg actions as well as appointment as lead plaintiff. On November 22, 2024, the Qawasmi and Thornburg complaints were consolidated into a single action bearing the caption In re American Airlines Group Inc. Securities Litigation. The court also appointed co-lead plaintiffs and lead counsel to represent the putative class in the consolidated action. The parties now anticipate briefing a motion to dismiss the action. American Airlines provides scheduled air transportation services for passengers and cargo. AMERICAN RENAL: Futrell-Parham Sues Over Failure to Secure Data --------------------------------------------------------------- Pamela Futrell-Parham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN RENAL MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a INNOVATIVE RENAL CARE, Case No. 3:25-cv-00248 (M.D. Tenn., March 3, 2025), is brought arising out of Defendant IRC's failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff(s)' and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. This failure to secure and monitor its network resulted in a February 2024 data breach ("Data Breach") of highly sensitive documents and information stored on the computer network of IRC, an organization that provides medical treatment and/or employment to individuals, including Plaintiff(s) and Class Members. The Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack in or beginning February 2024 to compromise Defendant's network (the "Data Breach") that contained personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively, "the Private Information") of Plaintiffs and other individuals ("the Class"). The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which it was entrusted for either treatment or employment or both. The Plaintiff(s) bring this class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff(s) and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access of an unknown third party and including in that notice precisely what specific types of information were accessed and taken by cybercriminals. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff(s) and Class Members by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized intrusions; failing to disclose that it did not have adequately robust computer systems and security practices to safeguard Plaintiff(s)' and Class Members' Private Information; failing to take standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach; and failing to provide Plaintiff(s) and Class Members with prompt and full notice of the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received notice of the Data Breach dated February 14, 2025. The Defendant IRC provides dialysis and other medical related care for patients with various kidney conditions including end-stage renal disease.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lisa A. White, Esq. MASON LLP (Local Office) 9117 Millertown Pike Mascot, TN 37806 - and - MASON LLP (Main Office) 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Phone: (202) 429-2290 Email: lwhite@masonllp.com AMERICAN SOCIETY: Albert Sues Over Illegal Conspiracy & Competition ------------------------------------------------------------------- Alexis Albert and May Ann Hudgins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN SOCIETY OF HEALTH-SYSTEM PHARMACISTS, INC., NATIONAL MATCHING SERVICES INC., THE JOHNS HOPKINS HOSPITAL, THE NEW YORK AND PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL d/b/a NEW YORK PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL, THE METHODIST HOSPITAL d/b/a HOUSTON METHODIST HOSPITAL, NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, RUSH UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO MEDICAL CENTER, ALLEGHENY GENERAL HOSPITAL, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA MEDICAL CENTER-HOSPITAL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, UPMC PRESBYTERIAN SHADYSIDE, LEESBURG REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. d/b/a UF HEALTH CENTRAL FLORIDA, THE QUEEN'S HEALTH SYSTEMS, Case No. 8:25-cv-00673-LKG (D. Md., Feb. 28, 2025), is brought about upholding the rights of recent pharmacy school graduates to obtain employment as resident pharmacists through a system of fair competition in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act (the "Sherman Act") and to redress and put a stop to illegal conspiracy in restraint of trade. The Defendants in this case are a consortium of organizations that have illegally subverted the system of free competition in the labor market for resident pharmacists. Instead of competing to hire resident pharmacists, and allowing these individuals to negotiate better terms of employment and move between employers as they wish, Defendants have designed and agreed to participate in a system that intentionally suppresses competition by forcing all such individuals to apply for employment through a system called the ASHP Resident Matching Program (the "ASHP Match"). The ASHP Match eliminates the prospective employees' ability to negotiate over the terms of employment they are offered, prohibits them from moving between employers after they are hired, bars them from applying for pharmacy residency positions outside of the ASHP Match, and polices compliance with its own rules. The ASHP Match is an anti-competitive agreement between virtually every employer of resident pharmacists in the United States, as well as National Matching Services, Inc., and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, Inc. The employers and institutions comprising the ASHP Match further conspire to suppress, fix, stabilize, and standardize the compensation of pharmacy residents by exchanging competitively sensitive compensation information regarding residents' salaries and other employment benefits. These same entities further conspire to suppress, fix, stabilize, and standardize the compensation of pharmacy residents by agreeing to control the number of pharmacy residency positions available in any given year to ensure that the number of positions remains well below the total number of applicants. As a result of this anti-competitive conspiracy, generations of resident pharmacists have suffered from artificially suppressed wages and employment benefits and been unable to improve their working conditions, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a pharmacy resident by Defendant UF Health Central Florida beginning in June 2023. American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, Inc. ("ASHP") is a professional organization that represents pharmacists.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart A. Berman, Esq. Stanley J. Reed, Esq. LERCH, EARLY & BREWER, CHTD. 7600 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 700 Bethesda, MD 20814 Phone: (301) 657-0729 Email: saberman@lerchearly.com sjreed@lerchearly.com - and - Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 610 Miami, Florida 33131 Phone: (305) 357-2107 Email: fhedin@hedinllp.com - and - Tyler K. Somes, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1100 15th Street NW, Ste 04-108 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 900-3331 Email: tsomes@hedinllp.com ANTHONY FUSO: Nava Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anthony Fuso. The case is styled as Jorge Armando Ayala Nava and Nicolas Renteria Ramirez, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees v. Anthony Fuso, Individually and doing business as Anthony And David Fuso Farms, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0003211 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., March 3, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Anthony Fuso doing business as Anthony & David Fuso Fuso Farms is carrier company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Galen T. Shimoda, Esq. SHIMODA & RODRIGUEZ LAW, PC 9401 E Stockton Blvd., Ste. 120 Elk Grove, CA 95624-5050 Phone: 916-525-0716 Fax: 916-760-3733 Email: attorney@shimodalaw.com APPLE INC: Court Narrows Claims in Gamboa Suit ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIANNA FELIX GAMBOA, et al., v. APPLE INC., Case No. 5:24-cv-01270-EKL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Eumi Lee entered an order granting in part and denying in part Apple's motion to dismiss. Accordingly, because the Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege that Apple engaged in unlawful or unfair business acts or practices, Apple's Motion to Dismiss the UCL claim is granted. Dismissal is with leave to amend because Plaintiffs may be able to plausibly allege a Sherman Act claim, which would support a UCL unlawful prong claim. Moreover, the Plaintiffs may be able to allege additional facts to support a UCL unfairness prong claim. The action arises out of Defendant Apple Inc.'s restrictions that prevent third-party cloud storage providers from accessing certain files on iPhones and iPads. The Plaintiffs allege that these file restrictions prevent Apple's competitors from offering "full-service" cloud storage that can compete effectively with iCloud, Apple's own cloud storage service. The Plaintiffs claim that Apple's conduct violates the Sherman Antitrust Act and California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and causes them to overpay for their iCloud subscriptions. The Plaintiff Julianna Felix Gamboa "purchased a 200GB iCloud storage plan in or around September 2022." Apple is a leading manufacturer of mobile devices, including the prolific iPhone and the popular iPad tablet. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3ewN4X at no extra charge.[CC] ARIAT INTERNATIONAL: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Silvia Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ARIAT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a California corporation, d/b/a WWW.ARIAT.COM, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 28, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01784. The Complaint in this case asserts claims for violation of California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA") on behalf of Plaintiff and "all persons who visited Ariat's Website while physically in the United States and whose personal information was shared with TikTok or other third parties by Defendant without effective and informed prior consent." The Complaint alleges that Ariat transmits putative class members' information to TikTok through tracking technology provided by TikTok and that these transmissions violated CIPA.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Melinda M. Morton, Esq. Jacob K. Poorman, Esq. Jean Kim, Esq. PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLP 3000 El Camino Real Five Palo Alto Square, Suite 400 Palo Alto, CA 94306 Phone: 650.645.9000 Facsimile: 619.235.0398 Email: mindy.morton@procopio.com jacob.poorman@procopio.com jean.kim@procopio.com ASCEND WELLNESS: Holder Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Keeton Holder, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. ASCEND WELLNESS HOLDINGS, INC., ASCEND ILLINOIS, LLC, ASCEND ILLINOIS HOLDINGS, LLC, REVOLUTION CANNABIS-BARRY, LLC, D/B/A ASCEND ILLINOIS-BARRY, Case No. 2025 CH 01149 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County Department, Chancery Division, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 4, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-02291. The Complaint alleges that "Plaintiff and other members of the Class were harmed in the full amount of the monies paid for the Vapable Oils purchased," and "the total sales of Vapable Oils during the applicable statutory period are in the tens of millions."[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Irina Dashevsky, Esq. Ryan M. Holz, Esq. Marnie A. Holz, Esq. GREENSPOON MARDER LLP 227 W. Monroe St., Suite 3950 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (847) 463-0663 (RMH) Email Irina.dashevsky@gmlaw.com ryan.holz@gmlaw.com marnie.holz@gmlaw.com ASCOT CHANG (USA): Wills Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Laurence Wills, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. ASCOT CHANG (USA), LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01552 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2025), is brought against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, us.ascotchang.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and therefore denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com ASKET INC: Morris Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------ Zachary Morris, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. ASKET, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00319-WED (S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, www.asket.com including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.asket.com offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States, including the State of Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101. Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com BAXTER INT'L: Bid to Dismiss Reading Suit vs Hill-Rom Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Baxter International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 21, 2025, that the motion to dismiss Reading Hospital's antitrust class suit against Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc., Hill-Rom Company, Inc., and Hill-Rom Services, Inc. is pending before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On June 20, 2024, Reading Hospital filed a putative class action complaint against Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc., Hill-Rom Company, Inc., and Hill-Rom Services, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The complaint alleges that Hillrom violated Sections 1 and 2 of The Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 3 of the Clayton Act by allegedly engaging in anti-competitive conduct in alleged markets for standard, ICU and birthing beds. The plaintiff filed the action on behalf of itself and all "direct purchasers of Standard Hospital Beds, ICU Beds, and/or Birthing Beds from Hill-Rom during a period beginning at least as early as June 20, 2020” and continuing past the date of filing. On September 30, 2024, the plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. On November 8, 2024, Hillrom filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Briefing was completed in January 2025 and the motion is pending before the court. Baxter International Inc. is a healthcare company based in Illinois. Based in Chicago, IL, Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc. manufactures and supplies medical technologies and other related services for the healthcare industry. [BN] BAY CITY BRIDGE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Illegal Toll Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Cole Waterman, writing for M Live, reports that controversy and protests have ramped up in weeks over Bay City's two toll bridges and their fluctuating costs. Amidst this, two attorneys have filed a class action lawsuit against the corporation operating the bridges and Bay City itself. Attorneys Matthew B. Hewitt and Philip L. Ellison on Tuesday, March 4, filed their suit in Bay County Circuit Court against Bay City Bridge Partners and Bay City. The suit lists eight plaintiffs who reside in Bangor Township, Essexville, Kawkawlin, and Auburn. The suit requests a judge to order BCBP to forfeit and refund all collected tolling fees, find that BCBP knowingly misled the public regarding the nature and cost of its tolling system, and issue an injunction barring BCBP from continuing its current practices. "We seek not just justice for those who have been wronged, but to prevent the economic harm that is already affecting our local residents and the far-reaching devastation that will occur if this continues unchecked," Hewitt said. "A promise made is supposed to be a promise kept," added Ellison. "Taking bridge-toll money was not lawful and it isn't fair." Bay City welcomed BCBP in what was supposed to be a win-win partnership to preserve infrastructure, ensure the bridges' sustainability, and continue growing the city, Hewitt said. The plan is beginning to unravel due to what Hewitt labeled "corporate greed." BCBP is a subsidiary of Littleton, Colorado-based United Bridge Partners. The suit recounts how UBP and Bay City government in 2019 reached an acquisition and development agreement for the rehabilitation and modernization of the Liberty and Independence bridges that pass over the Saginaw River. The city granted BCBP a 75-year tolling concession for the two drawbridges, the purpose being to "relieve tax-fatigued" Bay Citians from bearing the financial burden of the bridges' maintenance. BCBP regularly assured citizens the toll rates would be reasonable and affordable, the suit states. "What began as a partnership has deteriorated into a relationship defined by broken promises, unjustified financial burdens, and an erosion of public trust so severe that the very foundation of the contractual agreement cannot like be preserved," the suit states. Without contractual justification, BCBP began prematurely tolling motorists on Independence Bridge, resulting in the plaintiffs suffering unexpected financial burdens while the company unjustly enriched itself, the suit alleges. BCBP also assured the public Independence Bridge would be available without significant disruptions. However, the bridge has been routinely closed during overnight hours since the beginning of 2025, violating its contract with Bay City, the suit alleges. The entity further represented that non-Bay City residents with transponders would pay $15 per month for unlimited crossings or $2 per crossing once construction on Independence Bridge was finalized. However, BCBP on Jan. 1 of this year began collecting tolls, breaching its contract with the city, the suit alleges. Then, on Feb. 3, BCBP announced via its Facebook page it was doubling the monthly toll rate from $15 to $30. The company on Feb. 28 suspended the increase after public outcry. Bay City has a duty to ensure infrastructure serves the public interest, a duty it failed to uphold, the suit alleges. "BCBP's tolling practices (as tolerated by the City of Bay City) have created conditions similar to the bypassing of towns by major highways, leading to economic decline and unnecessary hardship on local businesses," the suit states. The suit contains the following seven counts: -- Violation of public trust principles, against both BCBP and Bay City -- Third-party beneficiary claim-breach of contract, against both BCBP and Bay City -- Breach of contract, against BCBP -- Breach of implied contract, against BCBP -- Unjust enrichment, against BCBP -- Violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, against BCBP -- Injunctive relief based upon the prior six counts Bay City is a codefendant as it is the contracted party with BCBP and has the power to remedy the situation, Hewitt said. He cautioned Bay City could become a relic of its former self once motorists rely on toll-free paths around the city. "This lawsuit gives the City a chance to right what has gone wrong," he said. "The City did what they thought was best at the time, but it was a mistake. There is no shame in admitting that; the only true mistake is refusing to learn from it." Hewitt and Ellison are asking parties interested in joining the suit to contact them via bcbridgelawsuit.com. [GN] BETTER DEBT SOLUTIONS: Austin Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Better Debt Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Latrice Austin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Better Debt Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01103-SDG (N.D. Ga., March 3, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Better Debt Solutions -- https://betterdebtsolutions.com/ -- offers debt relief solutions to numerous households and individuals across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Love, Esq. LOVE CONSUMER LAW 2500 Northwinds Parkway, Ste. 330 Alpharetta, GA 30009 Phone: (404) 855-3600 Email: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com - and - Max Scott Morgan, Esq. THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC 1515 Market Street, Ste. #1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (267) 587-6240 Fax: (215) 689-0875 Email: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com BIO-LAB INC: Class Certification Bid Due June 12, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re Bio-Lab Class Actions, Case No. 1:24-cv-04407-SEG (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Sarah Geraghty entered a class certification schedule order as follows: Actions Deadline Deadline to Submit confidentiality Mar. 26, 2025 Order and ESI protocol: Initial Fact Discovery Cutoff: Jan. 16, 2026 Expert Depositions Complete: May 8, 2026 Daubert Motions: June 12, 2026 Class Cert. Motion: June 12, 2026 A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UMH0Yk at no extra charge.[CC] BLUE RIDGE: Gallek Sues Over Intrusive Telemarketing Calls ---------------------------------------------------------- Sydney Gallek, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. BLUE RIDGE APPLIANCE & HEARTH, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00167-TDS-JEP (M.D.N.C., March 3, 2025), is brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") in 1991 and the North Carolina implemented similar state-level legislation in 2003, the North Carolina Telephone Solicitations Act ("NCTSA") as a result of the Defendant's intrusive telemarketing calls and text messages. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the TCPA and the NCTSA by knowingly making telemarketing calls in the form of text messages to the telephone numbers of Plaintiff and the putative Class, all of which are—and, at all relevant times, have been—listed on the Do-Not-Call Registry without the written consent of Plaintiff or any member of the putative Class, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses the number exclusively for personal, residential, and household reasons. Blue Ridge Appliance & Hearth, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karl S. Gwaltney, Esq. MAGINNIS HOWARD 7706 Six Forks Road, Suite 101 Raleigh, NC 27615 Phone: 919-526-0450 Fax: 919-882-8763 Email: kgwaltney@carolinalaw.com - and - Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: 617-485-0018 Fax: 508-318-8100 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com BMO FINANCIAL: Shulak Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as John P. Shulak, individually and as representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries and on behalf of the BMO 401K Savings Plan v. BMO FINANCIAL CORP.; BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE OF BMO FINANCIAL CORP.; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-09615 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 3, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-02232 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as E.R.I.S.A. Labor. BMO -- https://www.bmo.com/ -- offers a wide range of personal and business banking services, including bank accounts, mortgages, credit cards, loans and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. Alfredo Torrijos, Esq. Vahan Mikayelyan, Esq. HAFFNER LAW PC 15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1520 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Phone: (213) 514-5681 Fax: (213) 514-5682 Email: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com at@haffnerlawyers.com vh@haffnerlawyers.com BRADLEY UNIVERSITY: Seeks to File Notice of Supplemental Authority ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ORION EDDLEMON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BRADLEY UNIVERSITY, an Illinois not-for-profit corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-01264-CRL (C.D. Ill.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting the University leave to file its Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of the Defendant's opposition to class certification and the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, and for any other relief this Court deems equitable and just. The University submitted its most recent notice of supplement authority in support of its opposition to the Second Class Certification Motion on Dec. 27, 2023. The University filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on April 12, 2022. The MSJ was fully briefed as of June 13, 2022. The University then submitted one notice of supplemental authority in support of its MSJ on May 20, 2024. Since the parties completed briefing on both the Opposition and the MSJ, new authority relevant to the Opposition and the MSJ has been released. The University believes this supplemental authority would assist this Court in its consideration of the filings. Bradley is a private university in Peoria, Illinois, United States. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2d0cJK at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Gregory E. Ostfeld, Esq. Tiffany S. Fordyce, Esq. Kara E. Angeletti, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 456-8400 E-mail: ostfeldg@gtlaw.com fordycet@gtlaw.com angelettik@gtlaw.com BRITISH AIRWAYS: Carney Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as James T. Carney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BRITISH AIRWAYS PLC, a foreign corporation, Case No. GD25-000125 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Feb. 28, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00302-CBB. The Plaintiff attempts to assert three causes of action against BA, including for: a violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL"), fraud, and unjust enrichment.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Stephen H. Barrett, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, Suite 5000 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7300 Phone: 215-656-2455 Email: Stephen.barrett@us.dlapiper.com - and - Keara M. Gordon, Esq. Colleen Carey Gulliver, Esq. Connor D. Rowinski, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NYY 10020-1104 Phone: (212) 335-4500 Facsimile: (212) 335-4501 Email: keara.gordon@us.dlapiper.com colleen.gulliver@us.dlapiper.com connor.rowinski@us.dlapiper.com BUREAU OF PRISONS: Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment Due April 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOVE, et al., v. BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-02571 (D.C.C., Filed Sept. 9, 2024), the Hon. Judge Amit P. Mehta entered scheduling order as follows: (1) The Defendants' Cross-Motion for April 8, 2025 Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Motion for Class Certification shall be filed by: (2) Plaintiff's Combined Reply in Support April 29, 2025 of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendants' Cross-Motion and Reply in Support of Class Certification shall be filed by: (3) Defendants' Reply in Support of May 20, 2025 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed by: The suit alleges violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.[CC] BYTEDANCE INC: Armbruster Sues Over Unlawfully Collected Info ------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Armbruster, as parent and guardian of his minor child, C.A. and Yolanda Berry, as parent and guardian of her minor child C.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BYTEDANCE INC.; BYTEDANCE LTD.; TIKTOK LTD.; TIKTOK INC.; TIKTOK LLC; TIKTOK PTE. LTD.; and TIKTOK U.S. DATA SECURITY, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-02239 (N.D. Cal., March 4, 2025), is brought on behalf of Minor C.A., Minor C.C., and millions of minor Plaintiffs whose highly sensitive and personally identifiable information ("Personal Information")--including but not limited to their name, age, profile image, password, email, phone number, address, "approximate" location, social media account information, phone and social media contacts, messages sent to and received from other TikTok users, information in the clipboard of a user's device, and payment card numbers--was collected and used by the Defendants without consent of the minors or their parents or guardians, in violation of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 ("COPPA") and the Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule ("COPPA Rule"). Fully aware of the platform's appeal to children, Defendants have knowingly permitted and encouraged children under the age of 13 to create user accounts on the TikTok app for the purpose of collecting highly sensitive and intrusive Personal Information about them and their online behavior without proper notice and parental consent. Defendants exploit this unlawfully obtained Personal Information to deliver personalized content, inundate users with targeted advertising, and share their data with third parties. The sole motive behind this illegal conduct is profit. TikTok's actions also violate a 2019 Court order arising from a lawsuit in which the United States alleged that TikTok Inc.'s and TikTok Ltd.'s predecessor companies similarly violated COPPA and the COPPA Rule by allowing children to create and access accounts without their parents' knowledge or consent, collecting data from those children, and failing to comply with parents' requests to delete their children's accounts and information. Despite these previous sanctions and order to cease their unlawful practices, Defendants have continued to exploit children's Personal Information for profit, directly violating statutory and common law designed to protect the privacy and personal information of minors, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs had a TikTok account and regularly viewed content on the TikTok platform. The Defendants own and operate TikTok, one of the world's most widely used social media platforms, which allows users to create, share, and view short videos.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven A. Schwartz, Esq. Beena M. McDonald, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP One Haverford Centre 361 Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Phone: (610) 642-8500 Fax: (610) 649-3633 Email: steveschwartz@chimicles.com bmm@chimicles.com - and - Francis J. "Casey" Flynn, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR. 5067 Metropolitan Plz Los Angeles, CA 90036 Phone: 314-662-2836 Email: casey@lawofficeflynn.com - and - James J. Rosemergy, Esq. CAREY, DANIS & LOWE 8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105 Phone: (314) 725-7700 Email: jrosemergy@careydanis.com CARDIOLOGY OF VIRGINIA: Blackburn Sues Over Unsecured Information ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tammy Blackburn, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CARDIOLOGY OF VIRGINIA, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00151-HEH (E.D. Va., Feb. 28, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its patients. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information--which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure--was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. The Defendant collected and maintained certain personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and the putative Class Members, who are (or were) patients at Defendant. The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI", and collectively with PII, "Private Information") as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"). The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach was exfiltrated by cyber-criminals and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals who target Private Information for its value to identity thieves. 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. Moreover, upon information and belief, Defendant was targeted for a cyber-attack due to its status as a healthcare entity that collects and maintains highly valuable Private Information on its systems. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized intrusions; failing to take standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach; and failing to provide Plaintiff and Class Members prompt and accurate notice of the Data Breach. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a patient at the Defendant. The Defendant is a healthcare provider based in Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee A. Floyd, Esq. BREIT BINIAZAN, PC 2100 East Cary Street, Suite 310 Richmond, Virginia 23223 Phone: (804) 351-9040 Facsimile: (804) 351-9170 Email: Lee@bbtrial.com - and - David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20015-2052 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (202) 686-2877 Email: dlietz@milberg.com CARFAX INC: Discloses Crash Reports to Third Parties, Lucas Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- BENJAMIN LUCAS v. CARFAX, INC., Case No. 8:25-cv-00632-JRR (D. Md., Feb. 25, 2025) is a class action complaint contending that Carfax sells, discloses, or otherwise makes available the police accident reports containing information protected from disclosure under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act to third parties, without the consent of the individuals, and without ascertaining whether the third-party purchasers are permitted to possess the protected information therein under the DPPA. On Dec. 4, 2023, the Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident in Maryland. After the accident and as part of the accident investigation, the investigating law enforcement officer utilized Plaintiff's driver's license and vehicle registration to collect information including Plaintiff's driver identification number and residential address. Carfax has allegedly sold the Crash Report about Plaintiff's accident to purchasers that were not permitted under the DPPA to possess the personal information. Additionally, Carfax failed to make a reasonable inquiry as to whether the Crash Reports of Class Members would be used by third-party purchasers only for an authorized purpose under the DPPA. Based on such failure, Carfax breached its duty as a reseller under the DPPA to exercise reasonable care in responding to requests to purchase personal information derived from motor vehicle records, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of himself and the Class actual damages, not less than liquidated (statutory) damages in the amount of $2,500 per Class Member; punitive damages; reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendant from obtaining and disclosing personal information from motor vehicle records for its own commercial purposes; and such other relief as the Court determines to be appropriate. The Plaintiff has a driver's license issued by the Maryland Department of Transportation Motor Vehicle Administration. The Plaintiff also owns a motor vehicle that is registered with the MVA. Carfax is an American company that provides vehicle data to individuals and businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Burns, Esq. HILGERS GRABEN PLLC 601 Pennsylvania Ave. NW South Building Suite 900 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 985-1664 Facsimile: (402) 413-1880 E-mail: mburns@hilgersgraben.com - and - Edward H. Zebersky, Esq. ZEBERSKY PAYNE LLP 110 Southeast 6th Street, Suite 2900 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 595-6059 E-mail: ezebersky@zpllp.com CARRIER CORPORATION: Bell Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kaylum Bell and Cierra Walker Individually, and on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. CARRIER CORPORATION, Case No. 2:25-cv-02244 (W.D. Tenn., March 4, 2025), is brought against the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid overtime compensation owed to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated hourly-paid probationary employees who are members of an FLSA. The Defendant had a common plan, policy, and practice of failing to record into its timekeeping system, or "editing out" of its timekeeping system, portions of the work time performed by Plaintiffs and those similarly situated within weekly pay periods during all times material to this action. More specifically, Defendant had a common plan, policy, and practice of failing to compensate Plaintiffs and those similarly situated for their work time prior to the beginning of their assigned shift and for their work time after the end of their assigned shifts. The Plaintiffs and those similarly situated performed work for Defendant prior to the beginning of their assigned shifts without being paid for such pre-shift work time at the applicable FLSA overtime compensation rates of pay within weekly pay periods during all times material herein, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by and worked for Defendant as hourly-paid probationary employees. The Defendant is one of the world's leading manufacturers of air conditioners, heating units, and refrigerators.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood, Esq. Joshua Autry, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Phone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com jautry@jsyc.com CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Zarabi Family Trust Appointed as Lead Plaintiff ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHELBY TOWNSHIP POLICE & FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. CELSIUS HOLDINGS, INC.; JOHN FIELDLY; and JARROD LANGHANS, Case No. 9:24-cv-81472-RLR (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Robin Rosenberg entered an order granting the Plaintiff Zarabi Family Trust's motion for consolidation, appointment as lead plaintiff, and approval of selection of counsel and granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff Gary J. Vucekovich's motion for consolidation, appointment as lead plaintiff, and approval of selection of counsel. The Court appoints the Zarabi Family Trust as Lead Plaintiff and approves its selection of Grant & Eisenhoffer P.A. as Lead Counsel for the Class and Josh Dubin, P.A. as Liaison Counsel for the Class. If the Zarabi Family Trust as Lead Plaintiff seeks to file an Amended Complaint, it shall do so no later than March 17, 2025. Accordingly, the Vucekovich Trust has not pointed to sufficient proof to overcome the presumption that the Zarabi Trust is the most adequate lead plaintiff. Thie case is a securities class action brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, against the Defendants for the period between Feb. 29, 2024, and Sept. 4, 2024, (the "Class Period"). The putative class includes "all persons who acquired Celsius common stock during the Class Period." Celsius manufactures and markets energy drinks and supplements. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j75Zdx at no extra charge.[CC] CENCORA INC: Court Approves $700MM Opioid Class Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Muoio, writing for Fierce Healthcare, reports that a federal court has signed off on a $700 million class-action settlement that will see drug manufacturers and distributors pay more than 1,000 acute care hospitals over alleged misconduct regarding prescription opioids. The deal consolidates four class-action settlements involving, among other defendants, Cencora (formerly AmerisourceBergen), Cardinal Health, McKesson, Johnson & Johnson, Teva and Allergan. The defendants, the lawsuit alleged, either misrepresented the risks and safety of prescription opioid use, didn't properly handle suspicious orders or filled prescriptions not written for legitimate medical purposes. The settling defendants deny any wrongdoing. [GN] CENTURYLINK INC: Bid for New Trial in Bultemeyer Tossed ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lydia Bultemeyer, v. CenturyLink Incorporated, Case No. 2:14-cv-02530-SPL (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Steven Logan entered an order denying the Defendant's motion for new trial. Overall, the Defendant has not met its burden to show that the verdict was against the clear weight of the evidence, that the trial was unfair, or that the damages were unconstitutionally excessive. The Court finds that the jury had a reasonable basis for its verdict. On Nov. 14, 2014, the Plaintiff Lydia Bultemeyer filed this lawsuit alleging that the Defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"),by obtaining her credit report, and those of putative class members, without a permissible purpose. On Feb. 2, 2023, the Court certified this matter as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 23(b)(3) on behalf of: " [E]very individual in the United States about whom the Defendant CenturyLink obtained a consumer credit report using the personal information the individual entered into CenturyLink's ecommerce website from Nov. 14, 2012 through Nov. 14, 2014 and who did not sign an arbitration agreement or class action waiver with CenturyLink." CenturyLink provides various communications services to residential, business, wholesale, and governmental customers primarily in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FzLFDA at no extra charge.[CC] CENVEO WORLDWIDE: Jones Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CENVEO WORLDWIDE LIMITED. The case is styled as Gene Lavon Jones, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CENVEO WORLDWIDE LIMITED, Case No. 25STCV05752 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 28, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Cenveo -- https://www.cenveo.com/ -- is a company based in Stamford, Connecticut, United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Keledjian, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 880 E Broadway Glendale, CA 91205-1218 Phone: 818-962-6465 Fax: 818-962-6469 Email: d.keledjian@d.law CERTEGY PAYMENT: Stachewicz Seeks to File Exhibit 35 Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY STACHEWICZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CERTEGY PAYMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01258-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting leave to file under seal Exhibit 35. Exhibit 35 is a compilation of ten documents produced by Defendant in this matter and marked as "Confidential" pursuant to paragraph 5 of the Amended Stipulated Protective Order. Specifically, they are the first ten CFDRs listed in Exhibit C to the Declaration of Matthew Woodward, which was submitted as Exhibit 30 to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and ordered to be sealed in the Court's Feb. 24, 2025, Order. Additionally, the documents in Exhibit 35 are taken from the same dataset as the Plaintiff's Exhibit 13 in support of her Motion for Class Certification, also ordered to be sealed by the Court. Certegy provides payment risk management to retailer. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FYtpp5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Francis, Esq. Lauren KW Brennan, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com - and - David M. Marco, Esq. SMITHMARCO, P.C. 5250 Old Orchard Road, Suite 300 Skokie, IL 60077 Telephone: (312) 546-6539 Facsimile: (888) 418-1277 E-mail: dmarco@smithmarco.com CHARTER MANUFACTURING: Setliff Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Timothy Setliff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Charter Manufacturing Company, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-02255 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on March 4, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00322-WED to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Charter Manufacturing Company, Inc. -- https://www.chartermfg.com/ -- is a family-owned steel and iron production and manufacturing company that was founded in the 1930s.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Esther E Bryant, Esq. Matthew B. Bryant, Esq. Daniel I. Bryant, Esq. Bryant Legal LLC 3450 W Central Ave-Ste 370 Toledo, OH 43606 Phone: (419) 824-4439 Email: ebryant@bryantlegalllc.com The Defendant is represented by: Monica Levine Lacks, Esq. Rebecca J. Bennett, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART-CLEVELAND 127 Public Square, Ste. 4100 Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: (216) 241-6100 Fax: (216) 357-4733 CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Santos Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Angela Santos, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., Case No. 25CV168 (Mass. Commonwealth, Hampden Cty., March 4, 2025), is brought against the Defendant who failed to pay the wages, including earned but unused PTO, due to "any employee discharged from such employment in full on the day of his discharge" which is required under Massachusetts law. The Defendant terminated Plaintiff on Tuesday, March 19, 2024 but paid her final wages 3 business days later, on Friday, March 22, 2024. The Defendant' s payroll and compensation practices are centrally controlled and common to all of its Connecticut and Massachusetts employees. Accordingly, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff and the Class for penalty damages in the amount Of the late paid wages under Connecticut law and Statutory triple damages under Massachusetts law. The Plaintiff was an employee in the Defendants Holyoke, Massachusetts location. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state office Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard E. Hayber, Esq. HAYBER, McKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC 750 Main Street, Suite 904 Hartford, CT 06103 Phone: 860-522-8888 Fax: 860-218-9555 Email: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com CHUN H. LAM: Williams Sues Over Inaccessible Property ----------------------------------------------------- Clinton Williams, and others similarly situated v. CHUN H. LAM, Case No. 4:25-cv-00218-ALM (E.D. Tex., March 4, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses against Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and its attendant regulations, the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG") as a result of the Defendant's inaccessible property. The Defendant refused to provide the Plaintiff and others similarly situated with sufficient ADA-compliant parking in the parking lot that serves VAPORS & PUFFS. At the Plano location, there are no ADA-compliant van-accessible spaces on the shortest access route to the business. In addition, there are no ADA-required handicapped parking signs. Based on these facts, Defendant has denied the Plaintiff the ability to enjoy the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations at VAPORS & PUFFS, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a person with a physical disability and mobility impairments. CHUN H. LAM owns, manages, controls, and leases the improvements and building where the VAPORS & PUFFS business is situated.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Tharpe, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF R. BRUCE THARPE, PLLC PO Box 101 Olmito, TX 78575 Phone: (956) 255-5111 Fax: (866) 599-2596 Email: rbtharpe@aol.com Questions@BruceTharpeLaw.com CHW GROUP INC: Weingrad Files TCPA Suit in D. Oregon ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CHW Group, Inc. The case is styled as Leon Weingrad, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. CHW Group, Inc. doing business as: Choice Home Warranty, Case No. 3:25-cv-00370-IM (D. Ore., March 3, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. CHW Group, Inc. doing business as Choice Home Warranty -- https://my.choicehomewarranty.com/ -- offers customizable plans to cover the repair or replacement of important appliances and systems components that break down over time.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mt. Carmel Ave Glenside, PA 19038 Phone: (215) 225-5529 Fax: (888) 329-0305 Email: a@perronglaw.com - and - Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (617) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com CONSUMER CELLULAR: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Consumer Cellular Incorporated. The case is styled as Chet Michael Wilson, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Consumer Cellular Incorporated, Case No. 2:25-cv-00745-ROS (D. Ariz., March 4, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Consumer Cellular, Inc. -- https://consumercellular.com/ -- is an American postpaid mobile virtual network operator.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 400 NW 26th St. Miami, FL 33127 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com CRAFT USA: Jaimes Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as William Jaimes, individually and on behalf of the putative class v. CRAFT USA HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMMERCIAL STRATEGY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. CV 15-5201-GHK was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 28, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01755. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts causes of action on a class wide basis for: Failure to Pay Wages for All Hours Worked; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; Failure to Furnish Timely and Accurate Wage Statements; Failure to Pay All Compensation Due During Employment and Upon Discharge; and Unfair, Unlawful, or Fraudulent Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Spencer C. Skeen, Esq. Tim L. Johnson, Esq. Andrew J. Deddeh, Esq. Brett R. Tengberg, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: 858-652-3100 Facsimile: 858-652-3101 Email: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com tim.johnson@ogletree.com andrew.deddeh@ogletree.com brett.tengberg@ogletree.com CRYSTAL OF AMERICA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Battle Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Crystal of America, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-02334 (N.D. Ill., March 5, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://riedel.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of glassware on Riedel.com. Despite his efforts, however, Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the Website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. Unless Defendant remedies the numerous access barriers on its website, Plaintiff and Class members will continue to be unable to independently navigate, browse, use, and complete a purchase on Riedel.com, the lawsuit says. Due to the Defendant's failure to build the Website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the Website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the bed, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Riedel.com is a commercial website that offers products and services for online sale. The online store allows the user to view high-quality glassware, make purchases, and perform a variety of other functions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. HOROWITZ LAW PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com CUDDLE CLONES: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fernandez Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CUDDLE CLONES, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01837 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.cuddleclones.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On June 14, 2024, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant's website to purchase a pet toy (Original Plush Cuddle Clone). Despite the Plaintiff's efforts, however, she was denied a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred Plaintiff from having an unimpeded shopping experience. The Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse, the lawsuit says. The Website also contained a host of broken links, which is a hyperlink to a non-existent or empty webpage. For the visually impaired this is especially paralyzing due to the inability to navigate or otherwise determine where one is on the website once a broken link is encountered, the lawsuit adds. The Defendant's Website offers products and services for online sale and general delivery to the public. The Website offers features which ought to allow users to browse for items, access navigation bar descriptions, inquire about pricing, and avail consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous items offered for sale.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. HOROWITZ LAW PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com DAVIDS NATURAL: Class Cert Hearing in Schoeps Continued to Nov. 13 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDRA SCHOEPS and MARLEY STUBBLEFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DAVIDS NATURAL TOOTHPASTE, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-01978-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín entered an order to continue class certification deadlines: Event Current Date Stipulated New Date Defendant's opposition to June 2, 2025 Sept. 4, 2025 Plaintiffs' motion for class Certification: Plaintiffs' reply ISO Class July 2, 2025 Nov. 4, 2025 Certification and Rebuttal Class Certification Expert Reports, Daubert Motions, and Opposition to Defendant's Daubert Motions: Defendant's reply ISO Daubert July 25, 2025 Nov. 24, 2025 Motions, Opposition to Plaintiffs' Daubert Motions: Plaintiffs' reply ISO Daubert Aug. 1, 2025 Dec. 8, 2025 Motions: Hearing on Class Certification Nov. 13, 2025 Mar. 12, 2026 and Daubert Motions: Davids is a premium natural toothpaste, made in California, with a focus on sustainability. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k2EkRt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Joshua R. Wilner, Esq. Joshua B. Glatt, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com jwilner@bursor.com jglatt@bursor.com The Defendant is represented by: Lane E. Webb, Esq. Catherine A. Naltsas, Esq. Shanna M. Van Wagner, Esq. LYNBERG & WATKINS 185 West F Street, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 814-2169 Facsimile: (619) 356-4968 E-mail: lwebb@lynberg.com cnaltsas@lynberg.com svanwagner@lynberg.com DAVITA INC: Lightner Seeks to Supplement Conditional Status Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDUIN LIGHTNER, v. DaVita, INC. Case No. 1:23-cv-03104-NYW-KAS (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her unopposed motion to supplement her motion for conditional certification and court-authorized notice under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The Plaintiff reserved the right to supplement the record because certain Opt-in Plaintiffs remained to be deposed by the Defendant at the time of filing the Motion. DaVita provides kidney dialysis services for patients suffering from chronic kidney failure in the United States. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MmxbWK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75254 Telephone: (214) 489-7653 E-mail: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com - and - Galvin Kennedy, Esq. KENNEDY LAW FIRM, LLP 2925 Richmond Ave, Ste. 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 425-6445 E-mail: galvin@kennedyattorney.com DEL MONTE: Class Cert Hearings in Vlacich Continued to May 8 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER VLACICH, ELENA NACARINO, ANA KRISTIC, LISA MALARA, AND TEENA STAMBAUGH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DEL MONTE FOODS, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-00892-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order that the March 20, 2025 hearings are continued to May 8, 2025. On Jan. 22, 2025, the Court entered an order continuing motion hearings as to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and Defendants' motions to exclude to March 20, 2025. Lead counsel for Defendant has a scheduling conflict on March 20, 2025 and is unable to attend the motion hearing. Del Monte is an American food production and distribution company and subsidiary of NutriAsia. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VQWal0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard Lyon, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: rick@dovel.com simon@dovel.com jonas@dovel.com - and - Zack Broslavsky, Esq. BROSLAVSKY & WEINMAN, LLP 1500 Rosecrans. Ave, Suite 500 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 575-2550 Facsimile: (310) 464-3550 E-mail: zbroslavsky@bwcounsel.com The Defendant is represented by: Erik K. Swanholt, Esq. John J. Atallah, Esq. Kelsey C. Boehm, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 555 South Flower Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2418 Telephone: 213.972.4500 Facsimile: 213.486.0065 E-mail: eswanholt@foley.com jatallah@foley.com kboehm@foley.com DELTONA, FL: Anson Seeks Oral Argument on Bid to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAMIAN ANSON, et al., v. CITY OF DELTONA, a Florida Municipal Corporation, Case No. 6:23-cv-00766-JSS-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting unopposed motion for oral argument on the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a liability class. Deltona is a city in Volusia County, Florida, United States. It is located on the northern shore of Lake Monroe. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VnWCTm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas C. Allison, Esq. Luis M. Perez, Esq. THOMAS C. ALLISON, P.A. 121 S. Orange. Ave. Suite 840N Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 720-7642 Facsimile: (407) 378-7855 E-mail: Thomas@allisonpa.com LPerez@allisonpa.com - and - Andrew Bernard Doyle, Esq. SEIBANE DOYLE, PLLC 913 Mabbette Street Kissimmee, FL 34741 Telephone: (407) 906-2777 E-mail: andrew@sd-firm.com micky@sd-firm.com The Defendant is represented by: Dale A. Scott, Esq. TESSITORE MARI SCOTT, PLLC 1485 International Pkwy., Ste. 2031 Lake Mary, FL 32746-5352 E-mail: dscott@tessmari.com ehemphill@tessmari.com DLP HARRIS: Brevard Suit Transferred to W.D. North Carolina ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as City of Brevard, North Carolina, et al., on its own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DLP Harris Regional Hospital, LLC, et al, Case No. 3:25-mc-00002 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina on March 4, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-mc-00010-MR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust. Harris Regional Hospital -- https://www.myharrisregional.com/ https://www.myharrisregional.com/ -- is an 86-bed acute care facility located in Sylva, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert N. Hunter, Jr., Esq. HIGGINS BENJAMIN, PLLC 301 N Elm Street, Suite 800 Greensboro, NC 27401 Phone: (336) 273-1600 Fax: (336) 274-4650 Email: rnhunterjr@greensborolaw.com DO&CO NEW YORK: Leyba Sues Over Improper Overtime Payment --------------------------------------------------------- Alex Leyba, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. DO&CO NEW YORK CATERING, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01146 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") against the Defendant who knew that failing to pay Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class Members proper overtime compensation would economically injure Plaintiff the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class Members and violated federal and state laws. The Plaintiff almost always worked at least 50 hours a week, and often more than that. Specifically, Plaintiff worked five days per week. Although Plaintiff was scheduled for shifts lasting 8.5 to 9.5 hours, he almost always had to work later than the scheduled end of his shifts. As a result, Plaintiff worked 10 or more hours per shift. The Defendant did not pay Plaintiff an overtime premium for his overtime hours worked. Instead, Defendant paid Plaintiff a weekly salary. Defendant did not provide Plaintiff with wage statements that listed his actual regular and overtime hours worked or his overtime rate. Instead, the wage statements that Defendant gave Plaintiff when he was a duty manager listed his weekly hours as 40 (or biweekly hours as 80 when he was paid on a biweekly basis) and his rate of pay as his weekly (or biweekly) salary. The Defendant's failure to properly list Plaintiff's regular and overtime hours worked and overtime rate of pay directly caused Plaintiff to be underpaid, as he was paid the amount on his wage statements, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Do&Co from 2008 to January 2025. Do&Co is an international food service company that, inter alia, provides catering services to airlines..[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. Denise A. Schulman, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 688-5640 Fax: (212) 981-9587 DOLLAR GENERAL: Carter Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Ramon Carter, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION, DOLGEN CALIFORNIA, LLC, Case No. 25STCV02239 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 28, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01770. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts three purported causes of action for: Violations of the Unruh Act, California Civil Code ("Unruh Act"); Violations of the CDPA, California Civil Code ("CDPA"); and Violations of Cal. Civ. Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David Szwarcsztejn, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501 Phone: 310.315.8200 Facsimile: 310.315.8210 Email: dszwarcsztejn@mcguirewoods.com DREXEL BUILDING: Bid to Amend Scheduling Order Tossed ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kidd, Amber v. Drexel Building Supply, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00356 (W.D. Wisc., Filed May 28, 2024), the Hon. Judge William M. Conley entered an order denying the motion to amend the scheduling order. The court does not find good cause to reset elapsed deadlines or that the balance of the interests favors a stay. On the first part, the deadline that elapsed was for conditional class certification. The ultimate deadline to file for class certification is not until July 18, 2025, so the issue may still be raised and adjudicated. All other case milestones fall after that date, so there are no imminent deadlines. The parties report they are working on settlement, but that alone is generally not enough to move or stay deadlines. If the talks fall apart, the parties must be ready to litigate the case in a manner that will preserve the schedule. The parties are directed to file their settlement paperwork by March 31, 2025, or to otherwise provide an update on their settlement talks. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Drexel sells building supplies Including building materials, home design, roofing, siding, trusses, wall panels, millwork, doors and countertop.[CC] EHEALTHINSURANCE: Court Narrows Claims in Nichols Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERRI NICHOLS, et al., v. EHEALTHINSURANCE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-06720-EKL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Eumi Lee entered an order granting the motion to dismiss Count 1 without leave to amend and denies the motion to dismiss Count 2. The Court grants the motion to strike the fail-safe class definition with leave to amend, consistent with the instructions in this Order. The Court denies the motion to strike in all other respects. Matthews shall file an amended complaint within fourteen days of this Order. The amended complaint shall omit allegations regarding former named plaintiff Nichols in light of her notice of voluntary dismissal. The named plaintiff Thomas Matthews alleges that the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") by placing unsolicited telemarketing calls to his phone number, which was registered with the National Do-Not-Call Registry. Matthews seeks to represent the following class: "All persons within the United States, registered on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 31 days, to whom the Defendant and/or a third party acting on the Defendant's behalf, made two [or] more telephone solicitations that promoted the Defendant's products or services, to a cellular telephone number within any twelve-month period, within the four (4) years prior to the filing of the Complaint." Matthews asserts two causes of action on his own behalf and on behalf of the proposed class. -- Count 1 alleges violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. section 227, et seq., and -- Count 2 alleges violations of the TCPA's implementing regulations, 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(C), et seq. eHealthInsurance offers accidental, travel, health, life, dental, vision, pet, and other insurance services for individuals, families, and businesses. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FVDKcd at no extra charge.[CC] ELF COSMETICS: Faces Gonzales Class Suit Over Slack-Fill Scheme --------------------------------------------------------------- GENEVA GONZALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. E.L.F. COSMETICS, INC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01580 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 25, 2025) alleges that the Defendant deceptively sells 3.04-fluid ounce size Holy Hydration! Gentle Peeling Exfoliant product and 0.1-fluid ounce Glossy Lip Stain product in oversized containers that do not reasonably inform consumers that they are up to half empty. The suit says that the Defendant markets the Products in a systematically misleading manner by representing them as adequately filled when, in fact, they contain an unlawful amount of empty space or "slack-fill." The front of the Products' packaging does not include any information that would reasonably apprise the Plaintiff of the quantity of products relative to the size of the containers, such as a fill line or indication that the inner lining of the container restricts the amount of product from filling what appears from the outside to be full containers. The Defendant underfills the Products to save money and to deceive consumers into purchasing the Products over its competitors' products. The Defendant's slack-fill scheme not only harms consumers, but it also harms its competitors who have implemented labeling changes designed to alert consumers to the true amount of product in each container, the Plaintiff avers. The Defendant allegedly dupes unsuspecting consumers across America to pay premium prices for empty space. Accordingly, the Defendant has violated the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. As such, the Defendant has committed per se violations of the Unfair Competition Law, and the False Advertising Law. Plaintiff Geneva Gonzales and other California consumers who have purchased the Products have thus suffered injuries in fact caused by the false, unfair, deceptive, unlawful, and misleading practices. E.L.F. Cosmetics manufactures and sells popular beauty products throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com EPIC GAMES: Faces Gallardo Suit Over Fortnite Countdown Timers -------------------------------------------------------------- J.J., by and through their guardian VALERIE GALLARDO, and S.G., by and through their guardian SIRREON GOODSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EPIC GAMES, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-2254 (N.D. Cal., March 5, 2025) seeks to remedy deceptive practices employed on a massive scale in one of the world's most popular video games. Epic is the company behind the blockbuster game Fortnite. Fortnite is one of the most successful video games ever, with over 400 million registered users and generating more than $5 billion in annual revenue. The problem is that Epic has boosted those revenues through deceptive sales tactics directed at minors, the lawsuit says. Fortnite is a battle-survival game in which players fight against each other, each aiming to be the "last one standing." While the game is free to download and play, Epic charges players for certain in-game items, such as costumes and weapons, the lawsuit adds. The Plaintiffs here, J.J. and S.G., are two minor Fortnite players who Epic deceived with its misleading countdown timers. Each is represented in this lawsuit by their legal guardian. Epic is a video game company. The Defendatn is the developer of the video game Fortnite, which can be played on various devices, including smartphones, personal computers, and gaming consoles. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marshal Hoda, Esq. THE HODA LAW FIRM, PLLC 3120 Southwest Fwy Ste 101 PMB 51811 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (832) 848-0036 E-mail: marshal@thehodalawfirm.com - and - Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC 2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 215-1741 E-mail: jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com FANNIE MAE: $612.4-Mil. Jury Verdict in Net Worth Sweep Suit Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations, Case No. 1:13-mc-01288-RCL (D.D.C.), Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia will deny defendants' motion for judgment and uphold the jury verdict awarding a total of $612.4 million in favor of plaintiffs. This matter, born out of the 2008 financial crisis, has now reached its final stage before this Court. In broad strokes, it comprises both a class action and a set of individual lawsuits against the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. Plaintiffs are holders of common stock of Freddie Mac and junior preferred stock of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They filed suit in 2013 to challenge the so-called "Net Worth Sweep," arising from an amendment to the agreement between the United States Department of the Treasury and the FHFA in the FHFA's capacity as conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Under the Net Worth Sweep, each GSE was required to pay Treasury the difference between its net worth and a predetermined capital reserve each year, with that capital reserve decreasing until it reached zero in 2018. The Net Worth Sweep remains in place to the present day. Thus, the Third Amendment eliminated any future possibility for any non-Treasury stockholder -- including Plaintiffs in this case -- to receive dividends from the GSEs, because the GSEs owed their net worth to Treasury and would not take on further debt to pay dividends to other shareholders. On the day the Third Amendment was announced, the market valuation of the GSEs shares declined by $1.6 billion. By 2022, when this case went to trial for the first time, Plaintiffs' sole remaining claim was for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing based on the Net Worth Sweep, which allegedly harmed Plaintiffs by reducing the value of their preferred shares in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and their common shares in Freddie Mac. On Aug. 14, 2023, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs, awarding a total of $612.4 million. Defendants have moved for Judgment as a Matter of Law under Rule 50(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, asking the Court set aside the jury's verdict and enter judgment in Defendants' favor. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs, in trying to prove the lost-value theory at trial, failed to introduce evidence: (1) attempting to show that current shareholders are worse off today than they would be absent the Third Amendment; (2) attempting to account for the substantial increases in share prices that occurred shortly after the Third Amendment; or (3) showing that the one-day decline in share prices on Aug. 17, 2012, was attributable solely to the Net Worth Sweep, as opposed to other terms of the Third Amendment. The Court finds Plaintiffs provided ample evidence for the jury to conclude that the Net Worth Sweep is causing harm to shareholders today. The factual significance of the post-Third Amendment share price increases was properly turned over to the jury to determine, and the Court will not disturb the jury's conclusion -- that current shareholders experience harm from the Net Worth Sweep, despite the share price increase in the weeks following its announcement. Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs failed to isolate the effect of the Net Worth Sweep from the acceleration of the portfolio reduction, and therefore failed to eliminate the possibility that this other provision may have contributed to the stock price drop. According to the Court, the jury resolved this question in favor of Plaintiffs, and that conclusion was not unreasonable. The Court says as compared to the unprecedented Net Worth Sweep, a reasonable jury could conclude that a slight change in the pace of retained portfolio reduction was not a significant financial event. Thus, it will leave the jury's verdict undisturbed. Defendants further argues that all Plaintiffs who bought shares after the Third Amendment lack standing because they suffered no injury from the share price drop. The Court adheres to the law of the case: that claims challenging the Net Worth Sweep as a breach of the implied covenant in the shareholder certificates run with the shares, and thus are injuries experienced by all current shareholders, including post-Third Amendment purchasers. Therefore, Plaintiffs have identified an injury that satisfies the requirement for Article III standing. Defendants have now exhausted all procedural vehicles at their disposal before this Court. The Court stands by its prior rulings, and to the extent Defendants questioned the sufficiency of the evidence at trial, it is satisfied that a reasonable jury could come to the verdict that was rendered in this case. A copy of the Court's decision dated March 14, 2025, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lECap1 from PacerMonitor.com. FCA US: Bell Sues Over Vehicles with Fire Defects ------------------------------------------------- Nikki Bell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 2:25-cv-10583-DPH-CI (E.D. Mich., March 3, 2025), is brought on the basis that the Jeep Wrangler JL and Gladiator JT vehicles from the 2021 through 2023 model years ("Class Vehicles") had defective part(s) that increase the risk of a fire spontaneously starting, including when the vehicle is parked and not in use. Currently, it is believed that the defective component in the Class Vehicles is the power steering pump electrical connector ("Pump Electrical Connector") ("the Fire Defect"). The safety issue is real. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration opened an investigation of underhood fires on or about September 6, 2024. The investigation is identified as PE24024 and was prompted by a "VOQ and Early Warning Report" review. FCA is aware of the Fire Defect in Class Vehicles based on consumer complaints and communications with NHTSA. Additionally, FCA knew or reasonably should have known about the Fire Defect through sources unavailable to consumers, including pre-market testing (including thermal stress tests and component durability assessments), reports from FCA service centers, and other, aggregate post market data from FCA dealers about the Fire Defect in the Class Vehicles. The Fire Defect is a latent defect in each Class Vehicle and was present in each Class Vehicle at the time of sale or lease. Nonetheless, FCA concealed the existence of the Fire Defect and its attendant hazards from the Plaintiff and Class Members at the time of sale or lease. The Defendant has not issued a recall to remedy the Fire Defect. If they had known about the Fire Defect at the time of sale or lease, Plaintiff and the other Class Members would not have purchased or leased the Class Vehicles or would have paid less for them. As a result of their reliance on FCA's omissions, owners and lessees of the Class Vehicles, including Plaintiff, have suffered an ascertainable loss of money, property and/or value of their Class Vehicles, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased a used 2023 Jeep Wrangler from Bettenhausen Motor Sales, Inc. in Tinley Park, Illinois in March 2023. The Defendant designs, manufactures, markets, warrants, distributes, services, repairs, sells and leases passenger vehicles, including the Class Vehicles, in Michigan and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Jr., Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC 950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Phone: (248) 841-2200 Fax: (248) 652-2852 Email: epm@millerlawpc.com dal@millerlawpc.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. Rachel Fitzpatrick, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 Email: steve@hbsslaw.com rachelf@hbsslaw.com - and - Myles McGuire, Esq. Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. Joseph Dunklin, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 893-7002 Email: mmcguire@mcgpc.com eturin@mcgpc.com jdunklin@mcgpc.com - and - John Sawin, Esq. SAWIN LAW LTD. 55 West Wacker Drive, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 853-2490 Email: jsawin@sawinlawyers.com - and - Scott A. Morgan, Esq. MORGAN LAW FIRM, LTD. 55 West Wacker Drive, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 327-3386 Email: smorgan@smorgan-law.com FCA US: Faces Class Action Over Dodge Durango's Taillight Leaks --------------------------------------------------------------- Driving reports that a class-action lawsuit against FCA US LLC, the parent company of Dodge (also known as Stellantis), is advancing in U.S. federal court over claims that water intrusion in the third-generation Dodge Durango's signature "race-track" LED taillight assembly is causing electrical failures and expensive repairs. The suit covers model years 2014 to 2023. The lawsuit alleges the continuous LED taillight design allows water from rain, melting snow, or car washes to enter the assembly, leading to corrosion and electrical malfunctions. Affected components reportedly include the taillights, backup lights, license-plate illumination, and the rearview camera system. The owners claim the issue affects visibility and safety, resulting eventually in costly repairs. The complaint states that the replacement taillight assembly costs around US$2,000, with some owners experiencing repeat failures even after replacement. It's unclear if this amount includes labour or not. In one specified case, the Durango owner was quoted the repair amount and told by the dealership they couldn't guarantee it wouldn't happen again. The case, Cranstoun, et al., v. FCA US LLC, is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The timeline for the case extends into 2027, with key dates as follows: -- February 14, 2025: Joint status report due -- July 31, 2025: Fact-discovery completion deadline -- February 1, 2027: 10-day jury trial scheduled Law firms The Bifferato Firm; Sauder Schelkopf; and Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP are representing the plaintiffs. Dodge Durango owners involved in the lawsuit seek a resolution to address the alleged defect, potentially through a recall or compensation. Until then, affected drivers say they face potential repair costs and safety concerns related to failing lighting and camera systems. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for manufacturer liability regarding persistent vehicle defects. [GN] FELLOW INDUSTRIES: Girtley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- KALARI JACKSON GIRTLEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. FELLOW INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-02270 (N.D. Ill., Mar. 4, 2025) alleges that the Defendant 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 people. Accordingly, the Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because the Defendant's website, www.fellowproducts.com is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant’s website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.fellowproducts.com, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States, including the State of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com FIDELITY NATIONAL: Lead Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re: Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:23-cv-00252-TJC-PDB (M.D. Fla.), the Lead Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order to: (1) certify this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3); (2) appoint Lead Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; (3) appoint Labaton as Class Counsel and GrayRobinson as Liaison Counsel; and (4) grant Lead Plaintiffs any such further relief as the Court deems is just and proper. The Lead Plaintiffs move for certification of the following Class: "All persons and entities who or which, during the period from May 7, 2020 through Feb. 10, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"), purchased the publicly traded common stock of Fidelity National Information Services, Inc., and were damaged thereby." The Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint alleges that between May 7, 2020 and February 10, 2023, the Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by making materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding FIS's acquisition and integration of Worldpay, including Defendants' fraudulent scheme to prop up the value of Worldpay after the acquisition and failure to write down Worldpay's goodwill value. FIS is a fintech company that provides technology solutions and services for banks and other financial institutions. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=34XtE0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael P. Canty, Esq. James T. Christie, Esq. Nicholas D. Manningham, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 8180-0477 E-mail: mcanty@labaton.com jchristie@labaton.com nmanningham@labaton.com - and - John A. Boudet, Esq. GRAYROBINSON, P.A. 301 East Pine Street, Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 843-8880 Facsimile: (407) 244-5690 E-mail: john.boudet@gray-robinson.com FIDELITY NATIONAL: Mosser Suit Removed to M.D. North Carolina ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Rachel Mosser, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals v. FIDELITY NATIONAL INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., Case No. 25CV000856-310 was removed from the Superior Court Division, Durham County, North Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on March 3, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00169 to the proceeding. The lawsuit nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. -- https://www.fisglobal.com/ -- is an American multinational corporation which offers a wide range of financial products and services.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Stephen Daniel Feldman, Esq. ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A. 434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1600 Raleigh, NC 27601 Phone: (919) 239-2603 Fax: (919) 328-8790 Email: sfeldman@robinsonbradshaw.com FLOWERS FOODS: Salgado Wins Conditional Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as James Salgado, v. Flowers Foods Incorporated, et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-00420-JGZ (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer Zipps entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for conditional Fair Labor Standards act (FLSA) certification and to authorize Notice to similarly situated persons under 29 U.S.C. section 216(B) and for expedited discovery. -- The class of all current and former Distributors who worked in Arizona from Sept. 15, 2019 through the date notice is distributed is conditionally certified with respect to Counts I and II of the FAC. -- The Plaintiff's Proposed Notice and Consent to Opt-In to Lawsuit forms are approved for distribution. The Plaintiff is authorized to send notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs via mail and email. The Court adopts a 60-day deadline for filing consent forms with the Court, which shall run from the time the notice is mailed. -- The Defendant must provide the Plaintiff's counsel with the names, addresses, and email addresses of all current and former Distributors who worked in Arizona from Sept. 15, 2019 through the date notice is distributed in an electronic and importable format within 14 days from the date of this Order. The Plaintiff's counsel shall utilize this information only for the purpose of issuing notice. The Plaintiff has met his burden of showing that the putative class members are similarly situated for purposes of conditional certification. The putative class members are current and former Flowers' Distributors working in Arizona from September 15, 2019 to the date the notice is distributed, the Court says. In September 2022, the Plaintiff brought this action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated distributors. In 2016, the Plaintiff began working for Holsum Bakery, Inc. and its parent company, Flowers Foods, Inc., as a bakery distributor driver. Flowers Foods manufactures, markets, and distributes packaged bakery products. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aBL75n at no extra charge.[CC] FORD MOTORS: Cars Have Defective Fuel Injectors, Frankowski Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- KYLE FRANKOWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:25-cv-02300(N.D. Cal., March 5, 2025) alleges that 2021–23 Ford Bronco Sport and 2020-22 Ford Escape vehicles equipped with 1.5- liter engines contain defective fuel injectors that can crack, leak fuel, allow fuel to accumulate on top of the engine, unexpectedly impair performance, and ultimately cause sudden, life-threatening vehicle fires. Accordingly, these defective fuel injectors render the Subject Vehicles dangerous and unsafe to own or operate. Plaintiff's 2021 Ford Bronco Sport caught fire unexpectedly while being driven in Muir Beach, California on March 31, 2024. The Plaintiff and Class members contend that they are or were at risk of severe injury or death as a result of the defective fuel injectors. Subject Vehicles may suddenly lose power while driving on highways or busy roads, creating a collision risk, and Subject Vehicles have also burst into flames, risking the lives and property of Plaintiff, Class members, and the public at large. Mr. Frankowski, who resides in Alhambra, purchased a 2021 Ford Bronco Sport in Montebello, California. While driving his Subject Vehicle on March 31, 2024, the vehicle burst into flames. As a result of the defective fuel injector and resulting fire, Plaintiff's vehicle was destroyed, along with Plaintiff's personal property located in the vehicle. Ford sells, markets, distributes, and services Ford and Lincoln vehicles in California and throughout the United States, including Subject Vehicles. Ford established and operates the Ford Research and Innovation Center in Palo Alto, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben Barnow, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 W. Randolph Street, No. 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 621-2000 Facsimile: (312) 641-5504 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com - and - Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Paula Brown, Esq. Adam M. Bucci, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1100 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com pbrown@bholaw.com GALDERMA LABORATORIES: Girtley Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ KALARI JACKSON GIRTLEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. GALDERMA LABORATORIES, L.P., Case No. 1:25-cv-02268 (N.D. Ill., Mar. 4, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.alastin.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because the Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, the lawsuit says. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.fellowproducts.com, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States, including the State of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com GIVAUDAN FLAVORS: Pre-Class Certification Depositions Due April 14 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rivera, et al. v. Givaudan Flavors Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-21387-MEF-JSA (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Jessica Allen entered an order extending deadlines as follows: Current Proposed Deadline Deadline ESI Stipulation and Order: Jan. 31, 2025 Mar. 17, 2025 Pre-class certification Feb. 28, 2025 Apr. 14, 2025 Depositions: Plaintiffs' Rule 23 Motion: Mar. 31, 2025 May 15, 2025 Defendant's Opposition: Apr. 25, 2025 June 9, 2025 Plaintiffs' reply: May 16, 2025 June 30, 2025 Givaudan manufactures and sells fragrances and flavor products. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9MyvES at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michele A. Moreno, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 E-mail: mmoreno@vandallp.com GLOBE LIFE: Elizarraras Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information ------------------------------------------------------------------ Denia Elizarraras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GLOBE LIFE, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00208-RWS (E.D. Tex., March 3, 2025), is brought arising from Defendant's failure to safeguard the names, email addresses, phone numbers, postal addresses, and Social Security numbers, ("Personally Identifiable Information" and health data and insurance policy information ("Protected Health Information") (together, "Private Information") of its Customers, which resulted in unauthorized access to its information systems in October 2024, and the compromised and unauthorized disclosure of that Private Information, causing widespread injury and damages to Plaintiff and the proposed Class members. In October 2024, Globe Life detected unusual activity in its computer systems and ultimately determined that an unauthorized third party accessed its network and obtained certain files from its systems on October 2024. ("Data Breach"). As a result of the Data Breach, which Defendant failed to prevent, the Private Information of Defendant's Customers, including Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members, were stolen, including their names, email addresses, phone numbers, postal addresses, and Social Security numbers, health data and insurance policy information. The Defendant's investigation concluded that the Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff's and other individuals' information (together, "Customers"). The Defendant's failure to safeguard Customers' highly sensitive Private Information as exposed and unauthorizedly disclosed in the Data Breach violates its common law duty, Texas law, and Defendant's implied contract with its Customers to safeguard their Private Information. The Plaintiff and Class Members now face a lifetime risk of identity theft due to the nature of the information lost, which they cannot change, and which cannot be made private again, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a customer of Defendant. Globe Life Inc. is an insurance company that offers life insurance policies with its principal place of business in McKinney, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: 305-479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com lloginov@shamisgentile.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Ken Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com grunfeld@kolawyers.com GRAND CENTRAL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Sumlin Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ DENNIS SUMLIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Grand Central Oyster Bar, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01593 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2025) sues the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying the blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the services Grand Central Oyster Bar provides to their non-disabled customers through https://Oysterbarny.com, the suit contends. On Jan. 6, 2025, the Plaintiff conducted a Google search for renowned seafood restaurants in Manhattan. He became interested in Defendant's oyster restaurant. Upon visiting the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility issues that made navigation inefficient. These included ambiguous links, links that did not announce the opening of a new tab on an external platform, inadequately labeled interactive elements, such as "Next" and "Previous" buttons, as well as buttons announced as "1913 button" without providing additional context about their functionality. Due to these accessibility issues, the visually impaired user was unable to explore the restaurant's offerings or make a reservation on the website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Grand Central Oyster Bar's policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to the blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Mr. Sumlin is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Grand Central is a restaurant offering an extensive menu featuring over 25 varieties of fish, oysters, and shellfish.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael H. Cohen, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (917) 437-3737 E-mail: mcohen@ealg.law GREEN SPA: Website not Accessible to the Blind, Layne Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ DALE LAYNE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GREEN SPA NEW YORK, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01065 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.greenspany.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On April 26, 2024 the Plaintiff visited the Defendant's website, to book a session. Despite his efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied an experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred the Plaintiff from having an unimpeded browsing experience. The Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the Website, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Mr. Layne is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Green Spa offers a variety of services such as massages, facials, and body treatments, all using natural and organic products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com GROUPE SEB: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fernandez Says ------------------------------------------------------------- FELIPE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GROUPE SEB USA, Case No. 1:25-cv-01848 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.all-clad.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff has visited the Website multiple times, most recently on April 17, 2024, using a screen-reader. Specifically, Plaintiff wanted to purchase cookware (NS Pro Nonstick Cookware, Piece Set). He wished to purchase this product because he was looking for a set of nonstick cookware that could offer easy cleanup and cooking without the need for excessive oil. He wanted to find durable, versatile pans that could handle a variety of dishes. The Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse, the lawsuit says. The Website also contained a host of broken links, which is a hyperlink to a non-existent or empty webpage. For the visually impaired this is especially paralyzing due to the inability to navigate or otherwise determine where one is on the website once a broken link is encountered, the lawsuit adds. The Defendant's Website offers products and services for online sale and general delivery to the public. The Website offers features which ought to allow users to browse for items, access navigation bar descriptions, inquire about pricing, and avail consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous items offered for sale.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. HOROWITZ LAW PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com HARVARD PILGRIM: Settles 2023 Data Breach Class Suit for $16-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc. and parent company Point32Health, Inc. have agreed to pay a $16 million settlement that, if approved by the court, will resolve a proposed class action lawsuit over a 2023 ransomware attack. The proposed class action settlement will cover 2,967,396 United States residents whose personal information was impacted by the Harvard Pilgrim data security incident—including all individuals who were notified of the data breach. According to the initial Harvard Pilgrim lawsuit, unauthorized actors accessed Harvard Pilgrim's computer systems between March 28 and April 17, 2023. The defendant's online notice states that the intrusion compromised the private data of current and former health plan members and consumers whose providers contracted with Harvard Pilgrim. The case claimed that Harvard Pilgrim knew its electronic record-keeping systems were a prime target for hackers yet failed to use basic cybersecurity measures to protect the sensitive information within its custody. The plaintiffs filed a motion detailing the terms of the agreement with Harvard Pilgrim on February 26, 2025. It is now up to the court to determine whether to grant preliminary approval to the data breach settlement agreement If the $16 million settlement is preliminarily approved, class members who submit a timely, valid claim form by mail or online through the settlement website will be eligible to receive benefits. Per the settlement agreement, class members who file a valid claim form may be entitled to receive up to $2,500 for documented, out-of-pocket expenses incurred as a result of the Harvard Pilgrim data breach. Covered individuals may also submit a claim form to get back $30 for each hour they spent responding to the breach, with a cap of seven hours. Class members who suffered identity theft, fraud or other such "extraordinary" losses as a result of the Harvard Pilgrim data breach may submit a claim for reimbursement of up to $35,000. "Extraordinary Losses may include, without limitation, any unreimbursed costs, losses, or expenditures incurred as a result of identity theft, fraud, falsified tax returns, real estate title fraud, financial fraud, government benefits fraud, or other misuse of the Settlement Class Member's Personal Information," the settlement agreement says. In lieu of filing a claim for out-of-pocket losses or lost time, class members can elect to receive a cash payment. Cash payments are estimated to be around $150 per person but may increase or decrease depending on how many valid claims are submitted, court documents share. Finally, class members may elect to enroll in three years of identity theft protection and credit monitoring services. [GN] HOGAN PERSONNEL: Hill Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Luther Hill, an individual, on behalf of themself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. HOGAN PERSONNEL, LLC, a Missouri limited liability company; HOGAN TRUCK LEASING, INC., a Missouri corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2500366 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-00564. The Complaint is a putative class action alleging the following causes of action: unfair competition; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide required meal periods; failure to provide required rest periods; failure to provide accurate wage statements; failure to reimburse business expenses; and waiting time penalties.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alexander Polishuk, Esq. Tiffany Hansen, Esq. Grant Horton, Esq. POLSINELLI LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-556-1801 Facsimile: 310-556-1802 Email: apolishuk@polsinelli.com thansen@polsinelli.com ghorton@polsinelli.com JECTNYC LLC: Tinkle Files Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against JECTNYC, LLC. The case is styled as Nick Tinkle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JECTNYC, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01238 (E.D.N.Y., March 4, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Wiretapping. JECT -- https://www.jectnyc.com/ -- specializes in medical-grade treatments, wrinkle reducers, dermal fillers, skin tightening, and infusion treatments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alec M. Leslie, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Email: aleslie@bursor.com JOHNSON HEALTH : Settles Treadmill Horsepower Suit for $600,000 --------------------------------------------------------------- Horizon has agreed to a $600,000 class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it misrepresented the horsepower of its treadmills. The Horizon settlement benefits consumers who purchased a Horizon treadmill between June 9, 2018, and Nov. 9, 2020. According to a class action lawsuit against Horizon, the company misrepresented the continuous horsepower of its treadmills. Plaintiffs in the case say Horizon misled consumers by advertising its treadmills as having "up to 3.0 CHP" or "up to 4.0 CHP" when, in reality, the treadmills allegedly only had 2.5 CHP or 3.0 CHP. Horizon is a fitness equipment brand that sells a variety of fitness equipment, including treadmills, ellipticals, bikes and strength equipment. Horizon hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $600,000 to resolve the treadmill horsepower class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Horizon settlement, class members can receive a cash payment and a product benefit. Class members can receive a proportional share of the net settlement fund based on the number of claims filed with the settlement. According to the settlement website, each class member is estimated to receive more than $15 if 10% of class members file a claim. Exact payments will vary depending on the number of participating class members and the net settlement fund after deductions. In addition to receiving a cash payment, class members can choose to receive one of two product benefits. Class members can choose between a maintenance package consisting of a treadmill lubrication kit and a fitness mat or two months of subscription to JRNY (Horizon's fitness app) and one JRNY tablet stand. Both product benefits are valued at $50. Horizon also agreed to stop making misleading claims regarding its products' continuous horsepower ratings. The deadline for exclusion and objection is March 31, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Horizon treadmill horsepower class action lawsuit settlement is scheduled for July 14, 2025. In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by April 30, 2025. Who's Eligible Consumers who purchased a Horizon treadmill between June 9, 2018, and Nov. 9, 2020. Potential Award Varies. Proof of Purchase Serial number of the treadmill 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 04/30/2025 Case Name Prince v. Johnson Health Tech Trading Inc., et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-00035-EKD, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia Final Hearing 07/14/2025 Settlement Website HorizonTreadmillSettlement.com Claims Administrator Horizon Treadmill Settlement Claims Administrator PO Box 25415 Santa Ana, CA 92799 info@HorizonTreadmillSettlement.com (866) 675-2216 Class Counsel W.B. Markovits Terence R. Coates Justin C. Walker MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC Gary M. Klinger MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC Malissa Lambert Giles GILES & LAMBERT Defense Counsel Paul E. Benson MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP [GN] JUDGMENT ACQUISITIONS: Class Cert Deadline Extended to June 2 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Medeiros v. Judgment Acquisitions Unlimited, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-13024 (D. Mass., Filed Dec. 8, 2023), the Hon. Judge Brian E. Murphy entered an order granting joint motion to extend scheduling order. -- All fact discovery, including Sept. 1, 2025 depositions, shall be completed by: -- The Plaintiff's trial experts June 30, 2025 disclosed by: -- The Defendant's trial experts Aug. 28, 2025 disclosed by: -- Depositions of trial experts to Sept. 1, 2025 be completed by: -- Dispositive Motions to be filed Sept. 30, 2025 by: -- Class certification deadline: June 2, 2025 The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. Judgment Acquisitions is a licensed and bonded collection agency founded in 2001 that collects commercial, retail, and judgment debts.[CC] KAYNE LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Clement Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ VINCENT CLEMENT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. KAYNE, LLC, D/B/A JENNI KAYNE, Case No. 1:25-cv-01037 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's website, www.jennikayne.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On Sept. 26, 2024 the Plaintiff visited the Defendant's website to purchase a men's vintage pocket tee. Despite the Plaintiff's efforts, however, he was denied a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred the Plaintiff from having an unimpeded browsing experience, the suit says. Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the Website, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Mr. Clement is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Kayne operates as an apparel store.[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 LET'S EAT: Hossain Seeks Conditional Collective Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZAKIR HOSSAIN, DANIEL INCLAN, and ARMANDO MESINAS, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. LET'S EAT, LLC d/b/a EXTRA VIRGIN, and MICHELE GATON, and JOEY FORTUNATO, Case No. 1:24-cv-04078-JAV (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for conditional collective certification and for court facilitation of notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) Let's Eat is a classic American restaurant that specializes is comfort food for the soul. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UU5jaa at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 LIBERTY ONE: Ramirez Settlement Class Gets Conditional Status ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IVELISSE RAMIREZ, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, v. LIBERTY ONE GROUP LLC, and LIBERTY ONE BROOKLYN LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05892-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Valerie Figueredo entered an order: (1) conditionally certifying settlement class and collective action, (2) granting preliminary approval to proposed class action settlement and plan of allocation, (3) directing dissemination of notice and related material to the class, and (4) setting date for fairness hearing and related dates The Court therefore concludes that the purported class satisfies the elements of Rule 23(b)(3) for purposes of settlement only. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 23(c) and (e), the court certifies this Class for the purposes of settlement, notice and award distribution only. The Plaintiff Ivelisse Ramirez is appointed as class representative of the Class, both under Rule 23 and under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). C.K. Lee, Esq. of Lee Litigation Group, PLLC is appointed as counsel for the Class. Arden Claims Service, LLC is appointed as the claims administrator. The Court schedules a hearing to determine whether to grant final certification of the Class, and the FLSA collective action, and final approval of the Settlement Agreement and the plan of allocation, for Aug. 4, 2025 at 10 a.m. As part of the Settlement Agreement, the Defendants have agreed not to oppose, for settlement purposes only, conditional certification under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the following settlement class: "Named Plaintiff and all current and former non-exempt employees employed at the Varet, McDonald, and Sackett locations (including cleaning professionals, and technicians), who do not opt-out of the Litigation." The Plaintiff brings claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants failed to pay non-exempt employees the proper regular and overtime compensation due to time shaving, and failed to meet the NYLL's requirements on wage statements and notices. Liberty is a fully integrated real estate investment company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EveBfe at no extra charge.[CC] LITTLE BEET: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Isakov Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- SIMON ISAKOV, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Little Beet Table, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01594 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure 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 pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying the blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the services Little Beet Table provides to their non-disabled customers through https://thelittlebeet.com, the suit contends. On Feb. 10, 2025, the Plaintiff visited TheLittleBeet.com with the expectation of easily browsing the menu, customizing his order, and completing his purchase. However, upon accessing the website and trying to customize his Basmati Rice plate, he encountered multiple accessibility barriers that made the ordering process challenging and ultimately impossible to complete. Specifically, several buttons on the website had no functionality and could not be activated, misleading the Plaintiff and preventing him from proceeding with his order. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Little Beet Table's policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Mr. Isakov is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. The Defendant controls and operates Thelittlebeet.com that offers restaurant services for online use.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael H. Cohen, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (917) 437-3737 E-mail: mcohen@ealg.law LOANDEPOT.COM: Belardes Seeks to Continue Class Cert Hearing ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIANNE BELARDES and MARY SZANYI-COFFEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC, Case No. 8:23-cv-02115-JWH-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting ex parte application to continue the briefing schedule and hearing for Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in this action against the Defendant. The Plaintiffs submit that neither Plaintiffs nor Defendant will be prejudiced by the continuance of the motion for class certification briefing schedule and related motion hearing date. Further, given that there are no other dates or deadlines scheduled yet in this action, no other dates or deadlines will be impacted if the requested continuance is granted by the Court. As such, the Plaintiffs request that the briefing schedule and hearing date for Plaintiffs' motion for class certification be continued by 90 days to allow the parties additional time to complete necessary discovery and to allow for a potential determination of the related Kearns matter's motion for class certification within that additional time as well. LoanDepot.com offers debt consolidation, home improvement, small business, consumer, and mortgage loans. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bDCwE3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. David J. McGlothlin, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com david@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com - and - William Peerce Howard, Esq. THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM 401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340 SunTrust Financial Center Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 500-1500 Facsimile: (813) 435-2369 E-mail: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com MASTEC SERVICES: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Byler Due June 27 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT BYLER, v. MASTEC SERVICES COMPANY et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-00181-SB-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. entered a case management order as follows: Pretrial Conference: Jan. 2, 2026 Motion to Amend Pleadings/Add Parties: May 2, 2025 Motion for Class Certification: June 27, 2025 Opposition to Motion for Class Certification: July 11, 2025 Reply Brief in Support of Class Certification: July 25, 2025 Motion for Class Certification Hearing: Aug. 15, 2025 Discovery Deadline – Nonexpert: Aug. 29, 2025 Discovery Deadline – Expert: Sept. 26, 2025 Mastec is an American infrastructure engineering and construction company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wmiQjm at no extra charge.[CC] MCDOWELL COUNTY, VA: Pritchard Files Suit in S.D. West Virginia --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The County Commission of McDowell County, et al. The case is styled as Harold Pritchard et al v. The County Commission of McDowell County, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00136 (S.D.W. Va., Feb. 28, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. The County Commission of McDowell County -- https://mcdowellcountycommission.com/ -- is a county government office in Welch, West Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emilee Brooke Wooldridge, Esq. STEPHEN NEW & ASSOCIATES 430 Harper Park Drive Beckley, WV 25801 Phone: (304) 250-6017 Email: emilee@newlawoffice.com - and - Stephen P. New, Esq. STEPHEN NEW & ASSOCIATES P. O. Box 5516 Beckley, WV 25801 Phone: (304) 250-6017 Fax: (304) 250-6012 Email: steve@newlawoffice.com - and - Timothy P. Lupardus, Esq. LUPARDUS LAW OFFICE P. O. Box 1680 Pineville, WV 24874-1680 Phone: (304) 732-0250 Fax: (304) 732-0252 Email: office@luparduslaw.com - and - Zachary Kyle Whitten, Esq. WHITTEN LAW OFFICE P. O. Box 753 Pineville, WV 24874 Phone: (304) 202-0511 Email: zwhittenlaw@gmail.com MEDICAL BILLING: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Guerra Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELE MARIANO GUERRA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. MEDICAL BILLING SPECIALISTS, INC. (MBS), Case No. 1:25-cv-10453-GAO (D. Mass., Feb. 25, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated persons' personally identifiable information and protected health information, from criminal hackers. On Dec. 15, 2024, MBS posted their official notice of a hacking incident on their website. On Feb. 12, 2025, MBS also sent out data breach letters to individuals whose information was compromised as a result of the hacking incident. As a result of this delayed response, the Plaintiff and Class Members had no idea for nearly a year that their Private Information had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes, the suit asserts. The compromised information includes first name, last name, address, date of birth, Social Security number, driver license's number, medical record number, patient ID number, Medicare/Medicaid number, health insurance information, financial account information or credit and debit card numbers, and certain health information. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class, assert claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of third party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The Plaintiff Michele Mariano Guerra is and was an individual citizen of the State of Rhode Island. MBS is a healthcare billing and healthcare support company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina Xenides, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Neil P. Williams, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 1005 Congress Avenue, Suite 925-C36 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 265-5622 E-mail: cxenides@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com nwilliams@sirillp.com MFF-NW LLC: Arce Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messaging ----------------------------------------------------- Fabian Arce, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MFF-NW LLC D/B/A NINE WEST, Case No. 1:25-cv-01150 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited text messaging. To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in telemarketing text messages at unlawful times. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the Class members. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person entitled to bring this action under the TCPA. The Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company with its headquarters located in Greenwich, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. ZANE C. HEDAYA, ESQ. 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 813-340-8838 Email: zane@jibraellaw.com MIDTOWN COMICS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Isakov Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- SIMON ISAKOV, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Midtown Comics, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01595 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2025) sues the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying the blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Midtown Comics provides to their non-disabled customers through https://midtowncomics.com, the suit alleges. On Dec. 4, 2024, the Plaintiff, a passionate pop-culture and comics enthusiast, came across the Defendant's website and attempted to explore its offerings. He was particularly interested in purchasing a Superman cassette and decided to proceed with the purchase. However, during his attempt to complete the transaction, he encountered multiple accessibility barriers that significantly hindered his experience, the suit says. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Midtown Comics' policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Midtown Comics provides a wide range of comic books, graphic novels, magazines, manga, apparel, statues, action figures, collectibles, gaming and cards, supplies, clearance items.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael H. Cohen, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (917) 437-3737 E-mail: mcohen@ealg.law MMS GROUP: Allowed Leave to File Objections to Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Elewood Torres v. MMS Group LLC et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-06142-DEH-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Dale Ho entered an order granting motion for leave to file certain parts of the Housing Defendants' anticipated objections to the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie Figuerdo on Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Housing Defendants may file any exhibits containing confidential medical information temporarily under seal. Those exhibits shall remain temporarily sealed for 14 days pending a motion for permanent sealing. Any such motion shall be due by March 14, 2025. If no such motion is received by that date, the exhibits shall be unsealed. If any such motion is received, the exhibits shall remain under temporary seal pending the Court's adjudication of the motion. MMS provides property management and related services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SgKVJq at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Kevin G. Donoghue, Esq. ARFUNKEL WILD, P.C. 111 Great Neck Road Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 393-2535 Facsimile: (516) 466-5964 E-mail: kdonoghue@garfunkelwild.com NATIONAL BOARD: Giri Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal ------------------------------------------------- LATIKA GIRI, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Latika Giri, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. National Board of Medical Examiners, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00410-CRC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Plaintiffs filed job discrimination claims against the Defendant. On June 10, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint, which Judge Christopher R. Cooper granted on Jan. 27, 2025. The Court concluded that the amended complaint failed to state valid discrimination claims. The appellate case is captioned Latika Giri, et al. v. National Board of Medical Examiners, Case No. 25-7021, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on February 21, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants LATIKA GIRI, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Charles Gerstein, Esq. GERSTEIN HARROW LLP 1001 G. Street NW, Suite 400e Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 670-4809 Defendant-Appellee NATIONAL BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS is represented by: Robert A. Burgoyne, Esq. Caroline Marie Mew, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 700 13th Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 654-6200 NATIONAL GRID: Constantine Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Laura Constantine, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NATIONAL GRID USA SERVICE COMPANY, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-10500 (D. Mass., March 3, 2025), is brought for violation of state and federal wage and hour law, alleging that the National Grid: misclassified certain employees as overtime-exempt; and failed to pay certain employees overtime wages for overtime hours worked, all in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Massachusetts wage and hour laws ("Massachusetts Law"). The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of similarly situated Planner Employees who, due to National Grid's misclassification scheme, were not paid all earned overtime pay for time they worked in excess of 40 hours in individual workweeks in violation of the FLSA and Massachusetts Law. National Grid classified Planner Employees as exempt from state and federal overtime laws and did not pay them overtime when they worked over 40 hours in individual workweeks in violation of the FLSA and Massachusetts Law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for National Grid as a Planner Employee from 2015 until January 3, 2025. National Grid is a utility provider and Massachusetts corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Adams, Esq. Stacy W. Thomsen, Esq. DARROWEVERETT LLP 50 Congress Street, Suite 1040 Boston, MA 02109 Email: adams@darroweverett.com sthomsen@darroweverett.com NATIONAL HEALTH FOUNDATION: Menjivar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against NATIONAL HEALTH FOUNDATION, et al. The case is styled as Aileen Menjivar, an individual, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated v. NATIONAL HEALTH FOUNDATION, TRAN KRISTINA, Case No. 25STCV05751 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 28, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." National Health Foundation -- https://nationalhealthfoundation.org/ -- is a non-profit organization that works to remove barriers that prevent communities from achieving their highest level of health.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Orion S. Robinson, Esq. ROBINSON DI LANDO 801 S Grand Ave., Ste. 500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-4633 Phone: 213-229-0100 Fax: 213-229-0114 Email: orobinson@rdwlaw.com NEBRASKA WESLEYAN: Senior Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Milagros Senior, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. NEBRASKA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:25-cv-01751 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2025), is brought against the 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. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://www.nebrwesleyan.edu, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, including, but not limited to, https://www.nebrwesleyan.edu/student-life/athletics/become-prairie wolf, https://nwusports.com, and https://nebrwesleyan.bncollege.com (collectively the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services—all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant operates the NWU online retail store as well as the NWU interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal NEW AMERICAN FUNDING: O'Connor Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lauren O'Connor, Individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. NEW AMERICAN FUNDING LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-60143-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 24, 2025), is brought for the Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA") as a result of the Defendants unlawful debt collection. On a date better known by Defendant, the Current Creditor contracted with Defendant to collect, or attempt to collect, money allegedly owed to it by Plaintiff in connection with the Subject Account (the "Consumer Debt"). On April 2, 2024, Defendant communicated with Plaintiff at 4:13 AM in an attempt to collect the Consumer Debt. The Defendant lacked consent directly from Plaintiff to communicate with Plaintiff in connection with collection of the Consumer Debt between 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM. The Defendant knew it lacked Plaintiff's express consent to communicate with Plaintiff between 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM. The Defendant knew that, without Plaintiff's direct express consent, it was inconvenient to communicate with Plaintiff between 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM. After reviewing the Communication and learning the subject matter thereof, Plaintiff became upset and frustrated, as Defendant was attempting to collect a debt from Plaintiff at 4:13 AM without Plaintiff's direct consent or permission. Plaintiff wasted approximately 5 minutes of time retrieving Plaintiff's cellular telephone and reviewing the Communication sent by Defendant at 4:13 AM. The Defendant's willful and otherwise reckless disregard for the privacy rights enjoyed by Florida consumers to be free for communications in connection with the collection of a debt between 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM warrants punitive damages to ensure Defendant's compliance with the law in the future, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person, and a citizen of the State of Florida, residing in Broward County, Florida. The Defendant is a Delaware Company, with its principal place of business located in South Coast Metro, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas J. Patti, Esq. Victor Zabaleta, Esq. The Law Offices of Jibrael S. Hindi 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 561-542-8550 Email: tom@pzlg.legal Victor@pzlg.legal NEW YORK, NY: Campbell Bid to Certify Class Terminated ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Campbell, et al., v. City of New York, Case No. 1:24-cv-02575 (S.D.N.Y., Filed April 4, 2024), the Hon. Judge Jennifer H. Rearden entered an order terminating motion to certify class. Because the Plaintiffs have filed an amended motion for conditional certification of a collective and notice, the initial motion at Docket 35 is terminated as moot, the Court says. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).[CC] NORTHERN IRON: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Pollution Standards ------------------------------------------------------------------ Andrew Hazzard, writing for Sahan Journal, reports that excessive pollution from a metal foundry on St. Paul's East Side violated the property rights and wellbeing of neighbors, alleges a lawsuit filed early March. Brittney Bruce, an East Side resident, filed a class action lawsuit against Northern Iron and Machine, accusing the foundry of failing to adhere to pollution standards. The class action nature of the suit means Bruce is inviting all residents and property owners within a half-mile of the foundry to join the litigation, allowing several people to address shared issues in one legal filing. "Like a lot of residents, she was frustrated with the lack of accountability for the facility," said Joe Heegaard, Bruce's attorney. Northern Iron, located in the Payne-Phalen neighborhood, is currently involved in a lengthy legal fight with the Minnesota Pollution Control (MPCA). The state says Northern Iron's own pollution estimates show it can't operate at full capacity without violating national air quality standards. Northern Iron contends the MPCA violated an agreement with the company by ordering it to reduce hours in April 2024. The foundry is owned by the Wisconsin-based Lawton Standard Co. The company declined to comment on the lawsuit, citing pending litigation. For residents near the foundry like Bruce, the pollution is causing real harm, the lawsuit alleges. Bruce constantly has to clean dust and fine black particles inside and outside of her home, which is located directly across the street from Northern Iron. She doesn't let her three kids play outside, and bought air purifiers for every room in her house. Bruce owns a duplex, and rented the upper unit to a tenant who moved out due to concerns about the pollution. The lawsuit says the foundry has damaged Bruce's property's value and prevented her from earning rental income. The lawsuit seeks relief for negligence, nuisance and trespassing against the company, but did not cite a specific monetary amount in damages. Residents have a right to enjoy property they own or rent, Heegaard said, and they believe the foundry is violating those rights. The MPCA collected samples of the soot deposited on neighboring properties, and found it contained heavy metals including lead and cobalt, which matches testing done inside the foundry, according to court filings in the case between Northern Iron and the MPCA. "We believe that's inherently a trespass or a nuisance," Heegaard said. Northern Iron's history of permit violations and excessive pollution means the rights of neighbors have been violated for years, the lawsuit contends. The complaint cites a letter Northern Iron submitted to the MPCA in 2012 stating the foundry was likely exceeding national air quality standards. It accuses Northern Iron of knowing about violations for years without making good faith efforts to improve conditions. "We believe these are real, severe harms, and I think people are right to be frustrated," Heegaard said. The class-action suit was filed Monday, March 3. The legal team intends to spread the word to neighbors through press releases, mailers and word-of-mouth, Heegaard said. The company has 21 days to respond to the suit; there are currently no hearings set in the case. The state fined the foundry $41,500 in 2023 for a series of violations of its state permit related to its failures in disclosing changes to pollution control equipment. The state ordered Northern Iron in April 2024 to reduce operations after new pollution estimates showed the facility was likely emitting excessive amounts of smog and lead. Northern Iron sued the state in response, and won a temporary injunction allowing it to largely resume operations while the foundry installs additional pollution control measures. The injunction will also give the sides time to negotiate a new state permit, a process that has been delayed due to Northern Iron missing submission deadlines, according to court filings. Ramsey County District Court Judge Leonardo Castro ordered the pause last month. [GN] OPENDOOR TECHNOLOGIES: Class Cert Sought in Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned re Opendoor Technologies Incorporated Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:22-cv-01717-MTL (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: (i) certifying a class of: "All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Opendoor common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with the de-SPAC Merger on Dec. 21, 2020 and/or the Offering Documents issued in connection with Opendoor's secondary public offering on Feb. 4, 2021. Excluded from the Class are: (i) the Defendants and members of the immediate family of any Individual Defendant; (ii) any person who was an officer, director, and/or control person of Opendoor during the Class Period; (iii) any firm, trust, corporation, or other entity in which any Defendant (or members of the immediate family of any Defendant) has or had a controlling interest; (iv) Opendoor's employee retirement and benefit plan(s) and their participants or beneficiaries, to the extent they made purchases through such plan(s); and (v) the legal representatives, affiliates, heirs, successors-in- interest, or assigns of any such excluded person, in their capacity as such. (ii) appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and (iii) appointing Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP as Class Counsel, Glancy Prongay & Murray as Additional Counsel, and Clark Hill PLC as Local Counsel. The Plaintiffs contend that the action is ideally suited for class treatment under Rule 23. Plaintiffs assert strict liability and negligence-based claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The Plaintiffs' claims are based on false and misleading statements and omissions contained in the Offering Documents issued in connection with Opendoor's Initial Offering, commenced on or about December 21, 2020, of 546,787,092 shares of Opendoor common stock, and Opendoor's Secondary Offering, commenced on or about February 9, 2021, of 28,536,888 shares of common stock. Opendoor buys and sells residential real estate in the United States through an online process known as "iBuying." A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GKTLaN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael P. Canty, Esq. James T. Christie, Esq. Guillaume Buell, Esq. Nicholas Manningham, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: mcanty@labaton.com jchristie@labaton.com gbuell@labaton.com nmanningham@labaton.com - and - Daniel P. Thiel, Esq. CLARK HILL PLC 14850 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 500 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (480) 684-1100 Facsimile: (480) 684-1199 E-mail: dthiel@clarkhill.com - and - Aaron L. Castle, Esq. VANOVERBEKE MICHAUD & TIMMONY P.C. 79 Alfred Street Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 578-1200 Facsimile: (313) 578-1201 E-mail: acastle@vmtlaw.com - and - Casey E. Sadler, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: csadler@glancylaw.com OTIS & FINN: Website Not Accessible to the Blind, Layne Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DALE LAYNE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. OTIS & FINN, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01063 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2025) contends that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.otisandfinn.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On April 24, 2024 the Plaintiff visited the Defendant's website, to book an appointment. Despite his efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied an experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred Plaintiff from having an unimpeded browsing experience, the suit says. Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the Website, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant offers different services such as haircuts, beard grooming, and hot towel shaves.[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 PATTERSON WAREHOUSES: More Time to File Response Sought ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRITTANY BRIMLEY and TRAVIS FAISON, individually, and on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. PATTERSON WAREHOUSES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02307-MSN-cgc (W.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs and the Defendant ask the Court to enter an order enlarging the time for the Defendant to file its response to Plaintiffs' motion for the facilitation of notice. The Parties agree that the depositions of Brimley and Faison should be taken before Patterson files its Response to the Motion for Facilitation. In furtherance thereof, the Parties request that the Court allow an additional 30 days for Patterson to file its Response, up to and including April 17, 2025. On Feb. 25, 2025, Brimley advised through counsel that she was unable to appear for her deposition due to an emergent family situation resulting in her having lost her voice. On Feb. 26, 2025, Faison advised through counsel that he would be unable to appear for his deposition due to an out-of-town emergent family situation but could appear by Zoom. It is presently unclear when either Plaintiff's emergency situation will resolve. Their depositions have not yet been rescheduled. Patterson serves retail manufacturers, food and beverage producers, raw materials suppliers, and web fulfillment resellers in the United States. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=axr0uq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com The Defendant is represented by: Cannon F. Allen, Sr., Esq. John D. Woods, III, Esq. ADAMS AND REESE LLP 6075 Poplar Avenue, Suite 700 Memphis, TN 38119 Telephone: (901) 525-3234 Facsimile: (901) 524-5419 E-mail: cannon.allen@arlaw.com john.woods@arlaw.com PENNSYLVANIA: Court Dismissed Amended Wyatt Complaint v. Judges --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TARIQ WYATT, Plaintiff, v. JUDGE JENNIFER P. WILSON, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:23-509 (M.D. Pa.), Judge Malachy E. Mannion of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District Court of Pennsylvania dismissed Wyatt's amended complaint without granting him leave to file a second amended complaint. Presently before the Court is the pro se Plaintiff's amended complaint in which he asserted causes of action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for constitutional violations against the Defendants: two judges of the Court, the current and former governors of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, two municipalities, and counsel for the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC), who represented the Defendants in two prior actions Wyatt filed in the Court. Wyatt, a convicted state prisoner, filed his lawsuit alleging that attorneys from the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General and the DOC violated his First Amendment right of access to the courts by sending legal correspondence related to his previous lawsuits to Smart Communications, a third-party mail processing center, instead of a designated legal mail address. He claimed that this practice caused delays in receiving legal materials, which impacted his ability to respond in Wyatt v. Hauser, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-92 (M.D. Pa.) (Wyatt I) and Wyatt v. Mason, et al., Case No. 1:22-414 (M.D. Pa.) (Wyatt II). The case was initially screened under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B), leading Judge Martin C. Carlson to issue a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on April 14, 2023, advising dismissal due to failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. The report found that Wyatt's complaint did not clearly outline how each defendant violated his constitutional rights and improperly named institutions rather than individual state actors, a requirement for claims under Section 1983. On August 24, 2023, Judge Jennifer P. Wilson adopted the R&R, dismissing the complaint without prejudice and allowing Wyatt 45 days to amend. Wyatt's amended complaint, filed on Sept. 19, 2023, expanded the list of defendants to include Judges Wilson and Carlson, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, Attorney General Michelle A. Henry, attorneys Kimberly Adams and Jonathan Blake, and the municipalities of Harrisburg and Mechanicsburg. He also sought class action status, asserting that the DOC's mail policy affected all Pennsylvania inmates. Judge Mannion, who was reassigned to the case on Sept. 20, 2023, reviewed the amended complaint and found several procedural and legal deficiencies: (i) Wyatt had included three pages of objections related to Wyatt I and II, which the court ruled improper and subsequently struck from the record; (ii) Wyatt's request for class action certification is improper as pro se litigants cannot represent a class in federal court; (iii) Wyatt's Section 1983 claims against attorneys Blake and Adams did not demonstrate an actual injury, a requirement for an access-to-courts claim; (iv) the claims against the attorneys in their official capacities were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, which grants sovereign immunity to state officials sued in their official roles; and (v) any further amendment would be futile, as Wyatt's claims were either legally barred or insufficiently pleaded. Based on the foregoing, Judge Mannion dismissed Wyatt's case in its entirety and denied leave to file a second amended complaint. A copy of the Court's Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/ywwe2emf from PacerMonitor.com. PENSION SPECIALISTS: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Jordan Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- TEQUILLA JORDAN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE PENSION SPECIALISTS, LTD. (TPS), Case No. 1:25-cv-01942 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 25, 2025) contends that TPS failed to protect the Plaintiff and Class members from having their Private Information accessed and stolen during a Data Breach. Between Feb. 18 and Feb. 20, 2024, TPS experienced a data breach incident in which unauthorized cybercriminals accessed its information systems and databases and access and exfiltrated Private Information belonging to the Plaintiff and Class members, the suit says. On Feb. 24, 2024, TPS experienced a "network disruption" and began an investigation, but it was not until December 16, 2024—301 days after the Data Breach—that TPS discovered the Data Breach. On Feb. 14, 2025—approximately one year after the Data Breach began—TPS sent notice to individuals affected by this Data Breach. TPS estimates that the Private Information belonging to at least 70,000 individuals was compromised in this incident. The Private information includes full names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, other government issued ID numbers, as well as health insurance information and financial account/payment card information, the Plaintiff avers. The Defendant's delay in informing victims of the Data Breach that their Private Information was compromised virtually ensured that the cybercriminals who stole this Private Information could monetize, misuse and/or disseminate that Private Information before the Plaintiff and Class members could take affirmative steps to protect their sensitive information. As a result, the Plaintiff and Class members will suffer indefinitely from the substantial and concrete risk that their identities will be (or already have been) stolen and misappropriated, the suit asserts. Pension Specialists is a retirement services administrator that currently administers the plans of 30,000 individuals and businesses across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 Facsimile: (312) 782-4485 E-mail: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com nhagman@caffertyclobes.com POST GRADUATE: General Pretrial Management Entered in Ballentine ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as QUINTIN J. BALLENTINE, v. POST GRADUATE CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH and JACOB BARAK, Case No. 1:25-cv-00515-AT-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management. -- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara- moses. -- Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. -- Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. It is the Court's practice to decide discovery disputes at the Rule 37.2 conference, based on the parties' letters, unless a party requests or the Court requires more formal briefing. -- For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. The Clerk of Court is directed to include this Order in the information package to be mailed to plaintiff. Postgraduate Center is an American organization that provides mental healthcare services in New York City, New York. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p899xe at no extra charge.[CC] REGAL CINEMAS: Class Certification Bid in Springett Due July 20 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Springett v. Regal Cinemas, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-01401 (N.D.N.Y., Filed Nov. 7, 2023), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth C. Coombe entered an order extending deadlines, which have not yet expired, as follows: (1) all Discovery, including all June 20, 2025 depositions, shall be completed by: (2) any Class Certification Motion July 20¸2025 shall be filed by: (3) Dispositive Motions shall be Aug. 22, 2025 filed by: The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.[CC] RHODES FARMING: Must File Class Cert Reply in Lopez by March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lopez Lopez, et al., v. Rhodes Farming, LLC, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-00491 (E.D.N.C., Filed Dec. 2, 2022), the Hon. Judge Terrence W. Boyle entered an order that the Plaintiffs have up to and including March 31, 2025, within which to file a reply in support of the motion to certify class . The Curt further entered an order that the parties have up to and including April 7, 2025, within which to file their respective responses to the pending motions for summary judgment. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Rhodes Farm is a hemp grower, processor & manufacturer located in Clinton County, Pennsylvania.[CC] ROYAL MAIL: CAT Approves Class Action Over Anti-Competitive Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has ruled that a Collective Proceedings Order should be made in respect of the claim brought by Bulk Mail Claim Ltd (BMCL) against International Distribution Services Plc (Royal Mail). Under the UK's competition regime, a person wishing to bring a class action must first secure approval from the CAT. The CAT gave its approval on March 6, which means that BMCL's claim against Royal Mail can now proceed to trial. The claim follows on from Ofcom's finding in 2018 that Royal Mail engaged in conduct that affected competition in the market for the delivery of bulk mail and abused its dominant position, in breach of EU and UK law. In summary, the claim alleges that Royal Mail's anti-competitive behaviour had the effect of cutting off competition for bulk mail delivery services from 2014 onwards, with the result that senders of bulk mail (such as NHS Trusts, retailers, charities, local authorities, banks, utility companies, advertisers and publishers) were overcharged throughout this period. The claim, brought on behalf of an estimated 290,000 bulk mail customers, seeks to achieve compensation for this overcharge. All affected purchasers of bulk mail services will automatically be represented, and therefore do not need to take any steps to join the action. Class members can however choose to opt out if they wish. Bulk Mail Claim Limited will be issuing a formal notice of the Collective Proceedings Order shortly. Andrew Wanambwa, partner at Lewis Silkin representing Bulk Mail Claim Ltd, said: "Royal Mail's abuse of its dominant position in the bulk mail market resulted in the overcharging of hundreds of thousands of bulk mail customers -- including local authorities, charities and small businesses. The granting of a Collective Proceedings Order by the Tribunal means that this claim can now proceed to trial and we are one step closer to securing compensation for those affected." Further information about the claim can be found at www.bulkmailclaim.co.uk. [GN] SIEMENS MOBILITY: Class Cert Hearing Continued to June 26 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KHAMKOTH KEOPADUBSY, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SIEMENS MOBILITY, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01412-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the joint stipulation to extend class certification reply briefing deadline and hearing date: 1. The Plaintiffs shall have up to and until May 30, 2025, to file their reply brief. 2. The hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be continued from March 27, 2025, to June 26, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. Siemens provides rail traffic technology. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b8NENX at no extra charge.[CC] SKIN CANCER: Website Inaccessible to the Blind Users, Claude Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- WISLANDE CLAUDE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. THE SKIN CANCER AND COSMETIC SURGERY CENTER OF NEW JERSEY, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01645 (D.N.J., Mar. 5, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.sccsnj.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The suit contends that the Plaintiff was injured when she attempted multiple times, most recently on December 13, 2024 to access Defendant’s Website from her home access Defendant’s Website from her home but encountered barriers that denied her full and equal access to Defendant’s online content and services.. Due to Defendant's failure to build the Website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the Website and was thus denied the benefit of reviewing the services and booking a spa session in order to visit the spa., the suit claims. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.sccsnj.com, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the services that Defendant offers, specifically in the State of New Jersey. Specifically, the Website offers users the ability to peruse the spas services as well book a spa session.[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 SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS: Faces Shareholders' Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Skyworks Solutions, Inc. ("Skyworks" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SWKS). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants expressed confidence in Skyworks' ability to expand its mobile business and capitalize on its growth potential while, at the same time, disseminating materially false or misleading statements and/or concealing adverse information regarding Skyworks' client base. If you bought shares of Skyworks between July 30, 2024 and February 5, 2025, and you suffered a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/skyworks-solutions/ to learn more. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is May 5, 2025. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] STELLANTIS NV: Cars Have Battery Defect, Fishon Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ ERIC FISHON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STELLANTIS N.V. and FCA US LLC d/b/a/ STELLANTIS NORTH AMERICA, Case No. 1:25-cv-01233 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 4, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, who purchased or leased a 2020-2024 Jeep Wrangler 4xe and/or 2022- 2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4xe Class Vehicles. All Class Vehicles are "hybrid" vehicles designed and equipped with both a traditional gas-powered internal combustion engine and a sealed Lithium-ion high voltage battery that is used to power the electric powertrain systems and the 12 Volt vehicle electrical system. The use of the electric powertrain systems in such hybrid vehicles can offer several benefits, including increased power and fuel economy. The Class Vehicle Battery is designed to last for "the life of [the] vehicle." The high voltage battery packs are defective in that they all contain battery cells which are susceptible to separator damage ("Battery Defect"), says the suit. As a result of Stellantis's misconduct, Plaintiff and other Class Members were harmed and suffered actual damages in the form of overpayment for their vehicles, diminished value, repairs and other expenses and damages related to the undisclosed Battery Defect, which Defendants have failed to remedy or fully disclose, and exposure to vehicle fire that results in an increased risk of occupant injury and/or injury to persons outside the vehicle, as well as property damage, the suit alleges. The Defendants design, manufacture, market and sell millions of vehicles within the United States and worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com STUDENT LOAN: Class Cert Reply Brief Extended to April 11 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dawson, v. Student Loan Solutions, LLC Case No. 1:23-cv-09690-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered an order extending remaining briefing deadlines as follows: Plaintiff’s Reply Brief / Opposition to SLS's Motion for Summary Judgment from March 19, 2025 to March 26, 2025; and SLS's Reply Brief from April 4, 2025 to April 11, 2025. Student Loan Solutions is a debt buying company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zQpgaU at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Brendan H. Little, Esq. LIPPES MATHIAS LLP 50 Fountain Plaza, Suite 1700 Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 853-5100 Facsimile: (716) 853-5199 E-mail: blittle@lippes.com SWIFT BEEF: Garza Proceedings Stayed Until August 22 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN GARZA, GABRIEL GARCIA, and FRANCISCO J. MEZA on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SWIFT BEEF COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-06223-ODW-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis Wright, II entered an order granting the joint motion to stay proceedings pending alternative dispute resolution. 1. All proceedings in this action are stayed until Aug. 22, 2025, or twenty-two days after the conclusion of the Parties' mediation, whichever comes first. 2. All deadlines on or before Aug. 22, 2025, including the deadline for class certification motions, are vacated. 3. The Parties are ordered to conduct mediation by July 31, 2025. 4. Within twenty-one days of the end of the Parties' mediation, the Parties shall file a joint notice of settlement, if mediation is successful, or a status report, should the matter not be resolved. The status report should include joint proposed dates for this case, including the deadline for class certification motions, the close of discovery, pretrial conference, deadline to file motions in limine, hearing on motions in limine, and trial. Swift Beef processes, prepares, packages and delivers meat products. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2uAGvE at no extra charge.[CC] TAYLOR, MI: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in Flummerfelt ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUDY FLUMMERFELT, et al., v. CITY OF TAYLOR, et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-10067-FKB-CI (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge F. Kay Behm entered an order denying the Treasurer's motion for summary judgment as to the claimed release: -- The Plaintiffs' inverse condemnation claim will continue to be held in abeyance pending a decision from the Michigan Supreme Court in Jackson, and Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, appointment of class counsel, and class representatives is denied. The Plaintiffs propose two classes: Class One: "All persons and entities that owned real property in the City of Taylor whose real property, during the relevant time period, was seized through a real property tax foreclosure and subsequently purchased via a local municipality's "right of refusal" (MCL 211.78m), which was worth more than the total tax delinquency taxes owed and were not refunded the surplus equity in excess of the delinquent tax amount." Class Two: "All persons and entities described in Class One whose real property was transferred from the City of Taylor to any entity or entities owned by or associated with Defendants Shady Awad or Hadir Altoon." The court concludes that the class is unascertainable without a prior individual assessment as to the eligibility of each member and it cannot be certified. Because the Plaintiffs failed to meet the ascertainability requirement of Rule 23(b)(3), the court need not address the Rule 23(a) factors or the other requirements found in Rule 23(b)(3). The Plaintiffs filed suit alleging violations of the United States Constitution and Michigan law on Jan. 11, 2022. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XsDDRP at no extra charge.[CC] TWITTER INC: Must Oppose Frederick-Osborn Class Cert Bid May 15 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SYDNEY FREDERICK-OSBORN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. TWITTER, INC., and X CORP., Case No. 3:24-cv-00125-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order revising the briefing and hearing schedule as follows: Deadline for Defendant to produce revised data: March 5, 2025 Deadline for Dr. Killingsworth's revised April 3, 2025 report (if any): Deadline for deposition of Dr. Killingsworth: April 17, 2025 Defendant's opposition to class certification: May 15, 2025 Plaintiff's reply in support of class June 12, 2025 certification: Hearing: July 10, 2025, or a date soon thereafter based on the Court's availability. On Oct. 17, 2024, the Plaintiff filed her motion for class certification. The Plaintiff's reply is currently due on April 1, 2025. Twitter provides online social networking and microblogging service. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MuTHBY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Thomas Fowler, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com tfowler@llrlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Eric Meckley, Esq. Brian D. Berry, Esq. Roshni C. Kapoor, Esq. Ashlee N. Cherry, Esq. Kassia Stephenson, Esq. Carolyn M. Corcoran, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 Telephone: (415) 442-1000 Facsimile: (415) 442-1001 E-mail: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com brian.berry@morganlewis.com roshni.kapoor@morganlewis.com ashlee.cherry@morganlewis.com kassia.stephenson@morganlewis.com carolyn.corcoran@morganlewis.com UIPATH INC: Severt Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Severt, et al., v. UiPath, Inc., et al.(RE UIPATH, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION),Case No. 1:23-cv-07908-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23: (i) certifying this case as a class action; (ii) appointing Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative; and (iii) appointing Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP as Class Counsel. Pursuant to the Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order entered by the Court on Jan. 31, 2025, the Defendants shall file their Opposition to the Motion by April 29, 2025 and Lead Plaintiff shall file his Reply in further support of the Motion by June 13, 2025. UiPath is a global software company that makes robotic process automation software. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S8oiwH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Max R. Schwartz, Esq. Thomas L. Laughlin, Esq. Jeffrey P. Jacobson, Esq. Anna Hunanyan, Esq. Amanda F. Lawrence, Esq. Jessica Casey, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: mschwartz@scott-scott.com tlaughlin@scott-scott.com jjacobson@scott-scott.com ahunanyan@scott-scott.com alawrence@scott-scott.com jcasey@scott-scott.com UNILEVER UNITED: Faces Class Action Over Knorr False Advertisement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Abraham Jewett of Top Class Actions reports plaintiffs Julia Gibson and Jill Shuler filed a class action lawsuit against Unilever United States Inc. Why: Gibson and Shuler claim Unilever falsely advertises that its Knorr Rice and Pasta Sides contain no artificial flavors or preservatives. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in New York federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Unilever United States Inc. falsely advertises that its Knorr Rice and Pasta Sides contain no artificial flavors or preservatives. Plaintiffs Julia Gibson and Jill Shuler argue Unilever's Knorr Rice and Pasta Sides contain synthetic non-natural flavoring and preservative ingredients, including maltodextrin, disodium inosinate, disodium guanylate and monosodium glutamate (MSG). "Defendant made false and misleading statements by marketing the Products as containing ‘No Artificial Flavors or Preservatives' when the Products in fact contained both synthetic flavoring and preservative ingredients," the Knorr sides class action says. The plaintiffs want to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased the Knorr Rice and Pasta Sides for personal, family or household consumption and not for resale. Health-conscious consumers targeted by Knorr false advertising, class action claims Gibson and Shuler argue that Unilever makes the allegedly false claims to capitalize on consumers' preference for natural foods that do not contain synthetic ingredients. "Health-conscious consumers are willing to pay a price premium for products labeled and advertised as natural because they believe that such products are safer and/or healthier to consume," the class action states. The lawsuit alleges that Unilever has profited enormously from its false and misleading representations that the Knorr Rice and Pasta Sides contain only natural flavoring and preservative ingredients. Gibson and Shuler argue Unilever is guilty of breach of express warranty and violating New York's General Business Law. The plaintiffs demand a jury trial and request injunctive relief and an award of compensatory, statutory and punitive damages for themselves and all class members. Unilever recalled three types of Knorr soup mix products in 2023 over concerns they contained undeclared egg. The plaintiffs are represented by Joshua D. Arisohn of Arisohn LLC. The Knorr sides class action lawsuit is Gibson, et al. v. Unilever United States Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01088, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. [GN] VALSOFT CORP: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Foster Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ SHELY FOSTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VALSOFT CORPORATION INC. d/b/a ALLTRUST NETWORKS, Case No. e 1:25-cv-00409 (E.D. Va., Mar. 5, 2025) is a class action arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. AllTrust is a financial solutions software company based in Virginia which operates the largest consumer-based biometric database in the US, with over 9 million enrolled customers. As such, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information of millions of individuals. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach, says the suit. In February 2024 or December 2024, Defendant discovered that its network was accessed by an unauthorized actor between February 12, 2024 and February 15, 2024. Thus, cybercriminals had access to Defendant’s network for three days. In other words, Defendant had no effective means to prevent, promptly detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems -- thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its customers' PII. Accordingly, cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant’s systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII. In short, the Defendant's failures placed the Class's PII in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, added the suit. Plaintiff Foster is a natural person and citizen of Colorado. She resides in Denver, Colorado, where she intends to remain. AllTrust is a financial solutions software company that pioneered the use of biometric ID as a way to prevent fraud. AllTrust was acquired by Aspire USA, LLC in 2020, and Aspire now serves as the operational arm of AllTrust, managing AllTrust's global portfolio of software companies.[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 E-mail: Lee@bbtrial.com Justin@bbtrial.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N Michigan Ave, Suite 1610 Chicago, I: 60611-4501 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 863-1109 E-mail: straussborrelli.com sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com VALSOFT CORP: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Gerrits Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- ARNOLDUS C. GERRITS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VALSOFT CORPORATION INC. d/b/a ALLTRUST NETWORKS, Case No. 1:25-cv-00410 (E.D.Va., Mar. 5, 2025) is a class action arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. AllTrust is a financial solutions software company based in Virginia which operates the largest consumer-based biometric database in the US, with over 9 million enrolled customers. s such, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information (PII) of millions of individuals. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach, says the suit. In February 2024 or December 2024, Defendant discovered that its network was accessed by an unauthorized actor between February 12, 2024 and February 15, 2024. Thus, cybercriminals had access to Defendant's network for three days. In other words, Defendant had no effective means to prevent, promptly detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems -- thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its customers' PII. Accordingly, cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant’s systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII. In short, the Defendant's failures placed the Class's PII in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals. The exposure of one's PII to cybercriminals is a bell that cannot be unrung. Before this data breach, its customers’ private information was exactly that—private. Not anymore. Now, their private information is forever exposed and unsecure, the Plaintiff contends. Plaintiff Gerrits is a natural resident and citizen San Leandro, California. AllTrust is a financial solutions software company that pioneered the use of biometric ID as a way to prevent fraud. AllTrust was acquired by Aspire USA, LLC in 2020, and Aspire now serves as the operational arm of AllTrust, managing AllTrust's global portfolio of software companies.[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 E-mail: Lee@bbtrial.com Justin@bbtrial.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com WESTFIELD, MA: Sullivan Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Westfield. case is styled as Ronald Sullivan, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. City of Westfield, Case No. 2579CV00158 (Mass. Super. Ct., Hampden Cty., Feb. 28, 2025). The case type is stated as "Contract / Business Cases." City of Westfield -- https://www.westfieldin.gov/ -- is a city in Hampden County, in the Pioneer Valley of western Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chelsea Kim Choi, Esq. John Connor, Esq. Jeffrey Morneau, Esq. CONNOR AND MORNEAU, LLP 273 State St., 2nd Floor Springfield, MA 01103 Phone: (413)455-1730 WREN LOGISTICS: Colston Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA, NYLL ------------------------------------------------------------------ JERRY COLSTON, RAYDIN MATEO, JORGE ACOSTA, and DARRELL TAYLOR, and on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated v. WREN LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01268 (E.D.N.Y., March 5, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, statutory interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The complaint says that Plaintiffs regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek but were not paid overtime at the rate of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay in violation of the FLSA. The Plaintiffs seek to proceed as a collective action with regard to the First Claim and Second Claim for Relief, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on behalf of themselves and the following similarly situated employees: All persons who are currently or have been employed by the Defendant in hourly-paid positions such as delivery drivers, helpers and warehouse workers at any time during the three (3) years prior to the filing of their respective consent forms. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as drivers and helpers to deliver fully assembled kitchen cabinets to the homes of its customers. Wren is an active carrier in Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiffs represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com [] Judge Certifies Class Suit Against Carpinteria Cannabis Grower ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Gillies, writing for Keyt.com, reports that a Santa Barbara County Superior Court judge has certified a class-action lawsuit against a Carpinteria-based cannabis grower, allowing local homeowners to proceed to trial. The ruling, issued Wednesday, March 5, marks a significant shift in the legal grounds available for class-action lawsuits against cannabis growers and could have statewide implications. "This ruling will send shockwaves throughout California's cannabis industry, particularly in Carpinteria," said Robert A. Curtis, lead trial attorney and partner at Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis LLP. "For too long, cannabis growers have profited from marijuana cultivation while ignoring their obligation to control the foul odors their operations produce. This case is about holding them accountable and ensuring that impacted neighborhoods have a voice." Lionel Neff, a board member of the Santa Barbara Coalition for Responsible Cannabis, compared the ruling to "a rainbow at the end of a storm" in a report by local investigative journalist Melinda Burns. "Now, it's beyond a glimmer of hope," Neff said. "It's a realization that we have real progress. It's a new day." The class-action lawsuit, filed by residential property owners living within one mile of cannabis growing operations along Casitas Pass Road, seeks damages for "the persistent and pervasive cannabis odors" emitted from the nearby farms. An image included in the lawsuit illustrates the proximity of some plaintiffs' homes to large-scale cannabis grows. The image depicts a thin yellow line measuring approximately 0.08 miles, indicating the distance between the plaintiffs' residences and the cultivation sites. During the court proceedings, Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Thomas Anderle rejected arguments from cannabis growers, including claims that odor and nuisance issues did not apply to all members of the suit. The judge ruled that a unified legal claim was valid and noted that some growers' ongoing failure to install required carbon filtration systems strengthened the case for class-action certification, according to the law firm representing the plaintiffs. Attorneys for the Carpinteria homeowners said the initial hearing for the case is scheduled for March 5, 2026. "The upcoming trial will demonstrate, once and for all, that the people of Carpinteria should no longer suffer under the stench of cannabis invading their homes and devaluing their properties," Curtis said. "This is about justice, accountability, and reclaiming the right to live in a clean and odor-free community." Members of the coalition said the ruling benefits everyone living within a mile of the cannabis businesses. "I believe this is a win for Carpinteria and all its citizens," said Jules Nau, a coalition member. "We have put in a lot of work as an organization to support this community and make sure the growers are doing the right thing by their neighbors." Nau clarified that the coalition is not opposed to the cannabis industry but wants to eliminate the odor, which is also noticeable at Carpinteria High School and Cate School. "I smell it, too," Nau said. "It depends on the time of day, but it's mostly because they vent their grows in the morning when people wake up, when kids go to school, and at night when families are preparing dinner. Instead of smelling their meals, they smell cannabis." Your News Channel reached out to attorneys representing the listed defendants, including Fresno-based Valley Crest Farms LLC—one of the companies named in the lawsuit, according to the California Secretary of State's business registry. As of publication, the attorneys had not responded to requests for comment. In court documents, Valley Crest's attorneys called the plaintiffs' arguments for class-action status "wildly overbroad." In Burns' investigative report, Patrick Toole, an attorney for Valley Crest, said he did not know whether his client would appeal Anderle's ruling. Curtis said the case is likely to go to trial next March unless a settlement is reached before then. [GN] ********* 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 ***