/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250319.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, March 19, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 56
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Munguia Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
3M COMPANY: Stevens Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Torbert Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
ABLETO INC: Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal
ABSTRAKT MARKETING: Faces Newman Suit Over TCPA Breach
ALAMO INTERMEDIATE: Loses Bid to Arbitrate, Dismiss Presson Suit
ALBERT EINSTEIN: Bids to Dismiss Castillo Class Suit Tossed
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Connelly Wins Bid for Class certification
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Court OK's Certification of Revised Classes
AMERICAN FAMILY: Knox Seeks to Certify Class & Wisconsin Subclass
ANNA JAQUES: Vitali-Charewicz Suit Removed to D. Mass.
ANSON MILLS: Walker Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
APHAIA MECHANICAL: Bonilla Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
APPLOVIN CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set May 5
AQUASPA 7 INC: Claude Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
ASKET INC: Morris Seeks to Certify Proposed Classes
ATALLAH GROUP: Williams Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
AVANGRID INC: March 31 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
AVEN FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Hard Credit Pulls
BANGME BAKERY: Claude Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
BOEING CO: Shareholder Suit Over MAX 9 Planes' Safety Certified
BORMIOLI LUIGI: Battle Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Dismissal of Opiotennione Lawsuit Affirmed
BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Parties Seek to Modify Scheduling Order
BREAD FINANCIAL: Faces Newtyn Partners Shareholder Suit
BUILDERS FENCE: Faces Morris Suit Over Labor Law Violation
CADENCE BANK: Settles Overdraft Fees Class Action for $4.5-Mil.
CHARTER MANUFACTURING: Setliff FLSA Suit Transferred to Wisconsin
CIGNA HEALTH: Rasin Sues Over Disability and Age Discrimination
CIVIC LOFTS: Tenants File Class Suit Over Safety Violations, Fraud
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Confidentiality Order Issued in Thomas Lawsuit
CONVERSENOW TECHNOLOGIES: Taylor Files PI Suit in Calif. Court
COOK COUNTY: Loses Bid to Stay Member Case in Data Breach MDL
COOK CTY, IL: Summ. Judgment in Peoples' Overdetention Case Upheld
CRACKER BARREL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Rodriguez Claims
DISA GLOBAL: Shevlin Sues Over Unprotected Sensitive Private Info
DODGE INC: Faces Class Suit Over 2021 Durango SRT Hellcat
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Lawsuit
ELF BEAUTY: Rottman Sues Over Misleading Financial Statements
ELF COSMETICS: Faces Shareholder Over Misleading Business Info
ELON MUSK: Court Tosses Emrit, et al. Suit Without Prejudice
FREEDOM FOREVER: Shelton TCPA Case Transferred to C.D. California
GLOBAL PLASMA: Fishlock Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
HISENSE INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Suit Over TVs' False Ads
HUNTINGTON, VA: Lapsley Suit Over City Service Charges Tossed
ICON PLC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in E.D.N.Y.
IGLOO PRODUCTS: Zannettino Sues Over Fraudulent Concealment
IMPERIAL CARE: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
IMPERIAL PARKING: Durand Files Suit in S.D. New York
INDOCHINO APPAREL: Clark Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometric
J. DOER: Findings and Recommendations in McMillion Case Vacated
JB DISTRIBUTION: Smith Files Suit Over Labor Law Violation
JIN RAMEN: Victoriano Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Distributor Settlement Gets Final Court Nod
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Distributor Settlement Plan of Allocation OK'd
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Janssen Settlement Obtains Final Court Approval
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Janssen Settlement Plan of Allocation Okayed
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Teva Settlement Plan of Allocation Okayed
KELSEY-SEYBOLD MEDICAL: Hernandez Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct.
KROGER CO: Court Narrows Claims in Barnett SAC
KRYSTAL RESTAURANTS: Blanton Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
LEAD DOG: Slendak Seeks Conditional Status of Delivery Driver Class
LEHIGH VALLEY: All Fact Discovery in Kiskeravage Due August 29
LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $25MM
MANAGEMENT & TRAINING: Faces Rivers Suit Over Prison Mismanagement
MARAVAI LIFESCIENCES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set May 5
MARK SHIN: ICON Awarded $3.47MM in Attorney's Fees, Costs
MAZDA MOTOR: Class Settlement in Vance Suit Gets Final Nod
MDL 3010: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to Complete Expert Discovery
MOMMA MONDRAGON'S: Vallejo Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing
MOTORSPORT.TV DIGITAL: Guereca Suit Stayed Pending Negotiations
NASHVILLE QUALITY: Tillison Sues Over Alleged Labor Law Breaches
NATURES PATH: Rodriguez Sues Over Organic Cereals' False Ads
NELSON BACH USA: Soares Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
NEVADA: McGuire Suit Seeks to Certify Class
NEW YORK, NY: Clarke Files Discrimination Class Action in N.Y.
OASIS GARDENS CORP: Lopez Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California
OLAYINKA TEMITOPE: Scheduling Order Entered in Securities Suit
OTAY LAKES: Renn Files Bid for Class Certification
PACIFIC RIM: Dela Cruz Seeks to Certify Former Employee Class
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Judge Considers Class Suit Over Skydance Merger
PATRIOT LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to June 16
PFIZER INC: Seeks Dismissal of Oxbryta Class Action Lawsuit
PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR: Tenner Bid for Class Certification Tossed
POSTMEDS INC: Agrees to $7.5-Mil. Data Breach Suit Settlement
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Torres Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
QUALITY CARRIERS: Court Stays Class Cert Response Deadline
READY CAPITAL: Faces Quinn Suit Over Securities Law Violations
READY CAPITAL: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
ROBERT FLEXON: Spitzer Suit Stayed Pending Settlement Negotiations
RODRI CORP: Faces Pardo Suit Over ADA Noncompliance
SAS INSTITUTE: Court Tosses Enstrom, et al. ERISA Lawsuit
SECRETLAB US: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Nugent Due July 25
SIERRA INFINITI: Taha Labor Class Suit Filed in Cal. Super.
SPARTAN RACE: Woody-Stokes Sues Over Worker Misclassification
STATE OF LOUISIANA: Court Stays Discovery in Fernandez, et al. Case
SYMETRA ASSIGNED: Settlement in White, et al. Suit Gets Prelim. OK
TEAM CLEAN: Burton Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
THELENDINGFAMILY.COM: Bid for Alternative Service v. Owner Denied
THINKOM SOLUTIONS: Castellanos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TRIUMPH GROUP: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Warburg Pincus
TSD TELECOM: Class Settlement in Mott Suit Gets Initial Nod
UNITED PARCEL: Rizvanovic Class Action Dismissed Without Prejudice
USC: Bid to Certify Baseball Team Class Denied w/o Prejudice
VALVE CORP: Court Amends Class Definition in Wolfire Lawsuit
VASKO ELECTRIC: McCartney Files Labor Class Action in Cal. Super.
VIA CREDIT: Faces Runyan Suit Over Alleged Private Data Breach
VIRTUSA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Sugg Amended to May 28
VISION SERVICE: Settlement in Schmidt Gets Final OK
VRAI & ORO: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
WALMART INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Rector, et al. DCCPPA Suit
YES COMMUNITIES: Starks Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach
YOUNG CONSULTING: Albrigo Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
[^] Class Action Money & Ethics Conference 2025 -- The Sponsors
*********
3M COMPANY: Munguia Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
-----------------------------------------------------
Sergio Munguia and Norma Munguia, his wife, and other similarly
situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE
NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;) DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case
No. 2:25-cv-00528-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 28, 2025), is brought for
damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio-persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Sergio Munguia regularly used, and was thereby
directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires
during his working career in the Navy and was diagnosed with
thyroid disease and/or other medical related conditions as a result
of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave, Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-224-9400
Facsimile: 732-224-9494
3M COMPANY: Stevens Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------
Paul Stevens and Dawn Stevens, his wife, and other similarly
situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE
NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;) DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case
No. 2:25-cv-00527-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 28, 2025), is brought for
damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio-persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Paul Stevens regularly used, and was thereby directly
exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his
working career in the U.S. Navy and was diagnosed with kidney
cancer and/or other medical related conditions as a result of
exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave, Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-224-9400
Facsimile: 732-224-9494
3M COMPANY: Torbert Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------
Dixie Torbert, individually and as Personal
Representative/Administrator/Executor of the Estate of Jack D.
Torbert, Jr., deceased, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.;) DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case No.
2:25-cv-00523-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 28, 2025), is brought for damages
for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio-persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Decedent in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Decedent was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Decedent's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS
from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein
including death.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of the Decedent's exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of
Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further
seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from
the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff, Dixie Torbert is the personal
representative/administrator/executor of the Estate of Jack D.
Torbert, Jr. who regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed
to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career in the U.S. Navy and was diagnosed with Liver cancer as a
result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. was diagnosed with
Liver cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave, Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-224-9400
Facsimile: 732-224-9494
ABLETO INC: Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL SESSA, v. ABLETO,
INC., Case No. 8:23-cv-02219-TPB-CPT (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant
asks the Court to enter an order that certain materials filed with
AbleTo's opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification
and corresponding portions of AbleTo's brief be redacted or kept
under seal.
The items identified, and corresponding text of AbleTo's
Opposition, is necessary to demonstrate that no class should be
certified. However, these materials, if made public, could cause
competitive or other harm to AbleTo and non-parties. Thus, AbleTo
requests that they be redacted or filed under
seal.
AbleTo is a provider of virtual behavioral health care.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 4, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nE2Q1l at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Adam K. Levin, Esq.
Carolyn A. DeLone, Esq.
Katherine I. Culora, Esq.
Victoria Glover, Esq.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
555 13th Street NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 637-5600
Facsimile: (202) 637-5910
E-mail: carrie.delone@hoganlovells.com
- and -
Allen P. Pegg, Esq.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2700
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 459-6500
Facsimile: (305) 459-6550
E-mail: allen.pegg@hoganlovells.com
ABSTRAKT MARKETING: Faces Newman Suit Over TCPA Breach
------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Abstrakt Marketing Group,
LLC. The case is captioned as Edward Newman, Jr., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Abstrakt Marketing
Group, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00123-PLC (E.D. Mo., January 30,
2025).
The suit is brought over Defendant's alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Cohen.
Abstrakt Marketing Group, LLC is a business-to-business lead
generation company and business growth agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Maxwell Cory Nelson, Esq.
MCN LAW LLC
12433 Antioch # 25442
Overland Park, KS 66225
Telephone: (913) 358-5800
E-mail: mcorynelson@mcnlawllc.com
ALAMO INTERMEDIATE: Loses Bid to Arbitrate, Dismiss Presson Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edgardo Ramos of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York denied Alamo Intermediate II
Holdings, LLCs' motion to compel arbitration or, in the
alternative, dismiss the case captioned as JAMES PRESSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, – against – ALAMO INTERMEDIATE II HOLDINGS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00170-ER (S.D.N.Y.).
James Presson brings this action against Alamo, alleging that they
charged him convenience fees when he purchased tickets online in
violation of New York Arts & Cultural Affairs Law Sec. 25.07(4),
which requires the operator of a place of entertainment to display
the total cost of a ticket -- including all ancillary fees -- in
the ticket listing prior to the ticket being selected for
purchase.
Before the Court is Alamo's motion to compel arbitration pursuant
to 9 U.S.C. Sec. 4 or, in the alternative, to dismiss the complaint
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6).
Motion to Compel Arbitration
There is no dispute that the Terms include a mandatory arbitration
provision, and that Presson's claim fall within the scope of that
provision. The only question before the
Court is whether Presson agreed to the Terms. The Court concludes
that he did not.
Alamo argues that Presson nonetheless unambiguously manifested
assent to the Terms by clicking "Buy Tickets." According to the
Court, such an inference is only appropriate if the Checkout page
"clearly warned" him that clicking "Buy Tickets" would constitute
assent to certain terms. Because the "Buy Tickets" button is in no
way connected to the linked Terms, a reasonably prudent user would
not understand clicking "Buy Tickets" to constitute agreement to
the linked Terms, the Court concludes.
The Court finds Alamo has failed to establish that Presson
unambiguously manifested assent to the Terms. Accordingly, Presson
cannot be bound by the arbitration provision contained
therein, the Court holds.
Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)
Alamo moves alternatively to dismiss the complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. It argues that Presson does not
actually allege that he was harmed by the $1.89 convenience fee,
but that the fee was not disclosed early enough in the normal
purchase flow. According to the Court, this argument fails because
Presson did allege a concrete injury: the payment of a fee made
unlawful by Alamo's failure to disclose it at the outset of the
transaction as required by NYACAL Sec. 25.07(4).
Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)
Alamo also moves to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
claim.
Alamo argues that the voluntary payment doctrine bars Presson's
claim. It argues that the voluntary payment doctrine applies in
this case because Presson was aware of the allegedly unlawful
convenience fee when he purchased his ticket. The Court disagrees.
Judge Ramos says the voluntary payment doctrine does not apply when
a plaintiff challenges full disclosure by the defendant. Such is
the case here, where Presson alleges that Alamo failed to disclose
the convenience fee until after he selected the seats for
purchase.
Violation of the NYACAL
Alamo further argues that Presson has failed to allege a violation
of NYACAL because its website "clearly depicts" the total cost and
fees on the Checkout page. The Court says this argument is
unavailing.
The Court notes the statute requires disclosure of the total cost
and fees prior to the ticket being selected for purchase. Presson
alleges that the convenience fee was disclosed for the first time
on the Checkout page -- after he had selected his tickets for
purchase. He has therefore plausibly alleged that Alamo's website
violated the statute, the Court finds.
The parties are directed to appear for a telephonic initial
pretrial conference on April 11, 2025, at 11:00 a.m.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h0bGkU from PacerMonitor.com.
ALBERT EINSTEIN: Bids to Dismiss Castillo Class Suit Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RlNALDYS CASTILLO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE INC., et al., Case No.
1:24-cv-00984-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Paul Engelmayer
entered an order denying the Defendants' motions to dismiss and to
strike in their entirety.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at
Dockets 19 and 28. By separate order, the Court will schedule an
initial pretrial conference.
The defendants argue that Castillo cannot adequately represent
employees whose claims pre- or post-date Castillo's employment. But
whether Castillo can satisfy Rule 23's adequacy requirement is a
class ce1iification issue that should be addressed after
discovery.
And defendants' argument, if presented as a categorical proposition
of law, is an overstatement. Class representatives in employment
discrimination cases often represent similarly situated employees
whose dates of employment do not precisely track those of the named
plaintiff.
The class allegations here do not "fail as a matter of law." The
Court denies the motion to strike.
The Plaintiff seeks overtime compensation, unpaid wages, and wage
statements under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New
York Labor Law ("NYLL").
Albert Einstein College of Medicine is a medical school located in
the Bronx, New York.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XbU3u3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Connelly Wins Bid for Class certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RENEE CONNELLY, v.
AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-02768-JMG (E.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge John Gallagher entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
The Court further entered an order that upon consideration of
Plaintiff's motion to strike Exhibit I to Amazon's response to the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification, the Defendant's
response in opposition to the Plaintiff's motion to strike, and the
Plaintiff's reply in support of motion to strike Exhibit I to
Amazon's response to the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification, that the motion to strike is denied.
Amazon.com Services is an e-commerce website for consumers,
sellers, and content creators.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fW0xlF at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Court OK's Certification of Revised Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RENEE CONNELLY, v.
AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-02768-JMG (E.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge John Gallagher grants the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.
The definitions of the revised classes are:
PMWA Class:
"All current and former hourly paid employees of Amazon who
underwent a COVID-19 screening and clocked-in on a physical
time clock at an Amazon site during at least one week in
Pennsylvania in the three-year period before July 19, 2023.
Common Law Class:
"All current and former hourly paid employees of Amazon who
underwent a COVID-19 screening and clocked-in on a physical
time clock at an Amazon site during at least one week in
Pennsylvania when they worked less than 40 hours in the four-
year period before July 19, 2023."
On Dec. 20, 2024, the Plaintiff moved to strike Exhibit 1 to
Amazon's Response to Plaintiff's motion for class certification,
The Plaintiff started working as a Seasonal Sortation Associate at
Amazon's Langhorne, Pennsylvania delivery station in April 2020.
Amazon.com Services is an e-commerce website for consumers,
sellers, and content creators.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated March 4, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G6dPpS
at no extra charge.[CC]
AMERICAN FAMILY: Knox Seeks to Certify Class & Wisconsin Subclass
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORA KNOX and JODY KNOX,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, S.I., and AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE MUTUAL HOLDING CO.,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00790-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order certifying the Class and Wisconsin
Subclass, appointing the Plaintiffs Lora and Jody Knox as Class
Representatives, and appointing Berger Montague PC and Ochroch
Benton P.C. as Class Counsel.
American Family offers property and casualty insurance products
including automobile, motorcycle, homeowners, and mobile homes, as
well as provides life, and health insurance solutions.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 5, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U0cm0A at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John G. Albanese, Esq.
Marika K. O'Connor Grant, Esq.
Shanon Carson, Esq.
Y. Michael Twersky, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Telephone: (612) 594-5999
E-mail: jalbanese@bm.net
moconnorgrant@bm.net
scarson@bm.net
mitwersky@bm.net
- and -
Richard M. Ochroch, Esq.
Brett N. Benton, Esq.
Andrew R. Ochroch, Esq.
OCHROCH BENTON P.C.
318 S. 16th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 735-2707
E-mail: rochroch@ochroch-law.com
bbenton@ochroch-law.com
aochroch@ochroch-law.com
ANNA JAQUES: Vitali-Charewicz Suit Removed to D. Mass.
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MILENA VITALI-CHAREWICZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANNA JAQUES
HOSPITAL, Defendant, Case No. 2477-CV 01350, was removed from the
Massachusetts Superior Court, Essex County Division to the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on January
30, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-10236-IT to the
proceeding.
In this complaint, the Plaintiff asserts that the private
information of Defendant's patients, including Plaintiff's and the
proposed Class members', were stolen, including their name and date
of birth, Social Security number, medical information, health
insurance information patient name, patient address, and patient
telephone numbers.
Anna Jaques Hospital is a not-for-profit community hospital serving
the Merrimack Valley, North Shore and Southern New Hampshire.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Lindsey A. Gil, Esq.
PEABODY & ARNOLD LLP
Federal Reserve Plaza
600 Atlantic Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (617) 951-2100
E-mail: lgil@peabodyarnold.com
- and -
Edward J. McAndrew, Esq.
Nathalie A. Freeman, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1735 Market Street, Suite 3300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 564-8386
E-mail: emcandrew@bakerlaw.com
nfreeman@bakerlaw.com
ANSON MILLS: Walker Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Walker, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals v. Anson Mills, LLC., Case No.
3:25-cv-01357-SAL (S.D.C., March 5, 2025), is brought for unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and for
other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
The Plaintiff consistently worked over 40 hours a week but was not
paid a premium for his time over 40 hours a week. Defendant
willfully and intentionally mischaracterized Plaintiff and other
similarly situated persons as independent contractors for any hours
paid above 40 hours to avoid paying time a half as required by the
FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a warehouse employee for Defendant.
Anson Mills, LLC., is a South Carolina limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Columbia, South
Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jack E. Cohoon, Esq.
Sarah J.M. Cox, Esq.
BURNETTE SHUTT & MCDANIEL, PA
Post Office Box 1929
Columbia, SC 29202
Phone: (803) 904-7914
Fax: (803) 904-7910
Email: JCohoon@BurnetteShutt.Law
SCox@BurnetteShutt.Law
APHAIA MECHANICAL: Bonilla Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aphaia Mechanical
Corporation. The case is styled as Jose De Jesus Bonilla, on behalf
of himself and all other aggrieved and similarly situated v. Aphaia
Mechanical Corporation, Case No. 25STCV06292 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., March 5, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Aphaia Mechanical -- https://aphaiamechanical.com/ -- specializes
in new construction plumbing installation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mariana Fernandez, Esq.
Gregory P. Wong, Esq.
LYFE LAW, LLP
864 S Robertson Blvd., 3rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90035
Phone: 888-203-1422
Email: marianaf@lyfe.com
gregw@lyfe.com
APPLOVIN CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set May 5
---------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit, captioned Quiero v. AppLovin
Corporation, et al., No. 4:25-cv-02294 (N.D. Cal.), has been filed.
The suit seeks to represent investors who purchased AppLovin
securities between May 10, 2023 and February 25, 2025. The suit
follows the publication of two adverse short seller reports on
February 26, 2025 that drove the price of AppLovin (NASDAQ: APP)
shares sharply lower that day.
Hagens Berman is investigating the claims and urges investors who
purchased AppLovin shares and suffered substantial losses to submit
your losses now.
Class Period: May 10, 2023 - Feb. 25, 2025
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 5, 2025
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/app
Contact the Firm Now: APP@hbsslaw.com | 844-916-0895
AppLovin Corporation (APP) Securities Class Action:
The complaint alleges that AppLovin made false and misleading
statements while failing to disclose crucial information about its
AXON 2.0 digital ad platform, which the company has touted as "the
best and fastest-growing product we've ever released."
Specifically, the suit alleges that AppLovin provided investors
with material information about its financial growth and stability,
including its confidence in its launch of the AXON 2.0 digital ad
platform, which the company has said uses "cutting-edge AI
technologies" to more efficiently match advertisements to mobile
games and to expand into web-based marketing and e-commerce.
Investors learned the truth on February 26, 2025, when short
sellers Fuzzy Panda Research and Culper Research published adverse
research reports about the company. Both raised serious concerns
about whether AppLovin has been misleading investors about AXON
2.0.
Fuzzy Panda said that it "discovered AppLovin exploiting consumers
and their data in ways which are clear violations of Google and
Apple's app store policies" and predicted that Apple and Google
will kick AppLovin out of their app stores. Fuzzy Panda also
claimed that AppLovin was "stealing data from Meta in their
e-commerce push" and predicted that Meta will act quickly to shut
it down.
Culper Research said "AppLovin has employed AXON 2.0 largely as a
promotional tool -- a smokescreen to hide the true drivers of its
mobile gaming and e-commerce initiatives, neither have much to do
with AI." Culper also said "AppLovin's recent success in mobile
gaming stems from the systematic exploitation of app permissions
that enable advertisements themselves to force-feed silent,
backdoor app installations onto users' phones, with just a single
click -- an event that is often inadvertent thanks to the Company's
notorious UX gimmicks" and that "each illicit install translates
directly to profit."
These events drove the price of AppLovin shares down $46.06 (-12%),
wiping out over $14 billion of shareholder value in a single
trading day.
"We are investigating claims that AppLovin may have misled
investors about whether its growth may be attributable to nefarious
-- rather than to legitimate -- conduct," said Reed Kathrein, the
Hagens Berman Partner leading the firm's probe.
If you invested in AppLovin and have substantial losses, or have
knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, submit your
losses now.
If you'd like more information and answers to frequently asked
questions about the AppLovin case and our investigation, read
more.
Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
AppLovin should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 844-916-0895 or email APP@hbsslaw.com.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation
firm focusing on corporate accountability. The firm is home to a
robust practice and represents investors as well as whistleblowers,
workers, consumers and others in cases achieving real results for
those harmed by corporate negligence and other wrongdoings. Hagens
Berman's team has secured more than $2.9 billion in this area of
law. More about the firm and its successes can be found at
hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at
@ClassActionLaw.
Contact:
Reed Kathrein, Esq.
(844) 916-0895 [GN]
AQUASPA 7 INC: Claude Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
Wislande Claude, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. AQUASPA 7, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01650 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 5, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually impaired people.
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 ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website,
www.aquaspasalon.com (the "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, 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.aquaspasalon.com offering features which should allow all
consumers to access the services that Defendant offers,
specifically in the State of New Jersey.[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 Seeks to Certify Proposed Classes
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Zachary Morris, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. ASKET, INC., Case No.
2:25-cv-00319-WED (E.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
-- certifying the proposed classes case,
-- appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and
-- appointing Stein Saks PLLC as Class Counsel.
The Plaintiff further requests that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief
from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement
that the Plaintiff file a brief and supporting
documents in support of this motion.
As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed.
Asket is an operator of an online-only menswear brand.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 4, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3PwJOO at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620,
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
ATALLAH GROUP: Williams Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
MILTON WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATALLAH GROUP US INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-01891 (S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2025) alleges violations
of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human
Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York
State General Business Law.
The Plaintiff brings his civil rights action 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 Plaintiff claims that the Defendant's website contains
significant access barriers including broken links. By failing to
make its website available in a manner compatible with computer
screen reader programs, the Defendant deprives Plaintiff and other
blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services, says the suit.
Atallah Group US Inc. operates the Ssense online retail store, as
well as the Ssense interactive website, https://www.ssense.com/,
which sells clothing & accessories. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
AVANGRID INC: March 31 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Members of the purported class in the case captioned as MARC
GOLDSCHEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, -v- AVANGRID, INC., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 25-cv-00772-JMF (S.D.N.Y.) have until March 31, 2025, to move
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York to serve as lead plaintiffs. Any opposition to a motion for
appointment of lead plaintiff must be filed by April 10, 2025.
On Jan. 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit on behalf
himself and all other similarly situated former public stockholders
of Avangrid, Inc. who held shares as of the
Aug. 19, 2024 record date for voting on the acquisition of shares
of Avangrid by Iberdrola, S.A. and who had their shares exchanged
for consideration as part of that transaction. The Complaint
alleges violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.
Unless and until the Court orders otherwise, a conference will be
held on April 23, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom 1105 of the
Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Centre Street, New York,
New York to consider any motions for appointment of lead plaintiff
and lead counsel and for consolidation.
A copy of the Court's decision s available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SREa7W from PacerMonitor.com.
AVEN FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Hard Credit Pulls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On March 4, 2025, the Swigart Law Group, APC filed a federal Class
Action lawsuit against Aven Financial, Inc. ("Aven"), on behalf of
Plaintiff Arianna Marino. The complaint alleges violation of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), and the California Consumer
Credit Reporting Agencies Act ("CCRAA") and seeks monetary damages
on behalf of Plaintiff Arianna Marino and similarly situated class
members.
Ms. Marino utilized Aven's credit monitoring mobile application
entitled "Aven Advisor: Credit Check App" to assist Plaintiff in
monitoring Plaintiff's credit score, track active subscriptions,
and receive various financial insights. One of the Aven
application's features offers a weekly Starbucks gift card for
users who maintain a high credit score. Around February 25, 2025,
Ms. Marino attempted to redeem the Starbucks gift card through the
Aven application.
Within minutes, Ms. Marino received an alert from Experian
notifying Plaintiff of a new hard inquiry on Plaintiff's credit
report. Ms. Marino then received emails and text messages from Aven
congratulating and welcoming Ms. Marino as a new customer and
informed Ms. Marino that she would receive a new "card" in the mail
in the next 5 to 10 business days. Ms. Marino was shocked.
Ms. Marino researched this new card that Aven was sending her and
to her disbelief discovered that Aven had opened a Home Equity Line
of Credit ("HELOC") in Ms. Marino's name. At no point in time did
Ms. Marino apply for a HELOC nor did Ms. Marino authorize Aven to
access Ms. Marino's credit reports. Ms. Marino immediately called
Aven's customer service number.
While on the phone with Aven's customer service representative,
Aven assured Ms. Marino that the HELOC application submitted and
subsequently approved by Aven was not the result of fraud, but due
to a "technical bug" in Aven's system. Aven's representative
explained that Ms. Marino had been pre-qualified for a HELOC and
due to the "technical bug" in Aven's mobile application, when Ms.
Marino redeemed her Starbucks gift card, that inadvertently
triggered an "acceptance" of the pre-qualified HELOC offer. As a
result of Aven's "technical bug" Aven, without Ms. Marino's
authorization, consent, or intention Aven accessed Ms. Marino's
credit report, qualified Ms. Marino for a HELOC, and opened a HELOC
account in Ms. Marino's name.
Therefore, Aven accessed Ms. Marino's credit reports without Ms.
Marino's authorization or permission. The class complaint describes
in detail that Ms. Marino did not seek an extension of credit from
Aven, and that Ms. Marino's credit report was not furnished to Aven
in connection with the extension of credit authorized by Ms.
Marino. Yet, the class complaint alleges that Aven conducted the
hard inquiry anyway and subsequently opened a HELOC account in Ms.
Marino's name. As such, Aven violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act
and the California equivalent (CCRAA) which provide statutory
monetary damages to harmed consumers.
As a result of Aven's conduct, Ms. Marino's credit score decreased,
and materially misleading and incorrect information was included on
Ms. Marino's credit reports. Angry and frustrated, Ms. Marino had
no choice but to retain the Swigart Law Group, APC, a consumer
rights firm practicing exclusively on behalf of aggrieved
individuals to pursue legal action. The case, Marino v. Aven
Financial, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00503-BAS-DEB, is currently
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California.
Joshua Swigart
Swigart Law Group, APC
(619) 838-8546
josh@swigartlawgroup.com [GN]
BANGME BAKERY: Claude Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
Wislande Claude, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. BANGME BAKERY, LLC, D/B/A BANG COOKIES, Case No.
2:25-cv-01648 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2025), is brought against
Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people.
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 ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website,
www.bangcookies.com (the "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, 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.bangcookies.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 New Jersey.[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
BOEING CO: Shareholder Suit Over MAX 9 Planes' Safety Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that a federal judge has certified a class action
accusing Boeing (BA.N) of prioritizing profit over safety and
overstating its commitment to safe aircraft, prior to the January
2024 mid-air cabin panel blowout on an Alaskan Airlines 737 MAX 9.
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia, said
shareholders led by Rhode Island's state treasurer who owned Boeing
stock between January 7, 2021 and January, 8, 2024 may sue as a
group for damages.
Shareholders wanted the class period to begin in 2019, but Brinkema
said it should start when Boeing resolved a U.S. Department of
Justice criminal case related to MAX safety.
Class actions can allow greater recoveries at lower cost than
individual lawsuits. Boeing shareholders said the company's
misleading statements inflated its stock price after two MAX planes
crashed in October 2018 and March 2019, killing 346. [GN]
BORMIOLI LUIGI: Battle Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andre Battle, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Bormioli Luigi Corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-02332
(N.D. Ill., March 5, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually impaired persons.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services LJC Apparel provides to their non-disabled customers
through https://luigibormioliusa.com (hereinafter
"Luigibormioliusa.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of
full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its
products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans
with Disabilities Act (the "ADA").
Because Defendant's website, Luigibormioliusa.com, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change
in Bormioli Luigi's policies, practices, and procedures to that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
Bormioli Luigi provides to the public a website known as
Luigibormioliusa.com which provides consumers with access to an
array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a wide
selection of wine and spirits glasses, beer glasses, tumblers,
thermic glasses, bottles, decanters, food storages, carafes and
jugs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: 718.705.8706
Fax: 718.705.8705
Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Dismissal of Opiotennione Lawsuit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the appealed case captioned as NEUHTAH OPIOTENNIONE, Plaintiff
– Appellant, and HOUSING RIGHTS INITIATIVE, Plaintiff, v. BOZZUTO
MANAGEMENT COMPANY; KETTLER MANAGEMENT INC.; JBG SMITH MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, LLC; TOWER CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC, Defendants –
Appellees, and FAIRFIELD RESIDENTIAL COMPANY LLC, Defendant, No.
21-1919 (4th Cir.), Judges Allison Jones Rushing, Paul V. Niemeyer
and Toby J. Heytens affirmed the judgment of the the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland dismissing the class
action filed by Neuhtah Opiotennione for lack of standing.
Defendants in this case are several property management companies
that used Facebook to advertise apartments for rent near
Washington, D.C. The complaint identifies advertisements the
companies targeted to users 50 years old and younger. The
advertisements were all similar. They generally showed a picture of
the apartment or building, contained a brief description, and
provided a hyperlink for users to click and learn more. The
advertisements did not express a preference about who may apply to
rent the apartments or make any reference to age.
Opiotennione is older than 50 and never saw these advertisements on
her Facebook News Feed. When Opiotennione learned about the
companies' advertising practices, she sued, claiming the companies
discriminated against her based on her age.
Believing Defendants' advertising practice to be foul play,
Opiotennione brought this class action lawsuit against them. She
claimed that Defendants violated the Montgomery County Code, the
D.C. Human Rights Act, and the D.C. Consumer Protections and
Procedures Act. For relief, Opiotennione sought a declaratory
judgment, a permanent injunction, and damages.
The district court dismissed the case because Opiotennione lacked
standing to sue. Specifically, the court held that Opiotennione had
not suffered a concrete and particularized injury in fact.
The Circuit Judges agree with the district court that Opiotennione
has failed to allege facts plausibly demonstrating that she has
suffered a concrete and particularized injury in fact traceable to
Defendants' challenged conduct. The complaint alleges that, in
2018, Opiotennione 'regularly used Facebook' and never saw
Defendants' advertisements. Millions of people could say the same.
Indeed, even numerous younger Facebook users who were in the target
age group also did not receive the ads. So Opiotennione focuses her
briefs on arguing that Defendants injured her, not by denying her
the ads, but by denying her the same chance of receiving the ads as
younger people.
In her view, she need not do more than allege that Defendants acted
in a discriminatory manner to satisfy the injury-in-fact
requirement in this case. The Circuit Judges disagree.
The Fourth Circuit finds Opiotennione has not pled facts showing
how the alleged discrimination itself was a personal injury to
her.
According to the Fourth Circuit, Opiotennione does not allege that
Defendants denied any request for information or housing
opportunities based on her age, because she made no requests and
did not affirmatively seek information from Defendants. Nor does
she claim to have taken any steps to solicit information through
other channels, like Google, apartment search engines, or even
Facebook's search function. While the complaint alleges
Opiotennione was "searching for rental housing" in 2018 and early
2019, the entirety of her "search," as it relates to Defendants,
was scrolling through her Facebook News Feed, passively waiting for
advertisements to appear her genuine interest in receiving housing
information from Defendants this way is insufficient to demonstrate
a particularized injury from Defendants' alleged discriminatory
practice of targeting their Facebook advertising to younger people,
the Fourth Circuit concludes.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RiAU9L from PacerMonitor.com.
BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Parties Seek to Modify Scheduling Order
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURA HETTINGER, v.
BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-03687-JEB (D.D.C.),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint
motion to modify the scheduling order in lieu of the joint status
report due date.
Specifically, the Parties request the Court stay the current
deadlines for class certification briefing in the Scheduling Order
until after the Court resolves Bozzuto's Motion for Summary
Judgment.
The summary judgment briefing schedule presently overlaps with the
class certification briefing schedule set in the Scheduling Order,
which currently requires the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification to be filed on March 31, 2025 and Defendant's
Opposition to be filed on May 15, 2025.
The Parties have conferred and agree good cause exists to stay
class certification briefing, as the Court’s resolution of the
Motion/Cross-Motion may affect how the case proceeds on the merits
and thereby substantially impact issues to be briefed at class
certification.
Accordingly, it is in the interest of judicial economy for the
Parties and the Court to stay class certification briefing and
reset those deadlines after the Court rules on the
Motion/Cross-Motion.
Bozzuto is engaged in renting, buying, selling and appraising real
estate.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 5, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EVNp6P at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
Randolph T. Chen, Esq.
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H St. NE, Suite 302
Washington DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com
rchen@classlawdc.com
nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
- and -
F. Peter Silva II, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 1010
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: psilva@tzlegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
James D. Bragdon, Esq.
Christina F. Araviakis, Esq.
Joe Dugan, Esq.
GALLAGHER EVELIUS & JONES LLP
218 North Charles St., Suite 400
Baltimore, MD 21201
Telephone: (410) 727-7702
Facsimile: (410) 468-2786
E-mail: jbragdon@gejlaw.com
caraviakis@gejlaw.com
jdugan@gejlaw.com
BREAD FINANCIAL: Faces Newtyn Partners Shareholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Bread Financial Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2025, that on April 27,
2023, the company and certain current and former members of its
management team were named as defendants in a putative federal
securities class action filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio, captioned "Newtyn Partners, LP
v. Alliance Data Systems (now Bread Financial Holdings, Inc.),"
Case No. 23-cv-1451-EAS (S.D. Ohio), concerning disclosures made
about the business of now bankrupt Loyalty Ventures Inc. (where the
company had equity method investments) prior to the spinoff.
The lead plaintiff in this matter filed an amended complaint on
March 21, 2024 and is seeking, among other things, a class action
designation and an award of damages in an amount to be proven at
trial, plus fees and expenses.
Bread is a financial services company that provides personalized
payment, lending and saving solutions.
BUILDERS FENCE: Faces Morris Suit Over Labor Law Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Builders Fence Company, Inc.
The case is captioned as Eric Morris, an individual and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Builders Fence Company, Inc., a
California Corporation, Case No. 25CV002512 (Cal. Super., January
30, 2025).
The suit is brought over Defendant's alleged violation of labor
law.
The case is assigned to Judge Lauri A. Damrell.
Builders Fence Company, Inc. installs residential and commercial
fences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
1460 Westwood Blvd, Ste 300
Los Angeles, CA 90024-4937
Telephone: (310) 438-5555
Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
CADENCE BANK: Settles Overdraft Fees Class Action for $4.5-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Cadence Bank agreed to a $4.5
million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it
allegedly charged unfair overdraft fees on debit card
transactions.
The Cadence Bank settlement benefits consumers who were charged an
"APSN Fee" by Cadence Bank between Jan. 11, 2019, and Nov. 15,
2023.
According to the Cadence Bank overdraft fees class action lawsuit,
Cadence Bank charged unfair overdraft fees on debit card
transactions. These fees were allegedly charged even though the
transactions were initiated with a positive balance.
Cadence Bank is a regional bank with over 400 locations in Alabama,
Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas and the Midwest. Cadence Bank has not admitted any
wrongdoing but agreed to a $4.5 million class action settlement to
resolve these allegations.
Under the terms of the Cadence Bank settlement, class members can
receive a proportional share of the net settlement fund based on
the amount they paid in APSN fees during the class period. If a
class member, for instance, paid $1,000 in fees, they would receive
twice as much as a class member who paid $500.
In addition to cash payments, the bank also agreed to forgive up to
$682,000 in unpaid APSN fees, bringing the total settlement value
to $5,182,000.
In a separate class action case, claimants allege that Cadence Bank
overcharged with ATM withdrawal fees.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is March 17, 2025.
The final approval hearing for the Cadence Bank overdraft fees
class action settlement is scheduled for May 9, 2025.
If you received notification via email or a postcard, you are by
default a class member and will automatically receive a settlement
payment unless you exclude yourself.
Who's Eligible
Consumers who were charged an APSN fee by Cadence Bank between Jan.
11, 2019, and Nov. 15, 2023.
Potential Award
Varies based on a percentage of the amount of APSN Fees paid.
Proof of Purchase
N/A
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
There is no claim filing deadline. Class members are automatically
included unless they opt out.
Case Name
Self v. Cadence Bank, Case No. 4:24-cv-00142-LPR, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
Final Hearing
05/09/2025
Settlement Website
SelfBankFeesSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
P.O. Box 301130
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1130
admin@SelfBankFeesSettlement.com
(888) 726-1319
Class Counsel
Lynn A. Toops
COHEN & MALAD LLP
Randall K. Pulliam
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM PLLC
Defense Counsel
Austin Brown
J. Trumon Phillips
David Koehler
Isabelle Ord
Michael Essiaw
DLA PIPER LLP (US) [GN]
CHARTER MANUFACTURING: Setliff FLSA Suit Transferred to Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio granted the plaintiff's motion to
transfer venue of the case captioned as Timothy Setliff, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-2255 (N.D. Ohio) to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Milwaukee Division).
Defendant Charter Manufacturing Company, Inc. opposes the motion.
Charter Manufacturing is headquartered in Mequon, Wisconsin, and
operates several manufacturing facilities across Wisconsin,
Illinois, and Ohio. These facilities make steel and iron products
such as bar, rod, and wire for automotive and industrial equipment
markets. Setliff alleges that, at all manufacturing facilities,
Charter Manufacturing had the authority to hire and fire, control
work schedules and work conditions, determine the rate and method
of pay, and maintain employee records. He worked for Charter
Manufacturing from 2011 to 2022 as a maintenance technician at its
facility in Risingsun, Ohio. He inspected and repaired machines,
welds, and rigging fabrications. Charter Manufacturing classified
Setliff as an hourly, non-exempt employee.
Setliff brings this case as a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Secs. 201, et seq., and as a class
action under the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, O.R.C. Sec.
4111.03, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, O.R.C. Sec. 4113.15. He
alleges he and similarly situated employees were not paid for their
overtime hours due to a pay-to-shift policy and an improper
calculation of the regular rate of pay.
Setliff now moves to transfer venue to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Milwaukee Division) to
consolidate this lawsuit with one pending before that court. A
separate suit with virtually identical allegations, Grap v. Charter
Manufacturing Company, Inc., was filed in the Eastern District of
Wisconsin by employees of Charter Manufacturing facilities in
Wisconsin and Illinois.
Setliff argues that, by consolidating Setliff and Grap in the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, where Charter Manufacturing is
headquartered, employees from all Charter Manufacturing facilities
nationwide could proceed in one court that can exercise general
jurisdiction. The parties dispute whether this transfer of venue
would be appropriate considering the factors of convenience to the
parties and the interest of justice.
The threshold issue is whether Setliff could have initiated this
action in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Setliff argues he
could because the Eastern District of Wisconsin has subject matter
jurisdiction over his claims and personal jurisdiction over Charter
Manufacturing, and venue is proper there. Charter Manufacturing has
its headquarters and principal place of business in Mequon,
Wisconsin, which is within the jurisdiction of the Eastern District
of Wisconsin. Charter Manufacturing does not dispute that this
action could have been brought in the transferee court.
Having concluded the Eastern District of Wisconsin may exercise
jurisdiction and is a proper venue for this case, Judge Helmick now
concludes the private interests of the parties weigh in favor of
transfer. Like other plaintiffs before him, Setliff has uncovered
good reasons to transfer this case. And Charter Manufacturing has
not shown it would suffer prejudice from a transfer of venue.
The Court finds the interests of justice favor transfer as well.
Judge Helmick concludec transferring this case to the Eastern
District of Wisconsin promotes judicial economy by avoiding
duplicate lawsuits in different districts. The claims in this case
and in Grap are virtually identical. Both complaints allege Charter
Manufacturing required employees to clock in before their scheduled
shift started to put on personal protective equipment and to meet
with the prior shift. They also allege that, after the scheduled
shift ended, employees were required to meet with the next shift
before clocking out. Both complaints describe this as 'rounding,'
meaning that the employees were paid for their scheduled shifts and
not the actual time they were clocked in. While both complaints
include separate state law claims, Charter Manufacturing has not
identified any complex or novel issue of law presented by Setliff's
Ohio-law claims which might counsel against transfer.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2YPdoL from PacerMonitor.com.
CIGNA HEALTH: Rasin Sues Over Disability and Age Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
IRENA STANIC RASIN, on her own behalf, and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00407 (D. Nev.,
March 6, 2025) arises from Defendant's health plan exclusion of all
coverage for hearing aids for people over the age of 21.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's Hearing Aid Exclusion is
illegal disability and age discrimination under the Affordable Care
Act's anti-discrimination law, known as Section 1557. As a result
of Cigna's discrimination, the Plaintiff and proposed class members
do not have access to the essential medical equipment required to
treat their disability at all or because of their age. Accordingly,
the Plaintiff now seeks to enforce the protections against
disability and age discrimination, as incorporated into the
Affordable Care Act.
Headquartered in Connecticut, Cigna is a health insurance company
that designs, insures and/or administers health plans and receives
federal financial assistance for part of its health programs and
activities. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kathleen Bliss, Esq.
KATHLEEN BLISS LAW PLLC
170 South Green Valley Parkway, Suite 300
Henderson, NV 89012
Telephone: (702) 318-7375
E-mail: kb@kathleenblisslaw.com
- and -
Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
Ari Robbins Greene, Esq.
SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350
Seattle, WA 98121
Telephone: (206) 223-0303
E-mail: ehamburger@sylaw.com
arobbinsgreene@sylaw.com
- and -
Anna P. Prakash, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
80 S. Eighth Street, Suite 4700
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (877) 344-4628
E-mail: aprakash@nka.com
- and -
Kevin Costello, Esq.
CENTER FOR HEALTH LAW & POLICY INNOVATION
Harvard Law School
1585 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138
Telephone: (617) 496-0901
E-mail: kcostello@law.harvard.edu
CIVIC LOFTS: Tenants File Class Suit Over Safety Violations, Fraud
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Horbacewicz of CBS News Colorado reports that dozens of
tenants have a class action lawsuit against their Denver apartment
complex alleging safety violations and fraud.
The lawsuit comes weeks after CBS Colorado investigated conditions
at the Civic Lofts complex when elevators in their 14-floor
building broke down for days. The elevators are not up and running,
but tenants say they want more to be done.
The lawsuit is still in the early stages but could potentially have
lasting impacts for renters across Denver. The suit looks into
safety standards and possible hidden fees. It also looks into
whether an apartment complex has to tell renters before they sign a
lease if the building has a license to rent.
At the Civic Loft apartments, Alexandria Zavala gets nervous every
time she takes the elevator, ever since she got stuck in January.
"All of a sudden, it had completely stopped. I live on the
fourteenth floor, so it had stopped on the thirteenth," Zavala
said. "It was the last number I saw before it completely turned
black."
That's when Zavala says the elevator began to drop and tilt with no
way out.
"There is no buzzer sound that was able to be pushed in order to
let anybody know that I was in there," Zavala explained. "Let
alone, there wasn't a call button [that worked]."
So Zavala says she called 911, and Denver Fire arrived to rescue
her. According to DFD reports, this was their 18th response to
these elevators since the beginning of 2024.
"I do have a couple disabilities, so taking the stairs is a little
bit more difficult for me," Zavala said. "Being on the elevator,
not only is still scary, but I just never know when it's going to
break."
CBS Colorado's investigation showed the elevator had failed past
inspections, and the building didn't have a rental license.
Within days of our story airing, the complex remedied the issues,
but not before city's licensing office reports fining the complex
for a fourth time in almost two years for not having a rental
license -- totaling $2,648.
Tenants have now hired legal counsel in a class action lawsuit
against the property, led by attorney David Krivit with Krivit
Law.
"Typically, it's tough for a lawyer to help one tenant and really
be effective," Krivit said. "We've done it before, but there were
so many people affected that we decided we wanted to really help
the whole building."
Thirty tenants, including Zavala, are in the lawsuit that includes
safety complaints as well as alleges fraudulent junk fees.
"Most importantly, the electric bills sometimes will double,
unexplainably from one month to the next," Krivit said. "So this is
part of this, what looks like potential fraud," Krivit said.
The lawsuit also alleges Civic Lofts fraudulently hid the fact that
it didn't have a rental or elevator license from prospective
tenants.
Civic Loft's property management group, Centerspace, declined to
interview, but Kelly Webber, the senior vie president of strategic
services, Kelly Webber told CBS Colorado in a statement in part,
"Civic Lofts has a current elevator license and has successfully
passed a rental inspection; however, we are unable to comment on
any matters related to legal action at this time."
Meanwhile, Krivit Law is seeing similar issues, extending beyond
Civic Lofts.
"We have seen a trend of apartment complexes, especially owned by
outside sources, cutting expenses and making things unsafe," Krivit
said.
The alleged issues at Civic Lofts are things Zavala says she wants
to help future renters avoid.
"Future tenants that come in might have to go through the same
thing, and if all of the people who currently live here are gone,
no one has that voice to advocate for them, and they're repeating
the cycle," Zavala said. [GN]
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Confidentiality Order Issued in Thomas Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Vincent L. Briccetti of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York issued a Stipulated
Confidentiality and Protective Order in the case captioned as
ARNOLD THOMAS; on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY; Defendant, Case
No. 7:23-cv-01426-VB (S.D.N.Y.).
All materials produced or adduced in the course of discovery,
including initial disclosures, responses to discovery requests,
deposition testimony and exhibits, and information derived directly
therefrom, and all materials shared by the parties in connection
with efforts to resolve this matter short of trial, shall be
subject to this Order concerning Confidential Information.
Defendant is a New York corporation that manufactures numerous
consumer products, including Fabuloso. Defendant markets Fabuloso
as safe to use on an array of household surfaces.
Plaintiff purchased a Fabuloso bottle, included under defendant's
recall, allegedly containing pseudomonas. After using the product,
plaintiff asserts he suffered significant abdominal pain, diarrhea,
dehydration, sores, and symptoms and injuries commonly associated
with a Pseudomonas infection. He sought medical treatment, and his
treating medical professional allegedly informed plaintiff she
believed his injuries were caused by Pseudomonas.
Plaintiff now brings putative class action claims for products
liability and negligence against defendant. He seeks to represent a
proposed class of "all consumers who purchased any of the
contaminated Fabuloso products in the United States during the
Class Period and were physically injured after using the
products."
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yIJfkO from PacerMonitor.com.
CONVERSENOW TECHNOLOGIES: Taylor Files PI Suit in Calif. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against ConverseNow Technologies,
Inc. The case is captioned as Eliza Taylor, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. ConverseNow
Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00990-SI (N.D. Cal., January
30, 2025).
The suit is brought over Plaintiff's personal injury claims against
the Defendant.
The case is assigned to Judge Susan Illston.
An initial case management conference has been set for May 2,
2025.
ConverseNow Technologies, Inc. is an artificial intelligence
startup.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
COOK COUNTY: Loses Bid to Stay Member Case in Data Breach MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Rachel P. Kovner of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York denied Cook County Health & Hospitals
System and Cook County Health's motion stay the member case
captioned as BRIDGET O'NEILL, KIRK MOSES, MICHAEL NEWTON, NOEL
CARTER, MARTIN KURTEV, and IZABELA DEBOWCZYK, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PERRY
JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.; COOK COUNTY HEALTH & HOSPITALS SYSTEM;
and COOK COUNTY HEALTH, Defendants, Case No. 24-CV-7007 (E.D.N.Y.)
under the abstention doctrine rooted in Colorado River Water
Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976).
This MDL involves several putative class actions brought by
plaintiffs whose personally identifying information and protected
health information were accessed by an unauthorized third party
during a data breach. Plaintiffs had provided that information to
various healthcare organizations, including CCH. Those healthcare
organizations then shared plaintiffs' information with defendant
Perry Johnson & Associates, Inc., a medical transcription service
provider.
Between March and May 2023, an unauthorized third party gained
access to PJ&A's network and accessed plaintiffs' personally
identifying and protected health information. Plaintiffs across the
country soon filed numerous putative class actions against PJ&A and
the various healthcare organizations which had shared patient
information with PJ&A, including CCH.
On Nov. 8, 2023, Bridget O'Neill and Kirk Moses filed a putative
class action against PJ&A and CCH in the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada, which was later transferred to
this MDL pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407. O'Neill and Moses
voluntarily dismissed that case on June 13, 2024 under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
The following day, O'Neill and Moses, joined by Michael Newton,
Noel Carter, Martin Kurtev, and Izabela Debowczyk, filed a new
putative class action against PJ&A and CCH in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, specifically
in Cook County. That case was transferred to this MDL under Section
1407 in October 2024 and is currently the only member case in which
CCH is a party.
The federal Cook County plaintiffs assert the following state-law
claims against CCH: negligence, negligence per se, breach of
bailment, invasion of privacy, negligent supervision, breach of
implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and
violation of the ICFA and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade
Practices Act. They also seek a declaratory judgment under the
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2201. They invoke the
Class Action Fairness Act as the basis for this Court's
jurisdiction. While limited discovery is proceeding against the
other defendants in this MDL, discovery involving CCH has been
stayed.
CCH now moves to stay case 24-CV-7007 based on the Colorado River
abstention doctrine. The federal Cook County plaintiffs oppose
that motion. Separately, CCH and the other defendants in this MDL
have moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint. Those motions are
pending.
If the state and federal proceedings are parallel, the Court then
must assess the six Colorado River factors to decide whether
abstention is warranted.
The first factor favors exercising jurisdiction. The parties agree
that there is no relevant res over which either federal or state
courts have exercised jurisdiction. The absence of a res favors
exercising federal jurisdiction, the Court finds.
The second factor -- forum convenience -- only slightly favors
abstention.
The third factor -- the avoidance of piecemeal litigation --
slightly favors abstention. CCH has shown a risk of piecemeal
litigation, but because that risk is relatively limited and remote,
this factor only slightly favors abstention, the Court notes. At
the moment, the risk of inconsistent judgments is hypothetical.
According to the Court, the fourth factor -- the order in which the
two actions were filed and the degree to which one has advanced
further than the other -- slightly favors abstention, because the
state action was filed first and has progressed further.
The fifth factor -- whether state or federal law provides the rule
of decision -- is neutral and favors exercising jurisdiction, the
Court finds.
The final factor -- whether the state court procedures are adequate
to protect the plaintiff's federal rights -- is neutral and favors
exercising jurisdiction. CCH has failed to show that this factor
favors abstention. The federal Cook County plaintiffs are not yet
parties in the Illinois state-court class action against CCH. To be
sure, the Illinois state court might certify that class action, in
which case Illinois state courts would surely be capable of
resolving the federal Cook County plaintiffs' Illinois state-law
claims. But CCH cannot establish that this factor favors abstention
by relying solely on the possibility of adequate protection in the
state court actions, the Court finds.
In sum, three Colorado River factors are neutral, and thus favor
retaining the case, and three factors favor abstention, though only
slightly. Of course, the decision whether to abstain does not rest
on a mechanical checklist, but on a careful balancing of the
important factors as they apply in a given case. Because those
factors are heavily weighted in favor of the exercise of
jurisdiction, in light of the virtually unflagging obligation to
exercise jurisdiction, defendants' showing that some factors
modestly favor abstention does not justify declining to exercise
jurisdiction in this case, the Court concludes.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VWOike from PacerMonitor.com.
COOK CTY, IL: Summ. Judgment in Peoples' Overdetention Case Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JONATHAN PEOPLES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COOK COUNTY
AND THOMAS J. DART, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 23-1454 (7th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed
the district court's order (i) granting summary judgment to the
Defendants on Peoples' federal claims with prejudice and (ii)
declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law
claims.
On the Friday before a holiday weekend, Jonathan Peoples pleaded
guilty to felony possession of a controlled substance under
Illinois state law. Peoples was sentenced to one year of
incarceration plus one year of mandatory supervised release, and he
received credit for time served that exceeded his term of
incarceration. As Illinois law requires, the state court ordered
the Cook County Sheriff's Office to deliver Peoples to the Illinois
Department of Corrections ("IDOC") for processing onto supervised
release. But because IDOC does not accept inmate transfers on
weekends or holidays, the Sheriff's Office detained Peoples at the
Cook County Jail until he could be transferred to IDOC four days
later. Once Peoples arrived at IDOC, they processed and released
him that same day.
On behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Peoples filed a
putative class action in the Circuit Court of Cook County against
Cook County and Sheriff Thomas J. Dart in his official capacity,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for violations of the United
States Constitution, the Illinois Constitution, and state law.
Peoples alleged that his constitutional rights were violated by the
Cook County Sheriff Office's policy or practice of "detaining and
re-incarcerating people after they are sentenced to time served
without any legal justification to do so." The Defendants removed
the suit to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. After the close of discovery, they moved for summary
judgment.
The district court granted Defendants' motion, holding that neither
the Fourth Amendment nor Fourteenth Amendment applied to Peoples'
overdetention claim, and it instead applied the Eighth Amendment.
In turn, the district court concluded that Peoples failed to
introduce sufficient evidence that the Sheriff violated the Eighth
Amendment, and that without a constitutional violation, he could
not establish a Section 1983 claim. The district court granted
summary judgment to the Defendants on Peoples' federal claims with
prejudice and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
his state law claims. This appeal followed.
On appeal, Peoples asserts three arguments. First, the district
court erred in ruling that the Fourth Amendment is inapplicable to
his overdetention claim. Second, and alternatively, the district
court erred in ruling the Fourteenth Amendment is inapplicable to
Peoples' overdetention claim. Third, and finally, even if the
Eighth Amendment is the applicable constitutional provision, the
district court erred in finding that Peoples failed to present a
triable Eighth Amendment claim.
Because of IDOC's statutory role in calculating sentence credit and
preparing Peoples for supervised release—another form of custody,
the Seventh Circuit held that his situation is not analogous to
persons held in jail beyond the time when they should be free to
go. Hence, the Fourth Amendment does not apply to Peoples'
overdetention claim. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit need not
address whether his pre-transfer detention was a reasonable
seizure.
The Seventh Circuit then found that IDOC's duty to verify that
Peoples' term of incarceration was over and process him onto
supervised release might have provided a good reason for the
Sheriff to hold him, but the time to complete those steps did not
change the length of his sentence. Thus, Peoples' detention beyond
February 15 calls for an Eighth Amendment inquiry.
Considering that the Eighth Amendment test sets a higher bar for
plaintiffs, the Seventh Circuit held that his Eighth Amendment
overdetention claim would then collapse into a Fourteenth Amendment
claim. That runs counter to the Supreme Court's guidance and the
approach the Court has followed in similar cases. Thus, the
district court was correct that the Eighth Amendment governs
Peoples' overdetention claim, and that Peoples could not establish
the Sheriff violated the Eighth Amendment. Without a constitutional
injury, his Section 1983 claim fails.
A full text copy of the Court's Decision is available for free at
https://surl.li/inxurx from PacerMonitor.com.
CRACKER BARREL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Rodriguez Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
REBEKA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CRACKER BARREL OLD COUNTRY STORE,
INC., a Tennessee corporation, d/b/a WWW.CRACKERBARREL.COM,
Defendant, Case No. 25STCV06511 (Cal. Sup., Los Angeles Cty., March
6, 2025) alleges that the Defendant violated and continues to
violate California’s Trap and Trace Law, codified at California
Penal Code Section 638.51.
The Plaintiff visited Defendant's website during the statute of
limitations period. Allegedly, Defendant secretly de-anonymized
Plaintiff using electronic impulses generated from Plaintiff's
device and helped TikTok track and eavesdrop on Plaintiff's
personal life. The Defendant operates the website and has installed
on the Website spyware created by TikTok -- known as a "tracking
pixel" -- to identify and gather detailed information about website
visitors, including device and browser information and geographic
information, says the suit.
Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. is a nationwide restaurant
chain. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
David W. Reid, Esq.
Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
A Professional Corporation
4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 706-6464
Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
dreid@pacifictrialattorneys.com
vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com
DISA GLOBAL: Shevlin Sues Over Unprotected Sensitive Private Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW SHEVLIN, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DISA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-01053 (S.D. Tex., March 6, 2025) arises
from Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and
the failure to protect the sensitive personal information of
Plaintiff and Class members.
On or about February 21, 2025, DISA announced publicly that
beginning on February 9, 2024, it had been the recipient of a hack
and exfiltration of SPI involving approximately three million
individuals who were employees or potential employees of its
clients. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings a class action on
behalf of all persons whose SPI was compromised as a result of
Defendant's failure to: (i) adequately protect consumers' SPI, (ii)
adequately warn its current and former customers and potential
customers of its inadequate information security practices, and
(iii) effectively monitor its platforms for security
vulnerabilities and incidents. Defendant's conduct amounts to
negligence and violates state statutes.
DISA Global Solutions, Inc. is a third-party administrator, or
vendor of onboarding and hiring services for large companies. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 984-0000
Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com
DODGE INC: Faces Class Suit Over 2021 Durango SRT Hellcat
---------------------------------------------------------
Kelly L. of The Pulse reports that Dodge is being taken to court in
a class action lawsuit and the company may well end up being judged
in the wrong. The case involves the 2021 Dodge Durango SRT Hellcat
model and buyers say they were taken for a ride.
At the time it was on sale, this SUV version cost $84,000, a high
price that had a lot to do with a promise made to drivers about
exclusivity. Legal experts feel the plaintiffs' case is good and
there's strong evidence of Dodge's "guarantee".
Dodge announced a limited-edition 2021 Durango SRT Hellcat in 2020
Dodge fans were thrilled when the true-blue American brand decided
to release a Durango Hellcat fitted with its most impressive V8,
the same engine that powered the Challenger and Charger Hellcat
models.
The original plan was not to limit its production, which was
announced by Dodge CEO Tim Kuniskis in August 2020:
"The Durango Hellcat is not limited, not serialized like what we do
with [the Dodge Demon]."
But then, Dodge offered buyers a sweetener by stating that the
Durango Hellcat would only be released as a single-year 2021
special edition, which was also made clear in material released to
the press:
"Dodge will build the Durango SRT Hellcat for the 2021 model year
only."
That's not how things turned out and Dodge went on to release
several Durango Hellcats in subsequent years.
Doge made a clear promise about the Hellcat being a limited run
Buyers of the original 2021 Durango Hellcats feel hard-done-by,
explaining that the fact that the model was going to be a one-off
for a single year was the major drawcard when they decided to spend
their money on the Hellcat SUV.
Dodge went against its word and continued protection of the Durango
Hellcat post-2021, leaving the initial buyers disappointed that
their vehicles weren't as special as they had been led to believe
they would be. A group of them were sufficiently incensed after
"investing" in what they believed would be a low-volume vehicle
that may well increase in value over time decided to go to court
about it.
What was planned to be a run of just 2,000 units turned into 3,000,
but Dodge still maintained that the Durango Hellcat wouldn't return
in another year. CEO Kuniskis spoke again on January 21, 2021, and
his message couldn't be misinterpreted:
"The 2021 Durango Hellcat is only a single model-year run, ensuring
that it will be a very special, sought-after performance SUV for
years to come."
Dodge is now being targeted in a class action over not keeping its
promise
But then, in 2022, an upcoming 2023 model Durango Hellcat was
announced. Seven owners felt strongly enough about wrongdoing on
Dodge's part to file a suit based on being sold a false bill of
sale. They said that they would never have purchased the 2021 Dodge
Durango SRT Hellcat or paid the price they did if they had been
aware that later models would be released.
Court documents state:
"The fact that it was advertised and represented by the Defendants
as a one-year model run only, made the Class Vehicle highly
attractive to Plaintiff and other purchasers as a suitable
investment and affected Plaintiff's decision to purchase the 2021
Hellcat Vehicle."
What is Dodge's response to accusations of exclusivity
misrepresentation?
Dodge is adamant that no one was misled. It claims that the
language used for marketing purposes and to the press never stated
that the Durango Hellcat would never reenter production. Kuniskis'
quote was referenced where he used the words "is not limited" when
speaking of the 2021 Durango Hellcat in 2020.
Another point Dodge made was that when the SUV's production was
initially limited to 2021, it had more to do with industry
challenges related to the pandemic than offering buyers a
limited-edition vehicle. Dodge denies that it intended to create an
investment vehicle and doesn't believe that buyers can claim
financial losses or decreased value.
The feeling among the public is that the plaintiffs' case is
stronger than Dodge's and that the statements about a limited
production run were quite clear. Although Kuniskis said in the
early days that the Durango Hellcat would not be limited, this was
nullified in more than one promise made after that. Ford is also
being sued in a class action lawsuit, but over a different kind of
case involving the EcoBoost. [GN]
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Review reports that the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California recently dismissed with
prejudice a securities fraud class action against Electronic Arts,
Inc. and its officers, holding that the plaintiffs' amended
complaint failed to identify any actionable misstatements by the
defendants. The court had dismissed the plaintiffs' prior complaint
in 2014 with leave to amend.
The complaint arises out of the 2013 release of the game
"Battlefield 4" (BF4). According to the complaint, EA and its
executives made a series of statements suggesting to the market
that the company had learned from technical problems associated
with prior new game releases, and that Battlefield 4 was less
likely to experience a problematic launch. In particular, the
plaintiffs challenged statements suggesting that EA had "de-risked"
its technology for transitioning to new games and new game
systems.
Following the game's release, however, customers complained that
Battlefield 4 suffered from technical defects and crashes. The
complaint alleges that EA's stock price declined due to these
customer complaints and certain negative press associated with the
release of Battlefield 4.
The court granted EA's motion to dismiss on the ground that the
challenged statements were inactionable "corporate optimism and
puffery." First, the court found that the term "de-risk" was too
vague to be actionable and that plaintiffs did not establish that
the term had a specialized and concrete meaning in the video game
industry. The court also held that the additional statements
regarding lessons learned from past launches were non-actionable
optimism and puffery. Lastly, the court held that the statements
made by EA's chief executive officer regarding the "unfinished"
character of the platform, when taken in context, referred to the
new hardware systems on which BF4 was meant to run, and not the
platform that EA used to develop the game.
Kelly v. Electronic Arts, Inc., 13-cv-05837-SI (N.D. Cal. April 30,
2015). [GN]
ELF BEAUTY: Rottman Sues Over Misleading Financial Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------
LUKE ROTTMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. E.L.F. BEAUTY, INC., TARANG P. AMIN, and
MANDY J. FIELDS, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-02316 (N.D. Cal.,
March 6, 2025) seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5.
The Plaintiff brings this federal securities class action on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Elf securities
between November 1, 2023 and November 19, 2024, both dates
inclusive. Allegedly, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that contrary to its
representations to investors, the company was experiencing rising
inventory levels as a consequence of flagging sales. In addition,
the Defendants reported inflated revenue, profits, and inventory
over several quarters to maintain investor confidence.
Headquartered in Oakland, CA, Elf Beauty, Inc., together with its
subsidiaries, provides cosmetic and skin care products under the
e.l.f. Cosmetics, e.l.f. Skin, Well People, Naturium, and Keys
Soulcare brand names. The company's common stock trades on the New
York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "ELF." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Brian Schall, Esq.
THE SCHALL FIRM
2049 Century Park East, Ste. 2460
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 301-3335
E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com
ELF COSMETICS: Faces Shareholder Over Misleading Business Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against e.l.f.
Beauty, Inc. ("Elf" or the "Company") (NYSE: ELF). The lawsuit
alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse information
regarding Elf's business, operations, and prospects, including
allegations that: (i) contrary to its representations to investors,
the Company was experiencing rising inventory levels as a
consequence of flagging sales; (ii) Elf falsely attributed the
rising inventory levels to, among other things, changes in its
sourcing practices; (iii) to maintain investor confidence, Elf
reported inflated revenue, profits, and inventory over several
quarters; (iv) accordingly, the Company's business and/or financial
prospects were overstated; and (v) all of the foregoing, once
revealed, would likely have a material negative impact on the
Company.
If you bought shares of Elf between November 1, 2023 and November
19, 2024, and you suffered a significant loss on that investment,
you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey
D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone
at (888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's website at
www.holzerlaw.com/case/e-l-f-beauty/ 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]
ELON MUSK: Court Tosses Emrit, et al. Suit Without Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John F. Heil, III of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Oklahoma adopted the order of United States
Magistrate Judge Gerald L. Jackson recommending that the case
captioned as RONALD SATISH EMRIT, et al., Plaintiff, v. ELON MUSK,
et al., Defendant, Case No. 25-cv-00015-JFH-GLJ (E.D. Okla.) be
dismissed and the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis
be denied as moot. The plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without
prejudice under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(e)(2) as frivolous and for
failure to state a claim. His motion to proceed in forma pauperis
is denied as moot.
On Jan. 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed his Complaint, alleging
defendants engaged in tortious interference with business
relations/contracts and violated: the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the
Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; the
Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV; the right to
privacy under the Fourth Amendment; freedom of association under
the First Amendment; and the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990.
The Plaitiff alleges that Defendants violated each federal
provision by trying to make one trillion dollars worth of budget
reduction in the United States which would affect the lives of poor
people of all races and ethnicities in the United States. Plaintiff
claims that this budget reduction would affect the lives of
African-Americans who received food stamps (EBT/SNAP benefits),
SSI, SSDI, Section 8 housing vouchers, Temporary Assistance to
Needy Families, Women Infants and Children Programs, and other
programs subsidized by the federal government. Further, he alleges
that Defendants are trying to abolish the United States Department
of Education which provides grants and loans for underprivileged
Americans trying to get a college education. He claims that
defendants Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are not elected officials,
and, thus, the American people did not give a mandate to either of
them to destroy the lives of many Americans living in poverty
whether that is in the trailer parks of the Appalachian mountains
or in the ghettoes of the Bronx, Brooklyn, or South Central Los
Angeles.
Plaintiff states that he is an indigent, disabled, and unemployed
resident of Florida and Maryland. He alleges he has standing to
bring this civil rights action against Defendants because he is
disabled with bipolar disorder.
Having reviewed and liberally construed the allegations of the
Complaint, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Jackson in
determining that Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim,
and the action is frivolous. The Court has also reviewed
Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal which, as previously stated, the Court
construes as an objection to Magistrate Judge Jackson's Report and
Recommendation. Essentially, Plaintiff's Objection contends:
(a) the case is not frivolous because the majority of the world
is in panic mode because of President Donald Trump's foreign policy
objectives;
(b) the case is not moot because Mr. Ramaswamy now wants to be
governor of Ohio rather than a DOGE cabinet leader;
(c) this lawsuit should be a class action lawsuit because FBI
and CIA workers are in panic mode about job security and benefits;
(d) time is of the essence regarding this litigation because
Donald J. Trump has ended the employment of 12 inspectors general
and has also terminated the jobs of those who work in the fields of
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) which is extremely
vindictive like Nero and/or Caligula from the Julio-Claudian
dynasty of the Roman Empire after Octavian (Augustus) won the
Battle of Actium against Mark Antony and Cleopatra (Greek pharaoh
as descendant of Alexander The Great in Ptolemaic Dynasty in Egypt
who appeared before Julius Caesar in a Persian rug);
(e) the court should take judicial notice that Judge John C.
Coughenoor presided over Plaintiff's case involving the trading of
Facebook stock; and
(f) Judge John C. Coughenoor previously ruled against President
Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship.
Plaintiff's Objection further stated that he is now filing this
notice of appeal to have the present case at bar sent to the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals.
Evaluating Plaintiff's Objections to the Report and Recommendation,
the Court finds that the crux of the arguments do not:
(a) address the substance of Magistrate Judge Jackson's analysis
of the adequacy of the allegations contained in Plaintiff's
Complaint to determine if Plaintiff can state a claim upon which
relief can be granted; and
(b) satisfy the necessary procedural components (i.e. standing,
personal jurisdiction, and venue) required for a case to be
maintained in this Court.
The Court finds the Complaint suffers from numerous flaws.
According to the Court, the Complaint fails to differentiate among
individual defendants and specify which defendants are alleged to
have taken which particular actions.
The Court also finds the Complaint does not contain any allegations
that Plaintiff himself has been personally injured by the alleged
conduct of defendants. Therefore, Plaintiff has not satisfied the
minimum elements of Article III standing, the Court concludes.
Venue is not proper in this district, and Plaintiff's action should
be dismissed, the Court holds.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GeRyV1 from PacerMonitor.com.
FREEDOM FOREVER: Shelton TCPA Case Transferred to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gerald J. Pappert of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the plaintiff's motion to
transfer the case captioned as captioned as JAMES E. SHELTON,
Plaintiff, v. FREEDOM FOREVER, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-04333
(E.D. Pa.) to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.
James Shelton, the named plaintiff in this putative nationwide
class action, sued Freedom Forever, LLC, alleging it violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing calls to phone numbers
listed on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. Freedom Forever moves
to partially dismiss Shelton's Complaint under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, transfer the case
to the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1404.
Shelton filed this lawsuit on August 20, 2024, alleging, inter
alia, that in August of 2022, May of 2024, and June of 2024, he
received sales calls and texts from Freedom Forever. Because his
phone number was listed on the National Do-Not-Call Registry, he
alleges each communication violated the TCPA. The Complaint alleges
two counts of unwanted telephone solicitation, each respectively on
behalf of the following purported nationwide classes: (1) all
persons in the United States whose phone numbers were listed on
the National Do-Not-Call Registry and received more than one sales
call from Freedom Forever, and (2) all persons in the United States
who received more than one sales call from Freedom Forever after
asking to be placed on its internal do-not-call list.
According to the Court, this action could have been brought in the
Central District of California. Freedom Forever is incorporated,
and maintains its principal place of business in, Temecula,
California, located in the Central District of California.
California therefore has general personal jurisdiction over Freedom
Forever, so venue is proper in the Central District, the Court
finds.
The Court must next consider whether a transfer would be in the
interests of justice.
It considers the private interest factors, which are:
(1) the plaintiff's choice of forum;
(2) the defendant's preferred forum;
(3) where the claim arose;
(4) the convenience of the parties as indicated by their
relative physical and financial
condition;
(5) the convenience of the witnesses to the extent they would be
unavailable in a particular forum; and
(6) the location of evidence to the extent it cannot be produced
in a particular forum.
Of the six private interest factors, one favors Shelton, four favor
Freedom Forever, and one is neutral. Overall, the private interests
weigh in favor of transfer, the Court concludes.
Starting with the first factor, the plaintiff's choice of forum is
generally entitled to great weight and is not to be disturbed
unless the balance of convenience strongly favors the defendant's
forum. The second private factor weighs in favor of transfer.
Freedom Forever prefers the Central District of California because
that is where it is incorporated and maintains its principal place
of business. According to the Court, because the alleged injuries
are diffused across the nation, and the policies in question were
formulated and implemented in California, the third factor
militates in favor of transfer. Because the purported class members
are nationwide, and their role in the litigation would be minimal,
their physical convenience does not impact the analysis, the Court
finds. Meanwhile, Freedom Forever would be inconvenienced by the
need for its employees and witnesses to defend a case on the
opposite coast.
The Court must also assess all of the public interest factors to
determine whether on balance the litigation would more conveniently
proceed and the interests of justice be better served by transfer
to a different forum.
The public interest factors are:
(1) the enforceability of the judgment;
(2) practical considerations that would make trial easy,
expeditious or inexpensive;
(3) the congestion of the courts' dockets;
(4) the local forum's interest in deciding the case; and
(5) the trial judge's familiarity with any state law.
Overall, two public interest factors favor transfer and three are
neutral.
According to the Court, the Central District of California is more
accessible and convenient for Freedom Forever's relevant
policymakers, who, to the extent they are former employees, would
be subject to compulsory process there.
In conjunction with the weight of the private interest factors,
Freedom Forever has met its burden of showing that, all relevant
things considered, the case would be better off transferred to the
Central District of California, the Court finds.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VyGXvT from PacerMonitor.com.
GLOBAL PLASMA: Fishlock Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEITH FISHLOCK, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GLOBAL PLASMA
SOLUTIONS, INC. Case No. 1:23-cv-00522-SB (D. Del.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class defined as:
"All purchasers of products manufactured or distributed by
Global Plasma Solutions (GPS) and sold in Delaware, Colorado,
Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New
Jersey, New York, and Washington that use Needlepoint Bipolar
Ionization technology that were purchased from March 9, 2020
through June 15, 2021, the date the EPA sent its NORA letter
(Notice of Refusal of Admission on two of the NPBI products
which was followed by changes in its labeling and advertising
practices with respect to its NPBI products)."
The Plaintiff also seeks certification of a subclass consisting
of:
"Delaware purchasers of the NPBI devices for the same time
period as the multi-state putative class."
The Plaintiff also moves for this Court to appoint the Plaintiff as
class representative and Reich & Binstock LLP as lead class
counsel.
Global Plasma offers indoor air quality solutions for viruses and
bacteria, dirty coils, odors, and particles.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 10, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=prsiwi at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dennis C. Reich, Esq.
REICH & BINSTOCK LLP
4265 San Felipe, Suite 1000
Houston, TX 77024
Telephone: (713) 622-7271
Facsimile: (713) 623-8724
E-mail: dreich@reichandbinstock.com
- and -
Michael A. Mills, Esq.
THE MILLS LAW FIRM
8811 Gaylord Drive, Suite 200
Houston, TX 77024
Telephone: (832) 548-4414
Facsimile: (832) 327-7443
E-mail: mickey@millsmediation.com
- and -
Steffan T. Keeton, Esq.
THE KEETON FIRM LLC
100 S Commons, Ste. 102
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Telephone: (888) 412-5291
E-mail: stkeeton@keetonfirm.com
- and -
Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
FARNAN LLP
919 N. Market St., 12th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 777-0300
Facsimile: (302) 777-0301
E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
HISENSE INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Suit Over TVs' False Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anubhav Sharma, writing for Notebook Check, reports that Hisense is
facing a class action lawsuit over misleading QLED TV advertising,
alleging false claims about Quantum Dot technology. A prior lawsuit
has also accused Hisense of selling TVs with defective main
boards.
Hisense is currently facing a class action lawsuit in the United
States over claims that the company misrepresented its televisions
as having QLED technology when, in reality, they allegedly do not
provide the advertised benefits. The lawsuit, which was filed in
March 2025, accuses Hisense of deceptive marketing practices - more
specifically, misleading customers into believing that certain TV
models feature Quantum Dot Light-Emitting Diode (QLED) technology,
which is known for boosting brightness and color accuracy.
The plaintiff, Robert Macioce, is seeking to represent New York
consumers who purchased the following Hisense TV models:
-- QD5
-- QD6
-- QD65
-- QD7
-- U7
-- U7N series
According to the lawsuit, these televisions were marketed as having
QLED or Quantum Dot (QD) technology but either did not contain the
technology at all or "had it in such negligible amounts that it
failed to provide any real benefits". The lawsuit alleges that
Hisense knowingly misled consumers and engaged in unfair business
practices.
This is not the first time Hisense has faced legal trouble
regarding its TVs. In October 2024, another class action lawsuit
was filed against the company -- this one claiming that certain
Hisense 4K Android TVs were manufactured with defective main
boards. Customers were reporting issues such as slow performance,
unresponsive inputs, app failures, and even complete power failure.
The lawsuit alleged that Hisense was aware of the problem but
continued selling the TVs without addressing the defects.
While Hisense has gained a fair share of popularity lately, these
lawsuits do raise concerns about the company's product quality and
marketing claims - potentially affecting customer trust. If the
allegations are proven, affected consumers may be eligible for
repairs, refunds, or compensation, depending on the lawsuit's
outcome.
Hisense has not yet publicly responded to these claims, and it
remains to be seen how the lawsuits will impact the company's
reputation. Customers who have purchased Hisense televisions are
advised to stay informed about the lawsuit's progress and consider
their legal options if they believe they were misled. [GN]
HUNTINGTON, VA: Lapsley Suit Over City Service Charges Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert C. Chambers of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Virginia granted the defendants' motion to
dismis the first amended complaint in the case captioned as JIMMIE
L. LAPSLEY, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF HUNTINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA, a
municipal corporation, and KATHY BURKS, individually and in her
capacity as the Director of Finance for the City of Huntington,
West Virginia, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00204 (S.D. W. Va.).
Plaintiff Jimmie L. Lapsley opposes the motion.
Plaintiff asserts in his First Amended Complaint that since 1991 he
has owned a single-dwelling house located in Huntington, West
Virginia, and he is charged $60 per quarter for refuse service and
$48.18 per quarter for fire protection. Plaintiff claims that, due
to insufficient funds, he has failed to pay some of those fees in
the past, either fully or timely, and consequently he accrued a
delinquent balance for unpaid bills. As a result of his
delinquency, Defendant Kathy Burks, as the Director of Finance for
the City of Huntington, filed liens in 2022 against Plaintiff's
property totaling $10,815.93 for refuse charges and $4,911.83 for
fire service charges.
Plaintiff claims Defendants negligently, wrongfully, improperly,
illegally and/or irresponsibly failed and/or refused to recognize
and apply any period of limitations in collecting delinquent refuse
and fire service charges.
Plaintiff alleges that some of his charges became delinquent more
than ten years earlier, creating a billing scheme generating
extreme penalties that bear no relation to the harm caused by his
inability to pay his City service charges. Plaintiff asserts the
penalties assessed and imposed upon his time barred charges create
grossly disproportionate penalties violating the Eighth Amendment
to the United States Constitution which precludes and prohibits the
City and the Director from imposing excessive penalties. As a
result of what Plaintiff maintains is an unconstitutional excessive
penalty, he filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983,
seeking declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Secs. 2201 and
22021 from these penalties and liens against his property.
Plaintiff also requests punitive damages.
One week after Plaintiff filed this action, he joined four other
named plaintiffs in filing a putative class action lawsuit in the
Circuit Court of Cabell County against the same defendants named in
this case with the addition of Huntington Mayor Steve Williams and
Sherry Wilkins, the Director of the Huntington Stormwater Utility.
On June 17, 2024, that lawsuit was removed to federal court and is
now pending before a different judge in this district. In the now
operative Second Amended Complaint in Casto Land, Inc. (Casto Land,
Inc. v. City of Huntington, No. 3:24-00296 (S.D. W. Va. June 17,
2024)), the class plaintiffs challenge the propriety and legality
of the fire, refuse, vacant building, and stormwater penalties
assessed and liens imposed by the defendants. However, the class
plaintiffs do not make an Eighth Amendment excessive fine claim.
Instead, the class plaintiffs generally seek and/or
allege:
(1) a declaratory judgment that the liens are facially void,
wrongful, improper, and illegal (Count One);
(2) a declaratory judgment that certain fees and liens are time
barred (Count Two);
(3) a finding that certain liens are fraudulent (Count Three);
(4) a violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit Protection
Act (Count Four);
(5) a Sec. 1983 action for violating the class plaintiffs'
due process rights (Count Five); and
(6) a claim for a refund of time-barred fees and ultra vires
payments (Count Six).
Defendants argue Plaintiff, as a named class plaintiff, has
improperly split his claims into two lawsuits. Plaintiff disagrees.
The Court agrees with Defendants.
In this case, Plaintiff does not contest that his Eighth Amendment
claim in his First Amended Complaint related to refuse fees and
liens arises from the same core set of facts that serve the basis
for his putative class claim in the Casto Complaint. Instead,
Plaintiff states that he considered alleging an Eighth Amendment
claim in the class action, but he decided it would be too
problematic to define a class. Therefore, he decided to bring this
separate action to litigate his additional claim. Plaintiff asserts
he is not claim splitting because he could not reasonably bring his
Eighth Amendment claim as a class action. Additionally, he argues a
class action is one of the recognized exceptions to the rule
against claim-splitting. However, the Court disagrees with
Plaintiff's analysis.
The Court finds the class action exception to the rule against
claim splitting does not apply to this situation. Rather, the
exception protects absent class members who had no choice in
determining what claims the class action encompasses (and
especially for an opt-out class) from being barred from asserting
their individual grievances which were not included in the class
action.
Judge Chambers concludes that the Plaintiff is neither an absent
class member nor attempting to opt out of the class to pursue his
individual claims. Instead, he made a choice to file an individual
suit alleging an Eighth Amendment claim and then almost immediately
chose to be named as a class representative in a separate action
alleging different claims based upon the same set of core facts.
Plaintiff easily could have avoided his current predicament by
filing all his claims in this action and deciding not to pursue the
class action or by including this claim along with the other class
claims. However, his decision to bring both actions run afoul of
the doctrine against claim splitting. Additionally, although the
class action includes the City's Mayor and its Director of the
Huntington Stormwater Utility, who were not named in Plaintiff's
individual lawsuit, both the Mayor and the Director work for, and
are in privity with, the City. Therefore, the Court finds the
addition of these defendants is of little consequence.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0jdF9z from PacerMonitor.com.
ICON PLC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Icon PLC disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal period
ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 21, 2025, that the Company continues to
defend itself from securities class suit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
On February 10, 2025, a shareholder of the Company filed a
purported class action litigation against the Company, its Chief
Executive Officer and its former Chief Financial Officer in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
The shareholder purports to bring claims on behalf of all
purchasers of ordinary shares of the Company during the period July
27, 2023, through October 23, 2024, pursuant to Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging misleading
statements regarding the Company's financial performance and future
business prospects.
The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously.
ICON PLC is a clinical research organization, headquartered in
Dublin, Ireland. [BN]
IGLOO PRODUCTS: Zannettino Sues Over Fraudulent Concealment
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Zannettino, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. IGLOO PRODUCTS CORP., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:25-cv-01917 (C.D. Cal., March 5, 2025), is brought against the
Defendants as a result of Fraud by Omission or Fraudulent
Concealment with regards to their Rolling Cooler products.
Igloo advertises its rolling coolers for use in a variety of
outdoor settings, noting features such as a "fish ruler" on the lid
allowing users to measure their catch and "oversized wheels" which
"provide all-terrain mobility." Unfortunately, consumers who
purchased one or more than one million Igloo rolling coolers, which
were manufactured prior to January 2024 and sold through a number
of online and in person retail stores between in or about January
2019 and in or about January 2025, received a defective, unsafe,
and unusable cooler. Each of these coolers suffers from a
significant product safety defect. The safety defect is confirmed
by Igloo's recall of multiple different models of Igloo 90 Qt. Flip
& Tow Rolling Coolers, initiated on February 13, 2025 ("Recall").
Despite acknowledging that Rolling Coolers are unsafe and that
consumers should stop using them immediately, Igloo estimates that
the process for registration and receipt of a replacement handle
kit will take between two and four weeks. Thus, the Recall process
does not offer a timely remedy.
The Recall process also provides consumers with no monetary remedy
despite them having purchased a defective Rolling Cooler for
between $80 and $140. In addition to the Recall process being
unduly burdensome on consumers, and offering an inadequate remedy,
the notice element of the Recall is also woefully inadequate. There
is a significant likelihood that the majority of consumers who
purchased or who currently own a Rolling Cooler will never learn of
the recall. Without an adequate remedy made available to them by
Igloo, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself, Class Members, and Subclass
Members, seek damages and all other relief available under law and
equity from Defendant, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased a wheeled Igloo cooler with a tow handle,
which was manufactured by Defendant.
Igloo Products Corp. is a manufacturer of ice chests, coolers,
drink containers, and supporting accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christina Tusan, Esq.
Adrian Barnes, Esq.
TUSAN LAW, PC
680 E. Colorado Blvd. #180
Pasadena, CA 91101
Phone: (626) 418-8203
Fax: (626) 619-8253
Email: ctusan@ctusanlaw.com
Abarnes@ctusanlaw.com
IMPERIAL CARE: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against IMPERIAL CARE LLC.
The case is styled as Patricia Lopez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. IMPERIAL CARE LLC, Case No.
ECU003991 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., March 5, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Civil Unlimited."
Imperial Care -- http://www.imperialcarellc.com/-- provides
premier Residential services for people diagnosed with intellectual
and developmental disabilities.[BN]
IMPERIAL PARKING: Durand Files Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Imperial Parking
(U.S.), LLC. The case is styled as Roberto Islas Durand,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Imperial Parking (U.S.), LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01887-MMG (S.D.N.Y.,
March 6, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Imperial Parking (U.S.), LLC -- https://impark.com/ -- is one of
the largest parking management networks in North America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
INDOCHINO APPAREL: Clark Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometric
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Clark, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. INDOCHINO APPAREL (US) INC., Case No. 2025LA000286
(Ill. Cir. Ct., DuPage Cty., March 5, 2025), is brought against the
Defendant for its violation of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act ("BIPA"), and to obtain redress for persons injured by
its conduct, concerning the misuse of individuals' biometrics by
Defendant. Using
biometric enabled technology, Defendant has captured, collected,
stored, disseminated, and/or otherwise used the biometrics of
Plaintiff and other Class members, without their informed written
consent as required by law, in order to track their time at work.
The Defendant's biometric timekeeping system works by extracting
biometric information from individuals, such as handprints,
fingerprints or portions thereof, and subsequently using the same
for authentication and timekeeping purposes. The system includes
the dissemination of biometrics to each other and third parties,
such as data storage vendors and payroll services.
Though Defendant collected, stored, and used Plaintiff's biometrics
for timekeeping and access purposes, Defendant never provided
Plaintiff with any written disclosures informing Plaintiff that it
was collecting, storing, and using biometrics or explaining the
purpose or length of term for which the biometrics were being
collected and stored. Defendant never sought, nor has Plaintiff
ever provided, any written consent relating to Defendant's
collection, use, or storage, or dissemination of the biometrics.
The Plaintiff brings this action for statutory damages and other
remedies as a result of Defendant's conduct in violating Plaintiffs
state biometric privacy rights. On Plaintiff's own behalf, and on
behalf of the proposed Class defined below, Plaintiff seeks an
injunction requiring Defendant to comply with BIPA, as well as an
award of damages, including statutory damages, to the Class
members, together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked as an employee for Defendant from 2021 to
2024.
The Defendant is a for-profit corporation that conducts substantial
Business throughout the state of Illinois and in DuPage
County.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Hammervold, Esq.
155 S. Lawndale Ave.
Elmhurst, IL 60126
Phone: 405.509.0372
Email: mark@hammervoldlaw.com
J. DOER: Findings and Recommendations in McMillion Case Vacated
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California vacated the Findings
and Recommendations issued on Jan. 22, 2025 in the case captioned
as SKYLER McMILLION, Plaintiff, v. J. DOER, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01557-KES-SAB (E.D. Cal.) for failure to exhaust.
Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time filed on March 3, 2025
is denied as unnecessary.
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal
Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
On Dec. 20, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the
action should not be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to
exhaust the administrative remedies. Plaintiff did not file a
response, and Findings and Recommendations recommending dismissal
of the action were issued on Jan. 22, 2025.
After receiving an extension of time, Plaintiff filed a response to
the now-discharged order to show cause, motion for 90-day extension
of time for all pending deadlines, and motion to create a class
action.
In response to the order to show cause as the exhaustion of the
administrative remedies, Plaintiff contends that the lack of
exhaustion of the administrative remedies is not clear from the
face of the complaint because the administrative remedies were
unavailable.
Based on Plaintiff's contentions in the current response to the
order to show cause, the Court will vacate the Findings and
Recommendations recommending dismissal of the action for failure to
exhaust. However, because exhaustion of the administrative remedies
is an affirmative defense, the Court makes no ruling as to whether
Plaintiff has, in fact, exhausted the administrative remedies
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EL1GPK from PacerMonitor.com.
JB DISTRIBUTION: Smith Files Suit Over Labor Law Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against JB Distribution LLC. The case
is captioned as Cindy Smith, on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. JB Distribution LLC, Case No.
25CV002536 (Cal. Super., January 30, 2025).
The suit is brought over Defendant's alleged violation of the
employment law violation.
The case is assigned to Judge Lauri A. Damrell.
JB Distribution LLC is a bakery and restaurant food ingredient
distributor based in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Camron Dowlatshahi, Esq.
MILLS SADAT DOWLAT LLP
333 South Hope Street, 40th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 279-2612
JIN RAMEN: Victoriano Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
JAVIER MARCELO VICTORIANO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JIN RAMEN CORPORATION(d/b/a JIN
RAMEN), JIN RAMEN HAMILTON HEIGHTS CORPORATION. (d/b/a JIN RAMEN),
CHOKOLAT PATISSERIE CORPORATION.(d/b/a CULTURE TEA BAR), IFAN
CHANG, JENNY H. KO, and DEEPAK RAJWANI, Defendants, Case No.
1:25-cv-01876 (S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2025) seeks for unpaid minimum
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards and the New York Labor
Law.
Plaintiff Victoriano was employed by Defendants as a delivery
worker. Throughout his employment, Plaintiff did not receive
appropriate minimum wage for the hours that he worked. In addition,
the Plaintiff was subjected to Defendants' policy and practice of
unlawfully appropriating his and other tipped employees’ tips and
shared these tips with non-tipped workers.
Jin Ramen Corporation owns, operates or controls two Japanese
restaurants and an Asian bakery in Broadway, NY. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Distributor Settlement Gets Final Court Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Kea Riggs of the United States District Court for the
District of New Mexico granted final approval of the settlement
agreement in the case captioned as SAN MIGUEL HOSPITAL CORPORATION,
d/b/a/ ALTA VISTA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Johnson & Johnson, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00903-KWR-JFR (D.N.M.). The action is
dismissed as to Settling Distributors with prejudice.
The Court certifies the Settlement Class defined in Section III.A
of the Settlement Agreement, which Settlement Class is certified
for settlement purposes only.
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court affirms its determinations in the Preliminary Approval Order,
fully and finally approves the Settlement set forth in the
Settlement Agreement in all respects, and finds that:
(a) the Settlement Agreement and the Settlement contained
therein, is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate, and
in the best interests of the Settlement Class;
(b) there was no collusion in connection with the Settlement;
(c) the Settlement was the product of informed, arm's-length
negotiations among competent, able counsel with the assistance of
third-party mediators; and
(d) the record is sufficiently developed and complete to have
enabled the Settlement Class Representatives and the Settling
Distributors to have adequately evaluated and considered their
positions.
Accordingly, the Court authorizes and directs implementation and
performance of all the terms and provisions of the Settlement
Agreement, as well as the terms and provisions hereof. The Court
dismisses the Action as to the Settling Distributors and all
Released Claims against the Released Entities with prejudice. The
Settling Parties are to bear their own costs, except as and to the
extent provided in the Settlement Agreement, and any separate
order(s) entered by the Court regarding Class Counsel's Motion for
Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oP5wSH from PacerMonitor.com.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Distributor Settlement Plan of Allocation OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as SAN MIGUEL HOSPITAL CORPORATION d/b/a ALTA
VISTA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00903-KWR-JFR (D.N.M.), the Honorable
Kea Riggs of the United States District Court for the District of
New Mexico granted the motion filed by the Class Plaintiffs and
Interim Settlement Class Counsel seeking:
(i) approval of the Plan of Allocation,
(ii) appointment of Settlement Class Counsel,
(iii) attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses; and
(iv) reimbursement for expenses for the Notice and Claims
Administrators and the Special Master, in relation to the
Distributor Class Action Settlement Agreement with Acute Care
Hospitals.
The Court finds and concludes that the formula for the calculation
of Class Members' claims that is set forth in the Plan of
Allocation and described in the Notice disseminated to Class
Members provides a fair, reasonable, and adequate basis upon which
to allocate the proceeds of the Net Settlement Funds established by
the Distributors' Settlement Agreement among the Settlement Class
Members.
The Court appoints as Settlement Class Counsel John W. Barrett of
Barrett Law Group, P.A.; Warren T. Burns of Burns Charest LLP;
Robert A. Clifford of Clifford Law Offices, P.C.; Steven B. Farmer
of Farmer Cline & Campbell, PLLC; Charles J. LaDuca of Cuneo,
Gilbert, & LaDuca, LLP; and Steven A. Martino of Taylor Martino,
P.C. Barrett is designated as Lead Counsel.
Settlement Class Counsel requests an award of attorneys' fees in
the amount of one-third of the Settlement Funds, i.e., $130 million
plus any interest that may accrue on the Settlement Amount from the
date the Settling Distributors paid the Settlement Amount or any
portion thereof.
Settlement Class Counsel requests reimbursement of litigation costs
and expenses in the amount of $35,330,637.54 plus interest earned
on this amount at the same rate as earned by the total Settlement
Funds.
Class Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Counsel seek an award of
expenses to Notice and Claims Administrator A.B. Data Ltd. in the
amount of $72,569.85.
Class Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Counsel seek an award of
expenses to Notice and Claims Administrator Cherry Bekaert
Advisory, LLC in the amount of $239,187.81.
The Court finds that Settlement Class Counsel's requested fee award
is fair and reasonable under the percentage-of-the-recovery method
based upon the following factors laid out in Johnson v. Ga. Highway
Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717–19 (5th Cir. 1974) and adopted
by the Tenth Circuit:
(a) the significant monetary award obtained for the Class
(Factor 8);
(b) that the requested fee is consisted with fees awarded in
similar cases (Factor 12);
(c) that the requested fee is consistent with a customary fee
(Factor 5);
(d) that these cases presented difficult factual issues and
raised novel and complex questions of law (Factor 2);
(e) the substantial experience of Settlement Class Counsel in
prosecuting high-stakes, complex litigation and that they pursued
the case with skill, zeal, and expertise (Factors 3 & 9);
(f) that the attorneys' fees requested were entirely contingent
upon success – Settlement Class Counsel risked time and effort
and advanced costs with no ultimate guarantee of compensation
(Fact
6);
(g) the time and labor expended on these cases (Factor 1);
(h) the undesirability of the litigation (Factor 10); and
(i) that Settlement Class Counsel was precluded from other
employment (Factor 4).
The Court finds that the requested fee award comports with the
applicable law and is justified by the circumstances of this case.
The Court finds that Settlement Class Counsel has incurred expenses
in the amount of $35,330,637.54. The Court finds that these costs
and expenses were reasonably incurred in the ordinary course of
prosecuting this case as well as in substantially similar
litigation where Settlement Class Counsel represented acute care
hospitals.
In sum, upon consideration of the motion and accompanying
declarations, and based upon all matters of record, the Court finds
that the fee requested is reasonable and proper and that the costs
and expenses incurred by Settlement Class Counsel were necessary,
reasonable, and proper.
Moreover, upon consideration of the motion and accompanying
invoices, the Court finds that the expenses incurred by the Notice
and Claims Administrator were necessary, reasonable, and proper.
Settlement Class Counsel are awarded attorneys' fees of one-third
of the Settlement Funds, i.e., $130 million plus any interest that
has accrued on the Settlement Amount from the date the Settling
Distributors paid the Settlement Amount or any portion thereof into
escrow.
Settlement Class Counsel are awarded reimbursement of their
litigation costs and expenses in the amount of $21,165,819.72 plus
interest earned on this amount at the same rate as earned by the
total Settlement Funds.
A.B. Data Ltd. is awarded reimbursement of its expenses in the
amount of $43,476.60.
Cherry Bekaert Advisory, LLC is awarded reimbursement of its
expenses in the amount of $143,297.42.
Settlement Class Counsel are permitted to submit itemized
statements of fees and expenses for the Court's approval on behalf
of the Notice and Claims Administrators on a monthly basis.
Settlement Class Counsel's proposed mechanism for compensating the
Special Master is likewise approved.
The Special Master will be compensated for his services at the rate
of $500 per hour, plus reimbursement of all ordinary and necessary
expenses. The Special Master's counsel, Taft Stettinius & Hollister
LLP, will be compensated at its standard hourly rates, plus
reimbursement of all ordinary and necessary expenses, as described
in its engagement letter with the Special Master.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s0XudF from PacerMonitor.com.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Janssen Settlement Obtains Final Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Kea Riggs of the United States District Court for the
District of New Mexico granted final approval of the settlement
agreement in the case captioned as SAN MIGUEL HOSPITAL CORPORATION,
d/b/a/ ALTA VISTA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Johnson & Johnson, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00903-KWR-JFR (D.N.M.). The action is
dismissed as to Janssen with prejudice.
The Court certifies the Settlement Class defined in Section III.A
of the Settlement Agreement, which Settlement Class is certified
for settlement purposes only.
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court affirms its determinations in the Preliminary Approval Order,
fully and finally approves the Settlement set forth in the
Settlement Agreement in all respects, and finds that:
(a) the Settlement Agreement and the Settlement contained
therein, is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate, and
in the best interests of the Settlement Class;
(b) there was no collusion in connection with the Settlement;
(c) the Settlement was the product of informed, arm's-length
negotiations among competent, able counsel with the assistance of
third-party mediators; and
(d) the record is sufficiently developed and complete to have
enabled the Settlement Class Representatives and Janssen to have
adequately evaluated and considered their positions.
Accordingly, the Court authorizes and directs implementation and
performance of all the terms and provisions of the Settlement
Agreement, as well as the terms and provisions hereof. The Court
dismisses the Action as to Janssen and all Released Claims against
the Released Entities with prejudice. The Settling Parties are to
bear their own costs, except as and to the extent provided in the
Settlement Agreement, and any separate order(s) entered by the
Court regarding Class Counsel's Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees
and Expenses.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PwGT7q from PacerMonitor.com.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Janssen Settlement Plan of Allocation Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as SAN MIGUEL HOSPITAL CORPORATION d/b/a ALTA
VISTA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00903-KWR-JFR (D.N.M.), the Honorable
Kea Riggs of the United States District Court for the District of
New Mexico granted the motion filed by the Class Plaintiffs and
Interim Settlement Class Counsel seeking:
(i) approval of the Plan of Allocation,
(ii) appointment of Settlement Class Counsel,
(iii) attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses; and
(iv) reimbursement for expenses for the Notice and Claims
Administrators and the Special Master, in relation to the Janssen
Class Action Settlement Agreement with Acute Care Hospitals
The Court finds and concludes that the formula for the calculation
of Class Members' claims that is set forth in the Plan of
Allocation and described in the Notice disseminated to Class
Members provides a fair, reasonable, and adequate basis upon which
to allocate the proceeds of the Net Settlement Funds established by
the Janssen Settlement Agreement among the Settlement Class
Members. The Court approves the Plan of Allocation.
The Court appoints as Settlement Class Counsel John W. Barrett of
Barrett Law Group, P.A.; Warren T. Burns of Burns Charest LLP;
Robert A. Clifford of Clifford Law Offices, P.C.; Steven B. Farmer
of Farmer Cline & Campbell, PLLC; Charles J. LaDuca of Cuneo,
Gilbert, & LaDuca, LLP; and Steven A. Martino of Taylor Martino,
P.C. Barrett is designated as Lead Counsel.
Settlement Class Counsel requests an award of attorneys' fees in
the amount of one-third of the Settlement Funds, i.e., $36,666,667
million plus any interest that may accrue on the Settlement Amount
from the date the Janssen Defendants paid the Settlement Amount or
any portion thereof.
Settlement Class Counsel requests reimbursement of litigation costs
and expenses in the amount of $35,330,637.54 plus interest earned
on this amount at the same rate as earned by the total Settlement
Funds.
Class Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Counsel seek an award of
expenses to Notice and Claims Administrator A.B. Data Ltd. in the
amount of $72,569.85.
Class Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Counsel seek an award of
expenses to Notice and Claims Administrator Cherry Bekaert
Advisory, LLC in the amount of $239,187.81.
Settlement Class Counsel request that the Notice and Claims
Administrators and the Escrow Agent be allowed to submit itemized
statements of fees and expenses for the Court's approval on a
monthly basis, and that the Court approve a mechanism for
compensating the Special Master as detailed in their Motion.
The Court finds that Settlement Class Counsel's requested fee award
is fair and reasonable under the percentage-of-the-recovery method
based upon the following factors laid out in Johnson v. Ga. Highway
Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717–19 (5th Cir. 1974) and adopted
by the Tenth Circuit:
(a) the significant monetary award obtained for the Class
(Factor 8);
(b) that the requested fee is consisted with fees awarded in
similar cases (Factor 12);
(c) that the requested fee is consistent with a customary fee
(Factor 5);
(d) that these cases presented difficult factual issues and
raised novel and complex questions of law (Factor 2);
(e) the substantial experience of Settlement Class Counsel in
prosecuting high-stakes, complex litigation and that they pursued
the case with skill, zeal, and expertise (Factors 3 & 9);
(f) that the attorneys' fees requested were entirely contingent
upon success – Settlement Class Counsel risked time and effort
and advanced costs with no ultimate guarantee of compensation
(Factor
6);
(g) the time and labor expended on these cases (Factor 1);
(h) the undesirability of the litigation (Factor 10); and
(i) that Settlement Class Counsel was precluded from other
employment (Factor 4).
The Court finds that the requested fee award comports with the
applicable law and is justified by the circumstances of this case.
The Court finds that Settlement Class Counsel has incurred expenses
in the amount of $35,330,637.54. The Court finds that these costs
and expenses were reasonably incurred in the ordinary course of
prosecuting this case as well as in substantially similar
litigation where Settlement Class Counsel represented acute care
hospitals.
In sum, upon consideration of the motion and accompanying
declarations, and based upon all matters of record, the Court finds
that the fee requested is reasonable and proper and that the costs
and expenses incurred by Settlement Class Counsel were necessary,
reasonable, and proper.
Moreover, upon consideration of the motion and accompanying
invoices, the Court finds that the expenses incurred by the Notice
and Claims Administrator were necessary, reasonable, and proper.
Settlement Class Counsel are awarded attorneys' fees of one-third
of the Settlement Funds, i.e., $36,666,667 plus any interest that
has accrued on the Settlement Amount from the date the Janssen
Defendants paid the Settlement Amount or any portion thereof into
escrow.
Settlement Class Counsel are awarded reimbursement of their
litigation costs and expenses in the amount of $5,969,846.59 plus
interest earned on this amount at the same rate as earned by the
total Settlement Funds.
A.B. Data Ltd. is awarded reimbursement of its expenses in the
amount of $ 12,264.30.
Cherry Bekaert Advisory, LLC is awarded reimbursement of its
expenses in the amount of $40,422.74.
Settlement Class Counsel are permitted to submit itemized
statements of fees and expenses for the Court's approval on behalf
of the Notice and Claims Administrators on a monthly basis.
Settlement Class Counsel's proposed mechanism for compensating the
Special Master is likewise approved.
The Special Master will be compensated for his services at the rate
of $500 per hour, plus reimbursement of all ordinary and necessary
expenses. The Special Master's counsel, Taft Stettinius & Hollister
LLP, will be compensated at its standard hourly rates, plus
reimbursement of all ordinary and necessary expenses, as described
in its engagement letter with the Special Master.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=R942mE from PacerMonitor.com.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Teva Settlement Plan of Allocation Okayed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as SAN MIGUEL HOSPITAL CORPORATION d/b/a ALTA
VISTA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00903-KWR-JFR (D.N.M.), the Honorable
Kea Riggs of the United States District Court for the District of
New Mexico granted the motion filed by the Class Plaintiffs and
Interim Settlement Class Counsel seeking:
(i) approval of the Plan of Allocation,
(ii) appointment of Settlement Class Counsel,
(iii) attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses; and
(iv) reimbursement for expenses for the Notice and Claims
Administrators and the Special Master, in relation to the Teva
Defendants Class Action Settlement Agreement with Acute Care
Hospitals.
The Court finds and concludes that the formula for the calculation
of Class Members' claims that is set forth in the Plan of
Allocation and described in the Notice disseminated to Class
Members provides a fair, reasonable, and adequate basis upon which
to allocate the proceeds of the Net Settlement Funds established by
the Teva Settlement Agreement among the Settlement
Class Members.
The Court appoints as Settlement Class Counsel John W. Barrett
of Barrett Law Group, P.A.; Warren T. Burns of Burns Charest LLP;
Robert A. Clifford of Clifford Law Offices, P.C.; Steven B. Farmer
of Farmer Cline & Campbell, PLLC; Charles J. LaDuca of Cuneo,
Gilbert, & LaDuca, LLP; and Steven A. Martino of Taylor Martino,
P.C. Barrett is designated as Lead Counsel.
Settlement Class Counsel requests an award of attorneys' fees in
the amount of one-third of the Settlement Funds, i.e., $42 million
plus any interest that may accrue on the Settlement Amount from the
date the Teva Defendants pay or paid the Settlement Amount or any
portion thereof.
Settlement Class Counsel requests reimbursement of litigation costs
and expenses in the amount of $35,330,637.54, plus interest earned
on this amount at the same rate as earned by the total Settlement
Funds.
Class Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Counsel seek an award of
expenses to Notice and Claims Administrator A.B. Data Ltd. in the
amount of $72,569.85.
Class Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Counsel seek an award of
expenses to Notice and Claims Administrator Cherry Bekaert
Advisory, LLC in the amount of $239,187.81.
Settlement Class Counsel request that the Notice and Claims
Administrators and the Escrow Agent be allowed to submit itemized
statements of fees and expenses for the Court's approval on a
monthly basis, and that the Court approve a mechanism for
compensating the Special Master as detailed in their Motion.
The Court finds that Settlement Class Counsel's requested fee award
is fair and reasonable under the percentage-of-the-recovery method
based upon the following factors laid out in Johnson v. Ga. Highway
Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717–19 (5th Cir. 1974) and adopted
by the Tenth Circuit:
(a) the significant monetary award obtained for the Class
(Factor 8);
(b) that the requested fee is consisted with fees awarded in
similar cases (Factor 12);
(c) that the requested fee is consistent with a customary fee
(Factor 5);
(d) that these cases presented difficult factual issues and
raised novel and complex questions of law (Factor 2);
(e) the substantial experience of Settlement Class Counsel in
prosecuting high-stakes, complex litigation and that they pursued
the case with skill, zeal, and expertise (Factors 3 & 9);
(f) that the attorneys' fees requested were entirely contingent
upon success – Settlement Class Counsel risked time and effort
and advanced costs with no ultimate guarantee of compensation
(Fact
6);
(g) the time and labor expended on these cases (Factor 1);
(h) the undesirability of the litigation (Factor 10); and
(i) that Settlement Class Counsel was precluded from other
employment (Factor 4).
The Court finds that the requested fee award comports with the
applicable law and is justified by the circumstances of this case.
The Court finds that Settlement Class Counsel has incurred expenses
in the amount of $35,330,637.54. The Court finds that these costs
and expenses were reasonably incurred in the ordinary course of
prosecuting this case as well as in substantially similar
litigation where Settlement Class Counsel represented acute care
hospitals.
In sum, upon consideration of the motion and accompanying
declarations, and based upon all matters of record, the Court finds
that the fee requested is reasonable and proper and that the costs
and expenses incurred by Settlement Class Counsel were necessary,
reasonable, and proper.
Moreover, upon consideration of the motion and accompanying
invoices, the Court finds that the expenses incurred by the Notice
and Claims Administrator were necessary, reasonable, and proper.
Settlement Class Counsel are awarded attorneys' fees of one-third
of the Settlement Funds, i.e., $42 million plus any interest that
has accrued on the Settlement Amount from the date the Teva
Defendants paid the Settlement Amount or any portion thereof into
escrow.
Settlement Class Counsel are awarded reimbursement of their
litigation costs and expenses in the amount of $6,838,187.91, plus
interest earned on this amount at the same rate as earned by the
total Settlement Funds.
A.B. Data Ltd. is awarded reimbursement of its expenses in the
amount of $14,042.27.
Cherry Bekaert Advisory, LLC is awarded reimbursement of its
expenses in the amount of $46,282.84.
Settlement Class Counsel's proposed mechanism for compensating the
Special Master is likewise approved.
The Notice and Claims Administrators and the Escrow Agent are
permitted to submit itemized statements of fees and expenses for
the Court's approval on a monthly basis.
The Special Master will be compensated for his services at the rate
of $500 per hour, plus reimbursement of all ordinary and necessary
expenses. The Special Master's counsel, Taft Stettinius & Hollister
LLP, will be compensated at its standard hourly rates, plus
reimbursement of all ordinary and necessary expenses, as described
in its engagement letter with the Special Master.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZJF3ra from PacerMonitor.com.
KELSEY-SEYBOLD MEDICAL: Hernandez Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kelsey-Seybold
Medical Group, PLLC. The case is styled as Deborah Hernandez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Kelsey-Seybold Medical Group, PLLC, Case No. 133232-CV (Tex. Dist.
Ct., Brazoria Cty., March 5, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated Other Contract.
Kelsey-Seybold Clinic -- https://www.kelsey-seybold.com/ -- is
Houston's trusted healthcare source.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
KROGER CO: Court Narrows Claims in Barnett SAC
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TASHEBA BARNETT, et al.,
v. THE KROGER COMPANY, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00544-DRC (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Douglas Cole entered an order granting in
part and denying in part the Grocery Stores' motion to dismiss
second amended complaint.
Specifically, the Court dismisses with prejudice the Plaintiffs'
breach of implied warranty claim and unjust enrichment claim as
against Harris Teeter, LLC, and Harris Teeter Supermarkets, Inc.
The Court denies the Grocery Stores' motion in all other regards.
The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint
meets Rule 8(a)(2)'s requirements.
In sum, given the applicable standard, the Court concludes that the
Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged a claim for breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability under Texas law.
The Plaintiffs claim that the Product-"Simple Truth Organic Rice
Rusks Baby Teething Wafers"-contains elevated levels of toxic
metals. They note, for example, that those levels exceed what the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers safe when present in
adult drinking water. Yet despite the presence of these alleged
contaminants, the Product's packaging touts that the wafers are
safe and recommended for children "6+ months."
Kroger is an American retail company that operates supermarkets and
multi-department stores throughout the United States.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 5, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A7Gtq1
at no extra charge.[CC]
KRYSTAL RESTAURANTS: Blanton Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Blanton, Individually and on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. KRYSTAL RESTAURANTS, LLC, Case No.
3:25-cv-00261 (E.D. Tenn., March 5, 2025), is brought the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid minimum wages and
overtime compensation owed to Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff and those similarly situated performed work for
Defendant in excess of 40 hours per week within weekly pay periods.
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
Plaintiff and those similarly situated within weekly pay periods
during all times material to this action. The Defendant also had a
common plan, policy, and practice of "spreading" the wages of
Plaintiff and those similarly situated that were earned in specific
weekly pay periods into future weekly pay periods.
The Defendant has been aware that it has not compensated Plaintiff
and those similarly situated for all hours worked within weekly pay
periods at the applicable FLSA minimum wage and overtime rates of
pay for all their compensable work time. The unpaid wage claims of
Plaintiff and those similarly situated are unified through common
theories of Defendant's FLSA violations.
The Defendant has failed to keep and maintain timely and accurate
pay records of Plaintiff and those similarly situated. The
Defendant's common plan, policy, and practice of failing to pay
Plaintiff and those similarly situated for all the minimum wage and
overtime compensation owed them was willful, with reckless
disregard to the FLSA overtime requirements, and without a good
faith basis, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by and worked for Defendant as an
hourly-paid crew member.
The Defendant is one of the oldest fast-food restaurant chains in
the U.S., with more than 650 Krystal restaurants, mainly in the
Southeastern states.[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
LEAD DOG: Slendak Seeks Conditional Status of Delivery Driver Class
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUSSELL ANDREW SLENDAK,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, v. LEAD
DOG PIZZA, INC., and JOHN W. ECKBURG, Case No. 3:24-cv-03988-MGL
(D.S.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
his motion to conditionally certify a collective action and
facilitate notice Under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) to:
"All current and former pizza delivery drivers employed by the
Defendants from three years prior to the entry of an Order
granting the instant motion to the present.
The Plaintiff seeks payment of unpaid minimum wages and overtime
wages owed to him and other similarly situated employees due to
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
The Plaintiff asks that the Court permit him to send subsequent
notices to Potential Plaintiffs, containing the Court’s approved
Notice of Collective Action Lawsuit and corresponding
Consent to Become Party Plaintiff form and a postage-paid return
envelope addressed to Named Plaintiff’s counsel.
The Plaintiff asks that the Court enter an order compelling
Defendants to produce to Named Plaintiff’s counsel, within ten
days of the entry of said order, a computer-readable data file
containing the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and email
address of all Potential Plaintiffs.
Lead Dog is a local franchise of Domino's Pizza.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 5, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vus0x2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob J. Modla, Esq.
CROMER BABB & PORTER, LLC
Columbia, SC 29211
Telephone: (803) 799-9530
E-mail: jake@cromerbabb.com
LEHIGH VALLEY: All Fact Discovery in Kiskeravage Due August 29
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA KISKERAVAGE, et
al., v. LEHIGH VALLEY HEALTH NETWORK, INC., et al., Case No.
5:24-cv-05567-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge John Gallagher entered
a scheduling order as follows:
1. All motions to amend the Complaint and to join or add
additional parties shall be filed on or before June 20,
2025.
2. A status conference with counsel is scheduled for Tuesday,
July 1, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. The Plaintiff's counsel shall
provide the Court and opposing counsel with conference bridge
details (such as a telephone number and access code) no later
than Monday, June 23, 2025. The parties should be prepared to
discuss the status of discovery, settlement discussions, if
any, and the dates the parties have jointly set aside for
depositions.
3. All fact discovery shall be completed no later than Aug. 29,
2025.
4. All expert discovery shall be completed no later than Nov.
21, 2025.
5. All motions for Pennsylvania state law class certification
shall be filed by July 7, 2025. Responses shall be filed no
later than Aug. 4, 2025. The reply in support of class
certification, if any, shall be filed by Aug. 25, 2025.
6. Motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions, if any,
shall be filed by Dec. 12, 2025. Responses shall be filed no
later than Jan. 23, 2026. The reply in support of summary
judgment, if any, shall be filed by Feb. 20, 2026.
Lehigh Valley operates primary and emergent health care facillities
in Pennsylvania.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tJHUkn at no extra
charge.[CC]
LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $25MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that mortgage lender loanDepot agreed to
a $25 million settlement to resolve claims it failed to prevent a
2024 data breach that compromised the information of 16.9 million
customers.
The loanDepot settlement benefits individuals who received a data
breach notice from loanDepot informing them their information may
have been compromised in a data breach between Jan. 3 and 5, 2024.
The loanDepot data breach reportedly compromised sensitive
information, such as names, addresses, email addresses, financial
account numbers, Social Security numbers, phone numbers and dates
of birth.
Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim that loanDepot could
have prevented the data breach, but it failed to implement adequate
cybersecurity measures and properly train its employees.
loanDepot is an online mortgage lender that offers home loans,
refinancing and home equity loans.
loanDepot has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $25
million to resolve the allegations.
Under the terms of the loanDepot settlement, class members can
receive a cash payment ranging from $5.30 to $70.71 depending on
their participation rate. Exact payment amounts will vary.
Class members who reside in California may be able to receive
additional payments through the loanDepot settlement. These class
members can receive a California Consumer Privacy Act payment of
between $14.90 and $149.04, depending on the number of claims filed
with the settlement.
Class members who experienced out-of-pocket expenses as a result of
the loanDepot data breach can also receive reimbursement of up to
$5,000. This reimbursement covers documented unreimbursed losses,
consequential expenses, fees, credit-related costs, costs to place
a freeze or alert on credit reports, costs to replace
identification cards and more.
All class members are eligible for two years of free credit
monitoring or identity theft protection services through the
settlement.
In addition to providing monetary and credit monitoring benefits,
loanDepot agreed to implement enhanced security measures to better
protect consumer and employee information.
Proposed enhancements include improved data management, increased
cloud security and better threat detection capabilities. These
improvements are valued at around $9.34 million.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is April 27, 2025.
The final approval hearing for the data breach settlement is
scheduled for Aug. 18, 2025.
To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by May 27, 2025.
Who's Eligible
Individuals who were sent an individualized notice from loanDepot
that their personally identifiable information may have been
compromised by a data breach between Jan. 3, and 5, 2024.
Potential Award
Up to $5,000
Proof of Purchase
Bank statements, receipts, account statements, invoices, credit
reports and other documentation of data breach-related losses.
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
05/27/2025
Case Name
In re: loanDepot Data Breach Litigation, Case No.
8:24-cv-00136-DOC-JDE, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.
Final Hearing
08/18/2025
Settlement Website
LoanDepotBreachSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
In re loanDepot Data Breach Litigation
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
info@LoanDepotBreachSettlement.com
(844) 996-4090
Class Counsel
Daniel S. Robinson
Michael W. Olson
ROBINSON CALCAGNIE INC.
Tina Wolfson
Alyssa Brown
AHDOOT & WOLFSON P.C.
Abbas Kazerounian
Mona Amini
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
Stephen G. Larson
LARSON LLP
Gary M. Klinger
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
Defense Counsel
Matthew D. Brown
Mazda Antia
COOLEY LLP [GN]
MANAGEMENT & TRAINING: Faces Rivers Suit Over Prison Mismanagement
------------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY RIVERS v. MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION, and JOHN AND
JANE DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00156-CWR-LGI (S.D.
Miss., March 6, 2025) is a class action arising from Defendants'
failure to protect inmates from harm, failure to maintain
sufficient staff, failure to adequately train and supervise staff,
and failure to properly manage the gang population at East
Mississippi Correctional Facility.
As a result of Defendant's deliberate indifference to the safety
and well-being of inmates at EMCF, the Plaintiff suffered facial
fractures in the jaw including the zygomatic arch and left eye
orbital, and accompanying damages. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now
seeks redress for Defendants' actions and asserts claims for
negligence, gross negligence, and for violations of the 8th and
14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Headquartered in Utah, Management & Training Corporation is a
prison management company in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Merrida (Buddy) Coxwell, Esq.
Courtney D. Sanders, Esq.
COXWELL & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
500 North State Street
Jackson, MS 39201
Telephone: (601) 948-1600
Facsimile: (601) 948-7097
E-mail: merridac@coxwelllaw.com
courtneys@coxwelllaw.com
- and -
Charles R. Mullins, Esq.
MULLINS LAW FIRM
1146 Lyncrest Avenue
Jackson, MS 39202
Telephone: (769) 216-8373
E-mail: chuck@chuckmullinslaw.com
MARAVAI LIFESCIENCES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set May 5
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that
purchasers or acquirers of Maravai LifeSciences Holdings, Inc.
(NASDAQ: MRVI) securities between August 7, 2024 and February 24,
2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), have until May 5,
2025 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Maravai class
action lawsuit. Captioned Nelson v. Maravai LifeSciences Holdings,
Inc., No. 25-cv-00499 (S.D. Cal.), the Maravai class action lawsuit
charges Maravai and certain of Maravai's top executives with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Maravai class action lawsuit, please provide your
information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-maravai-lifesciences-holdings-inc-class-action-lawsuit-mrvi.html
You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal
of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at
info@rgrdlaw.com.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Maravai is a provider of biologics to support
clinical research.
The Maravai class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout
the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) Maravai lacked adequate internal
controls over financial reporting related to revenue recognition;
(ii) as a result, Maravai inaccurately recognized revenue on
certain transactions during fiscal 2024; and (iii) Maravai's
goodwill was overstated.
The Maravai class action lawsuit further alleges that on February
25, 2025, Maravai revealed that it was postponing its fiscal 2024
earnings release and would delay filing its annual report, noting
that Maravai required additional time to complete its year-end
financial close for reasons related primarily to "its assessment of
a potential non-cash impairment charge related to goodwill
associated with its previous acquisition of Alphazyme LLC," "an
error identified during the close process with respect to revenue
recognition associated with a single shipment identified in
year-end audit procedures that resulted in approximately $3.9
million in revenue being recorded in the final week of the second
quarter of 2024 upon shipment when it should have been recorded in
the first week of the third quarter of 2024 upon receipt by the
customer," and "the effectiveness of its disclosure controls and
procedures and internal controls over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2024, and any remediation, including with respect to
remediation of a material weakness in its internal controls over
revenue recognition identified by management." On this news, the
price of Maravai stock fell nearly 22%, according to the
complaint.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired
Maravai securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff in the Maravai class action lawsuit. A lead
plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial
interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also
typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts
on behalf of all other class members in directing the Maravai class
action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its
choice to litigate the Maravai class action lawsuit. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Maravai class action
lawsuit.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of
the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities
fraud cases. Our Firm has been #1 in the ISS Securities Class
Action Services rankings for six out of the last ten years for
securing the most monetary relief for investors. We recovered $6.6
billion for investors in securities-related class action cases –
over $2.2 billion more than any other law firm in the last four
years. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the
largest plaintiffs' firms in the world and the Firm's attorneys
have obtained many of the largest securities class action
recoveries in history, including the largest securities class
action recovery ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec.
Litig. Please visit the following page for more information:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contacts
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
J.C. Sanchez, Jennifer N. Caringal
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101
(800) 449-4900
info@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
MARK SHIN: ICON Awarded $3.47MM in Attorney's Fees, Costs
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Orrick of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California granted Icon Foundation's motion
for attorney fees and costs in the case captioned as MARK SHIN,
Plaintiff, v. ICON FOUNDATION, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-07363-WHO
(N.D. Cal.). Icon's request for partial reconsideration of the
remedies order is also granted.
Judge Orrick granted summary judgment for ICON on its unjust
enrichment counterclaim, which sought restitution after plaintiff
Mark Shin exploited a bug in its software 557 times to generate
13,950,558 ICX cryptocurrency tokens in his ICONex wallet. Shin
transferred millions of the bug-generated ICX to his family and
friends and sold millions more for other cryptocurrencies. On
behalf of itself and for the benefit of other ICX holders, ICON
successfully defended Shin's conversion and wrongful taking claims
and prevailed on its counterclaim against Shin for unjust
enrichment. Using information provided by ICON, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation executed several seizure warrants on various
cryptocurrency exchanges where Shin and his transferees were
storing the assets traceable to the bug-generated ICX. Those assets
were seized and are now held by a receiver. They are estimated
today to be worth around $11 million, although that number is
volatile given the nature of cryptocurrency.
ICON now seeks attorney fees and costs incurred in connection with
this litigation. It requests the greater of:
(1) 30% of the value of the cryptocurrency assets it recovered
in this matter, the value of which would be determined upon their
liquidation by the receiver; or
(2) $3,471,594, representing ICON's fees and costs using the
lodestar approach.
The Court finds the rates that ICON proposes for each of its
attorneys are reasonable given the prevailing market rates, the
quality of ICON's counsel, and the complexity of the issues.
The Court finds ICON is entitled to attorney fees and costs
pursuant to the common fund doctrine. The criteria for the common
fund doctrine are met in this case. The class of beneficiaries is
identifiable as persons who owned ICX when Shin attacked the
network and who still own ICX today. Those individuals saw the
value of their tokens drop after Shin flooded the Network with
bug-generated tokens and sold millions of those tokens. They
benefitted from ICON pursuing Shin, freezing his accounts and,
ultimately, securing the seizure of the bug-generated ICX and many
of the assets that Shin and his transferees bought with it. That
benefit can be traced by following the FBI's seizure of the
bug-generated ICX and traceable assets. The seized assets now sit
with the receiver, rather than saturating the crypto market with
bug-generated ICX and devaluing all ICX for all users. The Court
says it is appropriate to shift the fee by deducting ICON's
attorney fee and costs award from the value of the seized assets
before they are destroyed so that each beneficiary will
simultaneously bear a proportional cost and benefit of the
litigation.
ICON incurred expert fees and consulting fees that were not
insignificant. These costs are also recoverable because the common
fund criteria have been met.
According to the Court, ICON is entitled to $3,471,594 in attorney
fees and costs, to be paid by the receiver prior to the destruction
of the seized assets.
After the receiver pays the fees and costs award to ICON, it is
ordered that all remaining seized non-ICX assets be converted back
into ICX and then destroyed.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IA0vCA from PacerMonitor.com.
MAZDA MOTOR: Class Settlement in Vance Suit Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOWNSEND VANCE and ZACHARY
HAINES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. D/B/A MAZDA NORTH
AMERICAN OPERATIONS, MAZDA MOTOR CORPORATION, FCA US LLC. DENSO
CORPORATION, and DENSO INTERNATIONAL AMERICA, INC, Case No.
8:21-cv-01890-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine Staton
entered an order:
-- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class
action settlement, and
-- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, expenses,
and service awards.
The Court confirms the certification of the following nationwide
Class for settlement purposes only:
"[A]ll individuals or legal entities who, at any time as of
the entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, own or owned,
purchase(d) or lease(d) Covered Vehicles in any of the fifty
States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and all other
United States territories and/or possessions."
Excluded from the Class are: (a) Mazda, its officers,
directors and employees; its affiliates and affiliates'
officers, directors and employees; its distributors and
distributors' officers, directors and employees; and Mazda
Dealers and Mazda Dealers' officers and directors; (b)
Denso, its officers, directors and employees; its affiliates
and affiliates' officers, directors and employees; its
distributors and distributors' officers, directors and
employees; (c) Plaintiffs' Counsel; and (d) judicial
officers and their immediate family members and associated
court staff assigned to this case. In addition, persons or
entities are not Class Members once they timely and properly
exclude themselves from the Class, as provided in this
Settlement Agreement, and once the exclusion request is
finally approved by the Court.
"Covered Vehicles" means the Additional Vehicles and the
Recalled Vehicles.
"Additional Vehicles" include the: 2017–2019 MX-5,
2017–2019
CX-9, 2018–2021 Mazda3, 2017–2019 Mazda6, 2018–2019
CX-3,
2017–2019 CX-5, 2018–2020 Mazda2, and the 2020 CX-30.
"Recalled Vehicles" include the: 2018 Mazda6, 2019 CX-3,
2018–2019 MX-5, 2018–2019 CX-5, 2018–2019 CX-9, 2018
Mazda
3, and 2019–2020 Mazda2.
Overlap in Model Year occurs because certain Additional
Vehicles have distinct production periods from Recalled
Vehicles.
"Recall" means Mazda's recall of the Recalled Vehicles,
namely, Mazda's Recall 5321K, NHTSA Campaign Number 21V-875,
submitted to NHTSA on Nov. 12, 2021.
The designated Class Representatives are as follows: Townsend Vance
and Zachary Haines.
The Court finds that these Class Members have adequately
represented the Class for purposes of entering into and
implementing the Settlement Agreement.
The Court confirms the appointment of W. Daniel "Dee" Miles III of
Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. and Timothy G.
Blood of Blood, Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP as Class Counsel.
The Court grants Class Counsel's request for an award of
reasonable attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses in the
amount of Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000).
Mazda offers new and used cars, vans, trucks, sport utility
vehicles, parts, and accessories, as well as financing,
maintenance, and repair services.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WDSgIv at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 3010: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to Complete Expert Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Google Digital Advertising
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:21-md-03010-PKC (S.D.N.Y.), the
MDL Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting extension
of the deadlines for completion of expert discovery, for the filing
of premotion letters concerning summary judgment, and for motions
related to class certification.
MDL Plaintiffs jointly with Google request an extension of expert
discovery from its current close of March 24 until April 18 based
on the negotiated schedule of expert depositions.
MDL Plaintiffs also request, and Google does not oppose, extending
the date by which motions related to class certification and
pre-motion letters regarding summary judgement must be filed from
April 14, 2025, to May 2, 2025—two weeks following the close of
expert discovery. No conference is currently scheduled.
Google is an American multinational corporation and technology
company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 5, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G7NWAE at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Philip C. Korologos, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
55 Hudson Yards
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 446-2390
E-mail: pkorologos@bsfllp.com
- and -
Scott Grzenczyk, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
E-mail: scottg@girardsharp.com
- and -
Serina M. Vash, Esq.
HERMAN JONES LLP
153 Central Avenue #131
Westfield, NJ 07090
Telephone: (404) 504-6516
E-mail: svash@hermanjones.com
MOMMA MONDRAGON'S: Vallejo Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moises Vallejo, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. MOMMA MONDRAGON'S MACARONS LLC, Case 8:25-cv-00418
(C.D. Cal., March 5, 2025), is brought under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA") as a result of the Defendant's
unsolicited telemarketing text messages.
To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in
telemarketing text messages at unlawful times. The Plaintiff
utilizes the cellular telephone number that received Defendant's
telephone solicitations for personal purposes and the number is
Plaintiff's residential telephone line and primary means of
reaching Plaintiff at home.
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.
The Defendant is a California Limited Liability Company with its
headquarters located in Moreno Valley, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
1515 NE 26th Street
Wilton Manors, FL 33305
Phone: (754) 444-7539
Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com
MOTORSPORT.TV DIGITAL: Guereca Suit Stayed Pending Negotiations
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALAN GUERECA, v.
MOTORSPORT.TV DIGITAL, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-24066-CMA (S.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge Cecilia Altonaga entered an order granting the joint
motion for entry of stay pending settlement negotiations, as
follows:
1. The action is administratively closed without prejudice to
the parties to file a stipulation for dismissal within 90
days of the date of this Order.
2. If the parties fail to complete the expected settlement,
either party may request the Court to reopen the case within
90 days of the date of this Order.
3. The Clerk shall close this case for administrative purposes
only. Any pending motions are denied as moot.
Motorsport.tv is a digital video platform dedicated to the world of
motorsports.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 5, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SF83zg at no extra
charge.[CC]
NASHVILLE QUALITY: Tillison Sues Over Alleged Labor Law Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHNNIE MAE TILLISON, Individually, and on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NASHVILLE QUALITY, LLC and
CARROLS CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02257-SHL-CGC
(W.D. Tenn., March 6, 2025) accuses the Defendants of violating the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly-paid crew member by
Defendants. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated performed
work for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week within weekly
pay periods. However, Defendants had a centralized plan, policy,
and practice of strictly enforcing its budgeted labor costs for
each of its Burger King restaurants. As a result, the Defendants
failed to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated the applicable
minimum wage and overtime compensation rates of pay owed them
within weekly pay periods.
Headquartered in Syracuse, NY, Nashville Quality, LLC owns and
operates Burger King franchised restaurants. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq.
Cooper Mays, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
jleatherwood@jsyc.com
cmays@jsyc.com
NATURES PATH: Rodriguez Sues Over Organic Cereals' False Ads
------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID RODRIGUEZ and ZARAH BLACKMON, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATURES PATH FOODS,
INC., a Canadian corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01735
(C.D. Cal., February 27, 2025) arises from the Defendant's alleged
unlawful business conduct in violation of the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act.
The suit alleges that the EnviroKidz Organic Cereals, which are
manufactured, packaged, labeled, advertised, distributed, and sold
by Defendant, are misbranded and falsely advertised because Natures
Path implies that they are healthy and conducive to health and
physical well-being, despite containing between 9 and 12 grams of
added sugar per cup of cereal.
The claims regarding the lack of high-fructose corn syrup are
especially deceptive and misleading because the Products' sugar
content is high, not low. Natures Path has capitalized on consumer
aversion toward high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) by touting the
absence of that ingredient, deceptively suggesting that the
Products are healthier because HFCS is absent, says the suit.
Plaintiff Blackmon purchased the Choco Chimps flavor of the
Products on or about September 27, 2023; October 25, 2023; and
January 2, 2024 through Target.com, with pickup at a Target store
in Santa Maria, California.
Natures Path Foods, Inc. formulates, manufactures, distributes, and
sells a line of breakfast cereals under the brand name
"EnviroKidz." [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charles C. Weller, Esq.
CHARLES C. WELLER, APC
11412 Corley Court
San Diego, CA 92126
Telephone: (858) 414-7465
Facsimile: (858) 300-5137
E-mail: legal@cweller.com
NELSON BACH USA: Soares Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nelson Bach USA Ltd.
case is styled as Patricia Soares, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Nelson Bach USA Ltd., Case No.
2581CV00561 (Mass. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty., March 5, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Contract / Business Cases."
Nelson Bach USA Ltd. -- https://www.nelsons.com/en-us/bach/ -- is a
participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an
affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means to earn
from qualifying purchases.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Graham Thorn, Esq.
THORN LAW PLLC
90 Canal St., Fourth Floor
Boston, MA 02114
Phone: (617) 835-6681
NEVADA: McGuire Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert McGuire v. Nevada
Department of Corrections et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00165-ART-CLB
(D. Nev.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
class certification and appointment of class counsel.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 5, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JkUVU6 at no extra
charge.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC]
NEW YORK, NY: Clarke Files Discrimination Class Action in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
ATHENA CLARKE, JENNIFER KLINE, and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, and the NEW YORK CITY
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00536-RER-PK
(E.D.N.Y., January 30, 2025) alleges that the City of New York,
working in concert with its DOE, engaged in widespread religious
discrimination in an attempt to evade statutory obligations to
accommodate religious practices of DOE employees that conflicted
with the City's COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
Through this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs seek to safeguard religious
freedom for themselves and others similarly situated and to restore
justice and dignity to educators who spent their careers faithfully
serving New York City's public-school children.
Prior to being denied religious accommodation, Plaintiff Clarke was
a tenured special education teacher in good standing. She worked in
Brooklyn with over six years of service at DOE. Ms. Clarke is one
of thousands allegedly harmed by Defendants' discriminatory
religious accommodation policies and seeks justice for herself and
others similarly situated.
City of New York is a municipal corporation of the State of New
York. The City operates and employs people through its municipal
agencies.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sujata S. Gibson, Esq.
GIBSON LAW FIRM, PLLC
120 E Buffalo Street, Suite 201
Ithaca, NY 14850
Telephone: (607) 327-4125
E-mail: sujata@gibsonfirm.law
OASIS GARDENS CORP: Lopez Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Oasis Gardens
Corp., et al. The case is styled as Joshua S. Lopez, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. The Oasis Gardens
Corp. doing business as: Oasis Hot Tub Gardens, Case No.
1:25-cv-00278-BAM (E.D. Cal., March 5, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
The Oasis Gardens Corp. is in the Hot Tub and Spa Rental
business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
1515 NE 26th Street
Wilton Manors, FL 33305
Phone: (754) 444-7539
Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com
OLAYINKA TEMITOPE: Scheduling Order Entered in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION, v. OLAYINKA TEMITOPE OYEBOLA et al., Case No.
1:24-cv-07363-AT-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gabriel Gorenstein
entered a scheduling ]order:
All pre-trial applications, including those relating to scheduling
and discovery, shall be made to the undersigned (except motions to
dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief,
for summary judgment, or for class certification). All applications
must comply with this Court’s Individual Practices, which are
available through the Clerk’s Office or at:
https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-gabriel-w-gorenstein
The parties should write to the Court at any time that they wish to
participate in Court-sponsored mediation.
All discovery (as well as requests for admissions) must be
initiated in time to be concluded by the deadline for all
discovery.
Discovery motions -- that is, any application pursuant to Rules 26
through 37 or 45 -- not only must comply with section 2.A. of the
Court’s Individual Practices but also must be made promptly after
the cause for such a motion arises. In addition, absent
extraordinary circumstances no such application will be considered
if made later than 30 days prior to the close of discovery.
Untimely applications will be denied.
Any application for an extension of the time limitations with
respect to any deadlines in this matter must be made as soon as the
cause for the extension becomes known to the party making the
application and must be made in accordance with section 1.E of the
Court's Individual Practices.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f54LOn at no extra
charge.[CC]
OTAY LAKES: Renn Files Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALBERT RENN, on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, v.
OTAY LAKES BREWERY, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-01139-GPC-BLM (S.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
-- granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification,
-- certifying the Class defined as:
"All persons in California who, between June 20, 2019 and the
date the Class is notified of certification, purchased Nova
Kombucha in single cans or multi-packs bearing labels bearing
the phrase "Good For You," or "health, balance, and goodness,"
-- appointing the Plaintiff as Class Representative, and
-- appointing his counsel as Class Counsel.
The Plaintiff Renn brought this action on June 20, 2023, asserting
class claims under California law for consumer fraud, negligent and
intentional misrepresentation, breaches of warranty, and unjust
enrichment relating to Defendant's labeling of its "Nova" alcoholic
kombucha drinks.
The Plaintiff Renn purchased Nova Kombuchas in California during
the Class Period.
Otay Lakes is a craft brewery, offering a variety of unique and
flavorful beers to the local community.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 3, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fPO0nf at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
Melanie R. Monroe, Esq.
Trevor Flynn, Esq.
Peter Grazul, Esq.
Allison Ferraro, Esq.
FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC
2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92110
Telephone: (619) 215-1741
E-mail: jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com
mmonroe@fmfpc.com
tflynn@fmfpc.com
pgrazul@fmfpc.com
aferraro@fmfpc.com
PACIFIC RIM: Dela Cruz Seeks to Certify Former Employee Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN DELA CRUZ JR.,
MARTIN DELA CRUZ, and CHRISTOPHER LEEDELRIO, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated, v. PACIFIC RIM
LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00009 (D.N. Mar. I.), the
plaintiffs ask the court to enter an order certify class under Rule
23 of the federal rules of civil procedure.
The Plaintiffs contend that the matter satisfies all four
prerequisites for a class action set forth in Rule 23(a) and that
the proposed class action is permissible because of the risk of
inconsistent or preclusive adjudications and the predominance of
common questions of law and fact for the class members.
The Plaintiffs move the Court to certify their Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN Act") claim as a class
action. Counsel also requests that the Court allow counsel to
continue to represent Plaintiffs after the class has been
certified.
The Plaintiffs allege that Pacific Rim ordered a mass layoff that
affected Plaintiffs and other simulated situated employees without
giving adequate notice in violation of the WARN Act.
The proposed class is composed of
"all former employees of Pacific Rim or its affiliates who
were assigned to work at the construction site of the IPI
casino & resort site in Garapan in 2018 and whose employment
was terminated with an effective termination date in October
2018.
Pacific Rim is a private real estate investment, development and
management company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 5, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jOjuDx at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Cong Nie, Esq.
BANES HOREY NIE & MILLER, LLC
First Floor, Macaranas Building
4165 Beach Road, Garapan
Saipan, MP 96950
Telephone: (670) 234-5684
Facsimile: (670) 234-5683
E-mail: dnie@pacificlawyers.law
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Judge Considers Class Suit Over Skydance Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CPI reports that a Delaware judge has signaled a willingness to
examine allegations in a class action lawsuit that seeks to block
Paramount Global's $8 billion sale to Skydance Media, claiming the
deal undercuts public shareholders, according to a court filing on
Thursday, March 6.
The lawsuit follows a two-step agreement struck by Paramount's
controlling shareholder, Shari Redstone, in July to sell her stake
in the company to Skydance Media, a rapidly growing player in the
streaming industry led by David Ellison. The deal is currently
awaiting regulatory approval before it can close.
In response to the transaction, a group of investors known as
Project Rise Partners proposed a $13.5 billion offer to acquire
Paramount earlier this year. However, Paramount's special committee
rejected the bid, which led to legal action from pension funds
representing New York City employees who hold stock in the company.
These pension funds argue that Paramount's board violated its
fiduciary duties by dismissing the Project Rise Partners proposal.
Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick of Delaware's Court of Chancery
ruled that while the pension funds have shown sufficient harm to
fast-track the lawsuit, there is no immediate threat of the deal
closing. Therefore, she declined to grant a temporary restraining
order (TRO) to block the sale. McCormick noted in her eight-page
ruling that, "Although plaintiffs have demonstrated harm sufficient
to support expedition, there does not seem harm proximate enough to
warrant a TRO."
The ruling also established that Paramount and Skydance must notify
the pension funds at least five business days before the deal is
finalized, giving the funds an opportunity to seek a TRO at that
time.
The $8 billion deal includes a 45-day "go-shop" period, during
which Paramount was allowed to solicit and evaluate other offers.
That period concluded on August 21, and the company weighed a
competing offer from media mogul Edgar Bronfman Jr., which was
ultimately withdrawn. This cleared the way for Skydance Media to
acquire Redstone's controlling interest in the studio.
Per Reuters, the merger remains contingent on approval from the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). According to McCormick's
ruling, Paramount stated that the earliest the deal could close is
March 20, although the deal could be extended until April 7 if FCC
approval is not granted by then. Additionally, the deal allows for
two 90-day extensions if necessary. [GN]
PATRIOT LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to June 16
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bryan v. Patriot (2010),
LLC et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00415 (N.D.N.Y., Filed March 25,
2024), the Hon. Judge David N. Hurd entered an order granting in
part and denying in part, insofar as and to the extent that the
deadline to file a motion for Class Certification is extended to
June 16, 2025.
All other deadlines and schedules remain in effect, in that,
(a) all Discovery shall be completed by Sept. 30, 2025,
(b) Plaintiff Expert Disclosure Deadline is July 2, 2025,
(c) Defendants Expert Disclosure Deadline is Aug. 18, 2025,
(d) Rebuttal Expert Disclosure Deadline is Sept. 1, 2025,
(e) dispositive Motions shall be filed by Nov. 7, 2025.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).[CC]
PFIZER INC: Seeks Dismissal of Oxbryta Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Irvin Jackson, writing for About Lawsuits, reports that the makers
of the recalled sickle cell disease drug, Oxbryta, have asked a
federal judge to throw out a class action lawsuit, arguing that the
claims presented by former users are preempted by federal law and
that the plaintiffs lack standing to ask for class certification.
Oxbryta (voxelotor) was first introduced by Global Blood
Therapeutics in late 2019, following accelerated approval by the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The drug was acquired by
Pfizer in 2022, when it purchased Global Blood Therapeutics for
$5.4 billion, and it continued to promote Oxbryta as a safe and
effective treatment for the root cause of sickle cell disease.
However, Pfizer announced a global Oxbryta recall in September
2024, following a large number of reports involving users
experiencing painful sickle cell complications and deaths. When
pulling the drug from the market, Pfizer acknowledged that the
risks associated with the medication outweighed any potential
benefits.
In late November 2024, several plaintiffs filed an Oxbryta class
action lawsuit, indicating the manufacturers knew, or should have
known, about the side effects associated with the sickle cell
disease medication long before it recalled Oxbryta. However, rather
than warning users, Pfizer and Global Blood Therapeutics continued
to provide false and misleading information to the medical
community.
Late last month, attorneys for Pfizer announced that it was filing
a motion to dismiss (PDF) the class action lawsuit over Oxbryta.
The motion argues that claims alleging that the drug makers failed
to warn about side effects of Oxbryta are preempted by federal law,
suggesting that since the original drug labels were approved by the
FDA, the company should be insulated from liability.
In addition, the company argues that the complaints failed to
properly state a claim, failed to state why they may be entitled to
punitive damages, and that the parties do not have standing to
bring the lawsuit under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
"Defendants respectfully request an order dismissing with prejudice
all causes of action brought against them in the above-captioned
matter," the motion states.
The Oxbryta class action lawsuit presented claims of breach of
warranty, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act, common law fraud,
unjust enrichment, and violations of fair trade and consumer fraud
laws in Georgia, Indiana and Illinois. [GN]
PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR: Tenner Bid for Class Certification Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARQUITA TENNER and ADAM
SWOPES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. PHILLIPS COUNTY, ARKANSAS, Case No. 2:25-cv-00023-BSM
(E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge Brian Miller entered an order denying
as moot the Plaintiffs' first motion for class certification, and
denying without prejudice their second motion for class
certification because the Plaintiffs have not met the numerosity
requirement.
Phillips County is a county located in the eastern part of the U.S.
state of Arkansas, in what is known as the Arkansas Delta along the
Mississippi River.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 5, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3HZk3K at no extra
charge.[CC]
POSTMEDS INC: Agrees to $7.5-Mil. Data Breach Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that PostMeds Inc., which operates online
pharmacy Truepill.com, agreed to a $7.5 million class action
lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that a 2023 data breach
compromised customer information.
The PostMeds Truepill settlement benefits individuals whose
personal information was compromised by the Truepill data breach
that occurred between Aug. 30, 2023, and Sept. 1, 2023.
According to the data breach class action lawsuit, PostMeds failed
to take appropriate cybersecurity measures to protect consumer
data. As a result, cybercriminals allegedly gained access to
sensitive data, such as Social Security numbers, birth dates,
medical record numbers and health insurance information, among
other information that the company collected and maintained.
Truepill is an online pharmacy company owned by PostMeds.
PostMeds has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $7.5
million to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the PostMeds settlement, class members can
receive up to $4,000 in reimbursement for data breach-related
losses. Consumers can claim fraud losses, identity theft damages,
bank fees, credit expenses, travel costs, communication charges,
professional fees and more.
In addition to loss reimbursement, class members can receive either
a cash fund payment or one year of data protection and monitoring
services.
Class members who choose the cash fund payment option will receive
a pro rata share of the net settlement fund. These payment amounts
will vary depending on the number of claims filed and other
factors.
Class members who choose the monitoring benefit will receive one
free year of Financial Shield Complete and Medical Shield Complete
from Cyex. These services include $1 million in financial fraud
insurance, dark web monitoring, one bureau credit monitoring, $1
million in medical fraud insurance and more.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is April 12, 2025.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for June
12, 2025.
To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by May 12, 2025.
Who's Eligible
Individuals whose personal information was compromised by the
Truepill data breach that occurred between Aug. 30, 2023, and Sept.
1, 2023.
Potential Award
Up to $4,000
Proof of Purchase
Account statements, bills, receipts, invoices, professional
letters, financial documents, tax forms, IRS letters, credit
reports and other proof of data breach-related losses.
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
05/12/2025
Case Name
In re: Post Meds Inc. Data Breach Litigation, Case No.
4:23-cv-05710-HSG, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.
Final Hearing
06/12/2025
Settlement Website
TruepillSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
PostMeds Data Breach Litigation
Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 6606
Portland, OR 97228-6606
info@TruepillSettlement.com
(888) 792-3614
Class Counsel
Gary M. Klinger
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
James J. Pizzirusso
HAUSFELD LLP
Defense Counsel
Marcus McCutcheon
Casie D. Collignon
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP [GN]
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Torres Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
------------------------------------------------------------
Sonny Torres, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION and TEXAS DOW EMPLOYEES
CREDIT UNION, Case 1:25-cv-10532 (D. Mass., March 5, 2025), is
brought against Defendants for their failure to properly secure and
safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals'
Personally Identifiable Information ("PII").
Despite its duties to Plaintiff and Class Members related to and
arising from its cloud hosting and secure file transfer services
and applications involving MOVEit, PSC stored, maintained, and/or
hosted Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII on its MOVEit Transfer
tool that was negligently and/or recklessly configured and
maintained so as to contain security vulnerabilities that resulted
in multiple breaches of its network and systems, or of its
customers' networks and systems. These security vulnerabilities
existed as far back as 2021.
As a result of the Data Breach, unauthorized third-party
cybercriminals gained access to and obtained Plaintiff's and Class
Members' PII. Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf
of himself and those similarly situated to address Defendants'
inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' PII that they collected,
maintained, transferred, and/or hosted, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff received a data breach notification dated August 23,
2024 from TDECU.
PSC is a Massachusetts-based software company that offers a wide
range of software products and services to corporate and
governmental entities throughout the United States and the world,
including cloud hosting and secure file transfer services such as
MOVEit Transfer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristen A. Johnson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1 Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: (617) 482-3700
Fax: (617) 482-3003
Email: kristenj@hbsslaw.com
- and -
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE, PC
1229 Tyler Street, NE, Suite 205
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Phone: (612) 594-5933
Fax: (612) 584-4470
Email: emdrake@bm.net
- and -
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 322-9243
Fax: (412) 231-0246
Email: gary@lcllp.com
- and -
Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Avenue NW, 5th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 408-4600
Email: dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Karen H. Riebel, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 339-6900
Fax: (612) 612-339-0981
Email: khriebel@locklaw.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: (215) 592-1500
Fax: (215) 592-4663
Email: cshaffer@lfsblaw.com
QUALITY CARRIERS: Court Stays Class Cert Response Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Smith, et al., v. Quality
Carriers, Inc., Case No. 8:24-cv-02815 (M.D. Fla., Filed Dec. 6,
2024 ), the Hon. Judge Virginia M Hernandez Cov entered an order
granting the Defendant Quality Carriers's unopposed motion to stay
its response deadline to the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
class certification.
The Defendant represents that it intends on filing a motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint, which if granted would
render plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification moot.
Based upon this representation, the Court finds good cause to defer
its ruling on plaintiffs' motion for conditional class
certification.
Once the Court rules upon defendant's upcoming motion to dismiss,
defendant's response to plaintiffs' motion for conditional class
certification will be due 30 days after entry of the Court's
order.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Quality Carriers was founded in 2002. The Company's line of
business includes providing trucking transportation services.[CC]
READY CAPITAL: Faces Quinn Suit Over Securities Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
JERRY QUINN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. READY CAPITAL CORPORATION, THOMAS E.
CAPASSE, and ANDREW AHLBORN, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01883
(S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2025) accuses the Defendants of violating the
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Ready Capital common
stock between November 7, 2024 and March 2, 2025 inclusive.
Allegedly, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that,
among other things, significant non-performing loans in its
commercial real estate portfolio were not likely to be collectible.
Moreover, Defendants' positive statements about the company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of Defendants'
wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the
market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class
members have suffered significant losses and damages.
Ready Capital is a real estate finance company headquartered in New
York, NY. The company's common stock trades on the New York Stock
Exchange under the symbol "RC." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rebecca Dawson, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave, Suite 358
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (213) 521-8007
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
E-mail: rdawson@glancylaw.com
- and -
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
- and -
Howard G. Smith, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
Bensalem PA 19020
Telephone: (215) 638-4847
Facsimile: (215) 638-4867
READY CAPITAL: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until May 5, 2025 to file lead plaintiff applications in
a securities class action lawsuit against Ready Capital Corporation
(the "Company") (NYSE: RC), if they purchased the Company's shares
between November 7, 2024 and March 2, 2025, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). This action is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
What You May Do
If you purchased shares of Ready Capital and would like to discuss
your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right
to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or
cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-rc/ to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by May 5, 2025.
About the Lawsuit
Ready Capital and certain of its executives are charged with
failing to disclose material information during the Class Period,
violating federal securities laws.
On March 3, 2025, the Company reported financial results for its
fourth quarter and full year 2024, disclosing a quarterly net loss
of $1.80 per share and full year 2024 net loss of $2.52 per share
due to "decisive actions to stabilize" its "balance sheet going
forward by fully reserving for all of our nonperforming loans in
our CRE portfolio," including taking $284 million in combined
Current Expected Credit Loss and valuation allowances in order to
mark the Company's non-performing loans to current values, among
other actions.
On this news, the price of Ready Capital's shares declined more
than 26% to close at $5.07 per share on March 3, 2025, on unusually
heavy trading volume.
The case is Quinn v. Ready Capital Corporation, et al., No.
25-cv-1883.
About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. This past year, KSF was ranked by
SCAS among the top 10 firms nationally based upon total settlement
value. KSF serves a variety of clients, including public and
private institutional investors, and retail investors - in seeking
recoveries for investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or
malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New
York, Delaware, California, Louisiana, Chicago, New Jersey, and a
representative office in Luxembourg.
To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.
Contacts
Lewis Kahn, Esq.
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
1100 Poydras St., Suite 960
New Orleans, LA 70163
(877) 515-1850
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]
ROBERT FLEXON: Spitzer Suit Stayed Pending Settlement Negotiations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Capstone Green Energy Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2024, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2025, that on
October 13, 2023, a putative securities class action was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
captioned "Spitzer v. Flexon, et al.," (Case No. 2:23-cv-08659),
naming certain of the Capstone Green Energy Holdings' current and
former directors and officers as defendants. Robert C. Flexon is
the former CEO of Capstone Green Energy. In August 2024, the
petitioners made an unprompted settlement demand. The action has
been stayed since September 6, 2024 as the parties explored
settlement.
The suit alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder based on allegedly false and misleading
statements regarding, and allegedly inadequate disclosure
surrounding, the company's business, operations and prospects and
the circumstances leading up to the restatement of the company's
quarterly and annual financial statements. The suit is purportedly
brought on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired the company's securities between June 14, 2021,
and September 22, 2023, and seeks to recover unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief, including attorney's fees.
Capstone Green Energy Holdings, Inc. develops, manufactures,
markets, sells and service microturbine-based technology solutions
based in California.
RODRI CORP: Faces Pardo Suit Over ADA Noncompliance
---------------------------------------------------
NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. RODRI CORPORATION, BABY
IDEAL CORPORATION d/b/a IDEAL CORPORATION and MATTRESS FIRM, INC.
d/b/a THE MATTRESS FIRM #52034, Defendants, Case No.
1:25-cv-21044-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 6, 2025) is a class action
arising out of Defendants' alleged violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff found the Defendants' commercial property, children's
clothing store, and mattress store businesses to be rife with ADA
violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the
subject property and Defendants' businesses. Among other things,
Defendants' designated accessible parking spaces are located on an
excessive slope, says the Plaintiff.
Rodri Corporation owns and operates a commercial property
constituting a commercial plaza located at 10613 NW 12th Street,
Doral, FL. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104
Miami, FL 33144
Telephone: (786) 361-9909
Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
jr@ajperezlawgroup.com
SAS INSTITUTE: Court Tosses Enstrom, et al. ERISA Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge James C. Dever III of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of North Carolina granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the case captioned as
BETSY ENSTROM et al., Plaintiffs, v. SAS INSTITUTE et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 5:24-CV-105-D (E.D.N.C.). The plaintiff's
amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
On Feb. 22, 2024, Besty Enstrom, John Stana, and Randall Wagner
filed a putative class action under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. Secs. 1001 et~ against SAS
Institute Inc., the SAS Institute Board of Directors, 10 John Doe
SAS Board members, the SAS Retirement Committee, 10 John Doe SAS
Retirement Committee members, and approximately 10 John Doe
employees that may have acted as fiduciaries. On June 3, 2024,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint dropping Enstrom as a
plaintiff.
SAS is a data services company headquartered in Cary, North
Carolina with thousands of employees. SAS offers a defined
contribution retirement plan to its employees. The Plan allows SAS
employees to funnel earnings into a select number of investments
for retirement. The Retirement Committee administers and selects
funds for the Plan, and the Board oversees the Retirement
Committee. From 2018 to at least year-end 2022, the Plan included
the American Funds Fundamental Investor R6 Share Class Fund and
from 2018 to at least the start of 2023, the Plan included the
JPMorgan Chase Bank Smart Retirement Passive Blend CF-B Target Date
Funds.
Stana and Wagner are former SAS employees. While SAS employees,
both invested in JPM Funds that the Plan offered. Stana invested in
the 2030 JPM Fund, and Wagner invested in the 2025 JPM Fund. Stana
and Wagner also paid their share of consulting fees" from their
respective Plan accounts. Neither Stana nor Wagner, however,
invested in the American Fund.
Plaintiffs allege two counts in their amended complaint. Count one
alleges that the Retirement Committee, the Doe Committee Members,
and other Doe Employees breached their fiduciary duty to plaintiffs
by selecting and continuing to offer purportedly underperforming
funds in the SAS Defined Contribution Retirement Plan. Count two
alleges that SAS, the Board, and the Doe Board Members breached
their duty to monitor the Retirement Committee.
On July 15, 2024, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.
Defendants argue that plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege
facts showing that the Retirement Committee followed a flawed
process for selecting the Plan's investment options. Specifically,
defendants contend that plaintiffs have provided invalid comparator
funds, that the challenged funds did not underperform plaintiffs'
comparator funds, and that SAS
did not violate its IPS by selecting and maintaining the challenged
funds.
The Court finds as for the JPM funds, plaintiffs have failed to
plausibly allege an ERISA claim. Under the totality of the
prevailing circumstances at the time, the amended complaint falls
short of plausibly alleging that defendants breached their duty of
prudence. According to the Court, assuming without deciding that
plaintiffs' selected funds are valid comparators, underperformance
against these funds, without more, cannot support a breach of
prudence claim. Moreover, plaintiffs have failed to plausibly
alleged underperformance.
Selecting the JPM funds and keeping them in the SAS retirement plan
was well within the range of reasonable judgments a fiduciary may
make, the Court concludes. Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly
allege that defendants breached their duty of prudence.
Accordingly, plaintiffs' BRISA claim concerning the JPM funds
fails.
Defendants also contend that plaintiffs lack standing concerning
the American Fund because neither Stana nor Wagner invested in the
American Fund. As for the American Fund, plaintiffs lack standing,
the Court further finds.
On count two, failure to monitor claims require an underlying
breach of fiduciary duty. The Court finds Plaintiffs have failed to
plausibly allege a breach of fiduciary duty or otherwise lack
standing. Accordingly, plaintiffs' failure to monitor claim fails,
the Court holds.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=r70a1t from PacerMonitor.com.
SECRETLAB US: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Nugent Due July 25
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN NUGENT, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. SECRETLAB US, INC., a
Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-08944-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an order adopting the following case
schedule through class certification:
Event/Deadline Date
Deadline for substantial compliance with March 27, 2025
discovery/document production (as ordered
by Judge Kang)
Initial Expert Disclosures: June 16, 2025
Rebuttal Expert Disclosures: July 14, 2025
Motion for Class Certification: July 25, 2025
Opposition to Class Certification: Aug. 15, 2025
Reply in Support of Motion for Class Aug. 29, 2025
Certification:
Motion Hearing for Class Certification: Sept. 23, 2025
at 10:00 a.m.
Secretlab US markets and sells furniture, including in particular
desk chairs marketed for persons playing computer or video games.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YgiVGI at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Abiri, Esq.
CUSTODIO & DUBEY, LLP
445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2520
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 593-9095
Facsimile: (213) 785-2899
E-mail: abiri@cd-lawyers.com
- and -
Joshua Nassir, Esq.
Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq.
TREEHOUSE LAW, LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2580
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 751-5948
E-mail: jnassir@treehouselaw.com
bheikali@treehouselaw.com
rglezakos@treehouselaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kevin J. Cole, Esq.
Christopher R. Ramos, Esq.
KJC LAW GROUP, A.P.C.
9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1000
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 861-779
E-mail: kevin@kjclawgroup.com
ramosc@kjclawgroup.com
SIERRA INFINITI: Taha Labor Class Suit Filed in Cal. Super.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Sierra Infiniti of Monrovia.
The case is captioned as MIRA OMAR TAHA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. SIERRA INFINITI OF MONROVIA,
Case No. 25NNCV00626 (Cal. Super., January 30, 2025).
The case is brought over Defendant's alleged employment law
violation.
A case management conference is scheduled for July 29, 2025.
Sierra Infiniti of Monrovia provides new, used, and
certified-pre-owned vehicles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Ginzburg, Esq.
FRONTIER LAW CENTER
23901 Calabasas Rd Ste 1084
Calabasas, CA 91302-3392
Telephone: (818) 914-3433
SPARTAN RACE: Woody-Stokes Sues Over Worker Misclassification
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAYANNAH WOODY-STOKES, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPARTAN RACE, INC. and OCR US
HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a TOUGH MUDDER, Defendants, Case No.
1:25-cv-00267-UNA (D. Del., March 6, 2025) arises from Defendants'
unlawful misclassification of Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs as
exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiff began her employment with Defendants on or around
July 10, 2023 in the position of Festival Event Staff. In or around
January 2024, Plaintiff's role within Defendants was changed to
Branding Lead, which is a position within the Festival Event Staff.
Despite the title change, the Plaintiff's job responsibilities did
not change. Moreover, the Defendants' unlawful misclassification of
Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs denied them for the proper overtime
compensation for compensable work performed in excess of 40 hours
per week in violation of the FLSA and PMWA.
Headquartered in Boston, MA, Spartan Races, Inc. operates and
promotes professional and semiprofessional athletic clubs and
events. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick C. Gallagher, Esq.
10 Corporate Circle, Suite 301
New Castle, DE 19720
Telephone: (302) 656-5445
Facsimile: (302) 656-5875
E-mail: pat@jcdelaw.com
- and -
Michael Groh, Esq.
Mary Kramer, Esq.
MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000
1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 273-1054
Facsimile (215) 525-0210
E-mail: mgroh@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
mkramer@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
STATE OF LOUISIANA: Court Stays Discovery in Fernandez, et al. Case
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Scott D. Johnson of United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana granted the defendants' motion
to stay discovery in the case captioned as RAMONA FERNANDEZ, ET AL
VERSUS LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, ET AL,
CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 24-289-BAJ-SDJ (M.D. La.). All discovery is
stayed until the issue of sovereign immunity has been resolved.
Defendants seek to stay all discovery because their Motion to
Dismiss, if granted, would entirely dispose of the case, rendering
discovery unnecessary. Defendants allege that the waste of
resources would be significant "given the complexity and depth of
this putative class action involving potentially thousands of
plaintiffs". Finally, Defendants assert that their claims of
sovereign immunity entitle them to immunity from discovery.
Citing the good cause standard for a protective order per Federal
Rule 26(c)(1), Plaintiffs argue that Defendants have not met their
burden to show good cause for a protective order staying
discovery.
Defendants allege that they are not seeking a protective order, but
rather a stay of all discovery during the pendency of an
already-filed motion to dismiss. Because Defendants do not believe
they are seeking a protective order, they do not believe they must
meet the heavier burden facing the typical protective-order
movant.
Contrary to Defendants' strong assertion, a request to stay
discovery must be considered a motion for protective order under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). And so, courts should exercise discretion
to stay discovery only for good cause, to protect from annoyance,
embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.
Judge Johnson concludes that the Defendants provide only conclusory
statements that their Motion to Dismiss would dispose of the case
and that discovery would be significant. Despite Plaintiffs'
correct assertion of the good cause standard, Defendants in their
Reply do not engage with the standard, and clearly have not met the
movant's burden to show good cause for a stay of discovery under
normal circumstances. However, because sovereign immunity is
immunity from suit and its associated costs, and because this Court
regularly stays discovery pending the resolution of such threshold
issues, the Court finds it appropriate to stay discovery until a
ruling has been made on the issue of sovereign immunity.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4277si from PacerMonitor.com.
SYMETRA ASSIGNED: Settlement in White, et al. Suit Gets Prelim. OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington granted the plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement in the case
captioned as RENALDO WHITE and RANDOLPH NADEAU, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SYMETRA
ASSIGNED BENEFITS SERVICE COMPANY and SYMETRA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01866-MJP (W.D. Wash.).
Plaintiffs and Defendants Symetra Assigned Benefits Service Company
and Symetra Life Insurance Company have entered into a Stipulation
of Class Action Settlement, dated Jan. 29, 2025, which sets forth
the terms and conditions for a proposed settlement of the claims
against Defendants and for dismissal of the claims in the Action
with prejudice upon the terms and conditions set forth therein.
The Court makes the following determinations as required by Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23 solely in connection with the proposed settlement:
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(B), the Settlement Classis
defined as follows:
All persons who are or were, at any time: (1) annuitants or payees
under a structured settlement annuity ("SSA") issued by Symetra
that contemplated life contingent payments and who subsequently
sold to a Symetra Life Insurance Company affiliate Symetra Assigned
Benefits Service Company (SABSCO), the right to receive payments
from that SSA in a factoring transaction; (2) whose underlying
settlement agreement at issue included language stating that the
annuitants/payees lack the power to transfer their future SSA
payments; and (3) whose transactions were approved under the laws
of Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota,
Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont,
and/or Washington. For avoidance of doubt, the Class shall consist
of only those individuals listed in Exhibit A to the Settlement
Agreement. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, their parents,
subsidiaries and affiliates, and employees.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1), the Court determines that the
Settlement Class is so numerous and geographically dispersed that
joinder of all members is impracticable pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a)(l).
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(l)(B), the Court determines that,
in connection with the proposed settlement, the Settlement Class
asserts claims and defenses which present common, classwide
questions.
The Court determines that, in connection with the proposed
settlement, the Settlement Class likewise presents classwide issues
relating to claims and defenses are questions of law or fact common
to the Settlement Class that satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2).
Renaldo White and Randolph Nadeau, the named Plaintiffs in this
lawsuit, are appointed as representatives of the Settlement Class.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(l)(B) and 23(g), the Court having
considered the factors provided in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A), the
following counsel are appointed as Co-Lead Counsel for the
Settlement Class, and are directed to ensure that any remaining
work in this litigation that is performed by any counsel listed on
the Complaint is performed efficiently and without duplication of
effort:
Lynn Lincoln Sarko
Gretchen Freeman Cappio
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3400
Seattle, WA 98101-3268
Tel.: (206) 623-1900
E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
Alison E. Chase (pro hac vice)
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
801 Garden Street, Suite 301
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tel.: (805) 456-1496
E-mail: achase@kellerrohrback.com
Jerome M. Marcus (pro hac vice)
Daniel C. Simons (pro hac vice)
MARCUS & MARCUS, PLLC
P.O. Box 212
Merion Station, PA 19066
Tel.: (215) 664-1184
E-mail: jmarcus@marcuslaw.us
dsimons@marcuslaw.us
Edward Stone (pro hac vice)
EDWARD STONE LAW P.C.
175 West Putnam Avenue, 2nd Floor
Greenwich, CT 06830
Tel.: (203) 504-8425
E-mail: eddie@edwardstonelaw.com
Jonathan Auerbach (pro hac vice)
RESOLUTION STRATEGY GROUP, LLC
614 S. 4th Street, #216
Philadelphia, PA 19147
Phone: (267) 227-1400
E-mail: auerbach@resolutionstrategygroup.com
The Court preliminarily finds that the Settlement Agreement is
fair, reasonable, and adequate as to the Settlement Class Members.
The Court preliminarily finds that the relief provided -- in the
form of cash compensation from a fund totaling $2,175,000 -- is
adequate, considering, inter alia, the costs, risks, and delay of
trial and appeal, the legal issues presented in this Action, the
interests of the Settlement Class Members, and the proposed method
of distributing payments (i.e., direct payments by check without
the need for filing of claims).
The Court finds that Plaintiffs and Class Counsel have adequately
represented, and will continue to adequately represent, the
Settlement Class. The Court further finds that the Settlement
Agreement is the product of arms' length negotiations by the
Settling Parties, with the Settlement Agreement supervised by, and
reached pursuant to a mediation conducted by Stewart Cogan.
Further, the Settlement Agreement was reached after significant
litigation, investigation, and discovery. The Settling Parties and
their counsel, as applicable, had sufficient information to
evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the case and to conduct
informed settlement discussions.
The Court preliminarily finds that the Settlement Agreement treats
Settlement Class members equitably relative to each other, and that
the plan of allocation of the Net Settlement Fund, as provided in
the Settlement Agreement, is reasonable and equitable. Under the
terms of the proposed plan of allocation, all Settlement Class
Members will receive a payment for each transaction in which
Settlement Class Members sold payment streams to one or more
Defendants.
The Court will fully assess any request for attorneys' fees and
expenses after receiving a motion from Class Counsel supporting
such request under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h). At this stage, the Court
finds that the plan to request fees and litigation expenses to be
paid from the Settlement Fund creates no reason not to direct
notice to the Settlement Class; should this Court find any aspect
of the requested attorneys' fees or expenses unsupported or
unwarranted, such funds will not revert to Defendants.
The Court appoints Strategic Claims Services as Settlement
Administrator and directs it to carry out all duties and
responsibilities of the Settlement Administrator.
The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on Monday, July 28, 2025, at
10:00 a.m., in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Courtroom 14206, 700 Stewart Street,
Seattle, WA 98101. The purposes of the Fairness Hearing will be to:
(i) determine whether the proposed Settlement Agreement should be
finally approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(ii) determine whether judgment should be entered; (iii) rule on
Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and service
awards; (iv) consider any properly filed objections; and (v)
consider any other matters necessary in connection with the final
approval of the Settlement Agreement.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8dJ0ND from PacerMonitor.com.
TEAM CLEAN: Burton Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------
Larry Burton, Timmothy Clemons, and Perry McCoy, Individually and
on behalf and all others similarly-situated v. TEAM CLEAN INC.,
Case No. 2:25-cv-01185 (E.D. Pa., March 5, 2025), is brought
contending that Defendant unlawfully failed to pay them and other
similarly situated individuals employed in the position of Janitor
and/or Custodial Staff, or in positions with substantially similar
job duties ("Class Plaintiffs"), overtime compensation pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act ("PMWA").
The Plaintiffs and Class Plaintiffs regularly work more than 40
hours per week but are not properly compensated for their work in
that Plaintiffs and Class Plaintiffs are not paid an overtime
premium at 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek and/or were not properly
compensated for all compensable travel time. In this regard,
Plaintiffs contend that Defendant unlawfully failed to pay them and
Class Plaintiffs overtime compensation for the hours they worked
beyond 40 hours in a single workweek, as well as certain
compensable travel time in violation of the FLSA and PMWA, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs are current employees of Defendant and are currently
employed in the position of Janitor and/or Custodial Staff.
Team Clean, Inc. is a domestic business corporation, duly organized
and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mary Kramer, Esq.
Michael Groh, Esq.
MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000
1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 267-273-1054
Fax: 215-525-0210
Email: mkramer@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
mgroh@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
THELENDINGFAMILY.COM: Bid for Alternative Service v. Owner Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. DeLuca of the United States District
Court for the District of Nebraska denied the plaintiff's motion
for leave to permit alternate service on Jacob Levy in the case
captioned as ALEJANDRO VALLESILLO, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated; Plaintiff, vs. THELENDINGFAMILY.COM,
an unknown business entity; JOHN DOE, an individual; JACQUELINE
LEVY, an individual; and JACOB LEVY, an individual; Defendants,
Case No.8:24-cv-00343 (D. Neb.).
Plaintiff filed this putative class action against unknown
defendant John Doe and unknown business entity TheLendingFamily.com
on Sept. 4, 2024. After Plaintiff tried and failed to serve
TheLendingFamily.com, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for
expedited discovery and allowed Plaintiff to subpoena the website
hosting TheLendingFamily.com (Godaddy) to discover Defendants'
identities.
Godaddy produced a file in response to Plaintiff's subpoena naming
Jacob Levy as one of TheLendingFamily.com's owners. Plaintiff filed
an amended complaint adding Jacob as a defendant. He confirmed
Jacob's residential address in Godaddy's files using a public
records search and unsuccessfully attempted service at this address
three times. He now moves for permission to serve Jacob via "nail
and mail” service under New York state law.
Plaintiff did not submit any evidence in support of his motion for
alternative service indicating the process server made genuine
inquiries as to Jacob's whereabouts and place of employment.
According to the Court, merely assuming Jacob's place of employment
is the same as his residential address because Jacob apparently
owns the website defendant is not enough.
The Court finds under these circumstances, Plaintiff failed to
establish due diligence in attempting to effectuate service
pursuant to CPLR 308(1) or (2). Accordingly, Plaintiff is not
permitted to resort to "nail and mail" service under CPLR 308(4).
Plaintiff's motion for alternative service is denied without
prejudice.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WDBOJK from PacerMonitor.com.
THINKOM SOLUTIONS: Castellanos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thinkom Solutions
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Simon Castellanos, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Thinkom Solutions
Inc., et al. Case No. 25STCV06303 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., March 5, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
ThinKom Solutions -- https://www.thinkom.com/ -- manufactures
low-profile antennas engineered expressly for high-speed
connectivity in the most harsh, remote and mobile
environments.[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
TRIUMPH GROUP: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Warburg Pincus
-------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating:
-- Triumph Group, Inc. (NYSE: TGI), relating to the proposed
merger with Warburg Pincus and Berkshire Partners. Under the terms
of the agreement, shareholders of Triumph will receive $26.00 per
share in cash.
Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/triumph-group-inc-tgi/. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- VOXX International Corporation (NASDAQ: VOXX), relating to the
proposed merger with Gentex Corporation. Under the terms of the
agreement, Gentex will acquire all issued and outstanding shares of
VOXX common stock not already owned by Gentex for $7.50 per share.
ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for March 31, 2025.
Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/voxx-international-corporation-voxx/.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- MoneyLion Inc. (NYSE: ML), relating to the proposed merger
with Gen Digital Inc. Under the terms of the agreement,
shareholders of MoneyLion will receive $82.00 per share in cash,
and one contingent value right per share entitling the shareholder
to a contingent payment of Gen Digital common stock.
ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for April 10, 2025.
Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/moneylion-inc-ml/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- SK Growth Opportunities Corporation (NASDAQ: SKGR), relating
to the proposed merger with Webull Corp. Under the terms of the
agreement, shares of SK Growth will be converted into shares of
Webull Corp.
Click link for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/sk-growth-opportunities-corporation-skgr/.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Monteverde & Associates PC Logo
NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. In what cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
TSD TELECOM: Class Settlement in Mott Suit Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH MOTT, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TSD Telecom
Service LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00185-RMR-STV (D. Colo.), the Hon.
Judge Regina Rodriguez entered an order granting preliminary
approval of proposed class action settlement:
(1) The Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification and
distribution of Court-authorized notice is granted in part
as to allow for conditional certification of a collective
action and denied in part as to the Proposed Notice;
(2) No later than 14 days from the date of this Order, the
parties shall meet and confer and file a motion to approve
notice and consent to join form or other documents.
Accordingly, under the lenient standard imposed at this stage, the
Court finds that Plaintiff has substantially alleged a policy, or
at least a practice, with respect to misclassifying Network
Specialists as exempt. Therefore, the Court will conditionally
certify the collective.
The Court concludes that the Proposed Notice inaccurately suggests
that opt-in plaintiffs are "choosing to be represented by the
Plaintiff's attorneys in the lawsuit" and fails to inform them that
they have a right not to be bound by a settlement that the original
Plaintiff advocates.
Therefore, the Proposed Notice must be modified to inform the
potential plaintiffs that they may choose to either be represented
by the Plaintiff's counsel, to obtain independent representation,
or to proceed pro se, and that of their right not to be bound by
Plaintiff's settlement.
The Plaintiff alleges that he and those similarly situated were
improperly classified as exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") by the Defendant and unlawfully denied overtime
compensation.
The Plaintiff asks the Court to conditionally certify the
following:
"All persons who worked for the Defendants as a Network
Specialist (also referred to as Network Specialist – OSP
Engineering & Construction, Outside Plant Engineering
Specialist, and/or Outside Plant Construction Specialist)
(including Network Specialists, Network Specialists I, Network
Specialists II, or Senior Network Specialists), or in other
job titles performing similar duties anywhere in the United
States any time since three years prior to the filing of this
Complaint through the present."
TDS provides broadband, video, and voice communications services to
residential, commercial, and wholesale customers.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KjZI7B at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNITED PARCEL: Rizvanovic Class Action Dismissed Without Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Christopher D. Baker of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of California directed the Clerk of Court to
close the case captioned as MICHELLE RIZVANOVIC, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED
PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01278-CDB (E.D.
Cal.) and adjust the docket to reflect dismissal with prejudice as
to plaintiff's individual claims and without prejudice as to the
claims of the putative class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(a)(1)(ii), with each party to bear that party's own attorney's
fees and costs.
On July 14, 2021, Plaintiff Michelle Rizvanovic filed an unverified
putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Kern. Defendant United Parcel Service,
Inc. removed the action to this Court on Aug. 20, 2021. On Jan. 20,
2023, the Court granted Defendant's motion to compel arbitration of
Plaintiff's individual claims and stayed all further proceedings,
including as to Plaintiff's class action claims, pending completion
of arbitration.
Pending before the Court is the parties' jointly executed
stipulation to dismiss the action with prejudice as to Plaintiff's
individual claims and without prejudice as to the putative class
action claims.
In this case, the parties jointly seek to dismiss the putative
class claims under Rule 41(a)(1) without prejudice. No class has
been certified in this action nor is there a class proposed to be
certified for purposes of settlement. Because no class has been
certified in this case, and because any dismissal would not affect
putative class members' possible claims, Rule 23(e) does not
mandate either Court approval of the parties' settlement or notice
to putative class members.
In light of the parties' filing, the Court finds that Rule 23(e)
does not require its approval of the dismissal. This action shall
be terminated by operation of law without further order of the
Court.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MKGTwG from PacerMonitor.com.
USC: Bid to Certify Baseball Team Class Denied w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
denying without prejudice the motion to In the class action lawsuit
captioned as JOHN DOE 1, et al., v. UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO
(USC), et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-01559-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Laurel Beeler entered an order denying without prejudice the
motion to certify issue class.
The plaintiffs have not met their burden to prove that the proposed
class is certifiable, the Court says.
They claim discrimination, retaliation, negligence, breach of
contract, and infliction of emotional distress, the Court adds.
The plaintiffs propose a class defined as:
"All members of the University of San Francisco baseball
team since 2000."
University of San Francisco is a private Jesuit university in San
Francisco, California.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 5, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VWuzjo at no extra
charge.[CC]
VALVE CORP: Court Amends Class Definition in Wolfire Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wolfire Games LLC, et al
v. Valve Corporation (RE VALVE ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No.
2:21-cv-00563-JNW (W.D. Wash.), the Publisher Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order amending the class definition and approving
the Certification Notice Plan.
The Personal computer ("PC") game Publisher Plaintiffs seek to hold
Defendant Valve Corporation ("Valve") accountable for Valve's
alleged price and content parity policies imposed on Publishers
because those policies have allegedly harmed competition in the
alleged third-party PC platform distribution market and damaged
Publishers in the form of, inter alia, inflated revenue sharing to
Valve as well as higher prices to game buyers.
On November 25, 2024, the Court granted Publisher Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, appointed Plaintiffs Wolfire Games,
LLC, Dark Catt Studios Holdings, Inc., and Dark Catt Studio
Interactive LLC as class representatives, appointed co-lead class
counsel, and certified the following class:
"All persons or entities who, directly or through an agent,
paid a commission to Valve in connection with the sale or use
of a game on the Steam platform on or after Jan. 28, 2017,
and continuing through the present until the effects of its
scheme are eliminated, and where either (1) the person or
entity was based in the United States and its territories or
(2) the game was purchased or acquired by a United States-based
consumer during the Class Period."
Excluded from the Class are (a) Defendant, its parents,
subsidiaries, affiliate entities, and employees, and (b) the
Court and its personnel.
The Court certified a class of all persons or entities who paid a
commission to Valve in connection with the sale or use of a game on
the Steam platform during the class period. The target audience for
this Certification Notice Plan is, essentially, businesses and
individuals that sold games on Steam during that period. The
proposed notice plan is designed to provide notice to these class
members consistent with the requirements of Rule 23.
The Certification Notice Plan is tailored to provide the best
notice to class members, using email and mailed notice for class
members whose email and mailing addresses can be identified through
reasonable effort, supplemented by a media campaign and dedicated
website for those class members who cannot be directly notified.
Valve is an American video game developer, publisher, and digital
distribution company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 4, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wsOr1j at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alicia Cobb, Esq.
Steig D. Olson, Esq.
David LeRay, Esq.
Nic V. Siebert, Esq.
Andrew Faisman, Esq.
Adam Wolfson, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
1109 First Avenue, Suite 210
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 905-7000
Facsimile: (206) 905-7100
E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com
steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
davidleray@quinnemanuel.com
nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com
andrewfaisman@quinnemanuel.com
adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
- and -
Ankur Kapoor, Esq.
Noah Brecker-Redd, Esq.
CONSTANTINE CANNON LLP
6 East 43rd St., 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 350-2700
Facsimile: (212) 350-2701
E-mail: akapoor@constantinecannon.com
nbrecker-redd@constantinecannon.com
- and -
Tyre L. Tindall, Esq.
McKinney Wheeler, Esq.
Kenneth R. O'Rourke, Esq.
Jordanne M. Steiner, Esq.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH &
ROSATI P.C.
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
Seattle, WA 98104-7036
Telephone: (206) 883-2500
Facsimile: (866) 974-7329
E-mail: sjensen@wsgr.com
ttindall@wsgr.com
mckinney.wheeler@wsgr.com
korourke@wsgr.com
jordanne.miller@wsgr.com
- and -
W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
Laura M. Matson, Esq.
Kyle Pozan, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
jcbourne@locklaw.com
lmmatson@locklaw.com
kjpozan@locklaw.com
VASKO ELECTRIC: McCartney Files Labor Class Action in Cal. Super.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vasko Electric, Inc.
The case is captioned as Chase McCartney, on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals v. Vasko Electric, Inc., Case No.
25CV002553 (Cal. Super., January 30, 2025).
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged employment law
violation.
The suit is assigned to Judge Jill H. Talley.
Vasko Electric, Inc. operates as an electrical contractor.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elliot J. Siegel, Esq.
KING & SIEGEL, LLP
724 S. Spring Street, Suite 201
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Telephone: (213) 465-4802
Facsimile: (213) 465-4803
VIA CREDIT: Faces Runyan Suit Over Alleged Private Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM RUNYAN, on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. VIA CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00105
(N.D. Ind., March 6, 2025), arises out of the recent data security
incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant,
which held in its possession certain personally identifiable
information of Plaintiff and other current and former customers of
Defendant, the putative class members.
The said data breach occurred between January 18, 2025 through
January 20, 2025 and has affected the personal information of
60,853 individuals. Moreover, Plaintiff brings this class action
lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address
Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private
information that it collected and maintained, and for failing to
provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class
Members that their information was subjected to unauthorized access
by an unknown, unauthorized third party and precisely what type of
information was accessed. Accordingly, the Plaintiff sues Defendant
seeking redress for their unlawful conduct, and asserting claims
for: (i) negligence, (ii) negligence per se, and (iii) breach of
implied contract.
Headquartered in Marion, IN, Via Credit Union is a member-owned
credit union that offers financial services to members throughout
the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald E. Weldy, Esq.
WELDY LAW
11268 Governors Lane
Fishers, IN 46037
Telephone: (317) 842-6600
E-mail: rweldy@weldylegal.com
- and -
Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
EKSM, LLP
4200 Montrose, Ste. 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (888) 350-3931
E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com
service@eksm.com
VIRTUSA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Sugg Amended to May 28
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEO SUGG, v. VIRTUSA, JOHN
DOES 1-10, Case No. 3:18-cv-08036-GC-JTQ (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge
Justin Quinn entered an amended scheduling order as follows:
1. The Defendant's expert disclosures and reports must be
served by March 10, 2025.
2. The Plaintiff's reply expert disclosures and reports must be
served by May 5, 2025.
3. The deadline to complete fact discovery is extended to May
23, 2025.
4. The deadline to complete expert discovery is extended to May
23, 2025.
5. Motion for class certification and any dispositive motions
must be filed by May 28, 2025. Opposition papers must be
filed by June 25, 2025. Reply papers, if any, must be field
by July 16, 2025.
6. The remaining instructions set forth in the Court's Nov. 18,
2019 Order shall remain in effect.
Virtusa is an American-based global information technology services
company that provides digital engineering and technology services.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 5, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YoKayf at no extra
charge.[CC]
VISION SERVICE: Settlement in Schmidt Gets Final OK
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL SCHMIDT, on behalf
of himself and the Class and Collective members, v. VISION SERVICE
PLAN, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02400-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Chi Soo Kim entered an order granting the Plaintiff's renewed
motion for final approval and granting in part the Plaintiff's
renewed motion for attorneys' fees:
1. The Plaintiff's renewed motion for final approval of class
and collective action settlement is granted;
2. The Court reaffirms the appointment of Michael Schmidt as
Class Representative for the California Class and Opt-In
Plaintiffs;
3. The Plaintiff's renewed motion for award of attorneys' fees
and costs and service award is granted in part, and awards
attorneys' fees in the amount of $862,500 to Class Counsel,
which represents 25% of the total settlement value;
4. The Court awards litigation costs in the amount of $5,261.42
to Class Counsel;
5. The Court awards Plaintiff Michael Schmidt a service award
of $10,000;
6. The Court approves the $100,000 PAGA allocation and the
payment of $75,000.00 to the Labor and Workforce Development
Agency ("LWDA") for the Plaintiff's claims pursuant to the
PAGA;
7. The Court awards the Plaintiff Michael Schmidt a service
award of $10,000;
8. The Court approves the $100,000 PAGA allocation and the
payment of $75,000.00 to the Labor and Workforce Development
Agency ("LWDA") for the Plaintiff's claims pursuant to the
PAGA;
9. The Court reaffirms the appointment of ILYM Group, Inc. as
Settlement Administrator and approves its reasonable
Administration costs of $26,700, which are to be paid from
the Gross Settlement Amount;
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated federal and
California wage and hour laws with respect to current and former
non-exempt employees, including but not limited to Customer Service
Representatives ("CSRs"), employed by the vision care health
insurance company operated by the Defendants.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 5, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cLsESg at no extra
charge.[CC]
VRAI & ORO: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------
Cedric Bishop, for himself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, v. VRAI & ORO, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01834
(S.D.N.Y., March 5, 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,
https://www.vrai.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed
thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is
not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures
so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired consumers.
By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
VRAI & ORO, LLC, operates the Vrai online retail store and physical
retail stores, as well as the Vrai 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
WALMART INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Rector, et al. DCCPPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Rudolph Contreras of the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia denied Walmart Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
case captioned as CHRISTINA RECTOR, LIZETTE MCKINNEY, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
WALMART INC., Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-00658-RC (D.C.). The
defendant's motion to compel arbitration is denied as moot.
Christina Rector and Lizette McKinney, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, filed a class action suit against
Walmart Inc. Plaintiffs allege that many items sold at its stores
are advertised at a lower shelf-price than what they charge
customers at the register. Because Plaintiffs and others similarly
situated make their shopping decisions based on the shelf prices,
Walmart misleads Plaintiffs and other consumers.
Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, arguing that the
claims asserted in the Complaint must be resolved through
arbitration because an enforceable arbitration agreement covers
this dispute, and an arbitration must proceed on an individual
basis. In the alternative, Defendant contends that Plaintiffs'
claims should be dismissed because they lack Article III standing,
they fail to state a cause of action because the law does not
require pricing perfection, and the Complaint does not contain
sufficient facts to establish that Walmart engaged in a deceptive
act or that a reasonable consumer otherwise would be misled.
Plaintiffs responded to Defendant's motion to compel arbitration
with an Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' claims are premised on
alleged violations of the District of Columbia's Consumer
Protection Procedures Act.
Plaintiffs' counsel conducted an investigation of two Walmart
stores that were identified in the Amended Complaint. The
investigation, which was conducted by private investigator Scott
Kucik, revealed that for over 500 items, the register price was
higher than the shelf tag price.
Plaintiffs argue that Walmart's view that it can change the price
at the register is inconsistent with contract law, consumer
protection law, and decades of the consumer in-store shopping
experience because the shelf price is an invitation for the
consumer to accept the price and present the item for purchase at
the register.
Defendant contends that Plaintiffs lack Article III standing,
arguing that they have not suffered a concrete injury.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have met their burden at this stage
by alleging that the overcharges imposed by Defendant's alleged
inaccurate shelf prices constitute a concrete and particularized
injury. Informing customers of the correct price at checkout does
not cure the problem. According to the Court, regardless of whether
the consumer identifies the price discrepancy before or after
completing the transaction, higher register prices constitute a
form of bait-and-switch deception, resulting in harm that consumers
cannot avoid.
Although Defendant argues that D.C. law does not mandate pricing
perfection, Plaintiffs are not asserting a claim based on the
requirement of perfect pricing. Rather, Plaintiffs allege a
consistent pattern of inaccurate shelf pricing, which has allegedly
resulted in harm to Plaintiffs and others similarly situated.
Whether the alleged pricing errors are an occasional anomaly not
constituting pricing perfection or a more widespread pattern that
economically benefits Walmart significantly is a merits question to
resolve at a later stage of the proceedings. Therefore, regarding
the accuracy of shelf pricing, Plaintiffs' allegations are
sufficient to withstand the motion to dismiss, the Court concludes.
The Court also finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that
Defendant violated the DCCPPA by alleging that Walmart's placement
of shelf prices on items that differed from and
were lower than the higher prices charged at the register had a
tendency to mislead consumers. Because Defendant did not disclose
to Plaintiffs in advance that the register price was higher than
the shelf price, its approach to its inconsistent pricing requires
that Plaintiffs must remember the shelf prices and compare them to
the register prices at checkout. As such, Plaintiffs have plausibly
alleged that Walmart intended for them and other customers to rely
on its misleading shelf prices, the Court finds.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pzdXDy from PacerMonitor.com.
YES COMMUNITIES: Starks Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
TERESA STARKS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. YES COMMUNITIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00728-PAB (D. Colo., March 6, 2025) arises from Defendant's
failure to protect the highly sensitive personally identifiable
information stored on its computer network in a data breach
perpetrated by cybercriminals.
The data breach occurred from approximately December 9. 2024 to
December 11, 2024. However, it was only on or about February 24,
2025 -- over two months after the data breach first occurred --
Defendant finally began notifying class members about the data
breach. In addition, Defendant's breach notice obfuscated the
nature of the breach and the threat it posted--refusing to tell
consumers how many people were impacted, how the breach happened,
or why it took the Defendant over two months to finally begin
notifying victims that cybercriminals had stolen their highly
private information. Moreover, the Defendant's failure to timely
report the data breach made the victims vulnerable to identity
theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or
credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their PII. The
Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct,
asserting claims for negligence, negligence per se, invasion of
privacy, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment.
Headquartered in Denver, CO, Yes Communities, LLC owns and operates
mobile home communities in Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, North
Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
One Magnificent Mile
980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago IL, 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com
sam@straussborrelli.com
YOUNG CONSULTING: Albrigo Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Laura Albrigo, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. YOUNG CONSULTING, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-08059 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia on March 6, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01190-TWT to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Fiduciary Duty.
Young Consulting -- https://www.youngconsulting.com/ -- is the
market leader in providing software solutions to the employer stop
loss marketplace.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katrina A. Carroll, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
111 W. Washington, STE 1240
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (872) 215-6205
Email: katrina@csclassactions.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Christi Lynn Coleman, Esq.
PIERSON FERDINAND, LLP
111 W. Jackson, Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (314) 229-6059
[^] Class Action Money & Ethics Conference 2025 -- The Sponsors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Registration is ongoing for the 9TH ANNUAL CLASS ACTION MONEY &
ETHICS CONFERENCE (CAME 2025), to be held May 7-8, 2025, at The
Harmonie Club, New York City.
This year's event is sponsored by:
(A) Major Sponsors
Atticus Administration, LLC
Visit at https://www.atticusadmin.com
ClaimScore
Visit https://www.claimscore.ai
Duane Morris LLP
Visit https://www.duanemorris.com
Esquire Bank
Visit https://esquirebank.com
Labaton Keller Sucharow
Visit https://www.labaton.com
Tremendous
Visit https://www.tremendous.com
(B) Patron Sponsors
AB Data
Visit https://www.abdataclassaction.com
Darrow AI
Visit https://www.darrow.ai
Miller Kaplan
Visit https://www.millerkaplan.com
(C) Supporting Sponsors
Verita
(Kurtzman Carson Consultants, LLC, KCC Class Action Services,
LLC, Gilardi & Co., LLC, and RicePoint Administration Inc. have
rebranded as Verita)
Visit https://veritaglobal.com
(D) Media Partners
Class Action Insights
Visit https://classactionsinsight.com
PacerMonitor, a Fitch Solutions Company
Visit https://www.pacermonitor.com/dashboard
Once a year, the top industry experts gather together to discuss
the latest topics and trends in class action. This value-packed
event features special presentations from keynote speakers and live
panel discussions with industry experts, and provides networking
opportunities with other professionals.
The CAME 2024 edition was attended by the industry's Who's Who.
Last year's conference attendees include:
Firm/Organization Firm/Organization
----------------- -----------------
A.B. Data, Ltd. Lake Avenue Capital
Alvarez & Marsal Levi & Korsinsky LLP
Analytics Consulting LLC Levine Law, LLC
Angeion Group Lieff Cabraser Heimann
Atticus Administration LLC & Bernstein, LLP
Avenue 33, LLC Locke Lord LLP
Beasley Allen Law Firm LTIMindtree
Beer Marketer's Insights Lynch Carpenter LLP
Berger Montague PC MarGrady Research
Blank Rome Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC
Bloomberg Law Messing & Spector LLP
Brann & Isaacson Milberg
BRG Miller Kaplan
Broadridge Morgan Lewis
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney New York Law Journal
Butsch Roberts & Associates New York Legal Assistance Group
Cardtable Enterprises New York Times
Certum Group New York University
Citi Law Firm Group O’Melveny & Myers LLP
ClaimScore Orr Taylor
Cohen Milstein Otterbourg P.C.
Cooley LLP PacerMonitor
Cozen O'Connor Parabellum Capital, LLC
CPT Group Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton
Darrow & Garrison LLP
DCirrus Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP
Dealpath PJT Partners
Disability Rights Michigan Pollock Cohen LLP
Duane Morris LLP Public Justice
Dukas Linden Public Relations Red Bridges Advisors LLC
EisnerAmper Riverdale Capital
Esquire Bank Sadaka Law
Farra & Wang PLLC Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law
Flexpoint Ford Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP
Foley & Lardner LLP Simpluris
Foster Yarborough PLLC Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher
George Feldman McDonald, PLLC & Flom LLP
Gernon Law Slarskey LLC
Giftogram Steptoe
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Tremendous
Hausfeld Tristate Capital Bank
Hook Point UConn Law
injuryclaims.com - Verus LLC
Typhon Interactive Wall Street Journal
Integrity Administration Western Alliance Bank
Janove PLLC Wilkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
KCC Winston & Strawn LLP
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check Wollmuth Maher & Deutsch LLP
King & Spalding Working Solutions
Kirkland & Ellis X Ante
Register for CAME 2025 at https://www.classactionconference.com
Breakfast and lunch included.
This year's conference will kick off with an OPENING NIGHT COCKTAIL
RECEPTION on May 7 from 5-7 p.m. also at The Harmonie Club. Enjoy
specialty cocktails and hors d'oeuvres with other professionals
attending the conference. There is no additional cost to attend the
opening reception. The reception is included in the cost of
conference registration so join us!
Missed last year's event? Check the CAME 2024 conference agenda at
https://www.classactionconference.com/agenda.html Videos of the
conference are available on-demand at
https://www.classactionconference.com/2024-video-replays.html
For sponsorship opportunities, contact:
Will Etchison
Tel: 305-707-7493
E-mail: will@beardgroup.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***