---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, March 21, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 58

                            Headlines

156 VALLE RESTAURANT: Gonzalez Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Pugliese Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Seybold Class Suit Alleges
5TH AVE LAUNDRY: Faces Reyes Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
A & M ACQUISITIONS: Sends Unwanted Telemarketing Calls, Jassal Says

ABC CORP: Calderon Sues to Seek Unpaid Wages
ACADEMY MORTGAGE: Bates Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
AGILITI HEALTH: Stevens Suit Removed to C.D. California
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: Court Sets Scheduling Conference in Karapetyan
ALLEGHENY HEALTH: Faces Kehr Class Suit in W.D. Pa.

ALLSTATE FIRE: Reduces Homeowners' Policy Coverage, Garcia Alleges
ALLY FINANCIAL: Sheridan Seeks to Certify West Virginia Consumers
ALMAZ JEWELRY: Faces Solis Suit Over Website's Access Barriers
AMAZON INC: Waithaka Loses Bid for Class Certification
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Filing in Cross Suer Due April 15, 2026

AMERESCO INC: Case Deadlines & Hearings Vacated in Ramirez Suit
AMERICAN HONDA: Fausto Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio
AMERICAN MODULAR: Class Cert Filing in Rodriguez Due Feb. 5, 2027
AMERICAN SOCIETY: Controls Resident Pharmacists' Market, Kim Says
AMP UNITED: Terminates Employees Without Advance Notice, Toner Says

AMPAM PARKS: Plaintiffs Must File Exhibits by Oct. 25
ARBOR REALTY: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in N.Y.
ASHEVILLE EYE: Lytle Suit Removed from State Court to W.D.N.C.
ASML HOLDING: Court Consolidates Securities Class Actions
ATHLETIC PROPULSION: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Suit Says

AVEN FINANCIAL: Marino Sues Over Credit Reports' Unapproved Access
BANK OF AMERICA: Violates EFTA, Goolsby Class Suit Alleges
BANKPLUS: Faces Albright Class Suit Over Overdraft Fee Practices
BARBARA M. BYRNE: NYCERS Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
BCE-MACH III: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Sagacity Due May 30

BED BATH: Bratya Bid to Reconsider Class Cert Denial Tossed
BERMAN & RABIN: Burton Files Suit in D. Kansas
BEST BUY STORES: Cuevas Sues Over Unsolicited Mass Text Messaging
BIJORA INC: Faces Cruz Class Suit Over Fake Reference Prices
BLOOMBERG LP: Santoro Suit Removed to C.D. California

BOEING COMPANY: Luebrecht Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Mechanics
BOWLERSMART LLC: Faces Johnson Class Suit in M.D. Florida
BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Hettinger Bid for Class Certification Stayed
BQE FITNESS: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Wills Alleges
BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO: Canada Litigations Stayed

BROTHERS II LANDSCAPES: Underpays Laborers, Gonzalez Suit Alleges
BYTEDANCE INC: Collects Minors' Info Without Consent, Hinkle Says
BYTEDANCE INC: Lindsey Files Suit in N.D. Florida
BYTEDANCE INC: Sells Personal Info of Minor Children, Riley Says
CARMICHAEL DEVELOPMENT: Sued Over Unpaid OT Premium

CES CLEANING CONTRACTORS: Valdez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CHOSEN FOODS: Whiteside Sues Over Avocado Oils' Non-GMO Claims
CLEO COMMUNICATIONS: Jackson Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
CLEO COMMUNICATIONS: Kelley Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
COASTAL ADVANTAGE: Lucas Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida

COCA-COLA COMPANY: Washington Suit Removed to S.D. New York
COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER: Colino Suit Removed to D. Connecticut
COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER: Ploss Suit Removed to D. Connecticut
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Martin Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Tedone Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI

CREDIT SUISSE: Set Capital Appeals Court Order to 2nd Circuit
CRISPY BURGER: Fails to Properly Pay Restaurant Staff, Torres Says
DAIKAYA LLC: Philippe Class Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA
DEL AMO HOSPITAL: Doe Sues Over Sexual Abuse and Harassment
DENTAL INTELLIGENCE: Theys Sues Over Invasion of Privacy

DIEOMATIC INC: Faces Doty Suit Over Employment Discrimination
DISA GLOBAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Chiquetta Alleges
DISA GLOBAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Huynh Suit Alleges
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Medley Removed from State Court to D.D.C.
DITMARS DRAGON: Faces Herculano Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.

DOLLAR GENERAL: DeJesus Suit Removed from State Court to D.N.J.
DOLLS KILL INC: Zadnik Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS: Gober Files Suit in D. Columbia
DREAM PROJECTS: Faces Sumlin Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
EN-R-G FOODS: Espinal Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website

ENCINO ENERGY: Fontenot Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ENVOY AIR: Bustillo Suit Removed to C.D. California
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Van Cott Suit Removed to N.D. California
EVERDAY DOSE: Pearson Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
EXP REALTY: Soale Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona

FAT BOY'S BURRITO: Wee-Ellis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
FCA US: Cars Have Underhood Fire Defect, Frazee Suit Alleges
FCA US: Faces Gandelman Suit Over Hybrid Vehicles' Battery Defect
FEDCHEX RECOVERY: Watson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
FENTY BEAUTY: Williams Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website

FREEDOM FOREVER: Shelton TCPA Suit Transferred to C.D. California
FRESNO COMMUNITY: Deneus-Coley Removed from State Ct. to C.D. Cal.
FRL AUTOMOTIVE: Karpiel Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
GENESIS HC: Sayre Seeks Unpaid Wages for Patient Care Employees
GEORGE LITTLE: Wins Summary Judgment v. Harris

GLOBE LIFE: Belbeck Sues Over Failure to Protect Information
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Booneville Sues Over Unlawful Pricing Agreement
GROWTH BOMB: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Espinal Alleges
GRUPO ARGOS: Faces O'Neill Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
HALEON US: Tracks Users' Website Browsing Data, Gabrielle Alleges

HAMILTON BEACH: Borowsky Sues Over Product's Express Warranties
HANESBRANDS INC: Settlement in Toussaint Suit Gets Initial OK
HANKINS & SOHN: Class Cert Bid Filing in Tausiga Due Oct. 14
HARD EIGHT NUTRITION: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in D. Oregon
HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Santos Seeks to File Class Cert Under Seal

HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Seeks to Certify Nationwide Consumer Class
HERNO USA: Isakov Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store
HIP ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Mills Class Suit in Calif. State Court
HOMAGE LLC: Stains Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
HOME DEPOT: Fails to Timely Pay Workers' Final Wages, Obomaniu Says

HOMEOWNER SOLUTION: King Files TCPA Suit in D. Delaware
HOSPITAL SISTERS: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Haberman Alleges
HOUSE OF HACKNEY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Isakov Says
HUMANE ANIMAL FARM: Taylor Files Suit in S.D. California
HYATT CORP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jimenez Extended to Nov. 17

IGLOO PRODUCTS: Faces Holton Class Suit Over Recalled Coolers
INTEL CORPORATION: Schiassi Suit Removed to C.D. California
IONIC DIGITAL: Vejseli Seeks to Void Board Reduction Resolution
IOSM INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Gallaher Due Jan.19, 2026
J&I CORDON: Monsalve Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Electricians

J&P PARK: Faces Demaio Suit Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
JACK WHITLEY: Webb Suit Removed to M.D. Tennessee
JOHANNA RAE: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Fernandez Alleges
JOHN CHRISTNER: Gasser Suit Removed to C.D. California
JOHN PAUL: Heagney Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class

JPMORGAN CHASE: Gonzalez Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
JT LOGISTICS SOLUTIONS: Ellington Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
JUST A BABY INC: McGee Files Suit in E.D. New York
K & S INTERIORS: Faces Sanabria Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Fla.
KISCO SENIOR: Fairs to Pay OT to Straight Time Workers, Maness Says

KROGER CO: Henry Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
KROGER CO: Seeks Status Conference on Evidentiary Hearing
LEGACY CONTRACTOR: Guevara Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
LEGACY PROFESSIONALS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Plavsic Says
LEMONADE INSURANCE: Matthews Suit Removed to S.D. California

LENNAR CORP: Smith Suit Removed from State Court to S.D. Fla.
LG ELECTRONICS: Adams Sues Over Defective Recalled Ranges
LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Appeals Court Remand Order in Velazquez Suit
MANHATTAN ASSOCIATES: Prime Sues Over Share Price Decline
MARYMOUNT HEALTHCARE: Faces Skipper Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Ohio

MATHWORKS INC: Rodriguez Suit Removed to S.D. California
MDL 2873: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Bleibaum Class Suit Alleges
MIXPANEL INC: Glenn Sues Over Unauthorized Collection of Info
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Salguero Sues Over Snack Bars' False Ads
MONEY SOURCE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid Response

MONONOKE INC: Pastuizaca Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
MOTT'S LLP: Juice Products Natural Label "False," Rich Suit Claims
NAADAM INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hippe Alleges
NATIONAL DEBT: Disclose Financial Info to Advertisers, Hantel Says
NATIONAL GRID: Nightingale Appeals Class Cert. Order to 1st Circuit

NEMATZADEH ENTERPRISES: Cervantes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
NESTLE HEALTH: Bowler Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
NEW JERSEY: Galicki Bid to Reconsider March 13 Order Tossed
NEW YORK, NY: Lee Class Action Suit Seeks Back Pay Under FLSA
NEWMONT CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Colorado

NM BEAUTY: Williams Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
NORLITE LLC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Hill Due Jan. 14, 2026
NORTH COUNTRY HOME: Kelly Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
NUNA BABY: Fails to Secure Customers' Personal Info, Lema Says
OLE MEXICAN: Mislabels Tortilla Wraps, Gambino Suit Says

OPTOTRAFFIC LLC: Lavender Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
PANDORA JEWELRY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Alleges
PANERA LLC: Waggoner Suit Removed to C.D. California
PENSION SPECIALISTS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Janson Says
PENSION SPECIALISTS: Stenger Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info

PEPE'S REST: Rosales Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Cooks
PFIZER INC: Denelsbeck Suit Transferred to N.D. Florida
PLATINUM PROGRAMMING: Hawkins Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
PORT OF SEATTLE: Appeals Denied Bid to Dismiss Codoni Suit
PRESSED PAPERBOARD: Deberry Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

PROCTORU INC: Fails to Manage 2025 California Bar Exam, Suit Says
PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN: Sekerchak Removed from State Court to D.S.C.
QUALITY FIRST HOME: Gebremicael Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
RAKUTEN USA: Poaches Content Creators' Commissions, Rhodes Says
RANA MEAL: Deneui Sues Over Misuse of Biometrics

REEL SEAFOOD: Carter Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
REGAL CINEMAS: Cohen Suit Removed to E.D. California
REGAL CINEMAS: Faces Hensley Class Suit Over Telemarketing Calls
RESHAPING AND NUTRITIONAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Suit Says
RESORT WORLD: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Wills Says

ROGER GOODELL: Holliday Must Show Cause Why Case Shouldn't Be Nixed
RONALD BROOMFIELD: Parties Seek to Certify Class of Inmates
ROYAL APPLIANCE: Faces Garelick Suit Over Express Warranties
S. RICCI AMERICA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Isakov Says
SA HOSPITALITY: Picon Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind

SAN CARLOS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hilbert Alleges
SARIANA LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Suit Claims
SECURITY NATIONAL: Araneo Seek Conditional Status of Collective
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Class Cert Filing in Johnson Due March 20, 2026
SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Faces Ferrer Suit Over Express Warranties

SHOPPES OF DELRAY: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Feltzin Says
SKULLCANDY INC: Monitors Users' Browsing Activity, Jones Alleges
SPRECKELS SUGAR: Order on Supplemental Briefing Entered
SPRING STREET: Williams Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
SPS TECHNOLOGIES: Liable to Fire & Explosion Effects, Lenihan Says

STATE FARM MUTUAL: Bycko Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
SUMMA HEALTH: Giner Files Suit in N.D. Ohio
SUNFLOWER MEDICAL: Fails to Protect Patients' Data, Orton Alleges
T.G. USA: Hale Class Action Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
TARGET CORPORATION: Meza Suit Removed to C.D. California

TEAM SCHIERL: Bid for More Time to File Class Cert Bid Tossed
THREE LIMES INC: Espinal Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
TICKETMASTER LLC: Lozoya Suit Transferred to D. Montana
TIENDA INC: Mercurio Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
TOYOTA MOTOR: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Gamez Due Sept. 5

TULA PLANTS: Faces Cantwell Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
TURQUOISE HILL: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid
TYCON MEDICAL: Baysmore Must File Consolidated Complaint by April 7
TYCON MEDICAL: Davis Must File Consolidated Complaint by April 7
TYCON MEDICAL: Mikell Must File Consolidated Complaint by April 7

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Securities Suit over IPO Offer
UNITED SEATING: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Suit Alleges
UNITED STATES: Asanov Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit
US BANK: Faces Boldin Class Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
USA DEBUSK: Kittrell Suit Removed from State Court to D.N.J.

VALSOFT CORP: Fails to Secure Clients' Personal Info, Haynie Claims
VENADO INC: Court Stays Briefing on Class Cert Bid
VENADO INC: Faces Morris Suit Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
VIATOR INC: Overcharges Ticket Buyers, Ramlogan Suit Alleges
VILLAS OF HOLLY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Mitchell Due July 28

VINEYARD VINES: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
VOYA FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Ravarino 401(k) Class Suit
VUCIC CONSULTING: Gaines Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Under FLSA, NYLL
W.T.F.N. INC: Winslow Sues Over Fragrances' Pheromone Claims
WASATCH VALLEY PIZZA: Brown FLSA Suit Transferred to D. Utah

WASTE CONNECTIONS: Underpays Maintenance Technicians, Martinez Says
WESTLAKE SERVICES: Palacios Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
WORKIT HEALTH: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Nod
WYOMING DOC: Armajo Files Suit in D. Wyoming
XPLR INFRASTRUCTURE: Faces Jarvis Suit Over Unit Price Drop

ZWILLING J.A. HENCKELS: Sued Over Illegal Use Trap & Trace Process
[^] CLASS ACTION MONEY & ETHICS CONFERENCE 2025 -- Agenda

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Receives 1,400 New Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dayton Power Still Defends in Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Domtar Corp. Defends Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Reports $545MM A&E Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Group Has $216MM Loss Reserves at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corp. Has 11,683 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Forum Energy Still Faces Product Liability Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IPALCO Enterprises Posts $378.5MM ARO Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Perrigo Co. Defends 150 Individual Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Inc. Faces Product Liability Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Accrues $84.57MM Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has 1,287 Exposure Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Has 524 Pending Cases as of Dec. 31


                            *********

156 VALLE RESTAURANT: Gonzalez Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 156 Valle Restaurant
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Romailin Gonzalez, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 156 Valle Restaurant
Inc. (d/b/a El Gran Valle), Jiani Rosario, Felix Rosario, Case No.
1:25-cv-01893 (S.D.N.Y., March 7, 2025).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

156 Valle Restaurant Inc. doing business as El Gran Valle is a
Dominican restaurant in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: (212) 317-1200
          Fax: (212) 317-1620
          Email: michael@faillacelaw.com

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Pugliese Class Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK PUGLIESE v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00601-RMG (D.S.C.,
Jan. 31, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF)
and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the
Plaintiff contends.

Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to
proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains
and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique
chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of
exposed individuals.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.

The Plaintiff contends that he regularly used, and was thereby
directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish
fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian
firefighter.

As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG
products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer and
thyroid disease, which has caused him to suffer severe personal
injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress.

3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production.

The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB
GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS
INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT
CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX,
LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON
CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP,
INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC;
MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY
COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST
USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.;
WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tessa G. Cuneo, Esq.
          Alexandra W. Robertson, Esq.
          ASK LLP
          2600 Eagan Woods Drive, Suite 400
          St. Paul, MN 55121
          Telephone: (651) 406-9665
          Facsimile: (651) 406-9676
          E-mail: tcuneo@askllp.com
          arobertson@askllp.com

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Seybold Class Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT DUANE SEYBOLD v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00594-RMG (D.S.C.,
Jan. 31, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF)
and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the
Plaintiff contends.

Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to
proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains
and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique
chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of
exposed individuals.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.

The Plaintiff contends that he regularly used, and was thereby
directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish
fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian
firefighter.

As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG
products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer and
thyroid disease, which has caused him to suffer severe personal
injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress.

3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production.

The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB
GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS
INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT
CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX,
LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON
CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP,
INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC;
MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY
COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST
USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.;
WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Ryan Ziminskas, Esq.
          THEMIS LAW, PLLC
          7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 105
          Austin, TX 78731
          Telephone: (737) 208-1636
          E-mail: rziminskas@themislawpllc.com

5TH AVE LAUNDRY: Faces Reyes Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
FULGENCIA REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 5TH AVE LAUNDRY CENTER INC. and SHENG G.
CHEN, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01198 (E.D.N.Y., March 3, 2025)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to
pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to
provide notice at time of hiring, and failure to provide accurate
wage statements.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately
January 2000 until February 22, 2025.

5th Ave Laundry Center Inc. is a provider of laundry services based
in Brooklyn, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
      Lina Stillman, Esq.
      STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
      42 Broadway, 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 203-2417

A & M ACQUISITIONS: Sends Unwanted Telemarketing Calls, Jassal Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDEEP JASSAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. A & M ACQUISITIONS, LLC d/b/a EASY CASH
DEAL, and VANGUARD REALTY ALLIANCE, LLC d/b/a VRA REALTY,
Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01149-PD (E.D. Pa., March 4, 2025) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in a
practice of calling the telephone numbers of consumers, including
the Plaintiff, in an attempt to promote their products and services
without prior express written consent. As a result of the
Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members were
harmed.

A & M Acquisitions, LLC, doing business as Easy Cash Deal, is a
real estate business, headquartered in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.

Vanguard Realty Alliance, LLC, doing business as VRA Realty, is a
real estate business, headquartered in West Chester, Pennsylvania.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq.
       Craig T. Kimmel, Esq.
       KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C.
       30 East Butler Ave.
       Ambler, PA 19002
       Telephone: (215) 540-8888
       Facsimile: (877) 788-2864
       Email: jginsburg@creditlaw.com

               - and -

       Alex D. Kruzyk, Esq.
       PARDELL, KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO, PLLC
       7500 Rialto Blvd., Suite 1-250
       Austin, TX 78735
       Telephone: (561) 726-8444
       Email: akruzyk@pkglegal.com

ABC CORP: Calderon Sues to Seek Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------
Vicente Calderon, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. ABC CORP. d/b/a LAKE CHAMPLAIN CLEANING SERVICES, LAKE
CHAMPLAIN CLEANING SERVICES, and JAMES BEDARD, Case No.
8:25-cv-00316-AMN-PJE (N.D.N.Y., March 11, 2025), is brought to
remedy violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") and
the New York State Labor Law (the "NYLL"), seeking unpaid wages.

Based on the failure to receive a wage acknowledgment or accurate
wage statements, Plaintiff did not know that he was entitled to be
paid an hourly wage and overtime for hours worked in excess of
forty hours per workweek. Had Defendants advised Plaintiff of the
hourly rate to which he was entitled and an overtime rate that
would be owed to him if he worked in excess of forty hours per
workweek, Plaintiff would have asked to be paid that hourly rate
and overtime rate as soon as he learned that he was putting in
extensive hours working for them, but Defendants never tracked
Plaintiff's time. Plaintiff would have insisted to be paid and
hourly rate and overtime rate had he
been notified of his legal rights to those wages, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff worked as a cleaner for Defendants at commercial
buildings that Defendants had contracts with while in upstate New
York from 2017 until his unlawful termination in February 2025.

ABC Corp. d/b/a Lake Champlain Cleaning Services is a domestic
corporation authorized to do business in the State of New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick Sorsby, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PATRICK SORSBY, PLLC
          40 Colvin Avenue, Suite 203
          Albany, NY 12265
          Phone: (518) 456-4529
          Email: sorsbylaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          Yale Pollack, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF YALE POLLACK, P.C.
          66 Split Rock Road
          Syosset, NY 11791
          Phone: (516) 634-6340
          Email: ypollack@yalepollacklaw.com

ACADEMY MORTGAGE: Bates Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
----------------------------------------------------------
Charly Bates, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ACADEMY MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Case No.
2:25-cv-00192-JCB (D. Utah, March 12, 2025), is brought against
Academy for its failure to secure and safeguard his and
approximately 284,443 other individuals' personally identifiable
information ("PII"), including first and last names, dates of
birth, and Social Security numbers.

Despite learning of the Data Breach as early as March 21, 2023,
Academy did not announce the Data Breach publicly until nine months
later, on or around December 20, 2023, and did not begin sending
out Data Breach notification letters ("Notice") to affected
individuals until around that time.

The Defendant's failure to timely notify the victims of its Data
Breach meant that Plaintiff and Class members were unable to
immediately take affirmative measures to prevent or mitigate the
resulting harm. 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. This is especially harmful
because the cybercriminals who perpetrated the Data Breach had
already released Plaintiff's and Class members' PII onto the dark
web.

The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and
protocols necessary to protect PII from the foreseeable threat of a
cyberattack. Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems
because of these failures, and because Defendant failed to
adequately train its employees on cybersecurity, and failed to
adequately monitor its agents, contractors, vendors, and suppliers
in handling and securing the PII of Plaintiff and Class members.

As a result of Defendant's inadequate security and breach of its
duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff and
approximately 284,443 Class members suffered injury and
ascertainable losses in the form of their information being
released on the dark web, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of value of
their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of
the attack, the diminution in value of their personal information
from their exposure, and the present and imminent threat of fraud
and identity theft, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a former customer of Defendant.

Academy is an independent mortgage lender based in Draper,
Utah.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason R. Hull, Esq.
          Anikka T. Hoidal, Esq.
          MARSHALL OLSON & HULL, PC
          Newhouse Building
          Ten Exchange Place, Suite 350
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Phone: 801.456.7655
          Email: jhull@mohtrial.com
                 ahoidal@mohtrial.com

               - and -

          Nickolas Hagman, Esq.
          Alexander Sweatman, Esq.
          Krishna Motta, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER &SPRENGEL LLP
          135 S. LASALLE, SUITE 3210
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312.782.4880
          Email: nhagman@caffertyclobes.com
                 asweatman@caffertyclobes.com
                 kmotta@caffertyclobes.com

AGILITI HEALTH: Stevens Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jamesmichael Stevens, Daniel Borruel, and
Juan Garcia, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly
situated employees v. AGILITI HEALTH, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive, Case No. 25STCV00705 was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on March 7, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02012.

The Plaintiffs allege twelve causes of action against Agiliti:
failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages;
failure to provide one day's rest in seven; failure to provide meal
breaks; failure to provide rest breaks; failure to timely pay
wages; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements;
failure to timely pay final wages; failure to reimburse necessary
business expenses; violation of Cal. Business & Professions Code;
violation of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act; and violation
of the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies
Act.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joel Andersen, Esq.
          NILAN JOHNSON LEWIS PA
          250 Marquette Avenue South, Suite 800
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: 612-305-7500
          Facsimile: 612-305-7501
          Email: jandersen@nilanjohnson.com

ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: Court Sets Scheduling Conference in Karapetyan
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AYKAK KARAPETYAN, et al.,
v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-05838-SPG-AGR (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett entered an order
setting scheduling conference:

Class Certification Motion:

For a putative class action, the Court will set a deadline for
hearing the class certification motion.

Discovery Plan

A detailed discovery plan, as contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(f). State what, if any, proposed changes in the disclosures
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) should be made.

Discovery Cut-off

A proposed discovery cut-off date governing the completion of all
fact discovery, including resolution of all discovery motions.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Jiqdih at no extra
charge.[CC]

ALLEGHENY HEALTH: Faces Kehr Class Suit in W.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ALLEGHENY HEALTH
NETWORK. The case is captioned as Cynthia Kehr individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALLEGHENY HEALTH
NETWORK, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00149-MJH (W.D. Pa., Jan. 31,
2025).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Marilyn J. Horan.

The suit demands $75,000 worth in damages.

Allegheny Health Network, based in Pittsburgh, is a non-profit,
14-hospital academic medical system with facilities located in
Western Pennsylvania and one hospital in Western New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com

ALLSTATE FIRE: Reduces Homeowners' Policy Coverage, Garcia Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO GARCIA, and ANA PENA AND GENARO PENA, and ROSA REYNA, and
PEDRO ESTRADA AND DELIA ESTRADA, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, and ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, and ALLSTATE TEXAS LLOYDS,
and ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY
Case No. 7:25-cv-00108 (S.D. Tex., March 12, 2025) arises out of a
dispute between policyholders and the Defendants, four property
insurers, all of which are subsidiaries of the Allstate
Corporation.

The seminal legal dispute before the Court is whether Defendants
slipped a coverage-reducing endorsement (AP4970) into
policyholders' homeowners' policies of insurance during policy
renewals without requisite statutory notice in violation of Texas
State Law.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action against Defendants for
systematically  by introducing the AP4970 endorsement without
providing requisite statutory notice in violation of Texas law.
Defendants inserted AP4970 into policy renewals without disclosure,
converting key coverages from Replacement Cost Value (RCV) to
Actual Cash Value (ACV), reducing benefits payable under claims.
This conduct violates Texas Insurance Code Sections 551.065,
551.11055, 2002.201, 2002.002 and 28 Texas Administrative Code
Sections 5.9750-5.9752.

The Defendants' failure to provide proper notice or offer
consideration for coverage reduction constitutes fraudulent
misrepresentation, breach of contract, and violations of consumer
protection laws. The Defendants engaged in a widespread scheme,
furthered through mail and wire fraud as well as bank fraud,
constituting a pattern of racketeering activity under RICO, the
lawsuit says.

The Company offers auto, home, renters, condo, motorcycle, life,
and roadside insurance services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason Palker, Esq.
          PALKER LAW FIRM, PLLC
          4228 S. McColl Road
          Edinburg, TX 78539
          Telephone: (956) 320-0270
          Facsimile: (800) 507-4298

ALLY FINANCIAL: Sheridan Seeks to Certify West Virginia Consumers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL C. SHERIDAN, on
behalf of Himself and all others similarly situated, v. ALLY
FINANCIAL, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00616 (S.D.W. Va.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order granting certification of a class
defined as follows:

    "All West Virginia consumers identified by the Defendant with
    a West Virginia mailing address (1) with an automobile loan
    securing a vehicle with a Contract and Garage State in West
    Virginia, (2) where the lender or assignee is Ally, (3) who
    paid a fee to Ally or its agent for making a loan payment by
    telephone or over the internet, by interactive voice
    recognition (IVR) or by other electronic means, from four
    years before the filing of the complaint through the date a
    class is certified."

Ally Financial offers automotive financial services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 7, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iw2Xza at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patricia M. Kipnis, Esq.
          Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
          Denali Hedrick, Esq.
          James L. Kauffman, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          923 Haddonfield Road Suite 300
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
          Telephone: (215) 274-9420
          E-mail: PKipnis@baileyglasser.com
                  JMarshall@baileyglasser.com
                  DHedrick@baileyglasser.com
                  JKauffman@baileyglasser.com

ALMAZ JEWELRY: Faces Solis Suit Over Website's Access Barriers
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO SOLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. "ALMAZ" JEWELRY & FINE ANTIQUES CORP.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01153 (E.D.N.Y., February 28, 2025) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of Title III
of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human
Rights Law, and declaratory relief.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.aliciasjewelers.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not
limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.

"Almaz" Jewelry & Fine Antiques Corp. is a company that sells
online goods and services in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Rami Salim, Esq.
       STEIN SAKS, PLLC
       One University Plaza, Suite 620
       Hackensack, NJ 07601
       Telephone: (201) 282-6500
       Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
       Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com

AMAZON INC: Waithaka Loses Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNARD WAITHAKA, et al.,
v. AMAZON, INC., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01320-JCC (W.D. Wash.),
the Hon. Judge John Coughenour entered an order denying the
Plaintiff's motion to either certify a question to the Supreme
Judicial Court of Massachusetts or an order for interlocutory
appeal.

In its order denying class certification, the Court found that the
Wage Act claim suffered from predominance issues under Rule
23(b)(3).

Even assuming this claim should not have been dismissed, the result
for the Plaintiff's original motion would be the same.

The Plaintiff sought classwide resolution of his claims, including
under the Wage Act, and did not prevail, in part, because
individual issues predominated over common questions.

The Court does not find an appeal of its order would advance this
litigation. Therefore, because he fails to satisfy at least one
statutory factor, Plaintiff's motion for interlocutory review is
denied.

The Plaintiff previously moved to certify a class of similarly
situated delivery drivers on three state employment claims. The
Court ordered and received supplemental briefing on the viability
of one claim for business expenses under the Massachusetts Wage
Act.

The Court denied the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and
dismissed his Wage Act claim for failure to state a viable claim.

Amazon is an American multinational technology company which
focuses on e-commerce, cloud computing, and digital streaming.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7uqHaW at no extra
charge.[CC]

AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Filing in Cross Suer Due April 15, 2026
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEAH CROSS, MARCO GRANGER
RIVERA, RYAN SCHILLING, CASSIE WHINNIE, and those similarly
situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., AND AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., Case No.
1:23-cv-02099-NYW-SBP (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Susan Prose
entered an amended scheduling order as follows:

-- Deadline for service of interrogatories,       Oct. 17, 2025
    requests for production of documents
    and/or admissions:

-- Date of Rule 26(f) meeting:                    Feb. 3, 2025.

-- Any motions to join other parties or           April 18, 2025
    amend the pleadings must be filed by:

-- The parties propose that Plaintiffs'           April 15, 2026
    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 motion for class
    certification to be filed by:

-- Dispositive Motion Deadline as to              April 15, 2026
    Plaintiffs' Claims:

Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of
products.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HkcRH1 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Valerie L. Collins, Esq.
          David H. Seligman, Esq.
          TOWARDS JUSTICE
          303 E. 17th Ave. Suite 400
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (720) 295-1672
          Facsimile: (720) 441-2236
          E-mail: david@towardsjustice.org
                  valerie@towardsjustice.org

                - and -

          Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
          Eric R. Nusser, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          E-mail: tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com
                  eric@terrellmarshall.com

                - and -

          Shelby Leighton, Esq.
          Hannah Kieschnick, Esq.
          PUBLIC JUSTICE
          1620 L St. NW, Suite 630
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 797-8600
          E-mail: sleighton@publicjustice.net
                  hkieschnick@publicjustice.net

                - and -

          David Muraskin, Esq.
          FARMSTAND
          712 H Street NE Suite 2534
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 630-3095
          E-mail: david@farmstand.org


The Defendants are represented by:

          Sari M. Alamuddin, Esq.
          Patrick R. Duffey, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
          110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 324-1158
          Facsimile: (312) 324-1134
          E-mail: Sari.alamuddin@morganlewis.com
                  patrick.duffey@morganlewis.com

                - and -

          Jennifer S. Harpole, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          1900 16th Street, Suite 800
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 629-6200
          E-mail: jharpole@littler.com

AMERESCO INC: Case Deadlines & Hearings Vacated in Ramirez Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUGO RAMIREZ, an
individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
v. AMERESCO, INC., a Delaware corporation; BERNARD NICKELS INC., a
New York corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
5:24-cv-00949-CV-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Valenzuela
entered an order granting the Parties' joint stipulation to vacate
dates relating to class certification and trial.

   1. All case deadlines and hearings set in the Court's Dec. 11,
      2024 Scheduling Order, including the dates relating to class

      certification and trial, are vacated.

   2. A further status conference is set for Apr. 11, 2025, at
      1:30 p.m.

Ameresco is a cleantech integrator and renewable energy asset
developer, owner, and operator.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dczmaf at no extra
charge.[CC]

AMERICAN HONDA: Fausto Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jennifer Fausto and Sean Fausto, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. American Honda
Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-07308 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on March 7,
2025.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00142-MWM to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act.

The American Honda Motor Company, Inc. -- https://www.honda.com/ --
(sometimes abbreviated as AHM) is the North American subsidiary of
Japanese Honda Motor Company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Trinette G. Kent, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW, LLC
          1100 West Town & Country Rd., Suite 1250
          Orange, CA 92868
          Phone: (480) 247-9644
          Facsimile: (480) 717-4781
          Email: tkent@lemberglaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael Brian Shortnacy, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY AND BACON L.L.P.
          2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (424) 285-8330
          Fax: (424) 204-9093
          Email: mshortnacy@shb.com

               - and -

          John Christopher Mitchell, Esq.
          KING AND SPALDING LLP
          50 California Street Suite 3300
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 318-1237
          Fax: (415) 318-1300
          Email: cmitchell@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Livia M Kiser, Esq.
          KING AND SPALDING LLP
          633 West 5th Street Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 443-4355
          Fax: (213) 443-4310
          Email: lkiser@kslaw.com

AMERICAN MODULAR: Class Cert Filing in Rodriguez Due Feb. 5, 2027
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GASPAR RODRIGUEZ,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AMERICAN MODULAR SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-03006-TLN-SCR
(E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Troy Nunley entered an amended pretrial
scheduling order as follows:

All discovery in Phase I shall be limited to facts that are
relevant to whether this action should be certified as a class
action and shall be completed by Oct. 2, 2026.

All counsel are to designate in writing, file with the Court, and
serve upon all other parties the name, address, and area of
expertise of each expert that they propose to tender at class
certification not later than Dec. 4, 2026.

The motion for class certification shall be filed by Feb. 5, 2027.

American Modular manufactures mobile homes. The Company builds
one-two story buildings, schools, and classrooms.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3LUMbh at no extra
charge.[CC]

AMERICAN SOCIETY: Controls Resident Pharmacists' Market, Kim Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUNE KIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN SOCIETY OF HEALTH-SYSTEM
PHARMACISTS, INC., NATIONAL MATCHING SERVICES INC., ALLEGHENY
HEALTH NETWORK, D/B/A ALLEGHENY GENERAL HOSPITAL, ASCENSION HEALTH,
KAISER PERMANENTE, LEESBURG REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. D/B/A UF
HEALTH CENTRAL FLORIDA, NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, REGENTS OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, RUSH UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, THE
CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION, D/B/A CLEVELAND CLINIC, THE JOHNS
HOPKINS HOSPITAL, THE METHODIST HOSPITAL D/B/A HOUSTON METHODIST
HOSPITAL, THE NEMOURS FOUNDATION, THE NEW YORK AND PRESBYTERIAN
HOSPITAL D/B/A NEW YORK PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL, THE QUEEN'S HEALTH
SYSTEMS, THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO MEDICAL CENTER, TRUSTEES OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, D/B/A MEDICAL CENTERHOSPITAL OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, and UPMC PRESBYTERIAN SHADYSIDE,
Defendants, Case No. 8:25-cv-00708-DLB (D. Md., March 4, 2025) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged participation in a
system that intentionally suppresses competition in the labor
market for resident pharmacists by forcing them to apply for
employment through a system called the American Society of
Health-System Pharmacists, Inc. (ASHP) Resident Matching Program
(the ASHP Match). The ASHP Match eliminates the prospective
employees' ability to negotiate over the terms of employment they
are offered, prohibits them from moving between employers after
they are hired, bars them from applying for pharmacy residency
positions outside of the ASHP Match, and polices compliance with
its own rules. As a result of this anti-competitive conspiracy,
generations of resident pharmacists have suffered from artificially
suppressed wages and employment benefits while remaining unable to
improve their working conditions.

American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, Inc. is a
professional organization, with its principal office located in
Bethesda, Maryland.

National Matching Services Inc. is a Canadian business corporation
in Ontario, Canada.

Allegheny Health Network, d/b/a Allegheny General Hospital, is a
healthcare company, with its principal office in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.

Ascension Health Alliance is a company that operates hospitals and
senior living facilities, with its principal office in St. Louis,
Missouri.

Kaiser Permanente is a company that operates hospitals and medical
offices, with its principal office located in Oakland, California.

Leesburg Regional Medical Center, Inc., d/b/a UF Health Central
Florida, is a healthcare provider, with its principal office in
Leesburg, Florida.

Northwestern Memorial Hospital is a healthcare provider, with its
principal office located in Chicago, Illinois.

Regents of the University of California is a university in
California.

Rush University Medical Center is a not-for-profit corporation,
with its principal office located in Chicago, Illinois.

The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, d/b/a The Cleveland Clinic, is a
nonprofit corporation, with its principal office located in
Cleveland, Ohio.

The Johns Hopkins Hospital is a healthcare provider, with its
principal office located in Baltimore, Maryland.

The Methodist Hospital d/b/a Houston Methodist Hospital is a
healthcare provider, with its principal office located in Houston,
Texas.

The Nemours Foundation is a nonprofit corporation, with its
principal office located in Jacksonville, Florida.

The New York and Presbyterian Hospital d/b/a New York Presbyterian
Hospital is a not-for-profit corporation, with its principal office
located in New York, New York.

The Queen's Health Systems is a nonprofit corporation, with its
principal office located in Honolulu, Hawaii.

The University of Chicago Medical Center is a nonprofit
corporation, with its principal office located in Chicago,
Illinois.

Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, d/b/a University of
Pennsylvania Medical Center-Hospital of the University of
Pennsylvania is a medical provider, with its principal office
located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside is a healthcare provider, with its
principal office located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Carmen Medici, Esq.
       Joseph Pettigrew, Esq.
       SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
       600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
       San Diego, CA 92101
       Telephone: (619) 233-4565
       Facsimile: (619) 233-4565
       Email: cmedici@scott-scott.com
              jpettigrew@scott-scott.com

                - and -

       Matthew J. Perez, Esq.
       SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
       The Helmsley Building
       230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor
       Telephone: (212) 233-6444
       Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
       Email: matt.perez@scott-scott.com

                - and -

       Patrick McGahan, Esq.
       SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
       156 South Main Street
       P.O. Box 192
       Colchester, CT 06145
       Telephone: (860) 537-5537
       Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
       Email: pmcgahan@scott-scott.com

AMP UNITED: Terminates Employees Without Advance Notice, Toner Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL L. TONER and FREDERICK M. WILSON, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMP UNITED, L.L.C.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00122 (E.D. Va., March 3, 2025) is a
class action against the Defendant for terminating employees as a
result of a mass layoff without the notices required by the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

Mr. Toner worked for the Defendant full time as a quality assurance
(QA) inspector from December 2020 until he was laid off in March
2022. He was rehired in or around September 2022 and continued to
work until he was fired on or about March 15, 2024.

Mr. Wilson worked full time for the Defendant as a project
manager/planner in the structural fitting division from January
2022 until he was fired on or about March 13, 2024.

AMP United, LLC is a company that engaged in the ship repair and
preservation business based in Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
       Christian L. Connell, Esq.
       CHRISTIAN L. CONNELL, P.C.
       555 East Main Street, Suite 1102
       Norfolk, VA 23510
       Telephone: (757) 533-6500
       Facsimile: (757) 299-4770
       Email: christian.connell@outlook.com

                - and -

       Brandon T. Bybee, Esq.
       BRANDON T. BYBEE, P.L.C.
       208 East Plume Street, Suite 212
       Monticello Arcade
       Norfolk, VA 23510
       Telephone: (757) 568-0090
       Facsimile: (866) 568-0090
       Email: brandon@bybeelegal.com

AMPAM PARKS: Plaintiffs Must File Exhibits by Oct. 25
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alfredo Ramirez, Ramón
Santos Castro and Ivan Fernandez, individually and as
representatives of a class of all others similarly situated and on
behalf of the AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership
Plan (the "AMPAM ESOP" or the "ESOP"), v. AMPAM Parks Mechanical,
Inc., Charles E. Parks III, John D. Parks, John G. Mavredakis,
Kushal B. Kapadia, the AMPAM Board of Directors, Neil Brozen,
Ventura Trust Company, James C. Wright III, Kevin Dow, James Ellis,
Steve Grosslight, and Mike Matkins, Case No. 5:24-cv-01038-KK-DTB
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kenly Kiya Kato entered an order that
the Plaintiffs may publicly file Exhibit 5 to the Declaration of
Michelle Yau dated Oct. 25, 2024 with redactions applied to the
page Bates-stamped BJC_001396, and a placeholder exhibit for
Exhibit 4, and may publicly file their memorandum in support of
motion for class certification with redactions applied to citations
to those exhibits.

The Plaintiffs may also file a copy of their Memorandum and
Exhibits 4 and 5 of the Yau Declaration under seal without
redactions.

AMPAM Parks specializes in multifamily residential construction.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gyPiN0 at no extra
charge.[CC]

ARBOR REALTY: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arbor Realty Trust Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 21, 2025, that the Company
continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

On July 31, 2024, a purported shareholder filed a securities class
action lawsuit against the Company and certain of its executive
officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of shareholders who
purchased its shares of common stock between May 7, 2021 and July
11, 2024.

On November 5, 2024, the Court approved the motion appointing the
lead plaintiffs and their counsel.

An amended complaint was filed by the lead plaintiffs on January
21, 2025. The amended complaint alleges that it has made false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
information in connection with allegedly overriding internal
controls, engaging in substandard lending practices and not
complying with agency requirements. The plaintiffs are seeking
damages in an unspecified amount, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs.

The Company believes that the allegations in the lawsuit are
without merit, and it intends to vigorously defend against the
claims.

Arbor is a nationwide real estate investment trust and direct
lender.

ASHEVILLE EYE: Lytle Suit Removed from State Court to W.D.N.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
TIFFANY LYTLE, on behalf of her minor children N.L. and M.Y., and
all others similarly situated v. ASHEVILLE EYE ASSOCIATES, PLLC,
Case No. 25CV001021-100 (Filed Feb. 14, 2024) was removed from the
from the General Court of Justice of Buncombe County, North
Carolina to the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina on March 12, 2025.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00075 to the
proceeding.

The suit alleges that Asheville Eye breached its duties to
Plaintiffs and Class Members under the Federal Tort Claims Act and
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act by failing to
provide fair, reasonable, or adequate computer systems and data
security practices to safeguard Plaintiffs' and Class Members'
Private Information.

ASHEVILLE EYE ASSOCIATES, PLLC provides eye care services to the
region of Western North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana Smith, Esq.
          Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
          Neil P. Williams, Esq.
          SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
          745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10151
          E-mail: dsmith@sirillp.com
                  tbean@sirillp.com
                  nwilliams@sirillp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          H. Hunter Bruton, Esq.
          David J. Senter, Esq.
          SMITH, ANDERSON, BLOUNT, DORSETT,
          MITCHELL & JERNIGAN, L.L.P.
          Post Office Box 2611
          Raleigh, NC 27602-2611
          Telephone: (919) 821-1220
          Facsimile: (919) 821-6800
          E-mail: hbruton@smithlaw.com
                  dsenter@smithlaw.com

ASML HOLDING: Court Consolidates Securities Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF HOLLYWOOD
FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, v. ASML HOLDING N.V., CHRISTOPHE
FOUQUET, ROGER DASSEN, and PETER WENNINK, Case No. 1:24-cv-08664
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald entered an order
consolidating the Actions, appointing the Police and Fire Funds as
lead plaintiffs, and appointing Bernstein Litowitz and Kessler
Topaz as lead counsel.

The Lead plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint within 45 days
of this Order, and the Defendants shall respond to the complaint
within 45 days of the filing of the amended complaint, either by
responsive pleading or a motion to dismiss. If defendants move to
dismiss the amended complaint, lead plaintiffs will have 45 days to
file an opposition brief, after which the Defendants will have 25
days to file a reply brief.

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at
ECF Nos. 11, 16, 21, 27, 29, and 36.

Because the Actions filed against ASML "contain the same factual
and legal issues," we consolidate them under Rule 42(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

ASML specializes in the development and manufacturing of
photolithography machines which are used to produce computer
chips.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pQipC0 at no extra
charge.[CC]

ATHLETIC PROPULSION: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SIMON ISAKOV, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Athletic Propulsion Labs, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02141
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2025) sues the Defendant for their failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Athletic Propulsion Labs provides to their non-disabled
customers through https://www.athleticpropulsionlabs.com.

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
Defendant controls and operates Athleticpropulsionlabs.com in New
York State and throughout the United States, says the suit.

Athleticpropulsionlabs.com is a commercial website that offers
products and services for online sale. The online store allows the
user to view shoes for various activities, make purchases, and
perform a variety of other functions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael H. Cohen, Esq.
          EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
          68-29 Main Street
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Telephone: (917) 437-3737
          E-mail: mcohen@ealg.law

AVEN FINANCIAL: Marino Sues Over Credit Reports' Unapproved Access
------------------------------------------------------------------
ARIANNA MARINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AVEN FINANCIAL, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:25-cv-00503-BAS-DEB (S.D. Cal., March 4, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act and Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's unauthorized access of
consumers' credit reports without consent. According to the
complaint, a technical bug in the Defendant's mobile application
caused the Plaintiff to unknowingly apply for a Home Equity Line of
Credit (HELOC) from the Defendant. As a result of the Defendant's
misconduct, the Plaintiff's credit score has decreased and she lost
opportunities to receive and accept offers of credit.

Aven Financial, Inc. is a finance company doing business in
California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
       Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
       Spencer L. Pfeiff, Esq.
       SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
       2221 Camino del Rio S., Ste. 308
       San Diego, CA 92108
       Telephone: (866) 219-3343
       Email: josh@swigartlawgroup.com
              spencer@swigartlawgroup.com

BANK OF AMERICA: Violates EFTA, Goolsby Class Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA GOOLSBY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 3:25-cv-00009-JHY
(W.D. Va. March 7, 2025) alleges that perpetrators, who are unknown
to the Plaintiff, fraudulently misrepresented themselves in phone
calls, in successful efforts to obtain the Plaintiff's account
information to conduct unauthorized transactions.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff disputed the transactions with Defendant
Bank of America, N.A., but BOA has refused to treat the
transactions as unauthorized. BOA's attempt to hold Plaintiff
liable directly violates the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, which
protects consumers from liability for unauthorized transfers, the
Plaintiff says.

It also breaches BOA's own promises regarding account security and
customer liability for unauthorized transfers. BOA also violated
the EFTA by denying claims of unauthorized transactions without
providing an adequate written explanation and without providing to
consumers the documents BOA reviewed during the investigation or
even notice to the consumers of the consumers' right to
investigation documents, the Plaintiff adds.

Ms. Goolsby's account was primarily for personal, family and
household use. It was not a business or commercial account. The
Plaintiff contends that she is a victim of fraud. On Sept. 17,
2024, she received a call on her cell phone from 1-800-421-2110
from a person purporting to be from BOA inquiring about her
checking account.

BOA is a national banking association.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert W. Murphy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. MURPHY
          440 Premier Circle, Suite 240
          Charlottesville, VA 22901
          Telephone: (434) 328-3100
          Facsimile: (434) 328-3101
          E-mail: rwmurphy@lawfirmmurphy.com

               - and -

          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
          763 J. Clyde Morris, Blvd., Suite 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: craig@clalegal.com

BANKPLUS: Faces Albright Class Suit Over Overdraft Fee Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
TOMMIE ALBRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. BANKPLUS, Case No. 4:25-cv-00035-MPM-JMV (N.D. Miss.,
March 10, 2025) alleges that BankPlus has violated the Electronic
Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has economically harmed
the Plaintiff and its other customers through the use of deceptive,
unclear, and ambiguous language which fails to notify its customers
of Defendant's true overdraft fee practices and accordingly fails
to provide customers like Plaintiff and the putative class with the
ability to plan their finances effectively to avoid these onerous
fees.

Regulation E requires that, before a financial institution may
charge overdraft fees (OD Fees) on one-time debit card and ATM
transactions, it must obtain the consumer's affirmative consent to
participate in the overdraft service.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of Mississippi and a resident of Tchula,
Mississippi, in the Southern District. Plaintiff has maintained a
checking account with Defendant.

The Defendant is engaged in the business of providing retail
banking services to consumers, including Plaintiff and members of
the Class, in this District.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Winston S. Hudson, Esq.
          JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC
          500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (601) 270-0197
          E-mail: winston@jefirm.com

BARBARA M. BYRNE: NYCERS Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BARBARA M. BYRNE, et
al. The case is styled as the New York City Employees' Retirement
System, the New York City Fire Department Pension Fund, the New
York City Police Pension Fund, the New York City Board Of Education
Retirement System, and the Teachers' Retirement System of the City
of New York, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated stockholders of Paramount Global v. BARBARA M. BYRNE,
LINDA M. GRIEGO, JUDITH A. MCHALE, AND SUSAN SCHUMAN, Case No.
2025-0126-KSJM (Del. Chancery Ct., Feb. 4, 2025).

The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties."

Barbara M. Byrne serves on Paramount's Board of Directors as a
Director and as a member of the Special Committee that approved the
Merger.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Barry, Esq.
          Christine M. Mackintosh, Esq.
          Vivek Upadhya, Esq.
          William G. Passannante II, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          123 Justison Street
          Wilmington, Delaware 19801
          Phone: (302) 622-7000

BCE-MACH III: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Sagacity Due May 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAGACITY, INC., et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. BCE-Mach
III LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-00039-RAW-GLJ (E.D. Okla.), the Hon.
Judge Gerald Jackson entered a fourth amended scheduling order as
follows:

   1. Documents previously produced by parties      Apr. 28, 2025
      shall be deemed authenticated except as
      to those objected to:

   2. Class Certification Motion filed with         May 30, 2025
      all supporting evidence, including
      expert disclosures:

   3. Class Certification Response filed with       July 29, 2025
      all supporting evidence, including
      expert disclosures:

   4. Class Certification Reply filed with any      Aug. 28, 2025
      rebuttal evidence, including rebuttal
      expert disclosures, if any”

   5. Class Certification Discovery Cutoff:         Aug. 28, 2025

   6. Evidentiary hearing on Plaintiffs'            Oct. 28, 2025
      Motion for Class Certification:

CE-Mach is a portfolio company of Bayou City Energy Management LLC
(BCE) and Mach Resources LLC (Mach), focusing on upstream oil and
gas assets.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Knmgs5 at no extra
charge.[CC]

BED BATH: Bratya Bid to Reconsider Class Cert Denial Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRATYA SPRL, v. BED BATH &
BEYOND CORPORATION, et al. Case No. 1:22-cv-02541-TNM (D.D.C.), the
Hon. Judge Trevor McFadden entered an order denying the Bratya's
motion for reconsideration.

The Court says it must comb out a snarl in the securities fraud
case against Bed Bath and Beyond investor Ryan Cohen. The Court
previously denied class certification to the investors who claim
they were defrauded by Cohen.  Lead Plaintiff Bratya moved for
reconsideration of that order.

Lead Plaintiff Bratya now moves for reconsideration of that order.
Bratya insists that the Court erroneously required it prove
reliance for a handful of its claims that require no such showing.
And it argues that the Court wrongly concluded shares for Bed Bath
did not trade on an efficient market during the class period. But
Bratya's arguments run the gamut from forfeited to recycled.
Neither type of claim is proper in a motion for reconsideration.

Bed Bath was an American big-box retail chain specializing in
housewares, furniture, and specialty items.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CS4tpL at no extra
charge.[CC]

BERMAN & RABIN: Burton Files Suit in D. Kansas
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Berman & Rabin, P.A.
The case is styled as Teresa Burton, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Berman & Rabin, P.A., Case No.
2:25-cv-02051-DDC-GEB (D. Kan., Feb. 4, 2025).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Fiduciary
Duty.

Berman & Rabin, P.A. -- https://www.bermanrabin.com/ -- was founded
in 1983 for the purpose of specializing in creditor representation,
and it has never wavered from this purpose.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
          MCSHANE AND BRADY LLC
          4006 Central Street
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Phone: (816) 888-8010
          Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com

BEST BUY STORES: Cuevas Sues Over Unsolicited Mass Text Messaging
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Cuevas, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. BEST BUY STORES, L.P., Case No. 5:25-cv-00336-SP (C.D.
Cal., Feb. 6, 2025), is brought against Defendant pursuant to the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") as a result of the
Defendants unsolicited mass text messaging.

To solicit consumers, Defendant engages in mass text messaging and
continues to text message consumers after they have opted out of
Defendant's text messages. The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages on
behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other
available legal or equitable remedies. The Plaintiff attempted to
opt-out of Defendant's text message solicitations by responding to
Defendant's messages with the word "stop", but instead of honoring
the request, Defendant continued its solicitation efforts. The
Defendant's text message spam caused Plaintiff and the Class
members harm, including violations of their statutory rights,
trespass, annoyance, nuisance, invasion of their privacy, and
intrusion upon seclusion. Defendant's text messages also occupied
storage space on Plaintiff's and the Class members' telephones,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was the regular user of cellular telephone number
that received Defendant's unwanted messages.

The Defendant operates a nationwide chain of retail stores
specializing in consumer electronics, appliances, computers, and
related services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
          IJH LAW
          1100 Town & Country Road Suite 1250
          Orange, CA 92868
          Phone: 657.200.1403
          Email: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com

BIJORA INC: Faces Cruz Class Suit Over Fake Reference Prices
------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE CRUZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. BIJORA, INC. d/b/a AKIRA, Case No. 5:25-cv-00634 (C.D.
Cal., March 10, 2025) alleges that Akira has engaged in a deceptive
pricing scheme by advertising products as "sales" or "markdowns" by
showing significantly inflated "reference prices" or "regular
prices" that are rarely, if ever, actually charged.

Accordingly, Akira advertises perpetual or near perpetual discounts
on many of its products supposedly offering discounts off Akira's
self-created, fictitious reference prices.

Akira represents to consumers that its reference price is the
"regular" or "normal" price of the item, which functions as a new
and inflated reference point from which consumers discount their
"savings" on various products.

Akira's reference prices are false because Akira rarely, if ever,
offers the products for the reference price. Instead, the inflated
reference prices allow Akira to continually advertise "sale" events
and product discounts in order to induce consumers into purchasing
products. In reality, the "sale" price is the price at which Akira
regularly sells the product, but the consumer has been tricked into
thinking she found a great discount, says the suit.

Akira operates a website, www.shopakira.com, that advertises and
sells its goods in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kyle McLean, Esq.
          Lisa R. Considine, Esq.
          David J. DiSabato, Esq.
          Leslie L. Pescia, Esq.
          SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
          700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (212) 532-1091
          Facsimile: (646) 417-5967
          E-mail : kmclean@sirillp.com
                   lconsidine@sirillp.com
                   ddisabato@sirillp.com
                   lpescia@sirillp.com

BLOOMBERG LP: Santoro Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Clark Santoro, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. BLOOMBERG L.P., and DOES 1 through
25 inclusive, Case No. 25STCV01820 was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on March 7, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02014.

The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts a claim for violations of
California Penal Code arising from Bloomberg's alleged use of
third-party software in connection with the search feature of its
consumer-facing website.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kelsey Harclerode, Esq.
          ZWILLGEN PLLC
          1900 M Street MW, Suite 250
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: (202) 706-5225
          Facsimile: (202) 706-5298
          Email: kelsey@zwillgen.com

BOEING COMPANY: Luebrecht Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Mechanics
------------------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL LUEBRECHT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE BOEING COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 4:25-cv-00267 (E.D. Mo., March 4, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri Minimum
Wage Law.

Ms. Luebrecht worked for Boeing at its Berkeley, Missouri plant as
an assembly mechanic from July 2014 through December 23, 2024.

The Boeing Company is a global aerospace and defense corporation,
headquartered in Arlington, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
      Philip E. Oliphant, Esq.
      THE ROLWES LAW FIRM
      1951 Mignon Avenue
      Memphis, TN 38107
      Telephone: (901) 830-4663
      Facsimile: (901) 979-2499
      Email: poliphant@rolweslaw.com

              - and -

      Edward J. Rolwes, Esq.
      THE ROLWES LAW FIRM
      2333 South Hanley Road, S. 104
      St. Louis, MO 63144
      Telephone: (314) 806-9626
      Facsimile: (314) 472-0900
      Email: erolwes@rolweslaw.com

BOWLERSMART LLC: Faces Johnson Class Suit in M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bowlersmart LLC. The
case is captioned as Jennifer Johnson individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. BOWLERSMART LLC, Case No.
8:25-cv-00262-KKM-AAS (M.D. Fla., Jan. 31, 2025),

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle.

The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

BowlersMart is an online retailer of bowling products and
accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Faaris Kamal Uddin, Esq.
          Gerald D Lane, Jr., Esq.
          Wilton Manors, Esq.
          Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          1515 NE 26th Street
          Wilton Manors, FL 33305
          Telephone: (954) 907-1136
          E-mail: faaris@jibraellaw.com
                  gerald@jibraellaw.com
                  zane@jibraellaw.com


BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Hettinger Bid for Class Certification Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HETTINGER v. BOZZUTO
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-03687 (D.D.C., Filed Dec. 11,
2023), the Hon. Judge James E. Boasberg entered an order adopting
the parties' joint motion to modify scheduling order:

   (1) The deadlines for Plaintiff's Motion for Class
       Certification, Defendant's Opposition to the Motion, and
       Plaintiff's Reply are stayed;

   (2) The stay will be lifted after the Court resolves the
       Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; and

   (3) Within 14days after the stay is lifted, the Parties shall
       propose a revised Scheduling Order that includes new
       deadlines for class certification briefing and the close of

       discovery.

The nature of suit states Constitutionality of State Statutes.

Bozzuto is a real estate company.[CC]

BQE FITNESS: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Wills Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LAURENCE WILLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BQE FITNESS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-01154 (E.D.N.Y., February 28, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law, and
declaratory relief.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.bqefitness.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not
limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.

BQE Fitness, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services
in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Rami Salim, Esq.
       STEIN SAKS, PLLC
       One University Plaza, Suite 620
       Hackensack, NJ 07601
       Telephone: (201) 282-6500
       Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
       Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com

BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO: Canada Litigations Stayed
---------------------------------------------------
British American Tobacco p.l.c. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 16, 2025, that on 17 October 2024,
a court-appointed mediator and monitor filed a proposed plan of
compromise and arrangement for Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, the
company's operating company in Canada, in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice. Stays of proceedings were currently in place and
no steps are to be taken in connection with the Canadian tobacco
litigation with respect to Imperial, certain of its subsidiaries or
any other company affiliates.

On March 1 2019, the Québec Court of Appeal handed down a judgment
which largely upheld and endorsed a lower court's previous decision
in two Québec class actions. The share of the judgment for
Imperial, is approximately CAD$9.2 billion. A court order to stay
all tobacco litigation in Canada against all defendants until 4
April 2019 was obtained, and the need for a mediation process to
resolve all the outstanding litigation across the country was
recognized. On March 12, 2019 Imperial filed for creditor
protection. In its application Imperial asked the Ontario Superior
Court to stay all pending or contemplated litigation against
Imperial, certain of its subsidiaries and all other company
affiliates that were defendants in the Canadian tobacco litigation,
including the company, obtained a stay of proceedings.

British American Tobacco p.l.c. is a multinational tobacco
manufacturing and marketing company based out of London with
notable cigarette brands include Dunhill, Kent, Lucky Strike, Pall
Mall and Rothmans.


BROTHERS II LANDSCAPES: Underpays Laborers, Gonzalez Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GERMAN PEREZ GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BROTHERS II LANDSCAPES, INC. and
DANIEL JOSEPH, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01207 (E.D.N.Y., March
4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to maintain accurate wage
notice and recordkeeping, and failure to provide accurate wage
statements.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a laborer from in
or about October 2021 until in or about January 2024.

Brothers II Landscapes, Inc. is a provider of landscaping services,
with its principal place of business located in East Northport, New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Peter A. Romero, Esq.
       ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
       490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277
       Hauppauge, NY 11788
       Telephone: (631) 257-5588
       Email: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com

BYTEDANCE INC: Collects Minors' Info Without Consent, Hinkle Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA HINKLE, on behalf of A.H., a minor, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BYTEDANCE,
INC.; BYTEDANCE LTD.; TIKTOK LTD.; TIKTOK INC.; TIKTOK PTE. LTD.;
and TIKTOK U.S. DATA SECURITY, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:25-cv-00142 (S.D. W. Va., March 4, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendants for invasion of privacy, violation of West
Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act, and unjust
enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to disclose that they
collect and sell personally identifiable information (PII) of
millions of minor children without the consent of the minors or
their parents. The Defendants allegedly use the PII collected from
children (under the age of 13) to target them with advertising. The
Defendants knowingly enriched by revenues and profits they received
from unjustly and illegally collecting and using the personal
information of minor children to build profiles and target
advertisements to those children. The Plaintiff's minor child and
Class Members seek relief, including disgorgement of all revenues
and profits that the Defendants earned as a result of their
unlawful and wrongful conduct.

Bytedance, Inc. is a technology company based in Mountain View,
California.

Bytedance, Ltd. is a technology company based in Cayman Islands.

TikTok, Ltd. is a technology company based in Cayman Islands.

TikTok, Inc. is a short-form video hosting service provider based
in Culver City, California.

TikTok Pte. Ltd. is a short-form video hosting service provider
based in Singapore.

TikTok U.S. Data Security, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business shared with TikTok Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Troy N. Giatras, Esq.
         Matthew Stonestreet, Esq.
         THE GIATRAS LAW FIRM, PLLC
         118 Capitol Street, Suite 400
         Charleston, WV 25301
         Telephone: (304) 343-2900
         Facsimile: (304) 343-2942
         Email: troy@thewvlawfirm.com
                matt@thewvlawfirm.com

BYTEDANCE INC: Lindsey Files Suit in N.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bytedance, Inc. et
al. The case is styled as Katrice Lindsey, on behalf of JDW JYW and
SMW individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
BYTEDANCE INC., BYTEDANCE LTD., TIKTOK LTD., TIKTOK PTE. LTD.,
TIKTOK U.S. DATA SECURITY INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00112-RH-MAF (N.D.
Fla., March 12, 2025).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

ByteDance Ltd. -- http://www.bytedance.com/en/-- is a Chinese
internet technology company headquartered in Haidian, Beijing, and
incorporated in the Cayman Islands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles Philip Hall, Esq.
          PHIL HALL PA-PENSACOLA FL
          4300 Bayou Boulevard, Suite 32
          Pensacola, FL 32503
          Phone: (850) 760-2156
          Email: phil@askalawyerfirst.com

BYTEDANCE INC: Sells Personal Info of Minor Children, Riley Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN RILEY on behalf of W.C.R., T.S.R.R, N.A.R., T.A.R., and
N.J.R.; individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. BYTEDANCE, INC.; BYTEDANCE LTD.; TIKTOK LTD.; TIKTOK
INC.; TIKTOK PTE. LTD.; AND TIKTOK U.S. DATA SECURITY, INC., Case
No. 4:25-cv-00109-AW-MAF (N.D. Fla., March 10, 2025) alleges that
the Defendants failed to disclose that they collect and sell
personally identifiable information (PII) of millions of minor
children, without the consent of the minors or their parents,
including, but not limited to: name, age, profile image, password,
email, phone number, address, "approximate" location, social media
account information, phone and social media contacts, messages sent
to and received from other TikTok users, information in the
clipboard of a user's device, and payment card numbers, pursuant to
the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.

Accordingly, the Defendants collect and sell access to this
personal data without the minors’ or their parents’ notice,
knowledge, or consent.

TikTok collects and uses these young children's Personal
Information without providing direct notice to their parents or
gaining their parents' verifiable consent, in violation of the
COPPA.

It also defies an order that the Court entered in 2019 to resolve a
lawsuit in which the United States alleged that TikTok Inc.'s and
TikTok Ltd.'s predecessor companies similarly violated COPPA and
the COPPA Rule by allowing children to create and access accounts
without their parents' knowledge or consent, collecting
data from those children, and failing to comply with parents'
requests to delete their children’s accounts and information, the
lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff brings this nationwide class action individually, and
on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, pursuant to Rule
23(b)(2), 23(b)(3), and 23(c)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

The Classes that Plaintiff seeks to represent are defined as
follows:

  -- Nationwide Class

     "All United States residents (who were younger than 13 years
     old when they used TikTok) from whom Defendants collected
     and/or used Personal Information during the Class Period
     without notifying their parents and obtaining verifiable
     parental consent beforehand."

  -- Florida Subclass

     "All Florida residents (who were younger than 13 years old
     when they used TikTok) from whom Defendants collected and/or
     used Personal Information during the Class Period without
     notifying their parents and obtaining verifiable parental
     consent beforehand."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clayton M. Connors, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF
          CLAYTON M. CONNORS, PLLC
          4300 Bayou Blvd., Suite 37
          Pensacola, FL 32503
          Telephone: (850) 473-0401
          E-mail: cmc@westconlaw.com
                  mindy@westconlaw.com

CARMICHAEL DEVELOPMENT: Sued Over Unpaid OT Premium
---------------------------------------------------
Franklin Alvarado-Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated v. CARMICHAEL DEVELOPMENT, LLC and ANDY
CARMICHAEL, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:25-cv-01254-TRJ (N.D.
Ga., March 9, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime premium
pay, owed to them pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
and supporting regulations.

Throughout Plaintiff's employment, Plaintiff received no overtime
wages despite working excess of 40 hours each week. On average,
Plaintiff worked 62 hours each week. Throughout Plaintiff's
employment, Plaintiff was straight-time for all hours worked and
received no overtime wages whatsoever, despite working in excess of
40 hours each week. The Defendants were required by law to pay
Plaintiff time-and-a-half his regular wages for all hours in excess
of 40 hours, but purposely chose to not to pay him overtime wages,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a laborer from March 7,
2022 to February 21, 2025.

The Defendants have been in the construction industry, performing
construction services for clients throughout Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon A. Thomas, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC
          1 Glenlake Parkway, Suite 650
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Phone: (678) 862-9344
          Fax: (678) 638-6201
          Email: brandon@overtimeclaimslawyer.com

CES CLEANING CONTRACTORS: Valdez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CES Cleaning
Contractors LLC. The case is styled as Maria Isabel Valdez, an
individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. CES Cleaning Contractors LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0003693
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., March 12, 2025).

The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."

CES Cleaning Contractors LLC --
https://www.cescleaningcontractors.com/ -- specialize in detailed
and thorough sanitation of food packing, beverage, production
facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
          MELMED LAW GROUP P.C.
          1801 Century Park E, Ste. 850
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2346
          Phone: 310-824-3828
          Fax: 310-862-6851
          Email: jm@melmedlaw.com

CHOSEN FOODS: Whiteside Sues Over Avocado Oils' Non-GMO Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMER WHITESIDE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHOSEN FOODS, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 3:25-cv-00481-CAB-DDL (S.D. Cal., February 28, 2025) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the California's Unfair
Competition Law.

The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Chosen Foods
branded avocado oils. According to the complaint, the Defendant
advertises and labels the products as "non-GMO" and/or "non-GMO
Project Verified." However, this representation is misleading
because the non-GMO claims do not distinguish the products in any
way from other avocado oil products that do not have non-GMO
claims. The Defendant does this because consumers perceive non-GMO
foods as better for them and healthier. Had the Plaintiff and
similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not have
purchased the products or would have paid less for them, says the
suit.

Chosen Foods, LLC is a food manufacturer with a principal place of
business in San Diego, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Craig W. Straub, Esq.
       Kurt D. Kessler, Esq.
       Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
       CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
       9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
       Beverly Hills, CA 90210
       Telephone: (866) 276-7637
       Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
       Email: craig@crosnerlegal.com
              kurt@crosnerlegal.com
              zach@crosnerlegal.com

CLEO COMMUNICATIONS: Jackson Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cleo Communications,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Aquinas Jackson, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cleo
Communications, Inc., DXC Technology Services LLC, Case No.
3:25-cv-50104 (N.D. Ill., March 10, 2025).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

Cleo Communications LLC, simply referred to as Cleo --
https://www.cleo.com/ -- is a privately held software company
founded in 1976.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (866) 252-0878
          Email: gklinger@milberg.com

CLEO COMMUNICATIONS: Kelley Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cleo Communications,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Alvin Wade Kelley, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cleo
Communications, Inc., DXC Technology Services LLC, Case No.
3:25-cv-50103 (N.D. Ill., March 10, 2025).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor
Vehicle.

Cleo Communications LLC, simply referred to as Cleo --
https://www.cleo.com/ -- is a privately held software company
founded in 1976.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (866) 252-0878
          Email: gklinger@milberg.com

COASTAL ADVANTAGE: Lucas Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Coastal Advantage
Marketing, LLC. The case is styled as LynAriane Lucas, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Coastal Advantage
Marketing, LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-60450-WPD (S.D. Fla., March 10,
2025).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Coastal Marketing Group has been creating extraordinary, actionable
and well thought out marketing, advertising, PR and interactive
programs for almost 9 years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Chagas Gold, Esq.
          GOLD LAW, PA
          350 Lincoln Rd., 2nd Floor
          Miami Beach, FL 33139
          Phone: (561) 789-4413
          Email: chris@chrisgoldlaw.com

               - and -

          Alexander Jan-Yura Korolinsky, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALEXANDER J. KOROLINSKY, P.A.
          1001 Brickell Bay Drive, Ste. 2700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (877) 448-8404
          Email: korolinsky@ajklegal.com

COCA-COLA COMPANY: Washington Suit Removed to S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Anita Washington, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. The Coca-Cola Company, Case No.
817160/2024E was removed from the State Court - Supreme, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on March
10, 2025.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01916-JAV to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

The Coca-Cola Company -- https://www.coca-colacompany.com/ -- is an
American multinational beverage corporation founded in 1892, best
known as the producer of Coca-Cola.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Road, Ste. 412
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 268-7080
          Fax: (516) 234-7800
          Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Steven Alan Zalesin, Esq.
          PATTERSON, BELKNAP, WEBB & TYLER LLP
          1133 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: (212) 336-2000
          Fax: (212) 336-2222
          Email: sazalesin@pbwt.com

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER: Colino Suit Removed to D. Connecticut
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Nicholas Colino, individually and on behalf
of those similarly situated v. Community Health Center, Inc., Case
No. HBB-CV25-6093209-S was removed from the Connecticut Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
on March 10, 2025.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00346 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.

Community Health Center, Inc. -- https://www.chc1.com/ -- are one
of the leading health-care providers in the state of
Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Philip H. Bieler, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP - NY
          45 Rockefeller Plaza
          New York, NY 10111
          Phone: (212) 847-2868
          Fax: (212) 589-4201
          Email: pbieler@bakerlaw.com

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER: Ploss Suit Removed to D. Connecticut
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Donna Ploss, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. Community Health Center, Inc., Case No.
MMX-CV25-6044375-S was removed from the Connecticut Superior Court,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on March
10, 2025.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00345 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.

Community Health Center, Inc. -- https://www.chc1.com/ -- are one
of the leading health-care providers in the state of
Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Philip H. Bieler, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP - NY
          45 Rockefeller Plaza
          New York, NY 10111
          Phone: (212) 847-2868
          Fax: (212) 589-4201
          Email: pbieler@bakerlaw.com

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Martin Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Martin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, INC., Case No.
MMX-CV25-6044350-S (Conn. Super. Ct., Middletown Cty., Feb. 7,
2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to properly
secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it,
and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that
information.

The Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members bring this class
action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant
with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and
Protected Health Information ("PHI") (collectively "Private
Information"), including name, date of birth, address, phone
number, email, address, gender, race, ethnicity, health insurance,
guarantor name, vaccine type, dose and date of vaccine was impacted
in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed on January 30,
2025 (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach").

On January 30, 2025, Defendant issued a public disclosure and
started sending out notice letters and emails to affected
individuals. The Defendant failed to take precautions designed to
keep its patients' Private Information secure. The Defendant owed
Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and
necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe
and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited,
collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private
Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or
maintain adequate security practices. The Defendant admits that
information in its system was accessed by unauthorized individuals,
though it provided little information regarding how the Data Breach
occurred.

The Defendant, despite having the financial wherewithal and
personnel necessary to prevent the Data Breach, nevertheless failed
to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to
the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained
for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of
Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. As a result of
Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process,
Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to
criminals, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff provided their Private Information to Defendant.

The Defendant is a nonprofit healthcare organization headquartered
in Middletown, Connecticut, dedicated to providing accessible,
affordable, and comprehensive primary and preventative care.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1111 Summer Street, Suite 403
          Stamford, CT 06905
          Phone: (203) 992-4523
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          Email: shopkins@zlk.com

               - and -

          Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          Email: cmaccarone@zlk.com

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Tedone Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Tedone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, INC., Case No.
MMX-CV25-6044349-S (Conn. Super. Ct., Middletown Cty., Feb. 7,
2025), is brought arising from Defendant CHC's failures to properly
secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy
Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable
information that it had acquired and stored for its business
purposes.

This failure to secure and monitor its network resulted in a
January 2025 data breach ("Data Breach") of highly sensitive
documents and information stored on the computer network of CHC, an
organization that provides medical treatment and/or employment to
individuals, including Plaintiff and Class Members. The Defendant's
data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack in January
2025 to compromise Defendant's network (the "Data Breach") that
contained personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected
health information ("PHI") (collectively, "the Private
Information") of Plaintiffs and other individuals ("the Class").

The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and
protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information
with which it was entrusted for either treatment or employment or
both.

The Plaintiff bring this class action to address Defendant's
inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that
it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and
adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their
information had been subject to the unauthorized access of an
unknown third party and including in that notice precisely what
specific types of information were accessed and taken by
cybercriminals, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was s patient of the Defendant.

CHC is a healthcare organization that was founded in 1972 and
provides "comprehensive primary care services in medicine,
dentistry, and behavioral health to more than 145,000 people."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Oren Faircloth, Esq.
          SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
          745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10151
          Phone: (212) 532-1091
          Email: ofaircloth@sirillp.c

               - and -

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
          MASON LLP
          5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640
          Washington, DC 20015
          Phone: (202) 429-2290
          Email: gmason@masonllp.com
                 dperry@masonllp.com

CREDIT SUISSE: Set Capital Appeals Court Order to 2nd Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
SET CAPITAL LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in
the lawsuit entitled Rajan Chahal, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Credit Suisse Group
AG, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-2268, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this is a
federa1 securities class action on behalf of all investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired Credit Suisse Velocity Shares Daily
Inverse VIX Short Term exchange traded notes between January 29,
2018, and February 5, 2018. The Plaintiff seeks remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On Feb. 11, 2025, Judge Analisa Torres entered an Order granting in
part and denying in part Lead Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. Lead Plaintiffs' motion to certify the
Misrepresentation Class is denied with prejudice, while Lead
Plaintiffs' motion to certify the Manipulation Class, motion to
appoint the Trust as representative of the Manipulation Class, and
motion to appoint Slarskey as class counsel for the Manipulation
Class are granted.

The appellate case is captioned Set Capital LLC v. Credit Suisse
Group AG, Case No. 25-451, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, filed on February 27, 2025. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners SET CAPITAL LLC, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Michael B. Eisenkraft, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          88 Pine Street
          New York, NY 10005

Defendants-Respondents CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, et al. are
represented by:

          Herbert Scott Washer, Esq.
          CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP
          32 Old Slip
          New York, NY 10005

CRISPY BURGER: Fails to Properly Pay Restaurant Staff, Torres Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE TORRES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CRISPY BURGER, LLC (d/b/a CRISPY BURGER),
FRED Z, and YI ZHENG, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01755 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to
comply with notice and recordkeeping requirements, and failure to
provide accurate wage statements.

Mr. Torres was employed by the Defendants as a cook and food
preparer at Crispy Burger from approximately April 7, 2024, until
on or about January 11, 2025.

Crispy Burger, LLC is an owner and operator of a Chinese fast-food
restaurant, located at 137 First Avenue, New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Michael Faillace, Esq.
       60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
       New York, NY 10165
       Telephone: (212) 317-1200

DAIKAYA LLC: Philippe Class Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA PHILIPPE, Individually and on behalf of all others situated
v. DAIKAYA LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00731-RC (D.D.C., March 12, 2025)
alleges that the Defendant deprived Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees of earned minimum wages by failing to pay
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees for all hours worked
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the D.C. Minimum Wage Act, and
the D.C. Wage Payment and Collection Law.

The Plaintiff worked for Daikaya at The Ramen Shop and The Izakaya
located in Washington. She worked in two positions at Daikaya as a
tipped server and as a tipped bartender

Throughout her employment, the Defendant deprived Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees of earned minimum wages by unlawfully
availing itself of a tip credit. The Defendant also deprived
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees of all earned tips.

Additionally, Defendant failed to reimburse Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees for the purchase and maintenance of the uniforms
Defendant required Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to
wear to work at Daikaya's restaurants, says the suit.

DAIKAYA LLC is engaged in the restaurant business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq.
          Anne Kramer, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          609 H Street NE, 4th Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20001
          Telephone: (202) 830-2016
          Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
          E-mail: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com
                  akramer@flsalaw.com

DEL AMO HOSPITAL: Doe Sues Over Sexual Abuse and Harassment
-----------------------------------------------------------
JANE AJ DOE, an individual; JOHN AJ DOE, an individual; JANE FM
DOE, an individual; JANE JX DOE, an individual; JOHN AL DOE, an
individual; JOHN SC DOE, an individual; JANE VS DOE, an individual;
JOHN CC DOE, an individual, JANE CD DOE, an individual, JANE MB
DOE, an Individual, and others similarly situated v. DEL AMO
HOSPITAL, INC., a California Corporation dba DEL AMO BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH SYSTEM; UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC. a Delaware
Corporation, JOHN DOE 1, an individual; JOHN DOE 2, an individual;
JOHN DOE 3, an individual,; JOHN DOE 4, an individual, JOHN DOE 5,
an individual; JOHN DOE 6; an individual; JOHN DOE 7, an
individual; JOHN DOE 8, an individual; JOHN DOE 9, an individual,
JOHN DOE 10, an individual, JOHN DOE 11, an individual; JOHN DOE
12, an individual; and DOES 13 through 100, Case No. 25TRCV00429
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 7, 2025), is brought
seeking to vindicate the rights of numerous minors that were
sexually abused, harassed and molested at the hands of DEL AMO
staff members referred to herein as THE PERPETRATORS.

The abuse harassment and molestation occurred while PLAINTIFFS were
patients at DEL AMO. At UHS facilities, children have been treated
inhumanely, physically abused, and sexually abused by staff members
for decades. Minors who enter these facilities, such as DEL AMO,
are at their most vulnerable, and experiencing significant mental,
emotional, and behavioral challenges. However, despite widespread
reports, investigations, criminal convictions, and lawsuits, UHS'
culture of abuse at their facilities, including DEL AMO, has
continued to flourish with little to no changes made to safeguard
its patient residents. The Plaintiffs in this action as minors were
previously committed to DEL AMO and sexually abused by multiple
staff members who were supposed to be helping and protecting them
at the most vulnerable time of her life. Instead, these individuals
used their positions of power and trust to sexually abused
Plaintiffs.

Instead of fulfilling the grand responsibility of caring for the
children and adolescents in most need of help, DEL AMO has exposed
its residents to physical, emotional, mental, and sexual abuse, by
harboring abusers on its staff, and by failing to enact and enforce
necessary safety measures. Defendants UHS and DEL AMO were aware
that sexual and physical abuse of children by facility staff was a
persistent and prevalent problem in their facilities. Defendants
had been made aware of the ongoing sexual abuse of children in
their care through various investigations and reports and through
allegations by children, media reporting, and criminal proceedings
against their employees and agents.

The Defendants DEL AMO and UHS knew, or should have known, that
children were being sexually abused at their facilities.
Defendants' failure to supervise, discipline, remove, and/or
otherwise investigate the perpetrators of the sexual abuse directly
enabled the sexual abuse of Plaintiffs. The sexual abuse endured by
Plaintiffs at the hands of Defendants' agents was part of a culture
of abuse at UHS facilities, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were victims.

DEL AMO is a behavioral health care facility located in Torrance,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Morgan A. Stewart, Esq.
          Brittany A. Charboneau, Esq.
          MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI
          19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Phone: (949) 252-9990
          Facsimile: (949) 252-9991
          Email: mstewart@manlystewart.com
                 bcharboneau@manlystewart.com

DENTAL INTELLIGENCE: Theys Sues Over Invasion of Privacy
--------------------------------------------------------
Allison Theys, Victoria Grivetti, Julie Bell, Maria Roundtree, and
Equila Jackson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. DENTAL INTELLIGENCE, INC., DENTAL EXPERTS, LLC D/B/A
DENTAL DREAMS, and FAMILIA DENTAL, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02464
(N.D. Ill., March 7, 2025), is brought to remedy harms and assert
the following statutory and common law claims against Defendants:
Invasion of Privacy – Intrusion Upon Seclusion; Breach of
Confidence; Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Negligence; Breach of Implied
Contract; Unjust Enrichment; violations of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, violations of the Illinois
Eavesdropping Statute, violations of the Wisconsin Wiretap Act and
violations of the Maryland Wiretapping And Electronic Surveillance
Act.

Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and other visitors to the Clinic
Defendants' websites, their private personal and health information
was not actually being kept private. Instead, through Dental
Intelligence's patient scheduling software, Defendants collected
and transmitted personally identifiable, sensitive health
information pertaining to Plaintiffs and other patients' upcoming
appointments, including their full names, names of the medical
providers that they were visiting, the reason(s) for their
appointment(s), their phone numbers, and their insurance providers
(collectively, "Sensitive Health Information") to unauthorized
third parties, including Alphabet, Inc. ("Google"), through the use
of surreptitious online tracking tools.

Each of the Plaintiffs and Class Members used the Portal and had
their personal Sensitive Health Information tracked by Defendants
using the Tracking Tools. However, Defendants never obtained
authorization from Plaintiffs or Class Members to share their
Sensitive Health Information with third parties. At all times
relevant to this action, Plaintiffs and Class Members gave no
informed consent for information about their Sensitive Health
Information to be transmitted to the third parties, including the
largest advertiser and compiler of user information.

As a result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiffs and Class Members
have suffered numerous injuries, including: invasion of medical
privacy; lack of trust in communicating with medical providers;
emotional distress and heightened concerns related to the release
of Sensitive Health Information to third parties, loss of benefit
of the bargain; diminution of value of the Sensitive Health
Information; statutory damages and  continued and ongoing risk to
their Sensitive Health Information, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs utilized the Portal on their personal electronic
devices to schedule an appointment with Defendants.

Dental Intelligence, Inc. is a for-profit corporation incorporated
in the State of Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kyle McLean, Esq.
          Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
          Sonjay C. Singh, Esq.
          SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
          745 Fifth Ave, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10151
          Phone: 212-532-1091
          Email: kmclean@sirillp.com
                 tbean@sirillp.com
                 ssingh@sirillp.com

DIEOMATIC INC: Faces Doty Suit Over Employment Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
LANCE DOTY v. DIEOMATIC INC. D/B/A LMV AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS and MAGNA
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00165-BCW (W.D. Mo., March 7,
2025) is a class action suit brought by the Plaintiff in behalf of
himself and similarly situated, non-disabled employees alleging
that the Defendants subjected him to discrimination, including
denial of reasonable accommodation, harassment, and a hostile work
environment based on the Plaintiff's disability/perceived
disability/record of disability in violation of the Missouri Human
Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and The Family and
Medical Leave Act.

The Plaintiff seeks all legal and equitable remedies available to
him including but not limited to, compensation for lost wages and
benefits, compensatory damages for emotional pain and suffering,
reputation damages, front pay and benefits, punitive damages, and
attorney's fees.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants for about 10 years as
a maintenance employee until his unlawful dismissal on or about May
23, 2023.

The Plaintiff is currently 55 years old. In or about November of
2022, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with Metastatic Melanoma, a form
of cancer, in his arm and lymph node while working for Defendants.

Dieomatic was founded in 2008. The Company's line of business
includes manufacturing automotive stamping products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Heather J. Hardinger, Esq.
          THE MEYERS LAW FIRM, LC
          4435 Main Street, Suite 503
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 444-8500
          Facsimile: (816) 444-8508
          E-mail: hhardinger@meyerslaw.com

DISA GLOBAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Chiquetta Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHIQUETTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DISA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-01183
(S.D. Tex., March 10, 2025) alleges that DISA failed to properly
secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected
personally identifiable information stored within the Defendant's
information network including, without limitation, names, Social
Security numbers.

The Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory
relief from DISA. The Plaintiff further seeks to hold Defendant
responsible for not ensuring that the PII was maintained in a
manner consistent with industry standards.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff and Members of the Class have suffered
significant injury and damages due to the Data Breach permitted to
occur by DISA, and the resulting misuse of their Personal
Information and fraudulent activity, including monetary damages
including out-of-pocket expenses, including those associated with
the reasonable mitigation measures they were forced to employ, and
other damages.

The Plaintiff and the Class also now forever face an amplified risk
of further misuse, fraud, and identity theft due to their sensitive
Personal Information falling into the hands of cybercriminals
because of the tortious conduct of Defendant.

On behalf of themselves and the Class preliminarily defined below,
Plaintiff brings causes of action for: (I) Negligence and
Negligence Per Se; (ii) Implied Breach of Contract; (iii) Breach of
Fiduciary Duty; (iv) Intrusion Upon Seclusion/Invasion of Privacy;
(v) Unjust Enrichment and (vi) Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive
Relief.

The Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive and declaratory relief
arising from DISA's failure to adequately protect their highly
sensitive Personal Information.

According to the DISA's own website, DISA is a leading provider of
background screening, drug and alcohol testing, and compliance
solutions, with industry-leading expertise. The Plaintiff and Class
Members' sensitive personal information --which they entrusted to
Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect
against disclosure was targeted, compromised, and unlawfully
accessed due to the Data Breach.

The Defendant states on its website that: On April 22, 2024, DISA
discovered that it was the victim of a cyber incident that impacted
a limited portion of its network.

On Feb. 21, 2025, the Defendant's Data Breach was reported in the
news media: "Reported on February 21st, nearly a year after the
"cyber incident" took place, DISA filed a breach notification with
the Maine Attorney General's office last Friday, revealing that the
personal information of 3,332,750 individuals was compromised in
the hack -- including social security numbers, credit card account
numbers and more."

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to
implement and to follow basic security procedures, Plaintiff's and
Class Members' Private Information now appears to be in the hands
of cybercriminals, the Plaintiff contends.

DISA provides background screening, drug and alcohol testing, and
compliance solutions, with industry-leading expertise. As part of
its business, the Defendant collects a treasure-trove of data from
their clients, including highly sensitive Private Information.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3811Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 744-3000
          Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
          E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com

               - and -

          Amber L. Schubert, Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
          2001 Union St, Ste 200
          San Francisco, CA 94123
          Telephone: (415) 788-4220
          Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
          E-mail: aschubert@sjk.law

               - and -

          Charles "Rusty" Webb*
          THE WEBB LAW CENTRE, PLLC
          716 Lee Street East
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 344-9322
          Facsimile: (304) 344-1157
          E-mail: rusty@rustywebb.com

DISA GLOBAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Huynh Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
HAROLD HUYNH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DISA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-01130
(S.D. Tex., March 10, 2025) alleges that DISA failed to properly
secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected
personally identifiable information stored within the Defendant's
information network including, without limitation, names, Social
Security numbers.

The Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory
relief from DISA. The Plaintiff further seeks to hold Defendant
responsible for not ensuring that the PII was maintained in a
manner consistent with industry standards.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff and Members of the Class have suffered
significant injury and damages due to the Data Breach permitted to
occur by DISA, and the resulting misuse of their Personal
Information and fraudulent activity, including monetary damages
including out-of-pocket expenses, including those associated with
the reasonable mitigation measures they were forced to employ, and
other damages.

The Plaintiff and the Class also now forever face an amplified risk
of further misuse, fraud, and identity theft due to their sensitive
Personal Information falling into the hands of cybercriminals
because of the tortious conduct of Defendant.

On behalf of themselves and the Class preliminarily defined below,
Plaintiff brings causes of action for: (I) Negligence and
Negligence Per Se; (ii) Implied Breach of Contract; (iii) Breach of
Fiduciary Duty; (iv) Intrusion Upon Seclusion/Invasion of Privacy;
(v) Unjust Enrichment and (vi) Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive
Relief. The Plaintiff seek damages and injunctive and declaratory
relief arising from DISA's failure to adequately protect their
highly sensitive Personal Information.

According to the DISA's own website, DISA is a leading provider of
background screening, drug and alcohol testing, and compliance
solutions, with industry-leading expertise. The Plaintiff and Class
Members' sensitive personal information -- which they entrusted to
Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect
against disclosure was targeted, compromised, and unlawfully
accessed due to the Data Breach.

The Defendant states on its website that: On April 22, 2024, DISA
discovered that it was the victim of a cyber incident that impacted
a limited portion of its network.

On Feb. 21, 2025, the Defendant's Data Breach was reported in the
news media: "Reported on February 21st, nearly a year after the
"cyber incident" took place, DISA filed a breach notification with
the Maine Attorney General's office last Friday, revealing that the
personal information of 3,332,750 individuals was compromised in
the hack – including social security numbers, credit card account
numbers and more."

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to
implement and to follow basic security procedures, Plaintiff's and
Class Members' Private Information now appears to be in the hands
of cybercriminals, the Plaintiff contends.

DISA provides background screening, drug and alcohol testing, and
compliance solutions, with industry-leading expertise. As part of
its business, the Defendant collects a treasure-trove of data from
their clients, including highly sensitive Private Information.

Drug screening providers that handle Private Information have an
obligation to employ reasonable and necessary data security
practices to protect the sensitive, confidential and personal
information entrusted to them.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
           Shana H. Khader, Esq.
           TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
           1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
           Oakland, CA 94612
           Telephone: (510) 254-6808
           E-mail: skhader@tzlegal.com
                   ssoneji@tzlegal.com

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Medley Removed from State Court to D.D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM MEDLEY II and TANYA GOSPODINVA, individually and on behalf
of other persons similarly situated, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and
LATINO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF WASHINGTON, D.C., Case
No. 2024-CAB-006478, was removed from the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia to the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia on March 12, 2025.

The District of Columbia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:25-cv-00724.

District of Columbia is a compact city on the Potomac River,
bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Randolph T. Chen, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H Street NE, Suite 302
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 470-3520
          E-mail: rchen@classlawdc.com

                - and -

          Courtney L. Weiner, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF COURTNEY WEINER PLLC
          1629 K Street NW, Suite 300
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          E-mail: cw@courtneyweinerlaw.com

DITMARS DRAGON: Faces Herculano Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
MAXIMO FELIX HERCULANO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DITMARS DRAGON PHOENIX INC., 36
DRAGON PHOENIX INC. and SUN HO, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01231
(E.D.N.Y., March 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation,
failure to maintain accurate wage notice and recordkeeping, and
failure to provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a food preparer,
cleaner, supplies stocker, and delivery person, while performing
other miscellaneous duties, from in or around November 2022 until
in or around December 2024.

Ditmars Dragon Phoenix Inc. is a restaurant owner and operator
located in Astoria, New York.

36 Dragon Phoenix Inc. is a restaurant owner and operator located
in Astoria, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
       Helen F. Dalton & Associates, P.C.
       80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
       Kew Gardens, NY 11415
       Telephone: (718) 263-9591

DOLLAR GENERAL: DeJesus Suit Removed from State Court to D.N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
CINTHIA GONZALES and JOMAR DEJESUS, On behalf of themselves and all
other Similarly-situated persons, v. DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION,
JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10, ABC CORP. 1-10 and ABC COMPANIES
1-10, Case No. UNN-L-000485-25 (Filed Feb. 4, 2025) was removed
from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County,
to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
Newark Vicinage on March 10, 2025.

The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:25-cv-01767 to the proceedings.

The Plaintiffs and the purported putative class allege that they
were misclassified as exempt/managerial employees and seek damages
under the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and New Jersey Wage Payment
Law for unpaid overtime, and time worked without pay.

As damages for these claims, the Plaintiffs seek declaratory
relief, economic damages, compensatory damages, liquidated damages,
costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees, all in an unspecified
amount.

Dollar General is an American chain of discount stores
headquartered in Goodlettsville, Tennessee.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Philip A. Goldstein, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          845 Texas Avenue, 24th Floor
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 571-9191
          Facsimile: (713) 571-9652
          E-mail: tfarrell@mcguirewoods.com
                  jchapman@mcguirewoods.com
                  mdunn@mcguirewoods.com
                  PaGoldstein@mcguirewoods.com

DOLLS KILL INC: Zadnik Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dolls Kill, Inc. The
case is styled as Laine Zadnik, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated v. Dolls Kill, Inc, Case No. CGC25623122 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., March 10, 2025).

The case type is stated as "Business Tort."

Dolls Kill -- https://www.dollskill.com/ -- is an online boutique
featuring a rebellious spirit and attitude, Amixed with a bit of
punk rock, goth, glam and festival fashion.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW PA
          1925 Century Park East Suite 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (305) 975-3320
          Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com

DOUGLAS A. COLLINS: Gober Files Suit in D. Columbia
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DOUGLAS A. COLLINS,
et al. The case is styled as Jessica Gober, Tiffany Ho, Benza
Kendrick-Litho, Jason Maldonado, Sean McClary, Angustia Peck,
Andrea Sassard, Deven Tines, and all others similarly situated v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, ROBERT F. KENNEDY, SCOTT BESSENT, HOWARD
LUTNICK, STEPHEN EHIKIAN, Case No. 1:25-cv-00714 (D.D.C., March 10,
2025).

The nature of suit is stated as Administrative Procedure Act/Review
or Appeal of Agency Decision.

Douglas Allen Collins is an American lawyer, politician, and Air
Force veteran serving as the 12th United States secretary of
veterans affairs since 2025.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Pamela M. Keith, Esq.
          CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT JUSTICE
          650 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20001
          Phone: (202) 800-0292
          Fax: (202) 807-5725
          Email: pleadings@centerforemploymentjustice.com

DREAM PROJECTS: Faces Sumlin Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS SUMLIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Dream Projects, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-01591 (S.D.N.Y., February 25, 2025) is a civil rights
action against Dream Projects for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, https://rta.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers
that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using
keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive
and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure,
inaccurate heading hierarchy, unclear labels for interactive
elements, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down
menus, incorrectly formatted lists, inaccessible contact
information, changing of content without advance warning, redundant
links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the
requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse,
says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Dream Projects' policies, practices, and procedures so that its
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.

Dream Projects, LLC operates the website that provides access to an
array of goods and services, including, the ability to view tees,
tops, bottoms, shorts, hoodies, outerwear, dresses, knitwear,
denim.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael H. Cohen, Esq.
          EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
          68-29 Main Street
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Telephone: (917) 437-3737
          E-mail: mcohen@ealg.law

EN-R-G FOODS: Espinal Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
Frangie Espinal, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons v. EN-R-G FOODS, LLC, Case No.
1:25-cv-02018 (S.D.N.Y., March 10, 2025), is brought this civil
rights action against the Defendant for their 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'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://honeystinger.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 her
computer.

EN-R-G FOODS, LLC, operates the Honey Stinger online retail store,
as well as the Honey Stinger 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.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. 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
                 jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
                 dana@gottlieb.legal

ENCINO ENERGY: Fontenot Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Fontenot, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. ENCINO ENERGY, LLC, PIONEER PRODUCTION SERVICES, INC., Case No.
2:25-cv-00228-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, March 10, 2025), is brought
against Defendants for their failure to pay employees overtime
wages, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 ("FLSA").

In order to provide services to many of its customers, Defendant
Encino contracts with Defendant Pioneer to provide Defendant Encino
with personnel to perform necessary work. The Defendants
misclassified the Plaintiff as an independent contractor and did
not pay the Plaintiff and others similarly situated overtime for
hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. During his employment,
The Plaintiff worked 40 or more hours in one or more workweek(s).

These individuals, including the Plaintiff, worked for Defendants
on a day-rate basis and were misclassified as independent
contractors. These "employees" are subjected to the same or similar
illegal pay practices. Specifically, Defendants misclassified all
of these workers as independent contractors and paid them a flat
sum for each day worked, regardless of the number of hours that
they worked that day (or in that workweek). Thus, they failed to
provide them with overtime pay for hours that they worked in excess
of 40 hours in a workweek, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from February 2023 until
February 2025.

Encino is the largest oil producer in Ohio and one of the largest
natural gas producers in Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
          Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
          Tristan T. Akers, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Phone: 614-949-1181
          Fax: 614-386-9964
          Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
                 agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
                 khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
                 takers@mcoffmanlegal.com

ENVOY AIR: Bustillo Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Christian Bustillo, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. ENVOY AIR INC.; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Case No. 25STCV02816 was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on March 6,
2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01989.

The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges nine causes of action: Failure to
Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Meal Period
Violations; Rest Period Violations; Failure to Timely Pay All Wages
During Employment; Wage Statement Violations; Failure to Timely Pay
Final Wages Upon Termination of Employment; Failure to Reimburse
Necessary Business Expenses; and Violation of the Unfair
Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code
("UCL").[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mark W. Robertson, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          1301 Avenue of the Americas, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212) 326-2000
          Facsimile: (212) 326-2061
          Email: mrobertson@omm.com

               - and -

          Kelly S. Wood, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          610 Newport Center Drive, 17th Floor
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Phone: (949) 823-6900
          Facsimile: (949) 823-6994
          Email: kwood@omm.com

EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Van Cott Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Courtney Van Cott, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. EQUITY RESIDENTIAL, a real estate
investment trust; ERP OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a partnership;
and EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., Case No. 25CV107165 was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on March 7, 2025, and assigned Case
No. 3:25-cv-02358-PHK.

The Plaintiff allege that the late fees that Defendants charge
their residential tenants constitute unlawful liquidated damages
under California Civil Code. They also allege that the late fee is
an unlawful business practice under the California Unfair
Competition Law of the California Investigative Consumer Reporting
Agencies Act.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Theane Evangelis, Esq.
          Jeremy S. Smith, Esq.
          Daniel M. Rubin, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Phone: 213.229.7000
          Facsimile: 213.229.7520
          Email: tevangelis@gibsondunn.com
                 jssmith@gibsondunn.com
                 drubin@gibsondunn.com

EVERDAY DOSE: Pearson Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Everday Dose, Inc.
The case is styled as Lis Pearson, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated v. Everday Dose, Inc., Case No.
3:25-cv-00555-TWR-MSB (S.D. Cal., March 10, 2025).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Everyday Dose -- https://www.everydaydose.com/ -- is a beverage
manufacturer that produces non-psychedelic mushrooms, nootropics,
and coffee products.[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

EXP REALTY: Soale Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against eXp Realty LLC. The
case is styled as Rachel Soale, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. eXp Realty LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00773-GMS
(D. Ariz., March 6, 2025).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

EXP Realty -- https://www.exprealty.com/ -- is a largest
residential real estate brokerage in North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adrian R Bacon, Esq.
          Todd Michael Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC
          21550 Oxnard St., Ste. 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Phone: 323-306-4234
          Fax: 866-633-0228
          Email: abacon@toddflaw.com
                 tfriedman@toddflaw.com

               - and -

          Alexander Kruzyk, Esq.
          Bryan A. Giribaldo, Esq.
          PARDELL KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO PLLC
          7500 Rialto Blvd., Ste. 1-250
          Austin, TX 78735
          Phone: (737) 310-3210
          Email: akruzyk@pkglegal.com
                 bgiribaldo@pkglegal.com

FAT BOY'S BURRITO: Wee-Ellis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Melchion Wee-Ellis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Fat Boy's Burrito Co. Patchogue Inc., Case No.
1:25-cv-01343 (E.D.N.Y., March 10, 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 services Fat
Boy's Burrito provides to their non-disabled customers through
https://fatboysburritoco.com (hereinafter "Fatboysburritoco.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, Fatboysburritoco.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 Fat Boy's Burrito'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.

Fat Boy's Burrito provides to the public a website known as
Fatboysburritoco.com which is a fast-casual Mexican restaurant,
providing a diverse and flavorful menu, featuring a variety of
burritos, tacos, quesadillas, and specialty items which Defendant
offers in connection with their physical location.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael H. Cohen, Esq.
          EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC
          68-29 Main Street,
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: 917-437-3737
          Email: mcohen@ealg.law

FCA US: Cars Have Underhood Fire Defect, Frazee Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
SEAN FRAZEE, FELICIA COOK, AND DAVID LESHOCK, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-00144-DRC (S.D. Ohio,
March 7, 2025) alleges that the 2021–2023 Jeep Wrangler and Jeep
Gladiator vehicles have a defect that can cause the vehicle to
catch fire, starting under the hood, even if the vehicle is off and
the key removed.

According to the complaint, the Class Vehicles can catch fire at
any time, no matter where they might be: parked on the street, in
the garage of an owners’ home, being driven on a highway. Based
on the investigation undertaken to date by the National Highway
Transportation and Safety Administration, the Underhood Fire Defect
is caused by a defect in the power steering pump electrical
connector which can cause the vehicle fires.

The Underhood Fire Defect creates an unreasonable risk of accident,
injury, death, or property damage if the vehicle catches fire while
in operation or while the vehicle is parked at home, on the streets
or near other buildings and structures, or in a parking lot.

The Plaintiff and proposed class representative Sean Frazee is a
resident and citizen of Portsmouth, Ohio. On Dec. 1, 2022, the
Plaintiff purchased a new 2023 Jeep Wrangler from Mark Porter
Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram in Ohio.

FCA is a motor vehicle manufacturer and a licensed distributor of
several brands of vehicles, including its line of Jeep brand motor
vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Melanie S. Bailey, Esq.
           BURG SIMPSON ELDREDGE HERSH & JARDINE, P.C.
           201 E. Fifth St., Suite 1340
           Cincinnati, OH 45202
           Telephone: (513) 852-5600
           E-mail: mbailey@burgsimpson.com

                - and -

           Chris A. Seeger, Esq.
           Scott A. George
           SEEGER WEISS LLP, Esq.
           55 Challenger Rd., Suite 600
           Ridgefield Park, NJ 05667
           Telephone: (973) 639-9100
           E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
                   sgeorge@seegerweiss.com

FCA US: Faces Gandelman Suit Over Hybrid Vehicles' Battery Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL GANDELMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FCA US, LLC d/b/a STELLANTIS NORTH
AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-10605-RJW-KGA (E.D. Mich.,
March 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the New York's
General Business Law and for breach of express warranty, breach of
implied warranty, fraud by omission/fraudulent concealment, and
negligent misrepresentation.

The case arises from the Defendant's design, production, marketing,
leasing, and distribution of 2020-2024 Jeep Wrangler plug-in hybrid
vehicles (PHEVs) and 2022-2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee PHEVs with
battery defect. According to the complaint, the Class vehicles have
been built with a high voltage battery that is susceptible to
separator damage and poses a potential fire risk. The battery
defect poses a clear and significant safety risk to the Plaintiff
and members of the Class given the possibility that the Class
vehicles may suddenly and unexpectedly catch fire. The battery
defect also poses a potential risk of fire damage to personal
property. As a direct result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct,
the Plaintiff and members of the Class and Sub-Class have been
harmed and are entitled to, inter alia, actual damages.

FCA US, LLC, doing business as Stellantis North America, is an
automobile manufacturer, with its principal place of business in
Auburn Hills, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
       Tyler S. Graden, Esq.
       KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
       280 King of Prussia Road
       Radnor, PA 19087
       Telephone: (610) 667-7706
       Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
       Email: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
              tgraden@ktmc.com

FEDCHEX RECOVERY: Watson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FedChex Recovery,
LLC. The case is styled as Shante Watson, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. FedChex Recovery, LLC, Case No.
1:25-cv-01194-SCJ (N.D. Ga., March 6, 2025).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

FedChex Recovery, LLC -- https://www.fedchex.com/ -- is a
recognized leader in providing Depository, Treasury, Risk
Management and solutions for businesses and financial
institutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tristan Wade Gillespie, Esq.
          600 Blakenham Court
          Johns Creek, GA 30022
          Phone: (404) 276-7277
          Email: gillespie.tristan@gmail.com

FENTY BEAUTY: Williams Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
MILTON WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FENTY BEAUTY LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-01740 (S.D.N.Y., February 28, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://fentybeauty.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not
limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that
contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing
alt-text.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.

Fenty Beauty LLC is a company that sells online goods and services
in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
       Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
       Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
       GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
       150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
       New York, New York 10003
       Telephone: (212) 228-9795
       Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
       Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
              Dana@Gottlieb.legal
              Michael@Gottlieb.legal

FREEDOM FOREVER: Shelton TCPA Suit Transferred to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as James E. Shelton, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Freedom Forever LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-04333 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on March 6, 2025.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01970-ODW-ADS to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Freedom Forever -- https://freedomforever.com/ -- specializes in
residential solar panel installation and solar storage
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq.
          PERRONG LAW LLC
          2657 Mt. Carmel Ave
          Glenside, PA 19038
          Phone: (215) 225-5529
          Fax: (888) 329-0305
          Email: a@perronglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jill Ann Guldin, Esq.
          PIERSON FERDINAND LLP
          One Liberty Place
          1650 Market Street Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (609) 896-4096
          Fax: (856) 494-1566
          Email: jill.guldin@pierferd.com

FRESNO COMMUNITY: Deneus-Coley Removed from State Ct. to C.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
LEA DENEUS-COLEY, individually and for others similarly situated,
v. FRESNO COMMUNITY HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER d/b/a CLOVIS
COMMUNITY MEDICAL CENTER, Case No. 24CECG05029 (Filed Nov. 15,
2024), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Fresno to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California on March 12, 2025.

The E.D. Cal. District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:25-cv-00306-JLT-HBK to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff's complaint asserts seven causes of action for
failure to pay overtime under California Labor Code.

CRMC is a 685-bed regional hospital and trauma center in Fresno,
California.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew M. Paley, Esq.
          Ashley D. Stein, Esq.
          Bailey K. Bifoss, Esq.
          Brian B. Gillis, Esq.
          Bethany A. Pelliconi, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          E-mail: apaley@seyfarth.com
                  astein@seyfarth.com
                  bbifoss@seyfarth.com
                  bgillis@seyfarth.com

FRL AUTOMOTIVE: Karpiel Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FRL Automotive LLC.
The case is styled as Jason Karpiel, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. FRL Automotive LLC doing business
as: Toyota of North Miami, Case No. 1:25-cv-21112-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
March 10, 2025).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

FRL Automotive LLC doing business as Toyota of North Miami --
https://www.toyotaofnorthmiami.com/ -- is a Toyota dealer in the
Golden Glades, Florida.[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

GENESIS HC: Sayre Seeks Unpaid Wages for Patient Care Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
HANNAH SAYRE and CRYSTAL MILLER, individually and for others
similarly situated v. GENESIS HC LLC f/k/a GENESIS HEALTHCARE
CORPORATION, Case No. 2:25-cv-01350 (E.D. Pa., March 13, 2025)
seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs Sayre and Miller worked for Genesis as a licensed
practical nurse and a certified nursing assistant, respectively.

Like the other Patient Care Employees, the Plaintiffs regularly
work more than 40 hours a workweek. But Genesis does not pay them
for all hours worked. Instead, Genesis automatically deducts 30
minutes a workday from the Patient Care Employees' hours for so
called "meal breaks."

The Plaintiffs and the other Patient Care Employees are thus not
paid for that time. But Genesis fails to provide or make available
bona fide meal breaks to Plaintiffs and the other Patient Care
Employees. Rather, Genesis requires them to remain on duty and
working throughout their shifts and subjects them to interruptions
during their unpaid, off the clock "meal breaks."

Additionally, Genesis pays Plaintiffs and the other Patient Care
Employees non-discretionary bonuses that it fails to include in
their regular rates of pay for overtime purposes. Genesis's meal
auto-deduction policy and bonus pay scheme violate the FLSA because
these policies deprive the Plaintiffs and the other Patient Care
Employees of premium overtime wages of at least 1.5 times their
regular rates of pay—based on all remuneration—for all hours
they work in excess of 40 a workweek, says the suit.

Genesis touts itself as "one of the largest rehabilitation therapy
companies in the nation offering a variety of services in nearly
200 centers across 17 states.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are presented by:

          Eric H. Weitz, Esq.
          THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC
          1515 Market Street, Ste. 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (267) 692-8318
          Facsimile: (215) 689-0875
          E-mail: eric.weitz@theweitzfirm.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

                - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC
          101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
          Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                 austin@a2xlaw.com

GEORGE LITTLE: Wins Summary Judgment v. Harris
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID HARRIS, et al., v.
SECRETARY GEORGE LITTLE, et. al., Case No. 2:22-cv-03715-JFL (E.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Leeson, Jr. finds that the
Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all claims.

Accordingly, because there exists no genuine dispute as to whether
the conditions of any of the Remaining Plaintiffs' confinement were
"sufficiently serious" or posed a substantial risk of harm, the
Court finds that Defendants are entitled to Summary Judgment on all
Eighth Amendment claims.

The undisputed facts and the adjoining record demonstrate that each
Remaining Plaintiff received the requisite periodic review and
opportunity to be heard.

The Plaintiffs are pro se prisoners who, at the outset of this
litigation, were on the Pennsylvania Department of Correction's
Restricted Release List.

They claimed that the conditions of their confinement violated
their Eight Amendment rights to be free from cruel and unusual
punishment. In addition, they claimed that the review of their
restricted confinement violated their Fourteenth Amendment Due
Process rights.

A copy of the Court's opinion dated March 6, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zzA1ap at no extra
charge.[CC]

GLOBE LIFE: Belbeck Sues Over Failure to Protect Information
------------------------------------------------------------
Doris Belbeck, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GLOBE LIFE, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00233-SDJ (E.D.
Tex., March 7, 2025), is brought as a result of the Defendant's
negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and the failure to
protect the Plaintiff's sensitive personal information ("SPI").

On October 7, 2024, Globe Life reported to the SEC that at some
point it had been the recipient of a hack and exfiltration of
sensitive personal information ("SPI") involving approximately five
thousand  who are or were its clients (the "Data Breach"). In
February 2025, Globe Life publicly reported that, in fact, the
number was closer to 850,000 individuals.

The Plaintiff and other members of the Class of similarly situated
victims whose SPI was compromised by the Data Breach now face a
present and imminent lifetime risk of identity theft, which is
here by the loss of Social Security numbers. The Plaintiff's and
other Class members' SPI was compromised due to Defendant's
negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and the failure to
protect the SPI of Plaintiff and Class members.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose SPI
was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to: adequately
protect consumers' SPI, adequately warn its current and former
customers and potential customers of its inadequate information
security practices, and effectively monitor its platforms for
security vulnerabilities and incidents. Defendant's conduct amounts
to negligence and violates state statutes, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was informed via notice letter from Globe Life that
she had been a victim of the Data Breach.

Globe Life is a life insurance company based in Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          Leanna A. Loginov, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: 305-479-2299
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                 lloginov@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Kent A. Bronson, Esq.
          BRONSON LEGAL LLC
          1216 Broadway (2nd Floor)
          New York, NY 10001
          Phone: (609) 255-1031
          Email: bronsonlegalny@gmail.com

               - and -

          Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          111 W. Jackson St., Ste. 1700
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Phone: (312) 984-0000
          Fax: (212) 686-0114
          Email: malmstrom@whafh.com

GOODRX HOLDINGS: Booneville Sues Over Unlawful Pricing Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Booneville Pharmacy of MS, Inc., Byhalia Drug Company, LLC AND
Okolona Pharmacy, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GOODRX, INC., GOODRX HOLDINGS, INC.,
CAREMARK, L.L.C., EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC., MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE,
SYSTEMS, INC., and NAVITUS HEALTH SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No.
3:25-cv-00180 (W.D. Wis., March 6, 2025), is brought against
Defendants for violation the Sherman Act as a result of a
horizontal pricing agreement among competitors.

GoodRx facilitates Defendants' unlawful horizontal sharing of
confidential, proprietary reimbursement information through a
scheme called the "Integrated Savings Program" ("ISP"), in which
GoodRx collects confidential reimbursement pricing for generic
drugs from each of the PBM Defendants and shares it among them,
enabling them to select the lowest reimbursement rate. And because
each of the PBM Defendants has access to all of the PBM Defendants'
reimbursement information, the cabal can discipline any
co-conspirator that tries to gain market share by cheating on the
scheme.

By agreeing to share their confidential, commercially sensitive
reimbursement information with GoodRx and the other PBM Defendants
through GoodRx's ISP, Defendants can and do suppress reimbursements
to Plaintiffs and the Class. The Plaintiffs and the members of the
Class have suffered antitrust injury as a direct, proximate result
of Defendants' unlawful scheme, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff Booneville Pharmacy of MS, Inc. is a locally owned
independent pharmacy that has sold prescription medications.

GoodRx, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal office
or
place of business located in Santa Monica, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
          Christopher K.L. Young, Esq.
          Kevin E. Rayhill, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1505
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          Email: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                 czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com
                 cyoung@saverilawfirm.com
                 krayhill@saverilawfirm.com

               - and -

          Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
          Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
          Elizabeth T. Castillo, Esq.
          Christian S. Ruano, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY LLP
          840 Malcolm Road
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Phone: (650) 697-6000
          Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
          Email: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
                 azapala@cpmlegal.com
                 ecastillo@cpmlegal.com
                 cruano@cpmlegal.com

               - and -

          Michael Gratz, Jr., Esq.
          GRATZ & GRATZ, P.A.
          312 North Green Street
          Tupelo, MS 38804
          Phone: 662.844.5531
          Fax: 662.844.8747
          Email: michael@gratzandgratz.com

GROWTH BOMB: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Espinal Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
FRANGIE ESPINAL, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. GROWTH BOMB INC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01931
(S.D.N.Y., Mar. 7, 2025) contends that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://growthbomb.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
February 25, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a 2 in 1 Shampoo &
Conditioner from Defendant and to view the information on the
Website, the Plaintiff allegedly encountered multiple access
barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to
that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and
services offered to the public and made available to the public;
and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and
services of the Website by being unable to purchase a 2 in 1
Shampoo & Conditioner, as well as other products available online
and to ascertain information relating to Defendant's: hair care
products, as well as other types of goods, pricing, privacy
policies and internet pricing specials.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer
frustration and humiliation as a result of the discriminatory
conditions present on Defendant's Website. These discriminatory
conditions continue to contribute to Plaintiff's sense of isolation
and segregation.

By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services -- all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals -- thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress.

The Defendant operates the Growth Bomb online retail store, as well
as the Growth Bomb 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 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

GRUPO ARGOS: Faces O'Neill Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL O'NEILL, Plaintiff v. GRUPO ARGOS S.A., CEMENTOS ARGOS
S.A., ARGOS SEM LLC, VALLE CEMENT INVESTMENTS, INC., JORGE MARIO
VELASQUEZ, and JUAN ESTABAN CALLE, Defendants, Case No. 2025-0209
(Del. Ch., February 25, 2025) is a verified class action brought by
the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly situated former
stockholders of Summit Materials, Inc., for breach of fiduciary
duty as the controlling stockholder of Summit; and for unjust
enrichment, arising out of the acquisition of Summit by Quikrete
Holdings, Inc.; and against Jorge Mario Velasquez and Juan Estaban
Calle for breaches of fiduciary duty as members of the Company's
board of directors.

This action concerns a controlling stockholder, Grupo Argos,
securing a valuable side benefit in connection with a sale of
Summit that did not accrue to the Company's minority stockholders,
notes the complaint. Despite this plain conflict of interest, the
Board did not set up a committee of independent, disinterested
directors to negotiate and approve the transaction. Nor did the
Board condition the effectiveness of the transaction on approval by
a majority of the Company's public minority stockholders.

Grupo Argos, through its dual fiduciaries on the Board and its
advisers, made clear that it would not support any sale of the
Company without an attendant termination of the non-compete.
Therefore, Grupo Argos's interests were not aligned with those of
the Company's public minority stockholders, who would want to
extract as much value from Quikrete in a sale of the Company, the
complaint asserts.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks damages for Defendants'
breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the negotiation of,
and agreement to, the unfair transaction, as well as for Grupo
Argos's improper securing of a side benefit not shared with the
Company's public minority stockholders, the complaint asserts.

Grupo Argos is a Colombian infrastructure manager with a presence
throughout the Americas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel E. Meyer, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 364-3600
          E-mail: daniel.meyer@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Orrico, Esq.
          Shiva Mohan, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800

HALEON US: Tracks Users' Website Browsing Data, Gabrielle Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN GABRIELLI, an individual, on behalf of himself, the
general public, and those similarly situated v. HALEON US INC.,
Case No. 4:25-cv-02555 (N.D. Cal., March 14, 2025) concerns a
privacy violation and total breach of consumer trust in violation
of California law.

Accordingly, when consumers visit the Defendant's websites
(including, tums.com; advil.com; centrum.com; theraflu.com;
caltrate.com; flonase.com; sensodyne.com; and emergenc.com), the
Defendant displays to them a popup cookie consent banner. The
Defendant's cookie banners disclose that the Websites use cookies
but expressly gives users the option to control how they are
tracked and how their personal data is used. The Defendant assures
visitors that they can choose to "Reject All" cookies.

However, the Defendant's promises are outright lies, designed to
lull users into a false sense of security. Even after users elect
to "Reject All" cookies, the Defendant surreptitiously enables
several third parties -- including Google LLC (YouTube), Microsoft
Corporation (Clarity), and Neptune Retail Solutions (RevTrax) (the
Third Parties) -- to place and/or transmit cookies that track
users' website browsing activities and eavesdrop on users' private
communications on the Websites, the Plaintiff contends.

The Third Parties analyze and aggregate this user data across
websites and time for their own purposes and financial gain,
including, creating consumer profiles containing detailed
information about a consumer's behavior, preferences, and
demographics; creating audience segments based on shared traits
(such as Millennials, tech enthusiasts, etc.); and performing
targeted advertising and marketing analytics. Further, the Third
Parties share user data and/or user profiles to unknown parties to
further their financial gain, the Plaintiff adds.

The Defendant is doing consumer healthcare business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
          Todd Kennedy, Esq.
          Kali R. Backer, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 639-9090
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
          E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
                  marie@gutridesafier.com
                  todd@gutridesafier.com
                  kali@gutridesafier.com

HAMILTON BEACH: Borowsky Sues Over Product's Express Warranties
---------------------------------------------------------------
NORA JO BOROWSKY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HAMILTON BEACH BRANDS HOLDING COMPANY and
HAMILTON BEACH BRANDS, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-02364 (N.D. Cal.,
March 7, 2025) is class action complaint against the Defendants for
violations of California's Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and
California's Unfair Competition Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants manufacture consumer
goods which are advertised and accompanied by express warranties.
The Small Business Administration explicitly requires that "a
manufacturer, distributor, or retail seller shall not make an
express warranty with respect to a consumer good that commences
earlier than the date of delivery of the good." However, the
Defendants commence their express warranties on the date of
purchase, not on the date of delivery, as required by the SBA.

As a result of this unlawful and deceitful business practice,
consumers who receive their goods after the date of purchase, such
as online shoppers, do not receive the full benefit of their
warranty, the lawsuit says.

These consumers are short-changed the full value of their
warranties. Furthermore, Defendants unfairly benefit by saving
themselves the added time and expense that would be required to
properly track and administer their warranties were they to
commence on the date of delivery.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief,
damages, and restitution based on Defendants' unlawful and unfair
conduct.

On Jan. 9, 2025, Plaintiff purchased Defendants' Product online
from Amazon.com for $59.99 plus tax, to be delivered to her home in
Novato, California.

The Product was delivered to the Plaintiff on Jan. 11, 2025.

The Product's express limited warranty states: "This product is
warranted to be free from defects in material and workmanship for a
period of one (1) year from the date of original purchase."

The Plaintiff represents and is a member of the Class, defined as:


   "All persons within California who purchased one or more of
   Defendants' Products between July 1, 2023, through the date of
   class certification, whose Product(s) were delivered to them
   after the date of purchase.

The Plaintiff also represents and is a member of the Express
Warranty Sub-class, defined as:

   "All persons within California who purchased one or more of
   Defendants' Products between July 1, 2023 through the date of
   class certification, who purchased one or more of Defendants’

   Products, which were accompanied by an express warranty that
   commenced on the date of purchase and not the date of
   delivery."

Hamilton Beach Brands Holding Company is a designer, marketer, and
distributor of branded small electric household and specialty
housewares appliances.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan McBride, Esq.
          Jonathan Gil, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          2221 Camino Del Rio S, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com
                  jonathan@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Adib Assassi, Esq.
          Veronica Cruz, Esq.
          ASSASSI & CRUZ LAW FIRM. PC
          1100 W. Town & Country Road, Suite 1250
          Orange, CA 92868
          Telephone: (800) 500-0301
          Facsimile: (800) 500-0301
          E-mail: adib@aclegalteam.com
          veronica@aclegalteam.com

HANESBRANDS INC: Settlement in Toussaint Suit Gets Initial OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hanesbrands Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal
year ended December 28, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 16, 2025, that the company was
named in a putative class action entitled "Toussaint et al. v.
HanesBrands, Inc." in connection with a May 24, 2022 ransomware
incident.

On November 5, 2024, the United States District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina entered an order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement and conducted the final
approval hearing last March 10, 2025.

This lawsuit was filed on April 27, 2023, and is pending in said
court, and follows the consolidation of two previously pending
lawsuits, entitled "Roman v. Hanes Brands, Inc., filed October 7,
2022, and Toussaint v. HanesBrands, Inc., filed October 14, 2022.
The lawsuit alleges, among other things, negligence, negligence per
se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust
enrichment, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing and unfair business practices under the California Business
and Professions Code. The pending lawsuit seeks, among other
things, monetary and injunctive relief.

Hanesbrands Inc. and its subsidiaries is a global leader in branded
everyday apparel in the Americas, Australia, Europe and Asia under
some of the world's strongest apparel brands, including Hanes,
Champion, Bonds, Bali, Maidenform, Bras N Things, Playtex,
Wonderbra, Gear for Sports, Berlei, Comfortwash, Alternative and
JMS/Just My Size. The company designs, manufactures, sources and
sells a broad range of innerwear apparel, such as T-shirts, bras,
panties, shapewear, underwear and socks, as well as activewear
products that are manufactured or sourced in our low-cost global
supply chain.


HANKINS & SOHN: Class Cert Bid Filing in Tausiga Due Oct. 14
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tausinga v. Hankins & Sohn
Plastic Surgery Associates et al. (RE HANKINS PLASTIC SURGERY
ASSOCIATES, P. C. dba HANKINS & SOHN PLASTIC SURGERY ASSOCIATES).
Case No. 2:23-cv-00824-RFB-DJA (D. Nev.), the Court entered an
order granting the stipulation to modify the scheduling order
deadlines for phase I (pre-certification) of discovery.

                    Event                          Date

  Interim Fact Discovery Cut-Off Date:        June 12, 2025

  Close of Class Certification Expert         July 16, 2025
  Discovery:

  Phase I (Pre-Certification) Discovery       Oct. 14, 2025
  Cut-Off Date:

  Amending Pleadings and Adding Parties:      June 12, 2025

  Initial Class Certification Expert          July 16, 2025
  Designations:  

  Rebuttal Class Certification Expert         Aug. 14, 2025
  Designations:

  Motion for Class Certification:             Oct. 14, 2025

  Motions to Exclude Certification Experts:   Nov. 17, 2025

  Deadline to Participate in Mediation:       Nov. 24, 2025

Hankins & Sohn specializes in plastic surgery, both cosmetic &
reconstructive.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2ZL3mk at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer A. Fornetti, Esq.
          Mark J. Bourassa, Esq.
          Valerie S. Gray, Esq.
          THE BOURASSA LAW GROUP
          2350 W Charleston Blvd, Suite 100
          Las Vegas, NV 89102
          E-mail: mbourassa@blgwins.com
                  jfornetti@blgwins.com
                  vgray@blgwins.com

                - and -

          Nicholas A. Coletta, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222

                - and -

          Daniel C. Tetreault, Esq.
          Ramzy P. Ladah, Esq.
          LADAH LAW FIRM
          517 S. Third Street
          Las Vegas, NV 89101

                - and -

          Raina Borrelli, Esq.
          Brittany Resch, Esq.
          STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
          980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (872) 263-1100
          Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
          E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com
                  bresch@straussborrelli.com

                - and -

          Jonathan B. Lee, Esq.
          Clark Seegmiller, Esq.
          RICHARD HARRIS LAW FIRM
          801 South Fourth Street
          Las Vegas, NV 89101

The Defendants are represented by:

          L. Renee Green, Esq.
          Gary E. Schnitzer, Esq.
          Robert C. Mcbride, Esq.
          Chelsea R. Hueth, Esq.
          SCHNITZER JOHNSON & WATSON, CTD.
          Gary E. Schnitzer
          8985 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. 200
          Las Vegas NV 89123

HARD EIGHT NUTRITION: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in D. Oregon
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hard Eight Nutrition
LLC. The case is styled as Chet Michael Wilson, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hard Eight Nutrition
LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-00144-AA (D. Ore., Jan. 28, 2025).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Hard Eight Nutrition LLC doing business as Bulk Supplements --
https://www.bulksupplements.com/ -- offers high quality
supplements, vitamins, minerals, amino acids, herbal extracts and
protein powders.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq.
          PERRONG LAW LLC
          2657 Mt. Carmel Ave
          Glenside, PA 19038
          Phone: (215) 225-5529
          Fax: (888) 329-0305
          Email: a@perronglaw.com

               - and -

          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Phone: (617) 485-0018
          Fax: (508) 318-8100
          Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com

HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Santos Seeks to File Class Cert Under Seal
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OMAR SANTOS and AMANDA
CLEMENTS on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. HEALTHCARE REVENUE RECOVERY GROUP, LLC d/b/a ARS ACCOUNT
RESOLUTION SERVICES and EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Case
No. 1:19-cv-23084-KMW (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting the Plaintiffs permission to file the
unredacted motion for class certification under seal

Healthcare Revenue provides collection services to health care
sector.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 6, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wghMFa at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter Prieto, Esq.
          Matthew P. Weinshall, Esq.
          PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
          SunTrust International Center
          One S.E. Third Avenue, Suite 2300
          Miami, FL 33131
          E-mail: pprieto@podhurst.com
                  mweinshall@podhurst.com

                - and -

          Roland Tellis, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
          Encino, CA 91436
          E-mail: rtellis@baronbudd.com

                - and -

          Dennis McCarty, Esq.
          Jonathan Raburn, Esq.
          McCARTY & RABURN PLLC
          2931 Ridge Road, Suite 101 #504
          Rockwall, TX 75032
          E-mail: dennismccartylaw@gmail.com
                  jonathan@geauxlaw.com

HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Seeks to Certify Nationwide Consumer Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OMAR SANTOS and AMANDA
CLEMENTS on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. HEALTHCARE REVENUE RECOVERY GROUP, LLC d/b/a ARS ACCOUNT
RESOLUTION SERVICES and EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Case
No. 1:19-cv-23084-KMW (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

  -- Certifying a nationwide class of 2.1 million consumers whose
     credit reports containing inaccurate information were
     provided by the Defendant to third parties, in violation of
     the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"),

  -- Appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, and

  -- Appointing Class Counsel.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class:

    "All consumers in the United States whose Experian credit
    reports had an account or accounts reported by ARS with an
    inaccurately displayed Date of Status or Payment Level Date
    and were disseminated to one or more third-parties from July
    24, 2017 through Sept. 30, 2019."

Healthcare Revenue provides collection services to health care
sector.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 6, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aZ5LWZ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter Prieto, Esq.
          Matthew P. Weinshall, Esq.
          PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
          SunTrust International Center
          One S.E. Third Avenue, Suite 2300
          Miami, FL 33131
          E-mail: pprieto@podhurst.com
                  mweinshall@podhurst.com

                - and -

          Roland Tellis, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
          Encino, CA 91436
          E-mail: rtellis@baronbudd.com

                - and -

          Dennis McCarty, Esq.
          Jonathan Raburn, Esq.
          McCARTY & RABURN PLLC
          2931 Ridge Road, Suite 101 #504
          Rockwall, TX 75032
          E-mail: dennismccartylaw@gmail.com
                  jonathan@geauxlaw.com

HERNO USA: Isakov Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store
-----------------------------------------------------------
SIMON ISAKOV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HERNO USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-01808 (S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2025) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York
State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, and
declaratory relief.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://us.herno.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not
limited to: ambiguous link texts, changing of content without
advance warning, ambiguous alt-text on graphics, inaccessible
drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, the denial of
keyboard access for some interactive elements, redundant links
where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the
requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.

Herno USA, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services
in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Michael H. Cohen, Esq.
       EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
       68-29 Main Street,
       Flushing, NY 11367
       Telephone: (917) 437-3737
       Email: mcohen@ealg.law

HIP ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Mills Class Suit in Calif. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HIP ENTERTAINMENT.
The case is captioned as Andrew Mills, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated vs. HIP ENTERTAINMENT, LLC,
et al., et al., Case No. 25CV002630 (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty.,
Jan. 31, 2025).

The case is assigned to the Hon. JudgeJill H. Talley.

The nature of suit states Other Employment Complaint Case.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William C Sung, Esq.
          Justice for Workers, P.C.
          3600 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 1815
          Los Angeles, CA 90010-2622
          Telephone: (323) 922-2000
          E-mail: william@justiceforworkers.com

HOMAGE LLC: Stains Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Homage, LLC. The case
is styled as Cassidy Stains, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated v. Homage, LLC, Case No.
3:25-cv-00562-LL-MSB (S.D. Cal., March 10, 2025).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Homage -- https://www.homage.com/ -- specializes in ultra-comfy,
high quality looks repping sports, pop culture and more legendary
moments.[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

HOME DEPOT: Fails to Timely Pay Workers' Final Wages, Obomaniu Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TAMUNOMIM OBOMANIU, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HOME DEPOT USA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 25CV143 (Mass. Super., Hampden Cty., February
25, 2025) arises from the Defendant's violation of the
Massachusetts Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant employs thousands of
workers in Massachusetts, and failed to pay Plaintiff and all other
terminated Massachusetts employees their full wages due on the date
of their termination. Instead, the Defendant paid its terminated
employees their final wages days after the date of their
termination in violation of Massachusetts law.

The Plaintiff was formerly employed by the Defendant as an
associate at its distribution center in Westfield, Massachusetts.

Home Depot USA, Inc. is a retail home supply company formed under
the laws of Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
          Raymond Dinsmore, Esq.
          Ryan B. Guers, Esq.
          HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC
          750 Main Street, Suite 904
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 522-8888
          Facsimile: (860) 218-9555
          E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com
                  rdinsmore@hayberlawfirm.com
                  rguers@hayberlawfirm.com

HOMEOWNER SOLUTION: King Files TCPA Suit in D. Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Homeowner Solution
Pros Inc. The case is styled as Phyllis King, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated v. Homeowner Solution Pros Inc., Case
No. 1:25-cv-00256-UNA (D. Del., March 6, 2025).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for  Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Homeowner Solution Pros Inc. -- https://homeownersolutionpros.com/
-- focuses in energy efficiency and various home improvement
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Grant Dick, IV, Esq.
          Kevin Levitsky, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR
          The Brandywine Building
          1000 N. West Street, 10th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 984-3867
          Email: gdick@coochtaylor.com
                 klevitsky@coochtaylor.com

HOSPITAL SISTERS: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Haberman Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAKE HABERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HOSPITAL SISTERS HEALTH SYSTEM, Case No.
3:25-cv-03067-SEM-EIL (C.D. Ill., March 7, 2025) is a class action
for damages with respect to Hospital Sisters Health System, for its
failure to exercise reasonable care in securing and safeguarding
its patients' sensitive personal data -- including names,
driver’s license numbers, Social Security numbers (PII) and
medical and health insurance information, which is protected health
information as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996.

Accordingly, the former and current HSHS patients are required to
entrust the Defendant with sensitive, non-public Private
Information, without which Defendant could not perform its regular
business activities, in order to obtain medical services from HSHS.


The Defendant retains this information for years and even after the
patient-physician relationship has ended. By obtaining, collecting,
using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of
Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable
duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that
information from unauthorized access and intrusion.

The Defendant's data security failure allowed a targeted
cyberattack in or about May 2023 to compromise Defendant's network
(Data Breach) that contained Private Information of Plaintiff and
other individuals.

Plaintiff Haberman has been, at all relevant times, a resident and
citizen of Illinois. Mr. Haberman is a patient of the Defendant.

The Defendant is a hospital system with thirteen hospitals across
Illinois and Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Rathod, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H Street NE, Suite 302
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 470-3520
          E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com
                  nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com

               - and -

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC
          222 W. Adams St, Suite 2020
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          Facsimile: (3120 233-1560
          E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com

HOUSE OF HACKNEY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Isakov Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
SIMON ISAKOV, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. House of Hackney US, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01981
(S.D.N.Y., Mar. 10, 2025) alleges that Canali failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website,
https://www.us.houseofhackney.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons.

The Defendant is allegedly denying blind and visually impaired
persons throughout the United States with equal access to the
services Parched Hospitality Group provides to their non-disabled
customers through its website. The Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products
and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

Us.houseofhackney.com provides to the public a wide array of the
goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by House
of Hackney. Yet, Us.houseofhackney.com contains significant access
barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and
visually-impaired customers to use the website, says the suit.

The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of
wallpaper on Us.houseofhackney.com. Despite his efforts, however,
Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted
individual due to the Website's lack of a variety of features and
accommodations.

House of Hackney US, Inc. operates the website that offers features
allowing all consumers to access the goods and services provided
via the Internet.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael H. Cohen, Esq.
          EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC
          68-29 Main Street
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Telephone: (718) 914-9694
          E-mail: mcohen@ealg.law

HUMANE ANIMAL FARM: Taylor Files Suit in S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Humane Animal Farm
Care, et al. The case is styled as Leilani Taylor, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Humane Animal Farm
Care doing business as: Certified Humane, Alexandre Family Farm,
Case No. 3:25-cv-00554-AGS-JLB (S.D. Cal., March 7, 2025).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Humane Animal Farm Care doing business as Certified Humane --
https://certifiedhumane.org/ -- is a program that verifies the
humane treatment of farm animals by independent auditors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan W. Pease, Esq.
          PEASE LAW APC
          3960 West Point Loma Boulevard, Suite H-2562
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Phone: (619) 723-0369
          Email: bryanpease@gmail.com

HYATT CORP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jimenez Extended to Nov. 17
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FLOR JIMENEZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HYATT
CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1- 10, inclusive,
Case No. 2:23-cv-03028-TLN-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Troy
Nunley entered an order granting the stipulation to extend
discovery deadlines as follows:

                 Event               Current         Revised
                                     Date            Date

  Close of Discovery Related    March 26, 2025    July 28, 2025
  to Class Certification:

  Deadline to Designate         April 25, 2025    Aug. 25, 2025
  Experts Related to Class
  Certification:

  Deadline for Supplemental     May 28, 2025      Sept. 29, 2025
  Expert Designation Related
  to Class Certification:

  Deadline to File Motion       July 22, 2025     Nov. 17, 2025
  for Class Certification:

Hyatt operates as a hospitality company.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dKQum6 at no extra
charge.[CC]

IGLOO PRODUCTS: Faces Holton Class Suit Over Recalled Coolers
-------------------------------------------------------------
KELSEA HOLTON and LUIS MIRANDA, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. IGLOO PRODUCTS CORP., a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00298-UNA (D. Del., March 11, 2025) concerns a
deceptively dangerous product and its manufacturer's inadequate
recall efforts.

After selling over a million units of its popular Igloo brand 90 QT
Flip & Tow Rolling Coolers, Defendant announced a nationwide recall
instructing its customers to stop using them due to finger crushing
and amputation hazards. And yet, the Defendant refuses to refund
its customers a single cent. This is a case of protecting the
bottom line at all costs, the lawsuit says.

On Feb. 13, 2025, Defendant and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission announced the recall of roughly 1,060,000 Igloo brand 90
QT Flip & Tow Rolling Coolers. Consumers were warned to
"immediately stop using the recalled coolers" because the Products'
"tow handle can pinch consumers' fingertips against the cooler,
posing fingertip amputation and crushing hazards." The Defendant
stated that it had received "reports of fingertip injuries,
including fingertip amputations, bone fractures, and lacerations."
The potential of the Products to cause such crushing, laceration,
and amputation injuries. The Defendant refuses to refund customers
that purchased the Products. Instead, the Defendant implemented a
deficient recall that allows it to say they are doing the right
thing, when in fact the primary objective is to protect their
bottom line.

Any requests for refunds are denied. Consumers only have one
option: to stop using the Products, contact Defendant for a
replacement handle, wait for the new handle to arrive, and then
replace the defective handle with a new handle by themselves,
despite the fact that the handle they are required to replace on
their own may amputate or crush their fingers in the process -- the
very injury the Recall is purportedly intended to avoid. 5. By
design, the recall received very little publication, with the
result that the response rate has been low.

The Plaintiffs are filing this class action lawsuit to seek all
available relief to consumers, to raise awareness that Defendant's
Products are a hazard, and to "encourage companies to take greater
care in avoiding the production [and sale] of hazardous products in
the first place."

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf all persons in the
following classes and subclasses

  a. Nationwide Class: all people in the United States who
     purchased one of the Products.

  b. Multi-State Implied Warranty Class: all persons who purchased

     a subject Product for personal, family, or household use: (1)

     in Alaska, Arkansas, California, Delaware, District of
     Columbia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota,
     Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota,
     Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,

     South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, or Wyoming within the
     applicable statute of limitations; or (2) in Colorado or
     Massachusetts within the applicable statute of limitations.

  c. Multi-State Consumer Protection Class: all persons who
     purchased a subject Product for personal, family, or
     household use: (1) in the states of Michigan, Minnesota, or
     New Jersey within the applicable statute of limitations; (2)
     in the state Missouri within the applicable statute of
     limitations; (3) in the states of California, Florida,
     Massachusetts, or Washington within the applicable statute of

     limitations; or (4) in the states of Illinois and New York
     within the applicable statute of limitations.

   d. California Subclass: all people who purchased a subject
     Product in California.

   e. Pennsylvania Subclass: all people who purchased a subject
     Product in Pennsylvania.

Igloo Products Corp. is an American manufacturer of ice chests,
drink containers, and supporting accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           R. Grant Dick IV, Esq.
           Kevin D. Levitsky, Esq.
           COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
           1000 N. West Street, Suite 1500
           Wilmington, DE 19801
           Telephone: (302) 984-3800
           E-mail: gdick@coochtaylor.com
                   klevitsky@coochtaylor.com

                - and -

           Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
           SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC
           166 Geary Str STE 1500-1507
           San Francisco, CA 94108
           Telephone: (415) 839-7077
           Facsimile: (888) 410-0415
           E-Mail: yeremey@skclassactions.com

               - and -

           Joel D. Smith, Esq.
           SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC
           867 Boylston Street 5th Floor No. 1520
           Boston, MA 02116
           Telephone: (617) 377-7404
           Facsimile: (888) 410-0415
           E-Mail: joel@skclassactions.com

INTEL CORPORATION: Schiassi Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Alessandro Schiassi, Justin Desevrenjacquet,
Cajer Jong, John Reyes, Bienvenido Virata, and Dung Anh Duong,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
INTEL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; DOES 1 to 10, inclusive,
Case No. 25STCV03347 was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
March 7, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02043.

The Complaint asserts claims for fraudulent omission or fraudulent
concealment; negligent misrepresentation; breach of express
warranty; breach of implied warranty; violation of the California
Consumers Legal Remedy Act ("CLRA"); and violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gregory P. Stone, Esq.
          L. Ashley Aull, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, Fiftieth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3426
          Phone: (213) 683-9100
          Facsimile: (213) 687-3702
          Email: gregory.stone@mto.com
                 ashley.aull@mto.com

               - and -

          Achyut J. Phadke, Esq.
          Stephanie G. Herrera, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          560 Mission Street, Twenty-Seventh Floor
          San Francisco, California 94105-2907
          Phone: (415) 512-4000
          Facsimile: (415) 512-4077
          Email: achyut.phadke@mto.com
                 stephanie.herrera@mto.com

IONIC DIGITAL: Vejseli Seeks to Void Board Reduction Resolution
---------------------------------------------------------------
VETON VEJSELI and BRETT PERRY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SCOTT DUFFY, THOMAS
DIFIORE, SCOTT FLANDERS, ELIZABETH LAPUMA, and IONIC DIGITAL, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2025-0232 (Del. Ch., March 3, 2025) is a class
action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and
invalidity of board reduction resolution under Ionic Digital's
bylaws.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action complaint against the
Defendants to challenge their alleged disloyal and invalid
resolution reducing the number of board seats up for election at
Ionic Digital's upcoming annual meeting in the face of an impending
proxy contest. According to the complaint, Ionic did not disclose
during its announcement on February 6, 2025, that its Board voted
to shrink its size to five and to reduce the seats up for election
at the annual meeting from two to one. The Plaintiffs seek a
judicial determination that the Board breached its fiduciary duties
by adopting the Board Reduction Resolution and an order
invalidating the Board Reduction Resolution and declaring that two
Class I seats remain up for election at the annual meeting.

Ionic Digital, Inc. is a digital currency operator, headquartered
in Coral Gables, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
       A. Thompson Bayliss, Esq.
       Daniel J. McBride, Esq.
       Nicholas F. Mastria, Esq.
       ABRAMS & BAYLISS LLP
       20 Montchanin Road, Suite 200
       Wilmington, DE 19807
       Telephone: (302) 778-1000
       Email: bayliss@abramsbayliss.com
              mcbride@abramsbayliss.com
              mastria@abramsbayliss.com

               - and -

       Adrienne M. Ward, Esq.
       Lori Marks-Esterman, Esq.
       Jacqueline Y. Ma, Esq.
       Daniel M. Stone, Esq.
       OLSHAN FROME WOLOSKY LLP
       1325 Avenue of the Americas
       New York, NY 10019
       Telephone: (212) 451-2300

IOSM INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Gallaher Due Jan.19, 2026
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gallaher v. IOSM, Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:23-cv-03625 (N.D. Cal., July 21, 2023), the Hon.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order adopting stipulation
on class certification briefing schedule:

-- Filing of Motion for Class             Jan.19, 2026
    Certification due by:

-- The Plaintiffs' Designation            Jan.19, 2026
    of Class Certification
    Expert(s) and Production of
    Expert Report(s) due by:

-- Opposition to Motion for Class         March 20, 2026
    Certification due by:

-- Defendants' Designation of             March 20, 2026
    Class Certification Expert(s)
    and Production of Expert
    Report(s) due by:

-- Reply to Motion for Class              May 19, 2026
    Certification due by:

The nature of suit states labor litigation.[CC]

J&I CORDON: Monsalve Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Electricians
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN DARIO OSORIO MONSALVE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. J&I CORDON ELECTRIC, LLC
and OSCAR CORDON, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01135-LMM (N.D. Ga.,
March 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an electrician from
on or around October 2, 2023, through in or around mid-December
2023.

J&I Cordon Electric, LLC is an electrical contracting company based
in Lawrenceville, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Jeremy Stephens, Esq.
       MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
       191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4200
       Post Office Box 57007
       Atlanta, GA 30343
       Telephone: (404) 965-1682
       Email: jstephens@forthepeople.com

J&P PARK: Faces Demaio Suit Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
DESIREE DEMAIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. J&P PARK ACQUISITIONS, INC., Case No. 218329374 (Fla.
Cir., Broward Cty., March 7, 2025) alleges that the Defendant
violated the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA") Caller ID
Rules by transmitting a phone number that was not capable of
receiving phone calls when it made Telephonic Sales Calls by text
message.

Specifically, the Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that
promoted Jackson & Perkins and violated the Caller ID Rules when it
transmitted to the recipients'c aller identification services a
telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone
calls.

The suit seeks for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages
for violations of the FTSA.

The Plaintiff is the regular user of a cellular telephone number
that receives the Defendant's telephonic sales calls, and she
resides in Broward County, Florida.

J&P Park sells various goods to persons throughout the country
through its online store.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
          Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
          SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
          974 Howard Ave.
          Dunedin, FL 34698
          Telephone: (202)709-5744
          Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
          E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com
                  shawn@sjlawcollective.com

JACK WHITLEY: Webb Suit Removed to M.D. Tennessee
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Lawana Webb, and others similarly situated v.
JACK WHITLEY, SMALLBIZPROS, INC. d/b/a PADGETT BUSINESS SERVICES,,
Case No. 2025-CV-24 was removed from the Chancery Court for Wilson
County, Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee on March 6, 2025, and assigned Case No.
1:25-cv-01889.

Webb has no colorable cause of action against Whitley because she
obviously knew that Whitley was a Padgett franchisee and that he
was breaching his franchise agreement with Padgett in his dealings
with her, and she conspired with him to achieve that very
objective. Webb's pretense that Whitley is her adversary, when in
fact he is her co-conspirator, is a fraudulent device designed to
defeat federal jurisdiction that this Court should disregard. But
for Webb's fraudulent joinder of Whitley, this Court would have
original jurisdiction over this case, for among other reasons based
on diversity of citizenship, as Webb is a resident of Tennessee and
Padgett is a Georgia corporation with its principal place of
business in Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tiffany D. Hagar, Esq.
          Eric L. Phillips, Esq.
          David C. Brust, Esq.
          HAGAR & PHILLIPS, PLLC
          207 University Ave.
          Lebanon, TN 37087
          Phone: (615) 784-4588
          Fax: (8155) 286-8279
          Email: ephillips@hplawtn.com
                 dbrust@hplawtn.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Roland W. Baggott III, Esq.
          BAGGOTT LAW, PLLC
          4525 Harding Road, Suite 105
          Nashville, TN 37205
          Phone: (615) 620-4580
          Fax: (615) 620-4581
          Email: roland@baggottlaw.com

JOHANNA RAE: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Fernandez Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHANNA RAE, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-01815 (S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, and
declaratory relief.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.shopfigandwillow.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not
limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.

Johanna Rae, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services
in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Rami Salim, Esq.
       STEIN SAKS, PLLC
       One University Plaza, Suite 620
       Hackensack, NJ 07601
       Telephone: (201) 282-6500
       Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
       Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com

JOHN CHRISTNER: Gasser Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Todd Gasser and Steven Porter, individually,
on a representative basis, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JOHN CHRISTNER TRUCKING, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited
Liability Company; HIRSCHBACH, INC., an Indiana Corporation;
HIRSCHBACH MOTOR LINES, INC., an Iowa Corporation; and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2405581 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on March 7, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-00619.

The Class Action Complaint asserts six causes of action under
California law: Failure to Pay Wages; Failure to Pay for
Nonproductive Time Under Labor Code; Failure to Reimburse Business
Expenses; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages; Failure to Provide
Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; and Unfair and Unlawful
Competition.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher C. McNatt, Jr., Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP
          2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Phone: 626-795-4700
          Fax: 626-795-4790
          Email: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com

JOHN PAUL: Heagney Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDALL HEAGNEY, RICA
GUERRERO, KERRIE GONNELLA, JOHN ROHLOFF, and JEWEL RULE,
individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. JOHN PAUL MITCHELL SYSTEMS, Case No. 3:23-cv-00687-VC
(N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on May 15, 2025, will move for class
certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

The case arises from the deceptive conduct of Defendant John Paul
Mitchell Systems ("JPMS'), which instituted a corporate scheme to
conceal its animal testing in China, while touting its cruelty-free
promise to sell hair-care products in the United States.

The Class is defined as:

    "All individuals who, between June 1, 2001 to the present,
    purchased, directly from JPMS or through an authorized
    third-party retailer or salon, a John Paul Mitchell Systems
    Inc. hair-care product branded as Paul Mitchell (TM), Clean
    Beauty, Tea Tree, MITCH (TM), Awapuhi Wild Ginger (TM),
    Neuro (TM), or MVRCK (TM)."

John Paul is an American manufacturer of hair care products and
styling tools.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 6, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Fg45UK at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert B. Carey, Esq.
          Leonard W. Aragon, Esq.
          Michella A. Kras, Esq.
          E. Tory Beardsley, Esq.
          Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          11 West Jefferson, Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85003
          Telephone: (602) 840-5900
          Facsimile: (602) 840-3012
          E-mail: rob@hbsslaw.com
                  leonarda@hbsslaw.com
                  michellak@hbsslaw.com
                  toryb@hbsslaw.com
                  shanas@hbsslaw.com

JPMORGAN CHASE: Gonzalez Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDRO GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA, THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA, JPMORGAN CHASE U.S. BENEFITS
EXECUTIVE, THE SELECTION COMMITTEE, THE EMPLOYEE PLANS INVESTMENT
COMMITTEE, Case No. 2:25-cv-01889 (D.N.J., Aug. 15, 2024) is a
class action brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, against the JPMorgan Chase 401(k) Savings Plan's
fiduciary JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, the Board of Directors of
JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, the JPMorgan Chase U.S. Benefits
Executive, the Selection Committee, and the Employee Plans
Investment Committee for breaches of its fiduciary duties.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants breached the duties it
owed to the Plan, to Plaintiff, and to the other participants of
the Plan by failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's
investment portfolio, initially and on an ongoing basis, with due
care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of
performance.

The Plan had over thirty billion dollars in assets under
management. At the start of the Class Period in 2020, the Plan had
over $36 billion in assets under management. By 2023, the Plan had
over $44 billion in assets under management. The Plan's assets
under management qualifies it as a jumbo plan in the defined
contribution plan marketplace, and among the largest plans in the
United States. In 2021, only 0.2 percent (1,011 of 641,747) of
plans in the country had more than $1 billion in assets under
management, the lawsuit says.

Furthermore, by selecting the JPMorgan SVF with underperforming
crediting rates, the Defendants failed to provide participants with
an option that maximized the value of their investment, the lawsuit
adds.

Mr. Gonzalez resides in Chicago, IL. During his employment, he
participated in the Plan and invested in the JPMorgan SVF in the
Plan and suffered injury to his Plan account due to the significant
underperformance of the JPMorgan SVF.

JPMorgan is the sponsor of the Plan and a named fiduciary of the
Plan with a principal place of business at 545 Washington
Boulevard, Jersey City, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          James A. Maro, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          312 Old Lancaster Road
          Merion Station, PA 19066
          Telephone: (610) 890-0200
          Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
          E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
                  jamesm@capozziadler.com

JT LOGISTICS SOLUTIONS: Ellington Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JT Logistics
Solutions, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Donald Wayne
Ellington, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JT Logistics Solutions, LLC, Atlantic Solutions Group
Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0003573 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Joaquin Cty., March 10, 2025).

The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."

JT Logistics -- https://jtlogistics.com/ -- provides transportation
and comprehensive warehouse services to clients worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM
          9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: 949-379-6250
          Fax: (949) 379-6251
          Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com

JUST A BABY INC: McGee Files Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Just a baby, Inc. The
case is styled as Nitaya McGee, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Just a baby, Inc., Case No.
1:25-cv-01354 (E.D.N.Y., March 10, 2025).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

Just a Baby -- https://www.justababy.com/ -- connects you with
compassionate and reliable donors, surrogates, and co-parents.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Ave
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7127
          Fax: (212) 989-9163
          Email: ykopel@bursor.com

K & S INTERIORS: Faces Sanabria Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE A. SANABRIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. K & S INTERIORS, INC. and KEN R.
HARDING JR., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-20955 (S.D. Fla.,
February 28, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act including failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, and retaliatory
constructive discharge.

Mr. Sanabria was employed by the Defendants as a full-time
construction employee from approximately December 15, 2019, to
April 20, 2024.

K & S Interiors, Inc. is a construction and remodeling company,
located at 2000 Avenue P. #15, Riviera Beach, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
       ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA
       9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
       Miami, FL 33156
       Telephone: (305) 446-1500
       Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
       Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

KISCO SENIOR: Fairs to Pay OT to Straight Time Workers, Maness Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KEITH MANESS, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. KISCO SENIOR LIVING, LLC d/b/a BALFOUR SENIOR CARE,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00848 (D. Colo., March 14, 2025) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime and other damages from Kisco under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Colorado Minimum Wage Act, and Colorado Overtime
and Minimum Pay Standards Order, and the Colorado Wage Claim Act.

Mr. Maness worked for Balfour Senior Care as a Line Cook. Like the
Putative Class Members, Maness regularly worked more than 40 hours
in a week. But Balfour Senior Care did not pay time-and-a-half for
all overtime hours they worked. Instead, Balfour Senior Care paid
straight time for overtime for these employees' mandatory training
hours, including when they worked more than 40 hours in a week.

The FLSA collective of similarly situated straight time for
training overtime employees is defined as: All hourly Balfour
Senior Care workers who were paid straight time for overtime
training hours at any time during the past 3 years (FLSA Straight
Time Workers), says the suit.

Kisco, based in Carlsbad, California, has 35 full service senior
living communities in 12 states offering independent living,
assisted living, and in some locations, memory care.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
          FITZ LAW PLLC
          3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200
          Houston, TX 77098
          Telephone: (713) 766-4000
          E-mail: carl@fitz.legal

KROGER CO: Henry Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------
Raheem Henry, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. THE KROGER CO., KRGP, LLC, KROGER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
II, Case No. 1:25-cv-00147-MWM (S.D. Ohio, March 10, 2025), is
brought challenging policies and practices of Defendants that
violate the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the
Defendants' unpaid overtime wages.

The Plaintiff and employes were not paid for all time spent before
their shift, during their unpaid meal break, and after their shift
donning and doffing their sanitary clothing that protects against
the contamination of food, food-contact surfaces, or food packaging
materials. The Plaintiff and employees regularly worked more than
40 hours each workweek. As a result of the Plaintiff and employees
not being paid for all hours worked, the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees were not paid overtime compensation
for all of the hours they worked in excess of 40 each workweek. The
Defendants knowingly and willfully violated the FLSA by engaging in
the violations, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was jointly employed by Defendants as a non-exempt
hourly employee from December 18, 2024 until January 27, 2025.

The Defendants jointly own and operate grocery and food service
stores where they manufacture, prepare, distribute, and sell
various food products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          1360 East 9th Street, Ste. 808
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Phone: (216) 230-2944
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B
          North Canton, OH 44720
          Phone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com

KROGER CO: Seeks Status Conference on Evidentiary Hearing
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUDY KIRKBRIDE and BEETA
LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. THE KROGER CO., Case No. 2:21-cv-00022-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for a
status conference regarding the March 19-21, 2025, hearing.

On Nov. 15, 2025, the Court issued an Order setting an evidentiary
hearing and oral argument on Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and the pending Daubert motions for March 19-21,
2025, beginning at 9:30 a.m.

The parties have agreed to procedures for the evidentiary hearing
that largely align with the Court's trial procedures, and have
included these proposed procedures for the Court's review in
Section II of this motion.

Kroger is an American retail company that operates supermarkets and
multi-department stores throughout the United States.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 6, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jE6lu4 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Nathaniel Lampley, Jr., Esq.
          Robert Webner, Esq.
          VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
          Atrium Two, Suite 2000 221 East Fourth Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 723-4000
          Facsimile: (513) 852-7869
          E-mail: NLampley@vorys.com
                  rnwebner@vorys.com

                - and -

          Selina Coleman, Esq.
          Jessica Christensen, Esq.
          Michael S. Leib, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          1301 K Street, N.W.
          Suite 1000 – East Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 414-9200
          Facsimile: (202) 414-9299
          E-mail: scoleman@reedsmith.com
                  jchristensen@reedsmith.com
                  mleib@reedsmith.com

LEGACY CONTRACTOR: Guevara Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
DIEGO CANTU GUEVARA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. LEGACY CONTRACTOR NYC LLC (D/B/A LEGACY CONTRACTORS
NYC) and MARTIN JOSEPH BRUTON, Case No. 1:25-cv-01409 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 12, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York
Labor Law.

The Plaintiff Cantu worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours
per week, without appropriate overtime compensation for the hours
that he worked.

Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Cantu appropriately
for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium. The Defendants also failed to pay
Plaintiff Cantu wages on a timely basis, says the suit.

Plaintiff Cantu is a former employee of the Defendants.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a construction
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Catalina Sojo, Esq.
          CSM LEGAL, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620

LEGACY PROFESSIONALS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Plavsic Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DUSAN PLAVSIC, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LEGACY PROFESSIONALS LLP, Case No. 1:25-cv-02644 (N.D.
Ill., March 13, 2025) alleges that the Defendant's failed to
safeguard the Plaintiff and Class members' highly sensitive
personally identifiable information as exposed and unauthorizedly
disclosed in the Data Breach violates its common law duty, Illinois
law, and the Defendant's implied contract with Plaintiff and Class
members to safeguard their PII.

The Plaintiff contends that they now face a lifetime risk of
identity theft due to the nature of the information lost, which
they cannot change, and which cannot be made private again.

The suit seeks injunctive and declaratory relief arising from
Defendant's failure to safeguard the names and Social Security
numbers, of Plaintiff and Class Members, which resulted in
unauthorized access to its information systems in or around April
2024, and the compromised and unauthorized disclosure of that PII,
causing widespread injury and damages to Plaintiff and the proposed
Class members.

Legacy is a full-service accounting firm that provides professional
services to individuals, corporations, not-for-profit
organizations, labor unions and their related employee benefit
plans throughout the country.

In April 2024, Legacy detected unusual activity in its computer
systems and ultimately determined that an unauthorized third party
accessed its network and obtained certain files from its systems in
or around April 2024. (Data Breach).

As a result of the Data Breach, which Defendant failed to prevent,
the PII of Plaintiff and the proposed Class members, were stolen,
including their names and Social Security numbers.

The Defendant's investigation concluded that the PII compromised in
the Data Breach included Plaintiff's and other individuals'
information.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          Leanna A. Loginov, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                  lloginov@shamisgentile.com

LEMONADE INSURANCE: Matthews Suit Removed to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Darcy Matthews, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. LEMONADE INSURANCE CO., Case No.
25CU004365C was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Diego, to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on March 7,
2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00545-JLS-DDL.

The Plaintiff generally alleges claims against Defendant for sex
and age discrimination in violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act. The
Complaint seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, statutory
damages, punitive damages, pre and post-judgment interest, and
recovery of costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joshua Briones, Esq.
          Grecia A. Rivas-Rudra, Esq.
          MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C.
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 300
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 586-3200
          Facsimile: (310) 586-3
          Email: jbriones@mintz.com
                 grivas@mintz.com

LENNAR CORP: Smith Suit Removed from State Court to S.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
KARLENE KIDD SMITH and other similarly situated v. LENNAR
CORPORATION, Case No. 2025-002236-CA-01 (Filed Feb. 10, 2025), was
removed from the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in
and for Miami-Dade County, Florida to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 13, 2025.

The District of South Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
6:25-cv-01711-DCC to the proceedings.

The action asserts one cause of action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed
to pay the proper overtime rate for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week.

Lennar Corporation is an American home construction company based
in Miami-Dade County, Florida.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

           Michael R. Esposito, Esq.
           100 S. Ashley Drive, Suite 600
           Tampa, FL 33602
           Telephone: (813) 255-2324
           Facsimile: (813) 433-5352
           E-mail: BRFLeservice@BlankRome.com

LG ELECTRONICS: Adams Sues Over Defective Recalled Ranges
---------------------------------------------------------
Erick Adams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LG ELECTRONICS USA INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01723
(D.N.J., March 7, 2025), is brought behalf of similarly situated
persons who purchased any of the following models of LG Slide-In
Ranges and Freestanding Electric Ranges sold from 2015 through
January 2025 for between $1,400 and $2,650 ("Recalled Ranges",
"Class Ranges", "Products", or "Ranges"), to remedy various
violations of law in connection with Defendant's manufacturing,
marketing, advertising, selling, and warranting of the Recalled
Ranges.

Specifically, the front-mounted knobs on the recalled ranges can be
activated by accidental contact by humans or pets, posing a fire
hazard ("the Defect"). By the time the recall was issued, consumers
had already made at least 86 reports of unintentional activation of
the knobs, and the Ranges had been involved in more than 28 fires,
some of which resulted burns, pet deaths, and damage exceeding
$340,000.

Rather than provide any appropriate remedy for the Defect in its
Ranges, LG's "fix" is merely to provide consumers with a warning
sticker for their Ranges. The hazardous nature of the Ranges and
propensity for injury from the Ranges makes a full refund the
proper method of recall. Consumers like Plaintiff trust
manufacturers like Defendant to sell Ranges that are safe to use
and free from known defects. Plaintiff and other consumers are
injured at the point of purchase because they had no way of knowing
of the Ranges' safety defect, and would either not have purchased,
or not have paid a premium for, the Ranges.

As a result of Defendant's misconduct, misrepresentations, and
omissions, Plaintiff and putative Class Members have suffered
injury in fact, including economic damages. The Plaintiff and the
putative Class bring this suit for economic damages they sustained
as a result. Given the massive quantities of the Ranges sold
nationwide, this class action is the proper vehicle for addressing
Defendant's misconduct and attaining needed relief for those
affected, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the LG Freestanding Double Oven Electric
Range with EasyClean and ProBake Convection, model number
LDE4413ST, for his home in Garland, Texas in July 25, 2022.

The Defendant designs, manufactures, markets, distributes,
services, repairs, and sells Ranges, including the Recalled Ranges,
nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lisa R. Considine, Esq.
          Mason A. Barney, Esq.
          Leslie L. Pescia, Esq.
          SIRI | GLIMSTAD LLP
          745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10151
          Phone: (212) 532-1091
          Fax: (646) 417-5967
          Email: mbarney@sirillp.com
                 lconsidine@sirillp.com
                 lpescia@sirillp.com

               - and -

          LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
          954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518
          San Juan, PR 00907
          Phone: (215) 789-4462
          Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
          Susana Cruz Hodge, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC
          570 Broad St., Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Phone: (973) 923-3000
          Email: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
                 scruzhodge@litedepalma.com

LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Appeals Court Remand Order in Velazquez Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court
order granting the Plaintiff's motion to remand in the lawsuit
entitled Melissa Velasquez, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Luxottica of America Inc., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00074-MCS-PVC, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, is brought
against the Defendants for fraud claims.

On Jan. 14, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case
to Los Angeles County Superior Court.

On Jan. 15, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal.

On Jan. 27, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to stay case pending
resolution of appeal in Ruiz v. The Bradford Exch., Ltd.

On Feb. 19, 2025, Judge Mark C. Scarsi granted the Plaintiff's
motion to remand. The Defendant's motion to stay is denied as moot.
Case is remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The appellate case is captioned Velasquez v. Luxottica of America
Inc., et al., Case No. 25-1258, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 27, 2025.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 4,
2025;

   -- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on April 8, 2025;
and

   -- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on May 8, 2025.
[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee MELISSA VELASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Thomas D. Warren, Esq.
          WARREN TERZIAN LLP
          30799 Pinetree Road, Suite 345
          Pepper Pike, OH 44124

                - and –

          Dan Terzian, Esq.
          Erick Kees Kuylman, Esq.
          WARREN TERZIAN, LLP
          222 N. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 2000
          Los Angeles, CA 90245

Defendants-Appellants LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA INC., et al. are
represented by:

          Anahit Tagvoryan, Esq.
          Harrison Maxwell Brown, Esq.
          BLANK ROME, LLP
          2029 Century Park, E 6th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067

MANHATTAN ASSOCIATES: Prime Sues Over Share Price Decline
---------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY PRIME, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MANHATTAN ASSOCIATES, INC., EDDIE CAPEL, and
DENNIS B. STORY, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00992-TRJ (N.D. Ga.,
February 25, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf
of the Plaintiff and all investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Manhattan Associates securities between October 22, 2024,
to January 28, 2025, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused
by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission.

According to the complaint, the Defendants provided investors with
material information concerning Manhattan Associates' expected
revenue for the fiscal year 2025. The Defendants' statements
included, among other things, confidence in the Company's ability
to forecast guidance despite macroeconomic fluctuations, the growth
potential of their professional services offerings, and the ability
for their cloud revenue to drive revenue for its professional
services. The Defendants provided overwhelmingly positive
statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating
materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing
material adverse facts concerning the true state of Manhattan
Associates' forecasting ability for its professional services.

On January 28, 2024, Manhattan Associates published its financial
results for the fourth quarter and full fiscal year 2024 and
announced reduced revenue guidance for the full fiscal year 2025.
Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Manhattan Associates'
revelation. The price of Manhattan Associates' common stock
declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $295.10 per
share on January 28, 2025, Manhattan Associates' stock price fell
to $222.84 per share on January 29, 2025, a decline of about 24.49%
in the span of just a single day, says the suit.

Manhattan Associates is a global company that develops, sells,
deploys, services, and maintains software solutions for the purpose
of assisting in the management of supply chains, inventory, and
omnichannel operations for its customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. Bain, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. BAIN, LLC
          1230 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 1050
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 724-9990
          Facsimile: (404) 724-9986
          E-mail: dbain@bain-law.com

MARYMOUNT HEALTHCARE: Faces Skipper Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA SKIPPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MARYMOUNT HEALTHCARE LLC d/b/a THE VILLA AT
MARYMOUNT, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00420 (N.D. Ohio, March 3,
2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly paid
employee from approximately February 2024 until January 2025.

Marymount Healthcare LLC, doing business as The Villa at Marymount,
is an owner and operator of a senior and assisted living nursing
facility in Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
       NILGES DRAHER LLC
       7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B
       North Canton, OH 44720
       Telephone: (330) 470-4428
       Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
       Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

       Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
       1360 E. 9th St., Suite 808
       Cleveland, OH 44114
       Telephone: (216) 230-2955
       Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
       Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com

MATHWORKS INC: Rodriguez Suit Removed to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Rebeka Rodriguez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. The Mathworks, Inc., Case No.
24CU029715C was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on March 10, 2025.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00564-JES-SBC to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.

The MathWorks, Inc. -- https://www.mathworks.com/ -- is an American
privately held corporation that specializes in mathematical
computing software.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
          PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC
          4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Phone: (949) 706-6464
          Fax: (949) 706-6469
          Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
                 vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ryan H. Weinstein, Esq.
          ROPES & GRAY LLP
          10250 Constellation Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 975-3310
          Email: ryan.weinstein@ropesgray.com

MDL 2873: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Bleibaum Class Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
PHILIP BLEIBAUM v. AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC, Case No.
2:25-cv-00610-RMG (D.S.C., Feb. 2, 2025) is a class action seeking
for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG)
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the
Plaintiff contends.

Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to
proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains
and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique
chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of
exposed individuals.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.

The Plaintiff contends that he regularly used, and was thereby
directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish
fires during their working career as a military and/or civilian
firefighter. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with thyroid disease and
other injuries, as a result of exposure to Defendants’ AFFF or
TOG 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.

AGC is a wholly owned subsidiary of AGC Inc., a multinational
corporation which manufacturers glass, electronic displays and
chemical products. AGC manufactures, markets and sells
fluoroproducts including Fluon (TM) fluoropolymer.

3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.

The Defendants include ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION;
ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY;
CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS
INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC,
LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN
AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS
& SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY
APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION
FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE
PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING
COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN
MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.
(f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE &
ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.; and 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Eric W. Cracken, Esq.
         Steven D. Davis, Esq.
         TORHOERMAN LAW, LLC
         210 S. Main Street
         Edwardsville, IL 62025
         Telephone: (618) 656-4400
         Facsimile: (618) 656-4401

MIXPANEL INC: Glenn Sues Over Unauthorized Collection of Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Glenn and Ara Sardarbegians, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. MIXPANEL, INC., Case No.
4:25-cv-00927-DMR (N.D. Cal., Jan. 28, 2025), is brought against
Defendant for its unauthorized collection of communications and
personally identifying information from users of the Android
version of the Upside mobile application (the "App") in violation
of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), and
Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act
("WESCA").

The App is "designed to reward you for simply being yourself" by
getting users "cash back on daily essentials like gas, groceries,
and dining." Unbeknownst to App users, however, Defendant's
software is installed in the App. Using its SDK, Defendant collects
information on App users, including users' interactions with the
App and "cashback claims," App users' precise geolocation, and
other user identifiers such as App users' Android Advertising IDs
("AAIDs").

Not only does the information Defendant collects from App users
alone allow it to de-anonymize and identify users, Defendant is
also able to bridge that information to those same users'
interactions with other mobile applications using their AAIDs.
Thus, through the information it collects from App users, Defendant
builds comprehensive user profiles that tell it who users are,
where they live, and where they like to shop. Defendant then
provides those profiles to its clients (like Upside) for targeted
marketing and advertising and comprehensive data analytics. All of
this is done without the knowledge and consent of App users like
Plaintiffs. Such digital surveillance constitutes an enormous
invasion of privacy.

If Plaintiffs' interactions with the App are the "contents" of
Plaintiffs' communications, then Defendant has read, learned, and
intercepted Plaintiffs' and App users' communications without
consent in violation of Section 631 of the CIPA, and WESCA. If
Plaintiffs' interactions with the App are not the "contents" of
their communications, however, then Defendant has violated CIPA §
638.51(a) by using a "pen register" (the Mixpanel SDK) to collect
Plaintiffs' and App users' "routing, addressing, or signaling
information" (their precise geolocation and other identifiers) for
use in comprehensive user profiles and tracking. In either case,
Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of a proposed Class of App
users who used App and had their information and communications
intercepted by Defendant, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs created an account on the Upside App and entered
information on the App.

Mixpanel, Inc. is a Delaware corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Joshua R. Wilner, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Phone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
                 jwilner@bursor.com


MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Salguero Sues Over Snack Bars' False Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA SALGUERO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02139 (N.D. Ill., February 28, 2025) is
a class action against the Defendant for breach of express
warranty, unjust enrichment, and violations of California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act and California's Unfair Competition
Law.

The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Clif Kid
products, including ZBar and ZBar Protein products. According to
the complaint, the Defendant advertises and labels the products as
"Climate Neutral." However, this representation is false and
deceptive because the manufacturing, marketing, and transportation
of the products contribute to climate change and degradation, exert
a negative impact on the climate, and exceed any benefit the
products may provide to the climate. Had the Plaintiff and
similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not have
purchased the products or would have paid less for them, says the
suit.

Mondelez International, Inc. is a manufacturer of snack products,
with its principal place of business at 905 West Fulton Market,
Chicago, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       David M. Cialkowski, Esq.
       Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
       Rachel K. Tack, Esq.
       Benjamin R. Cooper, Esq.
       ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
       1100 IDS Center
       80 South 8th Street
       Minneapolis, MN 55402
       Telephone: (612) 341-0400
       Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
       Email: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com
              brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
              rachel.tack@zimmreed.com
              Benjamin.cooper@zimmreed.com

                - and -

       Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
       Kevin M. Cox, Esq.
       Alex Reid, Esq.
       THE LYON FIRM
       2754 Erie Ave.
       Cincinnati, OH 45208
       Telephone: (513) 381-2333
       Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
              kcox@thelyonfirm.com
              areid@thelyonfirm.com

                - and -

       Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
       Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq.
       JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC
       500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110
       Little Rock, AR 72201
       Telephone: (501) 247-6267
       Email: chris@jefirm.com
              tyler@jefirm.com

MONEY SOURCE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid Response
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Natasha Hiller, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. The Money Source Inc.,
Case No. 2:23-cv-00235-JJT (D. Ariz.), the Defendant asks the Court
to enter an order extending the Defendant's deadline to file its
response to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and
appointment of class counsel from March 13, 2025, to April 14,
2025.

The Plaintiff filed her Class Action Complaint on Feb. 6, 2023.

On Sept. 6, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file her Motion by
Jan. 20, 2025.

Prior to the Jan. 20, 2025 deadline, the Plaintiff had noticed a
deposition of the Defendant's expert that ultimately Defendant had
to briefly postpone.

On Feb. 18, 2025, the Plaintiff's counsel contacted TMS's counsel
and the Plaintiff "would appreciate the courtesy" of an additional
extension of time to file her Motion due to weather-related power
outages that impacted her ability to timely file the Motion for
Class Certification by Feb. 20, 2025.

The Plaintiff filed her motion on Feb. 27, 2025. Accordingly, the
Defendant's deadline to respond is March 13, 2025.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 6, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=deRPmZ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Eric E. Lynch, Esq.
          Michelle M. Buckley, Esq.
          John S. Craiger, Esq.
          POLSINELLI PC
          One E. Washington Street, Suite 1200
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 650-2000
          Facsimile: (602) 164-7033
          E-mail: elynch@polsinelli.com
                  mmbuckley@polsinelli.com
                  jcraiger@polsinelli.com

                - and -

          Mark A. Olthoff, Esq.
          POLSINELLI PC
          900 W. 48th Place, Suite 900
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 753-1000
          Facsimile: (816) 753-1536
          E-mail: molthoff@polsinelli.com

MONONOKE INC: Pastuizaca Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE BOLIVAR PASTUIZACA, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, and the Class v. MONONOKE INC., d/b/a BERON BERON,
HINOMARU INC. d/b/a KENKA, March 13, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid
wages, including overtime, due to time-shaving, unpaid wages,
including overtime wages, due to improper rounding, unreimbursed
costs for uniforms, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs. pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

The Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendants violated the New
York State Earned Safe and Sick Time Act, when they refused to
allow him any sick or safe leave, in spite of his requests.

The Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendants breached their
contract with him and Class members by failing to pay employer
payroll taxes for Plaintiff and Class Members, as required by the
Federal Insurance Contribution Act.

The Plaintiff brings claim for relief pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure Rule 23, on behalf of all non-exempt employees,
including but not limited to cooks, line cooks, dish washers, food
preparers, hostesses, waiters, bussers, cashiers, porters,
bartenders, barbacks, and food runners, among others, employed by
Defendant on or after the date that is six (6) years before the
filing of the Complaint.

The Defendants own and operate a two restaurant enterprise.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

MOTT'S LLP: Juice Products Natural Label "False," Rich Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
MEL RICH and JESSE LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MOTT'S LLP, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00243-UNA (D. Del., March 3, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the New York General Business Law,
unjust enrichment and fraud by omission/intentional
misrepresentation.

The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of ReaLime and
ReaLemon juices. The Defendant advertises and labels the products
as "real," "natural," "100% Juice." However, unbeknownst to
consumers, the products contain artificial preservatives such as
Sodium Benzoate and Sodium Metabisulfite. Had the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not have
purchased the products or would have paid less for them.

Mott's LLP is a manufacturer of juice products based in Texas.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
       R. Grant Dick IV, Esq.
       Kevin D. Levitsky, Esq.
       COOCH AND TAYLOR P.A.
       1000 N. West Street, Suite 1500
       Wilmington, DE 19801
       Telephone: (302) 984-3800
       Email: gdick@coochtaylor.com

               - and -

       Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
       SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC
       166 Geary St., Ste. 1500
       San Francisco, CA 94108
       Telephone: (415) 839-7077
       Facsimile: (888) 410-0415
       Email: yeremey@skclassactions.com

               - and -

       Joel D. Smith, Esq.
       SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC
       867 Boylston Street 5th Floor #1520
       Boston, MA 02116
       Telephone: (617) 377-7404
       Facsimile: (888) 410-0415
       Email: joel@skclassactions.com

NAADAM INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hippe Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
XINYUE HIPPE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Naadam, Inc, Case No. 2:25-cv-00369-BHL (E.D.N.Y.,
March 10, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://ivoryella.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
per-sons under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

When visiting the Website, the Plaintiff contends that using JAWS,
encountered these specific accessibility issues:

-- Images on the website had inappropriate and unclear
    alternative text. The Plaintiff could not receive accurate
    information from the non-text element of content; and

-- Heading hierarchy was not properly defined, and there were
    missing heading levels. As a result, quick navigation through
    headings on the website did not help the Plaintiff effectively

    find the content and understand the logical structure of the
    home page.

The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and
humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on
the Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions con-tinue
to contribute to the Plaintiff's sense of isolation and
seg-regation, the suit contends.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

Ivoryella.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials and other programs offered by Naadam.

Yet, Ivoryella.com contains significant access barriers that make
it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired
customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it
impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a
transaction on the website, the lawsuit says.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Davis B. Reyes, Esq.
          EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
          68-29 Main Street
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Telephone: (630) 478-0856
          E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law

NATIONAL DEBT: Disclose Financial Info to Advertisers, Hantel Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
HARRISON HANTEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NATIONAL DEBT RELIEF, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01907
(S.D.N.Y. Colo., March 7, 2025) alleges that NDR conspires with
various third parties to learn, use, or attempt to learn or use the
Plaintiff's sensitive, personal financial communications.

Accordingly, the Defendant's willful and affirmative actions aided
numerous third party advertising companies to learn the contents of
Plaintiff's communications -- as well as the communications of the
proposed Class members -- with NDR, including Meta, Google,
Microsoft, Twitter, Tiktok, The Trade Desk, and Claritas (together,
Advertisers).

However, when NDR collects such users' PFI, the Website aids,
employs, and/or conspires with the Advertisers to capture and
analyze the PFI for the purposes of marketing and advertising. NDR
installed the Advertisers’ technologies which aids them, permits
them, and/or causes them to learn or attempt to learn the contents
of such communications, without the users' consent, in violation of
California law.

In addition, users who communicate with NDR via the Website are
subject to having their internet-connected machines "trapped and
traced" by the Advertisers' technologies which qualify as pen
registers because they collect the users' IP addresses.

Both NDR and the Advertisers obtain a pecuniary benefit from NDR's
installation of such surveillance technologies: NDR through
enhanced analytics and improved advertising capabilities, and the
Advertisers by improving their advertising services, leading to
increased revenue, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Los Angeles, California. Within the
last twelve months, Plaintiff Hantel applied for debt consolidation
on NDR's Website.

National Debt Relief is a major debt relief company in the United
States and operates the Website at
https://www.nationaldebtrelief.com/.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allen Carney, Esq.
          Courtney Ross Brown
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          One Allied Drive, Suite 1400
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          E-mail: acarney@cbplaw.com
                  cbrown@cbplaw.com

NATIONAL GRID: Nightingale Appeals Class Cert. Order to 1st Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT NIGHTINGALE is taking an appeal from a court order denying
his renewed motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled
Robert Nightingale, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. National Grid USA Services
Company Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-12341-NMG, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Suffolk County Superior Court to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, is brought
against the Defendants for illegal efforts to collect consumer
debts in violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act and
the Massachusetts Debt Collection Regulations.

On Dec. 16, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class,
which Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton denied on Apr. 6, 2023.

On Oct. 11, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a renewed motion to certify
class, which Judge Gorton denied on Feb. 12, 2025.

The Court ruled that the Plaintiff failed to satisfy the
predominance requirement thus class certification is unwarranted.

The appellate case is captioned Robert Nightingale v. National Grid
USA Services Company Inc., et al., Case No. 25-8009, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on February
26, 2025. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ROBERT NIGHTINGALE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          Stephen Taylor, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW LLC
          43 Danbury Rd.
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Telephone: (203) 653-2250
          Facsimile: (203) 653-3424

NEMATZADEH ENTERPRISES: Cervantes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nematzadeh
Enterprises, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Eliu Samir Figueroa
Cervantes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Nematzadeh Enterprises, Inc., Fresno Foods LLC, Nematzadeh
Bizhan, TBS Foods Inc., Yosi Foods LLC, Case No. 25STCV06407 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 6, 2025).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."

Nematzadeh Enterprise, which also operates under the name Jack In
The Box, is located in Los Angeles, California and primarily
operates in the Fast-food Restaurant, Chain business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elizabeth Harrier, Esq.
          David Keledjian, Esq.
          D.LAW, INC.
          450 N. Brand Blvd., Ste. 840
          Glendale, CA 91203-2920
          Phone: 818-962-6465
          Email: e.harrier@d.law
                 d.keledjian@d.law

NESTLE HEALTH: Bowler Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------
YESENIA BOWLER is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
her lawsuit entitled Yesenia Bowler, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Nestle Health Science US,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-06521-MCS-JPR, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

The Plaintiff brings contract product liability suit against the
Defendant.

On Nov. 4, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case,
which Judge Mark C. Scarsi granted on Jan. 28, 2025. The Court
deemed the motion appropriate for decision without oral argument.
Leave to amend was denied.

The appellate case is captioned Bowler v. Nestle Health Science US,
LLC, Case No. 25-1239, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 26, 2025.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 3,
2025;

   -- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on April 7, 2025;
and

   -- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on May 7, 2025.
[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant YESENIA BOWLER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Richard Elgar Lyon, III, Esq.
          DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
          201 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 600
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 656-7066

Defendant-Appellee NESTLE HEALTH SCIENCE US, LLC, doing business as
Nature's Bounty, is represented by:

          William A. Delgado, Esq.
          DTO LAW
          915 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1950
          Los Angeles, CA 90017

                - and –

          Richard Lee, Esq.
          DTO LAW
          702 Marshall Street, Suite 640
          Redwood City, CA 94063

NEW JERSEY: Galicki Bid to Reconsider March 13 Order Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZACHARY GALICKI, et al.,
v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00169-JXN-JSA
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Julien Xavier Neals denies the Plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration of the Court's March 13 Order denying
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

In their motion, the Plaintiffs assert no intervening change in
controlling law or new evidence. Instead, Plaintiffs argue that
reconsideration of the March 13 Order is warranted because the
Court's interpretation and reliance on N.J.S.A. 32:1-154.2c(c) to
deny Plaintiffs class certification was clearly erroneous.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs argue that the Court failed to

   (1) address or consider the plain language of N.J.S.A.
       32:1-154c,

   (2) interpret N.J.S.A. 32:1-154c in pari materia with the
       remainder of the statute,

   (3) address or consider vital differences between the statute
       and other laws relating to E-ZPass records, and

   (4) consider that New Jersey and New York do not have
       substantially similar enactments regarding E-ZPass data.

The Court notes that despite the Plaintiff's contention to the
contrary, these issues were considered but ultimately proved
immaterial to this Court's conclusion. Thus, the Plaintiffs have
not provided a proper basis for reconsideration.

The class action arises out of the closure of multiple lanes of
traffic to the George Washington Bridge ("GWB") from Sept. 9-13,
2013. The Plaintiffs brought claims against various defendants for
alleged damages related to the lane closures. The Plaintiffs'
claims were consolidated and amended on Dec. 19, 2014.

On July 6, 2021, the Plaintiffs moved for class certification
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3). In their motion, the
Plaintiffs defined the proposed class and subclasses as follows:

    "All persons who experienced traffic delays on Sept. 9, 2013,
    Sept. 10, 2013, Sept. 11, 2013, Sept. 12, 2013 and/or Sept.
    13, 2013 when they accessed the GWB from the Fort Lee Access
    Lanes and toll booth number 24 and crossed the bridge from New

    Jersey to New York."

    Subclass 1:

    "class members who operated a vehicle that experienced traffic

    delays accessing the GWB from the Fort Lee Access Lanes and
    toll booth number 24 on Sept. 9, 2013, Sept. 10, 2013, Sept.
    11, 2013, Sept. 12, 2013 and/or Sept. 13, 2013"; and

    Subclass 2:
    "class members who were passengers in vehicles that
    experienced traffic delays accessing the GWB from the Fort Lee

    Access Lanes and toll booth 24 on Sept. 9, 2013, Sept. 10,
    2013, Sept. 11, 2013, Sept. 12, 2013 and/or Sept. 13, 2013."

New Jersey is a northeastern U.S. state with some 130 miles of
Atlantic coast.

A copy of the Court's opinion dated March 6, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uqkGNw at no extra
charge.[CC]

NEW YORK, NY: Lee Class Action Suit Seeks Back Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
LATEESHA HARRIS, SHAQUANA HARMON, LARON MCKOY, and all others
similarly situated v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 1:25-cv-02061
(S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2025) is a class for back pay and other relief
to remedy the Defendant's willful and unlawful violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are employees of the Defendant, City of New York,
who work or have worked in the position of Correction Officer for
the Department of Corrections (DOC) at Rikers Island.

The Defendant has suffered or permitted Plaintiffs to perform
un-compensated overtime work before their paid shifts and during
un-paid meal periods, says the suit.

New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Molly A. Elkin, Esq.
           Sarah M. Block, Esq.
           John W. Stewart, Esq.
           Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
           McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
           1101 Vermont Ave., NW, Suite 1000
           Washington, DC 20005
           Telephone: (202) 833-8855
           Facsimile: (202) 452-1090
           E-mail: gkm@mselaborlaw.com
                   mae@mselaborlaw.com
                   smb@mselaborlaw.com
                   jws@mselaborlaw.com

NEWMONT CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Colorado
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Newmont Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K 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 a securities class suit in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado.

On January 31, 2025, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against Newmont and Newmont's Chief Executive Officer, Chief
Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado. The action was brought
on behalf of an alleged class of Newmont stockholders who owned
stock between February 22, 2024 and October 23, 2024 (the alleged
class period).

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants made a series of materially
false and misleading statements and/or omissions during the alleged
class period regarding the Company's projected revenue outlook and
ability to deliver higher grades of gold and mineral production in
violation of federal securities laws.

Plaintiffs further allege that the purported class members suffered
losses and damages resulting from declines in the market value of
Newmont's common stock after the Company announced its third
quarter 2024 results and updated guidance on October 23, 2024.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

Newmont intends to vigorously defend this matter, but cannot
reasonably predict the outcome.

Headquartered in Denver, CO, Newmont Corporation operates as a gold
mining company and producer of copper, silver, zinc and lead. Its
common stock traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol
"NEM." [BN]

NM BEAUTY: Williams Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
------------------------------------------------------------------
MILTON WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NM BEAUTY INDUSTRIES NORTH-AMERICA INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01830 (S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2025) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of
the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human
Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York
General Business Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://gisou.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not
limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that
contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing
alt-text.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.

NM Beauty Industries North-America Inc. is a company that sells
online goods and services in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
       Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
       Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
       GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
       150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
       New York, New York 10003
       Telephone: (212) 228-9795
       Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
       Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
              Dana@Gottlieb.legal
              Michael@Gottlieb.legal

NORLITE LLC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Hill Due Jan. 14, 2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hill et al v. Norlite,
LLC, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00439 (N.D.N.Y., Filed April 16,
2021), the Hon. Judge Anne M. Nardacci entered an order granting
additional dates:

  -- Deadline to Depose Plaintiff            Sept. 16, 2025
     Experts is:

  -- Deadline to Depose Defendant            Dec. 3, 2025
     Experts is:

  -- Class Certification Motion due          Jan. 14, 2026
     By:

Any future requests for extensions of deadlines will remain pending
until a status conference can be held.

The nature of suit states real property -- torts to land.

Norlite manufactures lightweight aggregate materials produced from
shale mined at the plant.[CC]

NORTH COUNTRY HOME: Kelly Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Kelly, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. NORTH COUNTRY HOME SERVICES, INC., Case No.
8:25-cv-00313-MAD-PJE (N.D.N.Y., March 10, 2025), is brought to
recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs as a result of Defendant's willful
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York
Labor Law ("NYLL").

The Defendant requires hourly-paid workers to follow work schedules
that typically consist of at least five shifts per week, each
consisting of at least 8 hours of scheduled work time (exclusive of
unpaid meal break periods), with the total scheduled work time
equating to at least 40 hours in the week. The Defendant is aware
of, and/or recklessly disregards the possibility that the rate it
pays hourly-paid workers for hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek unlawfully fails to incorporate the additional forms of
compensation they receive in addition to their base hourly wages.
The Defendant has willfully violated the FLSA, and the NYLL, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant since July 2021 as an
hourly-paid personal care aide.

The Defendant NCHS provides home care and supportive services to
clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric Sands, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Phone: (877) 561-0000
          Fax: (855) 582-5279
          Email: eric.sands@jtblawgroup.com

NUNA BABY: Fails to Secure Customers' Personal Info, Lema Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ZOILA LEMA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NUNA BABY ESSENTIALS, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-01305-JFL
(E.D. Pa., March 11, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of
all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally
Identifiable Information that was impacted in a data breach that
Defendant publicly disclosed on Feb. 21, 2025.

The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendant's failure to
properly secure and safeguard PII that was entrusted to it, and its
accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information.


The Defendant Specializes in the design and manufacturing of
high-quality baby gear products and their offering include car
seats, strollers, playards, highchairs, and other essential items
for infants and toddlers.

The Defendant is headquartered in Morgantown, Pennsylvania. It had
numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and common law duties
and obligations, including those based on its affirmative
representations to Plaintiff and Class Members, to keep their PII
confidential, safe, secure, and protected from un-authorized
disclosure or access.

On Dec. 6, 2024, the Defendant became aware of a security incident
on its IT Network. The Defendant launched an investigation to
determine the nature and scope of the incident.

On Feb. 21, 2025, Defendant filed a notice with the Maine Attorney
General’s Office and started sending out notice letters to the
affected individuals. The Defendant failed to take precautions
de-signed to keep its customers' PII secure.

The Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all
reasonable and necessary measures to keep the PII collected safe
and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited,
collected, used, and derived a benefit from the PII, yet breached
its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security
practices, says the suit.

Ms. Lema is a resident of Mendon, Massachusetts. She is a customer
of Defendant. On Feb. 21, 2025, the Defendant sent Plaintiff a
no-tice letter informing her that her PII was compromised in the
Data Breach.

Nuna Baby specializes in the design and manufacturing of baby gear
products, and is headquartered in Morgantown, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq.
          KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C.
          30 E. Butler Avenue
          Ambler, PA 19002
          Telephone: (267) 468-5374
          Fascimile: (877) 600-2112
          E-mail: jginsburg@creditlaw.com

               - and -

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Mark Svensson, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: ek@zlk.com
                  msvensson@zlk.com

OLE MEXICAN: Mislabels Tortilla Wraps, Gambino Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
JANET GAMBINO, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OLE MEXICAN FOODS, INC., a Georgia
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00497 (C.D. Cal., February
25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for unjust
enrichment, breach of express warranty, and violation of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's Xtreme Wellness
Tortilla Wraps, which are manufactured, packaged, labeled,
advertised, distributed, and sold by Defendant, are misbranded and
falsely advertised because they feature deceptive claims regarding
the amount of dietary fiber, total and net carbohydrates, and
calories in each serving.

Consumers such as Plaintiff who viewed the Products' labels
reasonably understood the Products to contain 60 calories and 4
grams of net carbs per serving. These representations were false
and misleading, says the suit.

Because of its deceptive and false labelling statements, the
Defendant was able to charge a premium for the Products relative to
key competitors' products, or relative to the average price charged
in the marketplace, the suit asserts.

Ole Mexican Foods, Inc. is a family owned Mexican food
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles C. Weller, Esq.
          CHARLES C. WELLER, APC
          11412 Corley Court
          San Diego, CA 92126
          Telephone: (858) 414-7465
          Facsimile: (858) 300-5137  
          E-mail: legal@cweller.com

OPTOTRAFFIC LLC: Lavender Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Demetra Lavender, individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated persons v. Optotraffic, LLC, Case
No. 25CV001184 was removed from the Superior Court of Fulton
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia on March 10, 2025.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01255-JPB to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Optotraffic -- http://www.optotraffic.com/-- designs, builds and
services cutting edge automated public safety technologies for
state and local agencies seeking public safety programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Austin Lewis Perry, Esq.
          MCCLURE RAMSAY DICKERSON & ESCOE, LLP
          P.O. Drawer 1408
          38 Falls Road
          Toccoa, GA 30577
          Phone: (706) 886-3178
          Fax: (706) 886-1150
          Email: alp@mrdelaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Jordan Lober, Esq.
          William Gregory Dobson, Esq.
          LOBER & DOBSON, LLC
          3333 Northside Drive, Suite A
          Macon, GA 31210
          Phone: (770) 741-0700
          Email: mjlober@lddlawyers.com
                 wgd@lddlawyers.com

               - and -

          Robert Brent Irby, Esq.
          IRBY LAW, LLC
          2201 Arlington Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Phone: (205) 335-9102
          Fax: (205) 905-7084
          Email: brent@irbylaw.net

               - and -

          Todd L. Lord, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF TODD L. LORD
          P.O. Box 901
          4 Courthouse Square
          Cleveland, GA 30528
          Phone: (706) 219-2239
          Email: attytllord@windstream.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          David E. Mills, Esq.
          Matt K. Nguyen
          COOLEY, LLP - DC
          1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20004
          Phone: (202) 842-7800
          Email: dmills@cooley.com

               - and -

          James Alexander Demetry, Esq.
          DEMETRY, DECARLO & COFFMAN, LLC
          5456 Peachtree Blvd., Ste. 523
          Atlanta, GA 30341
          Phone: (770) 274-4383
          Fax: (770) 274-4395
          Email: jdemetry@demetrydecarlo.com

PANDORA JEWELRY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Pandora Jewelry LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-00852-ECT-ECW (D.
Minn., March 7, 2024) arises because the Defendant's Website
(us.pandora.net) is not fully and equally accessible to people who
are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general
non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and
auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the
Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to
cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to
individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to
the state of Minnesota pursuant to Minn. Stat. 363A.33, Subd. 6 and
Minn. Stat. section 363A.29, subd. 4 (2023); damages, and a damage
multiplier pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 363A.33, subd. 6 (2023),
and Minn. Stat. section 363A.29, subd. 4 (2023).

The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is
responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning
the Website's development and maintenance.

As a consequence of her experience visiting the Defendant's
Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation
performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a
number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like
Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content --
content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users,
says the suit.

The Defendant offers jewelry and accessories for sale including,
but not limited to customizable charm bracelets, designer rings,
earrings, necklaces, and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
          Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
          Jason Gustafson, Esq.
          THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
          80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (763) 515-6110
          E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com
                  chad@throndsetlaw.com
                  jason@throndsetlaw.com

PANERA LLC: Waggoner Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jared Waggoner, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. PANERA, LLC and PANERA BREAD
COMPANY, Case No. CVRI2500338 was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Riverside, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on March 7, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-00622.

In his Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following six causes of
action on behalf of himself and a class of individuals he seeks to
represent: Failure to Pay the Legal Minimum Wage; Failure to Timely
Pay Earned Wages; Failure to Provide Meal and Rest Periods; Failure
to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Pay All
Earned and Unpaid Wages Upon Discharge or Resignation, Waiting Time
Penalties; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Marc P. Miles, Esq.
          Laura M. Booth, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON
          5 Park Plz., Ste. 1600
          Irvine, CA 92614-2546
          Phone: 949-475-1500
          Fax: 949-475-0016
          Email: mmiles@shb.com
                 lbooth@shb.com

PENSION SPECIALISTS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Janson Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER JANSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE PENSION SPECIALISTS, LTD., Case No. 1:25-cv-02554
(N.D. Ill., March 11, 2025) arising out of the recent data breach
involving the the Defendant.

The Plaintiff brings this Complaint against Pension Specialists for
its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally
identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part
of its regular business practices, including Plaintiff's and Class
Members' names and Social Security numbers.

Current and former employees at Pension Specialists' clients are
required to entrust Pension Specialists with sensitive, non-public
PII, without which Pension Specialists could not perform its
regular business activities, in order to obtain employment or
certain employment benefits at Defendant's clients. By obtaining,
collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII of Plaintiff
and Class Members, Pension Specialists assumed legal and equitable
duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that
information from unauthorized access and intrusion. 6. Pension
Specialists failed to adequately protect Plaintiff’s and Class
Members PII–– and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly
sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted PII was
compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and
omissions and its utter failure to protect its clients' employees'
sensitive data.

Hackers targeted and obtained the Plaintiff's and Class Members'
PII because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities
of Plaintiff and Class Members. In breaching its duties to properly
safeguard its clients' employees' PII and give employees timely,
adequate notice of the Data Breach's occurrence, Defendant's
conduct amounts to negligence and/or recklessness and violates
federal and state statutes, says the suit.

The Plaintiff Janson is a natural resident and citizen of Chicago,
Illinois.

Pension Specialists is an independent retirement plan third party
administrator.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
          Sabita Soneji, Esq.
          Cort T. Carlson, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Suite 1010
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          E-mail: agold@tzlegal.com
                  ssoneji@tzlegal.com

PENSION SPECIALISTS: Stenger Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Stenger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. The Pension Specialists, Ltd., Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-01950 (N.D. Ill., February 25, 2025) is a class
action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected
and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including
Plaintiff's and Class Members' names and Social Security numbers.

This class action arises out of the recent data breach involving
Defendant. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's
and Class Members PII -- and failed to even encrypt or redact this
highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted PII was
compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and
omissions and its utter failure to protect its clients' employees'
sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class
Members' PII because of its value in exploiting and stealing the
identities of Plaintiff and Class Members, says the suit.

In breaching its duties to properly safeguard its clients'
employees' PII and give employees timely, adequate notice of the
data breach's occurrence, the Defendant's alleged conduct amounts
to negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state
statutes.

The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future
data compromise on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result
of the data breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's
inadequate data security practices.

The Pension Specialists, Ltd. is an independent retirement plan
third party administrator.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
           GROSSMAN PLLC
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (866) 252-0878
          E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com

               - and -

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
          One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 332-4200
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com

PEPE'S REST: Rosales Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Cooks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PASCUAL ROSALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PEPE'S REST GROUP LLC(d/b/a TIO PEPE),
GERMINIANO SANS (A.K.A JIMMY SANS SR.), and JIMMY SANZ JR.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01744 (S.D.N.Y., February 28, 2025) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to
pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
spread-of-hour compensation, failure to comply with wage notice and
recordkeeping requirements, and failure to provide accurate wage
statements, and failure to reimburse business expenses.

Mr. Rosales was employed by the Defendants as a cook at Tio Pepe
restaurant from approximately August 2, 2022, until on or about
October 2023 and from approximately November 2023 until on or about
January 14, 2025.

Pepe's Rest Group LLC, doing business as Tio Pepe, is a Spanish
restaurant owner and operator located at 168 W. 4th Street, New
York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
       60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
       New York, NY 10165
       Telephone: (212) 317-1200

PFIZER INC: Denelsbeck Suit Transferred to N.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Christine Denelsbeck, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. PFIZER, INC., PHARMACIA AND
UPJOHN COMPANY LLC, PHARMACIA LLC, PRASCO LLC doing business as:
PRASCO LABS, GREENSTONE LLC, VIATRIS INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00230
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Florida on March 10, 2025.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00248-MCR-HTC to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability.

Pfizer, Inc. -- https://www.pfizer.com/ -- is an American
multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology corporation
headquartered on 42nd Street in Manhattan, New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kelly Kathleen Iverson, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER LLP - PITTSBURGH PA
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 322-9243
          Email: kelly@lcllp.com

PLATINUM PROGRAMMING: Hawkins Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
NOAH HAWKINS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
PLATINUM PROGRAMMING AND DIAGNOSTICS, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00270
(M.D. Tenn., March 7, 2025) seeks to recover overtime pay under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually and as a collective
action under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on behalf of
himself and other current and former employees of defendant who
were denied overtime compensation.

The collective action claims are for overtime compensation,
non-overtime compensation, liquidated damages, interest, and
attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the FLSA.

The Plaintiff was employed as a technician for defendant, traveling
to automotive repair shops and performing diagnostic work on
automobiles.

Platinum Programming is engaged in the automotive repair business,
specifically calibrating, diagnosing and repairing mechanical,
electrical and computer issues in automobiles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kerry E. Knox, Esq.
          117 South Academy Street
          Murfreesboro, TN 37130
          Telephone: (615) 896-1000
          E-mail: kek@castelliknox.com

               - and -

          Stephen W. Grace, Esq.
          1019 16th Avenue, South
          Nashville, TN 37212
          Telephone: (615) 255-5225
          E-mail: sgrace@sgracelaw.com

PORT OF SEATTLE: Appeals Denied Bid to Dismiss Codoni Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
PORT OF SEATTLE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in
the lawsuit entitled Cindy Codoni, et al., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Port of Seattle,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-795-JNW, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case,
which was removed from the King County Superior Court to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, is a
putative class action about the effects of aircraft emissions near
the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The Plaintiffs include
property owners and residents within a five-mile radius of Sea-Tac
Airport who allege that Defendants' pollution has caused physical
harm, death, and property damage. The Plaintiffs' claims against
all the Defendants include negligence, battery, continuing
intentional trespass, and public nuisance. They also pursue an
inverse condemnation claim against Defendant Port of Seattle. The
Plaintiffs pursue only state-law claims.

On June 12, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On Aug. 11, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.

On Oct. 27, 2023, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' second amended complaint, which Judge Jamal N.
Whitehead denied on Nov. 25, 2025. The Court rejected the
Defendants' field preemption argument. The Court concluded that
Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal based on the Defendants' affirmative
defense of conflict preemption is inappropriate. In short, the
Plaintiffs have not pleaded themselves out of court.

On Dec. 5, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to certify order
denying motion to dismiss for interlocutory appeal, which Judge
Whitehead granted on Feb. 18, 2025.

The appellate case is captioned Codoni, et al. v. Port of Seattle,
et al., Case No. 25-1293, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 28, 2025. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents CINDY CODONI, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Abigail Pershing, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP
          301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 920
          Pasadena, CA 91101

                - and –

          Steve Berman, Esq.
          Shayne Christopher Stevenson, Esq.
          Martin D. McLean, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP
          1301 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101

Defendants-Petitioners PORT OF SEATTLE, et al., are represented
by:

          Beth S. Ginsberg, Esq.
          Maren R. Norton, Esq.
          Margarita V. Latsinova, Esq.
          Vanessa Soriano Power, Esq.
          STOEL RIVES, LLP
          600 University Street, Suite 3600
          Seattle, WA 98101

                - and –

          Shay Dvoretzky, Esq.
          John H. Beisner, Esq.
          Parker Andrew Rider-Longmaid, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP
          1440 New York Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20005

                - and –

          Daniel W. Nelson, Esq.
          Stacie Boothe Fletcher, Esq.
          Jessica Wagner, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
          1700 M. Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20036

                - and –

          Amir C. Tayrani, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036

                - and –

          Joseph David Edmonds, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
          3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1200
          Irvine, CA 92612

                - and –

          David L. Balser, Esq.
          Madison Kitchens, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING, LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 1600
          Atlanta, GA 30309

                - and –

          Paul J. Watford, Esq.
          David Willingham, Esq.
          Arwen R. Johnson, Esq.
          Kelly L. Perigoe, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING, LLP
          633 W. 5th Street, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071

                - and –

          Malaika Eaton, Esq.
          Gregory Jude Hollon, Esq.
          MCNAUL EBEL NAWROT & HELGREN, PLLC
          One Union Square
          600 University Street, Suite 2700
          Seattle, WA 98101

PRESSED PAPERBOARD: Deberry Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Deberry, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. PRESSED PAPERBOARD TECHNOLOGIES, L.L.C., Case No. 3:25-cv-00459
(N.D. Ohio, March 6, 2025), id brought against Defendant for its
failure to pay employees overtime wages, seeking all available
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Plaintiff and Defendant's other similarly situated employees
are hourly, non-exempt warehouse/production employees who are
entitled to overtime. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees worked, or they were scheduled to work, 40 or more hours
in one or more workweek(s). The Plaintiff were not fully and
properly paid for all overtime wages because Defendant maintained
an unlawful policy or practice of rounding its employees' time
punches and reducing their hours worked ("Rounding Policy").

The Defendant knew that the Plaintiff and others similarly situated
worked overtime without compensation for all overtime hours worked
or that they would have worked overtime if Defendant did not apply
its unlawful Rounding Policy. As a result of Defendant's
companywide policy and/or practice of rounding its
warehouse/production employees' hours worked, Defendant knew or had
reason to know that it was not compensating the Plaintiff for all
hours worked, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant at its facility in Findlay, Ohio
as an hourly, non-exempt employee in the position of warehouse
worker, namely, forklift driver, from January 6, 2025 to January
31, 2025.

The Defendant operates a production/distribution facility in
Findlay, Ohio and is in the business of manufacturing and
distributing paperboard trays.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
          Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
          Tristan T. Akers, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Phone: 614-949-1181
          Fax: 614-386-9964
          Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
                 agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
                 khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
                 takers@mcoffmanlegal.com

PROCTORU INC: Fails to Manage 2025 California Bar Exam, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TRISHA A.M., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROCTORU, INC. D/B/A MEAZURE LEARNING,
Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-02197 (N.D. Cal., March 3, 2025) is a
class action against the Defendant for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and violations of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act and the California Unfair Competition Law.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly administer
the February 2025 California Bar Examination, resulting in severe
technical failures that deprived test-takers of a fair examination
process. The Defendant contracted with the State Bar of California
to provide remote proctoring software that all individuals that
used a computer were required to download, install, and run during
the bar exam. However, the Plaintiff and the Class experienced a
slew of issues with the Defendant's software that negatively
impacted their ability to complete the bar exam. The Defendant's
failure to ensure the proper exam administration has caused
substantial harm to the Plaintiff and Class members, including
financial loss, emotional distress, and professional setbacks.

ProctorU, Inc., doing business as Meazure Learning, is a provider
of remote proctoring and exam delivery platform, located in McLean,
Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Alison M. Bernal, Esq.
       NYE, STIRLING, HALE, MILLER & SWEET, LLP
       33 West Mission Street, Suite 201
       Santa Barbara, CA 93101
       Telephone: (805) 963-2345
       Facsimile: (805) 284-9590
       Email: alison@nshmlaw.com

               - and -

       Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
       Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
       SAUDER SCHELKOPF
       1109 Lancaster Avenue
       Berwyn, PA 19312
       Telephone: (610) 200-0581
       Facsimile: (610) 421-1326
       Email: jgs@sstriallawyers.com
              jbk@sstriallawyers.com

PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN: Sekerchak Removed from State Court to D.S.C.
------------------------------------------------------------------
LESLIE SEKERCHAK, individually and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 2024-CP-2306427 (Nov. 4, 2024) was removed from
the Court of Common Pleas for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in
Greenville County, South Carolina, to the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina, Greenville Division on
March 13, 2025.

The District of South Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case No.
6:25-cv-01711-DCC to the proceedings.

In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that she was insured by
Progressive Northern, that she was in an automobile accident on or
about July 25, 2022, and that Progressive Northern determined that
her vehicle was a total loss.

The Plaintiff alleges that Progressive improperly valued her total
loss claim because it used a valuation system provided by Mitchell
International that applies a Projected Sold Adjustment (PSA) to
determine the value of her total loss vehicle.

The Plaintiff filed this action on behalf of herself and a putative
class of "all persons who made a first-party claim on a policy of
insurance issued by Progressive Northern Insurance Company to a
South Carolina resident and Progressive determined that the vehicle
was a total loss and based its claim payment on a valuation report
from Mitchell where a Projected Sold Adjustment was applied to at
least one comparable vehicle."

The Class is defined as follows:

   "All persons who made a first-party claim on a policy of
   insurance issued by Progressive Northern Insurance Company to a

   South Carolina resident where the claim was submitted from the
   earliest allowable time through the date an order granting
   class certification is entered, and Progressive determined that

   the vehicle was a total loss and based its claim payment on a
   valuation report from Mitchell where a Projected Sold
   Adjustment was applied to at least one comparable vehicle."

PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY is an American insurance
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Doug Smith, Esq.
          Shane W. Rogers, Esq.
          JOHNSON, SMITH, HIBBARD & WILDMAN LAW
          Firm, L.L.P.
          220 N. Church Street, Suite 4 (29306)
          Post Office Drawer 5587
          Spartanburg, South Carolina 29304
          E-mail: dsmith@jshwlaw.com
                  srogers@jshwlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          Edwin E. Elliott, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: 305-479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                 edwine@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Joseph Henry Bates, III
          Edwin Lee Lowther, III
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          519 W. 7th Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
          E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com
                  llowther@cbplaw.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          Adam Schwartzbaum, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Office: (786) 289-9471
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
                  adam@edelsberglaw.com

                - and -

          Jacob L. Phillips, Esq.
          Joshua Jacobson, Esq.
          JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC
          478 E. Altamonte Dr., Ste. 108-570
          Altamonte Springs, FL 32701
          Telephone: 407-720-4057
          E-mail: jacob@jacobsonphillips.com
                  joshua@jacobsonphillips.com

               - and -

          Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
          NORMAND PLLC
          3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Telephone: (407) 603-6031
          E-mail: ed@normandpllc.com

The Defendant is represented by

          Beattie B. Ashmore, Esq.
          BEATTIE B. ASHMORE, P.A.
          650 E. Washington Street
          Greenville, SC 29601
          Telephone: (864) 467-1001
          Facsimile: (864) 672-1406
          E-mail: beattie@beattieashmore.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq.
          Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq.
          J. Matthew Brigman, Esq.
          Allison Hill White, Esq.
          Julia C. Barrett, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1180 Peachtree St. NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 572-4600
          Facsimile: (404) 572-5140
          E-mail: jcashdan@kslaw.com
                  zmcentyre@kslaw.com
                  mbrigman@kslaw.com
                  awhite@kslaw.com
                  jbarrett@kslaw.com

QUALITY FIRST HOME: Gebremicael Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quality First Home
Improvement, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Simon Gebremicael,
and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Quality First Home
Improvement, Inc., Does 1-10, Case No. 25CV002378 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Jan. 28, 2025).

The case type is stated "Other Employment Complaint Case."

Quality First Home Improvement, Inc. --
https://www.qualityfirsthome.com/ -- provides building products and
offers, ️roofing, solar, windows, doors, coating and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John G. Yslas, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wishire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: 213-255-3937
          Email: jyslas@wilshirelawfirm.com

RAKUTEN USA: Poaches Content Creators' Commissions, Rhodes Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
TESSA RHODES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RAKUTEN USA, INC. and EBATES PERFORMANCE
MARKETING, INC. d/b/a RAKUTEN REWARDS, Defendants, Case No.
3:25-cv-02005-SK (N.D. Cal., February 25, 2025) seeks redress for
Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct and asserts claims for: (1)
unjust enrichment; (2) interference with a prospective economic
advantage; (3) conversion; (4) the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act;
(5) the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access & Fraud Act;
and (6) the California Unfair Competition Law.

The Plaintiff and Class Members are online content creators who
earn revenue by promoting products or services. They create
"content," such as videos, infographics, posts, tweets, and
"stories," promoting particular products or services of online
merchants, and then share that content on their social media
accounts to be viewed by Internet users. These content creators
will typically include an "affiliate link" to the product or
service that they are promoting. The affiliate link will redirect a
viewer of a content creator's online post to the website of the
online merchant that is selling the product or service that is
being promoted.

However, if a user has Rakuten installed in their browser or as a
mobile app (or visits the Rakuten webpage directly) and chooses to
use Rakuten to search for discounts and/or earn Cash Back, under
Rakuten's scheme, Rakuten replaces the tracking cookie associated
with the content creator's affiliate link with a new tracking
cookie that erases all traces of the original content creator. As a
result of Rakuten's scheme, Rakuten is credited as the source of
the sale, and thus receives the commission that is generated. By
implementing this malicious cookie-stuffing scheme, Rakuten is able
to poach the commissions of Plaintiff and other online content
creators, says the suit.

Rakuten USA, Inc. operates a website, mobile app, and browser
extension that promises to save users money by earning cash back
rewards on purchases and locating and automatically applying
coupons. Rakuten has been operating this free shopping rewards
program since it acquired with its $1 billion 2014 acquisition of
Ebates.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas E. Loeserm Esq.
          Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
          840 Malcolm Road
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (206) 802-1272
          Facsimile: (206)-299-4184

               - and -

          Karin B. Swope, Esq.
          Jacob M. Alhadeff, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
          1809 7th Avenue, Suite 1610
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 802-1272
          Facsimile: (206)-299-4184

               - and -

          Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          E-mail: clebsock@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          Amanda V. Boltax, Esq.
          Ian E. Engdahl, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP  
          888 16th Street N.W., Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20006  
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
                  mboltax@hausfeld.com
                  iengdahl@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
          Ashley M. Crooks, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (646) 357-1100
          E-mail: snathan@hausfeld.com
                  acrooks@hausfeld.com

RANA MEAL: Deneui Sues Over Misuse of Biometrics
------------------------------------------------
Eric Deneui, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RANA MEAL SOLUTIONS, LLC and SURGE STAFFING SOLUTIONS
INC., Case No. 2025LA000292 (Ill. Cir. Ct., DuPage Cty., March 6,
2025), is brought against the Defendants concerning the misuse of
individuals' biometrics by Defendants, in violation of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), and to obtain redress
for persons injured by its conduct.

Using biometric enabled technology, Defendants have 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.

Though Defendants collected, stored, and used Plaintiff's
biometrics for timekeeping and access purposes, Defendants 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. Defendants never sought, nor has Plaintiff
ever provided, any written consent relating to Defendants'
collection, use, or storage, or dissemination of the biometrics.

In addition, Defendants disseminated electronic information derived
from the scanning of Plaintiff's biometric identifiers to third
parties, including vendors for timekeeping, data storage, and
payroll purposes, without obtaining Plaintiff's consent to do so.
By failing to comply with BIPA, Defendants have violated
Plaintiff's substantive state rights to biometric privacy, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff worked as an employee for Defendants from 2020 to
2021.

The Defendants are for-profit corporations that conduct 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

REEL SEAFOOD: Carter Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Carter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Reel Seafood House, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-00248
(W.D. Tex., March 6, 2025), is brought as a result of the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff minimum wages mandated by
federal law.

The Defendant paid its servers and bartenders—including Plaintiff
wages that are less than the minimum wage. Instead of paying the
minimum wage, it appears Defendant is attempting to take a credit
for the tips its employees earn to meet the minimum wage
requirement. As a result of these violations, Defendant has lost
the ability to use the tip credit and therefore must compensate
Plaintiff and all similarly situated workers at the full minimum
wage rate, unencumbered by the tip credit, and for all hours
worked. In other words, Defendant must account for the difference
between the wages paid to Plaintiff and all similarly situated
workers and the minimum wage rate, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant at The Reel Seafood House as
both, a server and bartender.

The Defendant owns and operates the dining establishments commonly
known as "The Reel Seafood House" where it employs servers and
bartenders to serve customers who are dining at their
restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
          Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
          HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
          801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Phone: 817-479-9229
          Fax: 817-840-5102
          Email: drew@herrmannlaw.com
                 pamela@herrmannlaw.com

REGAL CINEMAS: Cohen Suit Removed to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Janise Cohen, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. REGAL CINEMAS, INC.; DOES 1 to 20,
inclusive, Case No. 25CV002521 was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Sacramento, to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
on March 7, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00770-CKD.

In the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") Complaint, Plaintiff
seeks, among other things, penalties and damages for claims that
Defendant failed to pay her minimum, overtime, and double time
wages, failed to provide her with compliant meal and rest breaks,
failed to reimburse Plaintiff's business-related expenses, failed
to provide Plaintiff with accurate written wage statements, failed
to keep accurate records of the Plaintiff, failed to timely pay
Plaintiff's current wages, and failed to pay Plaintiff's final
wages.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael J. Nader, Esq.
          Spencer S. Turpen, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Phone: 916-840-3150
          Facsimile: 916-840-3159
          Email: michael.nader@ogletree.com
                 spencer.turpen@ogletree.com

REGAL CINEMAS: Faces Hensley Class Suit Over Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
LOGAN HENSLEY, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. REGAL CINEMAS, INC, Case No. 8:25-cv-00468 (S.D. Cal.,
March 10, 2025) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets
its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to
wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff contends that the problem with receiving unwanted
telemarketing communications is a problem that most people in this
country frequently face. For example, in 2024 alone, approximately
52.8 billion robocalls were placed in the United States.
RobocallIndex.com, YouMail Robocall Index,
https://robocallindex.com/history/time (last visited January 6,
2025).

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's
unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and
quiet in a realm that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the
Class members. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf
of themselves and members of the Class, and any other available
legal or equitable remedies.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant’s unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into
the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to
Plaintiff and the Class members.

The Plaintiff further seeks statutory damages on behalf of
themselves and members of the Class, and any other available legal
or equitable remedies.

The Plaintiff is a natural person entitled to bring this action
under the TCPA, and a citizen and resident of Orange County,
California.

The Defendant is a for-profit corporation with its headquarters
located in Knoxville, Tennessee.[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
          Telephone: (754) 444-7539
          E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com

RESHAPING AND NUTRITIONAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DAMEAD HOLMES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. THE RESHAPING AND NUTRITIONAL COMPANY LLC D/B/A
ARDYSSLIFE, Case No. 2:25-cv-00442 (D. Nev., March 12, 2025) is a
class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly
secure and safeguard sensitive information of its customers and
contractors who sell Defendant's products on its behalf.

The Defendant operates a multi-level-marketing business and sells
detox drinks and other wellness to consumers.

The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information
-- which they entrusted to the Defendant on the mutual
understanding that Defendant would protect it against
disclosure—was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due
to the Data Breach.

The Defendant collected and maintained certain personally
identifiable information of Plaintiff and the putative Class
Members, who are (or were) customers and/or contractors at
Defendant. The PII compromised in the Data Breach included
Plaintiff’s and Class Members' full names, addresses, phone
numbers, email addresses, and Social Security numbers. The PII
compromised in the Data Breach was exfiltrated by cyber-criminals
and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals who target PII
for its value to identity thieves.

As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members
suffered concrete injuries in fact including, but not limited to:
invasion of privacy; theft of their PII; lost or diminished value
of PII; and lost time and opportunity costs associated with
attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach,
says the suit.

The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former customers at
Defendant and/or contractors who sold Defendant's products pursuant
to its multi-level-marketing scheme.

The Defendant operates a multi-level-marketing business and sells
detox drinks and other wellness to consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          Nathan R. Ring, Esq.
          Andrew E. Mize, Esq.
          STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
          The Freedom Center
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
          E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com

               - and -

          John J. Nelson, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (858) 209-6941
          E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com

RESORT WORLD: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Wills Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
LAURENCE WILLS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RESORT WORLD LAS VEGAS, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-01052 (E.D.N.Y., February 25, 2025) is a civil rights
action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, www.rwlasvegas.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people in violation of Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City
Human Rights Law.

The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most
recently on August 27, 2024 to access Defendant's website from his
home in an effort to shop for Defendant's services. He encountered
barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's
online goods, content, and services. Due to Defendant's failure to
build the website in a manner that is compatible with screen access
programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly
interact with the website, and was thus denied the benefit of
booking the hotel room that Plaintiff wished to acquire from the
website, says the suit.

The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

Resort World Las Vegas, LLC owns and operates hotels and
motels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rami Salim, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501  
          E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com

ROGER GOODELL: Holliday Must Show Cause Why Case Shouldn't Be Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSH HOLLIDAY, V. ROGER
GOODELL, ET AL. Case No. 2:25-cv-00264-JCZ-DPC (E.D. La.), the Hon.
Judge Donna Phillips Currault entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without payment.

The Clerk withhold issuance of summons at this time pending
completion of the statutorily mandated review.

On or before Wednesday, April 9, 2025, the Plaintiff Josh Holliday
show cause why his Complaint should not be summarily dismissed.

The Plaintiff shall file a response containing a written statement
setting forth the specific facts upon which she relies to establish
a basis for his claims against each Defendant.

The Plaintiff has established his inability to pay fees under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). However, Plaintiff, as a pro se plaintiff, is
not an adequate class representative, subjecting the class action
allegations to summary dismissal under section 1915(e)(2). Further,
the Complaint appears to be subject to summary dismissal under
section 1915(e) due to the Plaintiff’s failure to allege facts
necessary to support the elements of his claims, including the
particularity required to plead a fraud claim under Rule
9(b).

The Plaintiff's filings suggest he asserts claims for violations of
RICO, fraud and sports bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. section
224.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have defrauded ticket
purchasers and viewers by conspiring with referees to "rig" games
and make biased play calls at various games, including the Jan. 26,
2025, game in Kansas City, Missouri. The Plaintiff contends he has
suffered Post-Traumatic Shock Syndrome from watching the Jan. 26,
2025, game, asserting that the Defendants constitute a RICO
enterprise with the alleged favored calls identified as the "overt
acts."

A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q3MNFY at no extra
charge.[CC]

RONALD BROOMFIELD: Parties Seek to Certify Class of Inmates
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nickerson v. Broomfield et
al. (RE CIM-SQ TRANSFER CASES), Case No. 5:20-cv-06326-EJD (N.D.
Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order as follows:

   1. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

      certifying the following class for the purpose of resolving
      Defendants' liability under 42 U.S.C. section 1983:

      "All current and former inmates at San Quentin State Prison
      who tested positive with COVID-19 while they were inmates at

      San Quentin State Prison at any time from May 31, 2020,
      through Aug. 13, 2020, excluding (1) any inmates who were
      transferred from the California Institution for Men to San
      Quentin State Prison on May 30, 2020; and (2) any inmates
      who had only false positive COVID-19 tests during the
      relevant time period."

A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 6, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iQD4hl at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles Kelly, Esq.
          HERSH & HERSH, A Professional Corporation
          1388 Sutter Street, Suite 120
          San Francisco, CA 94109
          Telephone: (415) 441-5544
          E-mail: ckelly@hershlaw.com

                - and -

          Matthew D. Carlson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW D. CARLSON
          3959 N Buffalo St Ste 29
          Orchard Park, NY 14127-1841
          Telephone: (716) 242-1234

                - and -

          Benjamin T. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          PIER 5 LAW OFFICES
          3330 Geary Blvd, 3rd Floor East
          San Francisco, CA 94118
          Telephone: (415) 986-5591
          E-mail: ben.rosenfeld@comcast.net

                - and -

          Tyler R. Smith, Esq.
          HEISLER ROSENFELD ZARAGOZA LLP
          961 Ygnacio Valley Road
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 386-6885
          E-mail: smithtyler42@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey T. Fisher, Esq.
          455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
          San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
          Telephone: (415) 510-3365
          Facsimile: (415) 703-5843

ROYAL APPLIANCE: Faces Garelick Suit Over Express Warranties
------------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN GARELICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ROYAL APPLIANCE MFG. CO. d/b/a TTI FLOOR CARE NORTH
AMERICA, INC., and HOOVER, INC., Case No. 8:25-cv-00446 (S.D. Cal.,
March 7, 2025) is class action complaint against the Defendants for
violations of California's Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and
California's Unfair Competition Law.

The Defendants manufacture consumer goods which are advertised and
accompanied by express warranties. The SBA explicitly requires that
"a manufacturer, distributor, or retail seller shall not make an
express warranty with respect to a consumer good that commences
earlier than the date of delivery of the good."

However, the Defendants commence their express warranties on the
date of purchase, not on the date of delivery, as required by the
SBA. As a result of this unlawful and deceitful business practice,
consumers who receive their goods after the date of purchase, such
as online shoppers, do not receive the full benefit of their
warranty. These consumers are short-changed the full value of their
warranties.

Furthermore, the Defendants unfairly benefit by saving themselves
the added time and expense that would be required to properly track
and administer their warranties were they to commence on the date
of delivery.

On Jan. 20, 2024, Plaintiff purchased Defendant's Product for
$149.99 (plus tax) online from Amazon.com to be delivered to her
home in Santa Ana, California.  The Product was delivered to
Plaintiff on January 21, 2024.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief,
damages, and restitution based on Defendants’ unlawful and unfair
conduct.

The Plaintiff represents and is a member of the Class, defined as:


   "All persons within California who purchased one or more of
   Defendants' Products between July 1, 2023, through the date of
   class certification, whose Product(s) were delivered to them
   after the date of purchase.

The Plaintiff also represents and is a member of the Express
Warranty Sub-class, defined as:

   "All persons within California who purchased one or more of
   Defendants' Products between July 1, 2023 through the date of
   class certification, who purchased one or more of Defendants’

   Products, which were accompanied by an express warranty that
   commenced on the date of purchase and not the date of
   delivery."

The Plaintiff is a purchaser of the Defendants' Hoover PowerScrub
Deluxe Carpet Cleaner Machine, Upright Shampooer.

The Defendant engaged in the business of marketing, supplying, and
selling its products -- including the products purchased by
Plaintiff and the public -- directly and through a system of
marketers, retailers, and distributors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
          Jonathan Gil, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino del Rio S, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com
                  jonathan@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Adib Assassi, Esq.
          Veronica Cruz, Esq.
          ASSASSI & CRUZ LAW FIRM, PC
          1100 W. Town & Country Road, Suite 1250
          Orange, CA 92868
          Telephone: (800) 500-0301
          Fascimile: (800) 500-0301
          E-mail: adib@aclegalteam.com
                  veronica@aclegalteam.com

S. RICCI AMERICA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Isakov Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
SIMON ISAKOV, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. S. Ricci America, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01975
(S.D.N.Y., Mar. 10, 2025) alleges that Canali failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website,
https://www.stefanoricci.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons.

The Defendant is allegedly denying blind and visually impaired
persons throughout the United States with equal access to the
services Parched Hospitality Group provides to their non-disabled
customers through its website. The Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products
and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

Stefanoricci.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials and other programs offered by S. Ricci
America. Yet, Stefanoricci.com contains significant access barriers
that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and
visually-impaired customers to use the website. In fact, the access
barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users
to even complete a transaction on the website. T

The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a
jacket on Stefanoricci.com. Despite his efforts, however, the
Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted
individual due to the Website's lack of a variety of features and
accommodations. Unless Defendant remedies the numerous access
barriers on its website, Plaintiff and Class members will continue
to be unable to independently navigate, browse, use, and complete a
purchase on Stefanoricci.com, says the suit.

S. Ricci America, Inc. operates the website that serves as a
private family-owned Italian luxury lifestyle brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael H. Cohen, Esq.
          EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC
          68-29 Main Street
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Telephone: (718) 914-9694
          E-mail: mcohen@ealg.law

SA HOSPITALITY: Picon Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
--------------------------------------------------------------
YELITZA PICON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SA Hospitality Group, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-01574 (S.D.N.Y., February 25, 2025) is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, felicerestaurants.com, to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the
New York City Human Rights Law.

While looking for an Italian restaurant, located conveniently for
her, the Plaintiff discovered the Defendant's website and decided
to place an online order prior to visiting the place in person.
However, upon accessing, she encountered multiple accessibility
issues that made the ordering process difficult and ultimately
impossible to complete. Specifically, when attempting to add an
additional dish to her order, the focus did not shift from the
button to the order dialog window that appeared, preventing her
from interacting with the necessary options. As a result, Plaintiff
was unable to finalize her selection and proceed with her order,
says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in SA
Hospitality's policies, practices, and procedures so that its
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.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
          GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
          1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Telephone: (347) 941-4715
          E-mail: glevyfirm@gmail.com

SAN CARLOS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hilbert Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
LAUREL HILBERT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SAN CARLOS OPERATIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01976
(S.D.N.Y., March 10, 2025) contends that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, update and operate its website and/or
mobile application platforms to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually
impaired people.

The lawsuit says that 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 Title
III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State
Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

On May 2024 through the present, Plaintiff visited and attempted to
access Defendant’s Website using screen-reading software in order
to book reservations at the San Carlos Hotel. Regrettably, he was
unable to do so due to inaccessibility issues.

Despite his efforts, the Plaintiff was denied a user experience
similar to that of a sighted individual due to the Website’s lack
of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively
barred Plaintiff from being able to enjoy the privileges and
benefits of Defendant's goods and services.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction, actual and liquidated
damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs 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.

Mr. Hilbert resides in Washington, D.C. but routinely visits his
parents in New York City, including the relevant time period. In
each location, he attempted to access Defendant's Website to
complete transactions. Regrettably, he was unsuccessful in
completing the transaction due to the inaccessibility of the
Website.

The Defendant owns and operates its website www.sancarloshotel.com,
offering features that should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services provided via the internet throughout the United
States, including the Southern District of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric L. Siegel, Esq.
          ERIC SIEGEL LAW, PLLC
          888 17th Street, N.W., Suite 1200
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (771) 220-6116
          Facsimile: (202) 223-6625
          E-mail: esiegel@ericsiegellaw.com

SARIANA LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
HARON COLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SARIANA, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-02092 (N.D. Ill., February 28, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, declaratory relief, and negligent infliction
of emotional distress.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://satechi.net, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not
limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, incorrectly formatted
lists, ambiguous link texts, inaccessible contact information,
changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for
interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, the lack of
navigation links, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, and
the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a
mouse.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.

Sariana, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in
New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Davis B. Reyes, Esq.
       EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
       68-29 Main Street
       Flushing, NY 11367
       Telephone: (630) 478-0856
       Email: Dreyes@ealg.law

SECURITY NATIONAL: Araneo Seek Conditional Status of Collective
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DINA ARANEO and KINDRA
KNUTSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. SECURITY NATIONAL MORTGAGE COMPANY, Case No. 2:25-cv-00119-JNP
(D. Utah), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
their pre-discovery motion for conditional certification and
Court-authorized notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs pursuant to
29 U.S.C. section 216(b).

Specifically, the Plaintiffs request the following relief:

   1. Conditional certification the FLSA Collective, defined as:

      "All non-exempt loan employees, including Loan Officer
      Assistants, Loan Processors, Loan Closers, Loan Funders, and

      others, however variously titled, employed by Security
      National at any time on or after May 14, 2021."

   2. The Defendant to produce a list of all FLSA Collective
      members, including their names, last known addresses, dates
      and location of employment, last known personal cell phone
      numbers, and last known personal and work email addresses in

      electronic and importable format within ten days of the
      entry of the Order;

   3. Authorizing issuance of the Plaintiffs' form of Notice and
      Consent to Become a Party Plaintiff via U.S. Mail (with an
      enclosed, postage-page return envelope), email, and text
      within 14 days of receiving the above information from the
      Defendant;

   4. Appointing the undersigned as counsel for the FLSA
      Collective; and

   5. Giving FLSA Collective members sixty days to join, measured
      from the date the Notice Packet is issued; with one reminder

      Notice Packet via U.S. Mail (with an enclosed, postage-paid
      return envelope), email, and text 30 days thereafter to
      anyone who did not respond.

   6. Pursuant to DUCivR 7-1(e), a Proposed Order is attached
      hereto as Exhibit B.

The Plaintiffs assert the Defendant willfully violated the FLSA by
knowingly suffering/permitting them and those similarly situated,
including Loan Officer Assistants, Loan Processors, Loan Closers,
Loan Funders, and others, however titled to perform unpaid overtime
work and only report 40 hours in a work week absent pre-approval,
which the Defendant rarely granted, resulting in the failure to pay
Loan Employees all overtime wages due.

The Defendant is a mortgage lender.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 6, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5tvORm at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
          Tamra Givens, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          622 Banyan Trail, Suite 200
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          E-mail: pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com
                  tgivens@shavitzlaw.com

                - and -

          David S. Head, Esq.
          HEAD LAW, PLLC
          5411 S. Vine St., #4A
          Murray, UT 84107
          Telephone: (801) 691-7511
          Facsimile: (801) 691-7512
          E-mail: dhead@headlawusa.com

SELECT PORTFOLIO: Class Cert Filing in Johnson Due March 20, 2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Johnson v. Select
Portfolio Servicing, Inc. Case No. 3:24-cv-01583 (D. Or., Filed
Sept. 18, 2024), the Hon. Judge Jeff Armistead entered an order
denying the Defendant's request to stay discovery pending
resolution of defendant's anticipated motion for judgment on the
pleadings.

That motion has not yet been filed, staying discovery is
disfavored, and the court cannot conclude that it is highly likely
that it would grant such a motion at this time.

The court also denies defendant's request for bifurcated or phased
discovery. The Plaintiff stated at the conference that its
discovery requests would be fairly routine and not unduly
burdensome.

As this case proceeds, if discovery demands significantly exceed
what was represented by plaintiff, those issues can be addressed
through the court's informal discovery process.

Accordingly, plaintiff's proposed deadlines are adopted as follows:


   (1) Initial disclosures are to be exchanged by March 6, 2025.

   (2) Motion to amend and/or add parties are to be filed by March
       28, 2025.

   (3) The Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is to
       be filed by April 4, 2025.

   (4) The Plaintiff's response to motion for judgment on the
       pleadings are due by May 2, 2025.

   (5) The Plaintiff's reply brief is due by May 23, 2025.

   (6) Fact discovery is to be completed by Nov. 31m 2025.

   (7) Expert reports are to be exchanged by Dec. 1, 2025.

   (8) Rebuttal expert reports are due by Jan. 9, 2026.

   (9) Expert discovery to be completed by Feb. 6, 2026.

  (10) Motion for class certification is to be filed by March 20,
       2026.

  (11) Response to motion for class certification is due by May 1,

       2026.

  (12) Reply to motion for class certification is due by May 29,
       2026.

The suit alleges violation of the Home Owners' Loan Act of 1933.

Select Portfolio is a loan servicing company founded in 1989 as
Fairbanks Capital Corp. with operations in Salt Lake City, Utah and
Jacksonville, Florida.[CC]

SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Faces Ferrer Suit Over Express Warranties
---------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN FERRER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SHARKNINJA OPERATING LLC, Case No.
3:25-cv-00535-DMS-KSC (S.D. Cal., March 7, 2025) is class action
complaint against the Defendants for violations of California's
Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and California's Unfair
Competition Law.

On Dec. 14, 2023, thePlaintiff purchased Defendant’s Ninja BL610
Professional 72 Oz Countertop Blender with 1000-Watt Base online
from Amazon.com for $79.99 plus tax to be delivered to his home in
Chula Vista, California.

The product shipped on Dec. 15, 2023, and delivered on Dec. 20,
2023. The Defendant "offers exclusive warranties to [its]
customers." This "1-Year Limited Warranty applies to purchases made
from authorized retailers of SharkNinja Operating LLC."

The coverage on this warranty extends to repairs or replacements
"up to one (1) year from the original purchase date." Thus, the
Plaintiff has not received the full value of the product that
Plaintiff is entitled to.

The Defendant has a uniform warranty policy where warranties are
all commenced on the date of purchase, rather than the date of
delivery or receipt of the products.

The Defendant does this to reduce the effective warranty periods
for all purchasers who receive delivery of their products. This
strategic decision short-changes consumers the full length and
value of their warranties as permitted by law.

Additionally, the practice saves the Defendant the time and expense
of warranty administration, because Defendant does not need to log
and track product delivery dates to commence warranties.

Furthermore, the decision creates a chilling effect which prevents
consumers who would otherwise have valid warranty claims from
pursuing them. As a result, Defendant benefits from fewer warranty
claims, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff represents and is a member of the Class, defined as:


   "All persons within California who purchased one or more of
   Defendants' Products between July 1, 2023, through the date of
   class certification, whose Product(s) were delivered to them
   after the date of purchase.

The Plaintiff also represents and is a member of the Express
Warranty Sub-class, defined as:

   "All persons within California who purchased one or more of
   Defendants' Products between July 1, 2023 through the date of
   class certification, who purchased one or more of Defendants’

   Products, which were accompanied by an express warranty that
   commenced on the date of purchase and not the date of
   delivery."

The Defendant engaged in the business of marketing, supplying, and
selling its products -- including the products purchased by
Plaintiff and the public -- directly and through a system of
marketers, retailers, and distributors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
          Jonathan Gil, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino del Rio S, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com
                  jonathan@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Adib Assassi, Esq.
          Veronica Cruz, Esq.
          ASSASSI & CRUZ LAW FIRM, PC
          1100 W. Town & Country Road, Suite 1250
          Orange, CA 92868
          Telephone: (800) 500-0301
          Fascimile: (800) 500-0301
          E-mail: adib@aclegalteam.com
                  veronica@aclegalteam.com

SHOPPES OF DELRAY: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Feltzin Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE FELTZIN v. SHOPPES OF DELRAY AP, LLC, Case No.
9:25-cv-80324 (S.D. Fla., March 7, 2025), is a class action lawsuit
brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals alleging that
Defendant's Commercial Property violates the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA).

The suit seeks injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation
expenses, and costs pursuant to the ADA.

The Plaintiff visits the Commercial Property and businesses located
within the commercial property, to include a visit to the
Commercial Property and business located within the Commercial
Property on Feb. 7, 2025, and encountered multiple violations of
the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the
Commercial Property.

He often visits the Commercial Property in order to avail himself
of the goods and services offered there, and because it is
approximately four miles from his residence and is near other
businesses and restaurants he frequents as a patron.

The Defendant owns, operates, and oversees the Commercial Property,
its general parking lot/or and parking spots specific to the
business, located in Palm Beach County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq.
          GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
          350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
          Coral Gables, Fl 33134
          Telephone: (305) 553-3464
          E-Mail: bvirues@lawgmp.com
                  aquezada@lawgmp.com
                  jacosta@lawgmp.com

               - and -

          Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON
          J. DIEGO, P.A.
          5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
          Miami, FL, 33155
          Telephone: (305) 350-3103
          E-Mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com
                  ramon@rjdiegolaw.com

SKULLCANDY INC: Monitors Users' Browsing Activity, Jones Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JULIE JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SKULLCANDY, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00184-JCB (D. Utah,
March 11, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all
California residents with Facebook or Google accounts who accessed
and navigated to https://www.skullcandy.com and its subpages while
in California and whose communications and personally identifiable
information were intercepted by the Website.

On the Defendant's Website, customers can purchase products
directly or they can create an account, choose a password, and sign
up directly for mailing lists and email notifications.

In setting up its Website, the Defendant chose to install certain
invisible code including the Meta Pixel, Google DoubleClick and
Google Analytics (the Tracking Technologies), which capture users'
PII and communications with the Website and transmit this data to
Meta Platforms, Inc. and Alphabet, Inc.

In essence, the Defendant's Tracking Technologies allow third
parties like Google and Facebook to secretly monitor browsing
activity of unsuspecting customers who use Defendant's Website to
review and purchase Skullcandy products. In installing these
invisible trackers, Defendant chose to allow third parties
including Facebook and Google to identify specific users and
monitor every step of their activity on the Website including which
pages and products they view, which products they add to their
carts and what they purchase, the lawsuit says.

By failing to obtain consent before enabling Meta and Google to
intercept these communications, Defendant violated the California
Invasion of Privacy Act.

Skullcandy is an e-commerce platform offering a variety of
headphones and audio equipment for sale online.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jared D. Scott, Esq.
          Jacob D. Barney, Esq.
          ANDERSON & KARRENBERG, LLC
          50 West Broadway, Suite 600
          Salt Lake City, Utah 84101-2035
          E-mail: jscott@aklawfirm.com
                 jbarney@aklawfirm.com

               - and -

          David Almeida, Esq.
          ALMEIDA LAW GROUP, LLC
          849 W. Webster Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60614
          E-mail: david@almeidalawgroup.com

SPRECKELS SUGAR: Order on Supplemental Briefing Entered
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARNOLD SAMUEL CASTRO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SPRECKELS SUGAR COMPANY, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-00747-TWR-LR (S.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Todd W. Robinson entered an order for supplemental
briefing regarding the Plaintiff's motion for class certification:

   (1) whether Plaintiff has standing to assert claims on behalf
       of the putative class based on purported miscalculations of

       meal period premium or sick pay; and, if not,

   (2) whether any defects related to Plaintiff's standing and the
       Court's subjectmatter jurisdiction can be remedied through
       amendment

A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HdHOK6 at no extra
charge.[CC]

SPRING STREET: Williams Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MILTON WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPRING STREET DERMATOLOGY, PLLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-01796 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://springstderm.com/, contains access barriers which hinder
the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their
online goods, content, and services offered to the public through
the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but
not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links
that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing
alt-text.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.

Spring Street Dermatology, PLLC is a company that sells online
goods and services in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
       Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
       Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
       GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
       150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
       New York, New York 10003
       Telephone: (212) 228-9795
       Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
       Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
              Dana@Gottlieb.legal
              Michael@Gottlieb.legal

SPS TECHNOLOGIES: Liable to Fire & Explosion Effects, Lenihan Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
LIAN LENIHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and PRECISION CAST
PARTS CORP., Defendants, Case No. 250300482 (Pa. Comm. Pl.,
Philadelphia Cty., March 4, 2025) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligence, public nuisance, private nuisance,
strict liability for ultra hazardous activities, trespass, and
medical monitoring.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failures that caused a
massive fire and explosion at SPS's complex in Jenkintown,
Pennsylvania on February 17, 2025. Due to the extensive smoke and
concerns over air quality, residents in the affected area were
asked to voluntarily evacuate their homes and businesses. It is
known that harsh chemicals are used in the manufacture of
aeronautical bolts and fasteners. As a result, the Plaintiff and
similarly situated residents have long term concerns after the fire
and explosion, including exposure to hazardous materials, risk of
latent disease, and decreased property values.

SPS Technologies, LLC is a manufacturer of high performance
fasteners and fittings, with its principal office located at 301
Highland Avenue, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania.

Precision Cast Parts Corp. is an aerospace company based in Oswego,
Oregon. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Zachary Arbitman, Esq.
       George Donnelly, Esq.
       FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER TANNER WEINSTOCK & DODIG,
LLP
       1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor
       Philadelphia, PA 19103
       Telephone: (215) 567-8300
       Email: zarbitman@feldmanshepherd.com

STATE FARM MUTUAL: Bycko Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Sharon Bycko; Angela Killman-Anderson; Debra
Lawless; Pamela S. Norton; and Jeremy Waller, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; VERISK ANALYTICS, INC. d/b/a ISO
CLAIMSEARCH; and INSURANCE SERVICES OFFICE, INC., a subsidiary of
Verisk, Case No. HUD-L-537-24 was removed from the Superior Court
of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, to the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey on Feb. 7, 2025, and
assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01103-EP-MAH.

The Plaintiffs alleged that State Farm improperly transmitted their
Private Information to Verisk without their consent and in breach
of the "express and implied terms of State Farm's insurance
contract with them."[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew G. Wapner, Esq.
          Christopher A. Rojao, Esq.
          Ryan M. Savercool, Esq.
          MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
          Four Gateway Center
          100 Mulberry Street
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Phone: (973) 622-4444
          Email: mwapner@mccarter.com
                 crojao@mccarter.com
                 rsavercool@mccarter.com

               - and -

          Kimberly C. Metzger, Esq.
          880 West Monon Green Blvd., Ste. 101
          Carmel, IN 46032
          Phone: (973) 622-4444
          Email: kmetzger@mccarter.com

SUMMA HEALTH: Giner Files Suit in N.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Summa Health. The
case is styled as Jose Giner, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Summa Health, Case No.
5:25-cv-00143-BMB (N.D. Ohio, Jan. 28, 2025).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

SummaCare -- https://www.summahealth.org/ -- offers a variety of
healthcare plans for a wide range of life stages, health needs and
budgets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laura G. Van Note, Esq.
          COLE & VAN NOTE - OAKLAND
          555 12th Street, Suite 2100
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Phone: (510) 891-9800
          Email: lvn@colevannote.com

SUNFLOWER MEDICAL: Fails to Protect Patients' Data, Orton Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
COREY ORTON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. SUNFLOWER MEDICAL GROUP, P.A, Case No. 2:25-cv-02118-EFM-GEB (D.
Mass., March 13, 2025) arises from Defendant's continued failure to
protect its patients' highly sensitive data.

Accordingly, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive
personal identifiable information and protected health information
of current and former patients. But Defendant lost control over
that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently
protected computer systems in a data breach.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant had no effective means to
prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems --
thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its current
and former patients' PII/PHI.

The cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because
Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity
and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols
to protect the Class's PII/PHI, the Plaintiff adds.

In short, the Defendant's failures placed the Class's PII/PHI in a
vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for
cybercriminals.

The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim, having received a breach
notice. He brings this class action on behalf of himself, and all
others harmed by the Defendant's misconduct.

The Defendant is a private multi-specialty medical group with
locations throughout Kansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
          980 N Michigan Ave, Suite 1610
          Chicago, IL: 60611-4501
          Telephone: (872) 263-1100
          Facsimile: (872) 863-1109
          E-mail: straussborrelli.com
                  sam@straussborrelli.com
                  raina@straussborrelli.com

               - and -

          Richard S. Fisk,Esq.
          BEAM-WARD, KRUSE, WILSON & FLETES, LLC
          8645 College Boulevard, Suite 250
          Overland Park, KS 66210
          Telephone: (913) 339-6888
          Facsimile: (913) 339-9653
          E-mil: rfisk@bkwflaw.com

T.G. USA: Hale Class Action Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAMEON M. HALE, individually and for all other similarly situated
employees v. T.G. USA, INC., RBT TRANSPORTATION, and ROBERT L.
RUTH, JR., Individually, Case No. 3:25-cv-00076-MPM-RP (N.D. Miss.,
March 14, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, punitive damages, and other appropriate relief under the
Federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff asserts the action as a collective action under 29
U.S.C. section 216(b), on behalf of himself and similarly situated
employees who were unlawfully denied overtime wages while working
for the Defendants.

KTG is a subsidiary of Kruger Products Inc., a Canadian
manufacturer of tissue paper products. KTG maintains a
manufacturing plant located at 400 Mahannah Avenue in Memphis,
Tennessee.

KTG also operated a warehouse and shipping yard located at 262
Marathon Way in Southaven, Mississippi.

From April of 2023 to November of 2024, Mr. Hale worked as a
non-exempt yard driver for the Defendants at the KTG shipping yard
located in Southaven, Mississippi.

As a yard driver, Mr. Hale's primary duties were to organize
tractor trailers within the space of the yard and to ensure that
semi-trailer trucks and trailers were in position for unloading,
loading, and transport of KTG's products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Murphy, Esq.
          SMITH, MURPHY AND DOBBS, LLC
          2704 West Oxford Loop, Suite 116
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (662) 832-7879
          Facsimile: (662) 510-0360
          E-mail: joseph@smith@smithmurphylaw.com

TARGET CORPORATION: Meza Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Francisco Meza, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota
Corporation, and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2304963 was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on March 7, 2025, and assigned Case No.
5:25-cv-00624.

The Plaintiff's Complaint contained four causes of action alleging:
failure to pay overtime; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to
timely furnish accurate itemized wage statements; and unfair
competition.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Julie A. Dunne, Esq.
          Alberto J. Corona, Esq.
          Joseph J. Kim, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 858.677.1400
          Fax: 858.677.1401
          Email: julie.dunne@us.dlapiper.com
                 alberto.corona@us.dlapiper.com

TEAM SCHIERL: Bid for More Time to File Class Cert Bid Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Team Schierl Companies
(TSC), et al., v. Aspirus, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00580
(W.D. Wisc., Filed Oct. 11, 2022), the Hon. Judge James D. Peterson
entered an order denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for an
extension of time:

The court did not hear good cause to upend the case schedule, which
moving the expert reports the requested 100 days would certainly
require.

The court is reserving judgment on whether the immediate deadlines
could move to coincide with class certification briefing and
provided the parties guidance on what the court would find
acceptable.

The nature of suit states antitrust litigation.

TSC is a family owned and operated company.[CC]

THREE LIMES INC: Espinal Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
Frangie Espinal, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons v. THREE LIMES, INC., Case No.
1:25-cv-02017 (S.D.N.Y., March 10, 2025), is brought this civil
rights action against the Defendant for their 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'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.purplecarrot.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 her
computer.

THREE LIMES, INC., operates the Purple Carrot online retail store,
as well as the Purple Carrot 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.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. 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
                 jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
                 dana@gottlieb.legal

TICKETMASTER LLC: Lozoya Suit Transferred to D. Montana
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Valerie Lozoya, Jolinda Murphy, Lauren Neve,
Molly O'Hara, Susie Garcia, Lavonne Madden, on behalf of themselves
and all others who are similarly situated v. Ticketmaster LLC, Live
Nation Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 8:25-cv-00202 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana
on March 10, 2025.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00027-BMM to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Ticketmaster Entertainment, LLC -- https://www.ticketmaster.com/ --
is an American ticket sales and distribution company based in
Beverly Hills, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone: (510) 254-6808
          Email: ssoneji@tzlegal.com

TIENDA INC: Mercurio Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tienda, Inc. The case
is styled as Josh Mercurio, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. Tienda, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00531-MMA-JLB
(S.D. Cal., March 6, 2025).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

La Tienda -- https://www.tienda.com/ -- offers the largest
selection of gourmet foods from Spain for delivery.[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

TOYOTA MOTOR: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Gamez Due Sept. 5
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARECELY GAMEZ, et al., v.
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., et al., Case No.
2:23-cv-01464-DAD-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale Drozd
entered a scheduling order as follows:

The parties shall serve their initial disclosures pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(a)(1) no later than April
9, 2025, a date proposed by the parties.

Any motion for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23 shall be filed by no later than Sept. 5, 2025, a
date proposed by the parties.

Any opposition to that motion shall be filed by no later than Nov.
4, 2025, a date proposed by the parties.

Any reply to that opposition shall be filed by no later than Dec.
4, 2025, a date proposed by the parties.

All fact discovery shall be completed1 no later than Apr. 9, 2026.

The final pretrial conference is set for Jan. 25, 2027 at 1:30 p.m.
before District Court Judge Dale A. Drozd by Zoom.

Toyota retails and sells new and used automotive.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kV2DQk at no extra
charge.[CC]

TULA PLANTS: Faces Cantwell Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
LISA CANTWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TULA, PLANTS + DESIGN, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-01162 (E.D.N.Y., February 28, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law, and
declaratory relief.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.tula.house,
contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class
members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and
services offered to the public through the website. The
accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to:
missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly
formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for
interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.

Tula, Plants + Design, LLC is a company that sells online goods and
services in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Rami Salim, Esq.
       STEIN SAKS, PLLC
       One University Plaza, Suite 620
       Hackensack, NJ 07601
       Telephone: (201) 282-6500
       Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
       Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com

TURQUOISE HILL: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:20-cv-08585-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting a two week
extension of the Defendants' time to file their opposition to Lead
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The extension is meant to address the unavailability of the Lead
Plaintiff's witnesses being deposed in connection with the
Defendants' opposition and accompanying expert reports.

The Defendants request a two-week extension of their opposition
deadline from March 27, 2025, to April 10, 2025.

The Defendants would consent to a corresponding two-week extension
of Lead Plaintiff's April 30 deadline to file its reply in support
of its Class Certification Motion to May 14, 2025.

Turquoise Hill Resources was a Canadian mineral exploration and
development company.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 6, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6BfhSR at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Corey Worcester, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          295 5th Avenue
          New York, NY 10016-7103
          Telephone: (212) 849-7000
          Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
          E-mail: coreyworcester@quinnemanuel.com

TYCON MEDICAL: Baysmore Must File Consolidated Complaint by April 7
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM BAYSMORE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
TYCON MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00052-JKW-LRL (E.D.
Va.) the Hon. Judge Jamar Walker entered an order granting in part,
as to consolidation and appointment of the proposed interim co-lead
class and liaison counsel, and denying in part, as to appointment
of the proposed plaintiffs' executive committee.

-- Leanna A. Loginov of Shamis & Gentile, P.A., and Courtney
    Maccarone of Levi & Korsinsky are appointed as Interim Co-Lead

    Class Counsel, and David Hilton Wise of the Wise Law Firm PLC
    is appointed as Liaison Counsel.

-- The plaintiffs are ordered to file an amended, consolidated
    complaint by Monday, April 7, 2025.

-- The defendant is ordered to answer or otherwise respond to the

    amended complaint within the timeframe articulated by the
    Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

-- The defendant is relieved of its obligation to respond to the
    individual complaints filed in the above-captioned cases.

Because the cases are in their early stages, the risks of prejudice
and possible confusion are low. The Court will save time and
resources for everyone involved by adjudicating one suit rather
than the multiple filed and potential future suits. No putative
class members oppose consolidation or assert any burdens or
expenses caused by consolidating.4 Thus, the Court finds that
consolidating the above-captioned cases is warranted.

On Jan. 9, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint
against the Defendant alleging that Tycon failed to properly secure
and safeguard against a data breach impacting approximately 112,847
individuals.

Tycon is a medical equipment company, specializing in items such as
custom power wheelchairs, home medical equipment, and CPAP therapy
for sleep apnea.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 6, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e9mydk
at no extra charge.[CC]
 


TYCON MEDICAL: Davis Must File Consolidated Complaint by April 7
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTIAN DAVIS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
TYCON MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00020-JKW-LRL (E.D.
Va.), the Hon. Judge Jamar Walker entered an order granting in
part, as to consolidation and appointment of the proposed interim
co-lead class and liaison counsel, and denying in part, as to
appointment of the proposed plaintiffs' executive committee.

-- Leanna A. Loginov of Shamis & Gentile, P.A., and Courtney
    Maccarone of Levi & Korsinsky are appointed as Interim Co-Lead

    Class Counsel, and David Hilton Wise of the Wise Law Firm PLC
    is appointed as Liaison Counsel.

-- The plaintiffs are ordered to file an amended, consolidated
    complaint by Monday, April 7, 2025.

-- The defendant is ordered to answer or otherwise respond to the

    amended complaint within the timeframe articulated by the
    Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

-- The defendant is relieved of its obligation to respond to the
    individual complaints filed in the above-captioned cases.

Because the cases are in their early stages, the risks of prejudice
and possible confusion are low. The Court will save time and
resources for everyone involved by adjudicating one suit rather
than the multiple filed and potential future suits. No putative
class members oppose consolidation or assert any burdens or
expenses caused by consolidating.4 Thus, the Court finds that
consolidating the above-captioned cases is warranted.

On Jan. 9, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint
against the Defendant alleging that Tycon failed to properly secure
and safeguard against a data breach impacting approximately 112,847
individuals.

Tycon is a medical equipment company, specializing in items such as
custom power wheelchairs, home medical equipment, and CPAP therapy
for sleep apnea.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 6, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OcKcir
at no extra charge.[CC]

TYCON MEDICAL: Mikell Must File Consolidated Complaint by April 7
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA MIKELL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
TYCON MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00019-JKW-LRL (E.D.
Va.) the Hon. Judge Jamar Walker entered an order granting in part,
as to consolidation and appointment of the proposed interim co-lead
class and liaison counsel, and denying in part, as to appointment
of the proposed plaintiffs' executive committee.

-- Leanna A. Loginov of Shamis & Gentile, P.A., and Courtney
    Maccarone of Levi & Korsinsky are appointed as Interim Co-Lead

    Class Counsel, and David Hilton Wise of the Wise Law Firm PLC
    is appointed as Liaison Counsel.

-- The plaintiffs are ordered to file an amended, consolidated
    complaint by Monday, April 7, 2025.

-- The defendant is ordered to answer or otherwise respond to the

    amended complaint within the timeframe articulated by the
    Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

-- The defendant is relieved of its obligation to respond to the
    individual complaints filed in the above-captioned cases.

Because the cases are in their early stages, the risks of prejudice
and possible confusion are low. The Court will save time and
resources for everyone involved by adjudicating one suit rather
than the multiple filed and potential future suits. No putative
class members oppose consolidation or assert any burdens or
expenses caused by consolidating.4 Thus, the Court finds that
consolidating the above-captioned cases is warranted.

On Jan. 9, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint
against the Defendant alleging that Tycon failed to properly secure
and safeguard against a data breach impacting approximately 112,847
individuals.

Tycon is a medical equipment company, specializing in items such as
custom power wheelchairs, home medical equipment, and CPAP therapy
for sleep apnea.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 6, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Srs71Q
at no extra charge.[CC]

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Securities Suit over IPO Offer
---------------------------------------------------------
Uber Technologies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 16, 2025, that on December 4, 2024,
the Northern District of California granted final approval of a
settlement agreement that the parties executed and publicly filed
on July 19, 2024. The settlement has been fully paid.

Beginning in September 2019, putative class actions were filed in
California state and federal courts against the company, its
directors, certain of its officers, and the underwriters named in
its IPO registration statement, alleging violations of securities
laws in connection with its May 2019 IPO. Following dismissal of
certain matters, the remaining actions were consolidated in the
Northern District of California, which granted plaintiffs' motion
for class certification in July 2022. On April 24, 2024, the
parties informed the court that they were negotiating a settlement
agreement, and the court stayed the litigation.

On July 19, 2024, the parties executed and publicly filed a
settlement agreement. On August 9, 2024, the court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement.

Uber Technologies, Inc. is a technology platform that develops and
operates proprietary technology applications supporting independent
providers of ride services for ridesharing services, and connects
riders and other consumers with restaurants, grocers and other
stores with delivery service providers for meal preparation,
grocery and other delivery services. It operates principally in the
United States and Canada, Latin America, Europe, the Middle East,
Africa, and Asia (excluding China and Southeast Asia).



UNITED SEATING: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
MARIE GUERRERO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. UNITED SEATING AND MOBILITY, LLC D/B/A NUMOTION, Case
No. 3:25-cv-00355 (D. Conn., March 12, 2024) sues the Defendant for
its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information
of its patients.

The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included
Plaintiff's and Class Members' full names, Social Security numbers,
driver's license numbers, payment and financial account
information, and dates of birth and medical and health insurance
information, which is protected health information as defined by
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
(HIPAA).

The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach was
exfiltrated by cyber-criminals and remains in the hands of those
cyber-criminals who target Private Information for its value to
identity thieves.

As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members
suffered concrete injuries in fact including, but not limited to:
invasion of privacy; theft of their Private Information; and lost
or diminished value of Private Information, says the suit.

The Defendant is a healthcare company that provides mobility
products and solutions for its patients.BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Reilly, Esq.
          CICCHIELLO & CICCHIELLO, LLP
          364 Franklin Avenue
          Hartford, CT 06114
          Telephone: (860) 296-3457
          Facsimile: (860) 296-3457
          E-mail: mreilly@cicchielloesq.com

                - and -

          Casondra Turner, Esq
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (866) 252-0878
          E-mail: cturner@milberg.com

UNITED STATES: Asanov Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER N. ASANOV is taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing his lawsuit entitled Alexander N. Asanov, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Belinda Keller Sukeena, et al., Defendants, Case No.
5:24-cv-00082-M-KS, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina.

The lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for alleged civil
rights violation.

The Defendants filed several motions to dismiss the case and
motions for sanctions and a pre-filing injunction.

On Jan. 15, 2025, Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Swank filed a
Memorandum and Recommendation to grant the Defendants' motions to
dismiss.

On Jan. 21, 2025, the Plaintiff filed objections to the Memorandum
and Recommendation.

On Feb. 12, 2025, Chief U.S. District Judge Richard E. Myers II
entered an Order adopting Magistrate Judge Swank's Memorandum and
Recommendation. The Defendants' motions to dismiss and motions for
sanctions and a pre-filing injunction were granted. The Plaintiff's
amended complaint was dismissed. All other pending motions were
dismissed as moot.

The appellate case is captioned Alexander Asanov v. FBI, Case No.
25-1183, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit, filed on February 26, 2025. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ALEXANDER N. ASANOV, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, appears pro se.

Defendants-Appellees UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION, et al. are represented by:

          Rudy E. Renfer, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
          150 Fayetteville Street
          Raleigh, NC 27601

                - and –

          Robert Strong Shields, Jr., Esq.
          MANNING, FULTON & SKINNER, PA
          3605 Glenwood Avenue
          Raleigh, NC 27612
          Telephone: (919) 787-8880

                - and –

          Elizabeth Curran O'Brien, Esq.
          NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          P.O. Box 629
          Raleigh, NC 27602

                - and –

          Shawna D. Vasilko, Esq.
          276 West Millbrook Road
          Raleigh, NC 27609
          Telephone: (919) 503-6680

                - and –

          Neal Andrew Ramee, Esq.
          THARRINGTON SMITH LLP
          P.O. Box 1151
          Raleigh, NC 27602

US BANK: Faces Boldin Class Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
PIERCE BOLDIN, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION D/B/A US BANK, Case No.
2:25-cv-02062 (C.D. Cal., March 7, 2025) contends that the
Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending
unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant’s unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into
the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to
Plaintiff and the Class members. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies.

The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of
Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

The class that Plaintiff seeks to represent (the “Class”) is
defined as:

   "All persons in the United States who from four years prior to
   the filing of this action through the date of class
   certification (1) Defendant, or anyone on Defendant’s behalf,

   (2) placed more than one marketing text message within any 12-
   month period; (3) where such marketing text messages were
   initiated before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (local time

   at the called party’s location)."

U.S. Bancorp is an American multinational financial services firm
headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota and incorporated in
Delaware.[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
          Telephone: (954) 907-1136
          E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com

USA DEBUSK: Kittrell Suit Removed from State Court to D.N.J.
------------------------------------------------------------
GARY ALAN KITTRELL, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, v. USA DEBUSK LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, Case No. C25-00412
(Filed Feb. 11, 2025) was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Contra Costa, to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
the on March 10, 2025.

The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:25-cv-02432 to the proceedings.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to pay wages for
all hours worked at minimum wage in violation of California Labor
Code.

USA DeBusk is a mechanical and industrial cleaning services
provider specializing in the downstream energy market.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          John T. Egley, Esq.
          Chris C. Scheithauer, Esq.
          Alexander M. Harrison, Esq.
          CALL & JENSEN
          610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 717-3000
          E-mail: jegley@calljensen.com
                  cscheithauer@calljensen.com
                  aharrison@calljensen.com

VALSOFT CORP: Fails to Secure Clients' Personal Info, Haynie Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ROHENAN HAYNIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VALSOFT CORPORATION, INC. d/b/a ALLTRUST
NETWORKS and ASPIRE USA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00399
(E.D. Va., March 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their
network systems following a data breach between February 12, 2024,
and February 15, 2024. The Defendants also failed to timely notify
the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data
breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and
Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and
disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties.

Valsoft Corporation, Inc., doing business as AllTrust Networks, is
an investment company, headquartered in Montreal, Canada.

Aspire USA, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Valsoft
Corporation, Inc., doing business in Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Lee A. Floyd, Esq.
         Justin M. Sheldon, Esq.
         BREIT BINIAZAN, PC
         2100 East Cary Street, Suite 310
         Richmond, VA 23223
         Telephone: (804) 351-9040
         Facsimile: (804) 351-9170
         Email: Lee@bbtrial.com
                Justin@bbtrial.com

                 - and -

         David K. Lietz, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
         5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW
         Washington, DC 20015
         Telephone: (866) 252-0878
         Facsimile: (202) 686-2877
         Email: dlietz@milberg.com

VENADO INC: Court Stays Briefing on Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Morris v. Venado, Inc.,
Case No. 2:25-cv-00318 (E.D. Wisc., Filed March 04, 2025), the Hon.
Judge William C. Griesbach entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's motion to stay briefing on motion for class
certification, to appoint a class representative, and to appoint
class counsel

For administrative purposes only, the court terminates the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification and to appoint a class
representative and class counsel.

The court stays briefing on Plaintiff's motion for class
certification and to appoint a class representative and class
counsel and will reset a briefing schedule at the Rule 16
scheduling conference.[CC]

The suit alleges violation of the American with Disabilities Act.

VENADO INC: Faces Morris Suit Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
------------------------------------------------------------------
ZACHARY MORRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VENADO, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-00318-WCG (E.D. Wis., March 4, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.venadoinc.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not
limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.

Venado, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in
Wisconsin. [BN]

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
       Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com

VIATOR INC: Overcharges Ticket Buyers, Ramlogan Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
CORINNA RAMLOGAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VIATOR, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-10509-NMG (D. Mass., March 3, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the New York State's Arts
and Cultural Affairs Law.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to itemize service
charges, fees or surcharges to ticket purchasers at any point
during or after the purchase process. This practice allows the
Defendant to charge consumers a higher retail ticket price and
retain the difference. When selling tickets, the Defendant only
displays the final price to consumers without itemizing what
portion represents the base ticket price versus commission or other
surcharges. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the
Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered damages.

Viator, Inc. is an operator of an online ticketing platform, with
its principal place of business in Needham, Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Aaron S. Welo, Esq.
       William H. Beaumont, Esq.
       BEAUMONT LLC
       107 W. Van Buren, Suite 209
       Chicago, IL 60605
       Telephone: (773) 832-8000
       Email: whb@beaumont-law.com
              asw@beaumont-law.com

VILLAS OF HOLLY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Mitchell Due July 28
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mitchell v. Villas of
Holly Brook Senior Living LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02269 (C.D. Ill.,
Filed Dec. 13, 2022), the Hon. Judge Colin Stirling Bruce entered
an order setting class certification deadlines:

-- Deadline for Phase I Discovery is:         May 28, 2025

-- Plaintiff's Expert Disclosures for         April 29, 2025
    Certification due:

-- Deposition of Plaintiff's Expert due:      May 13, 2025

-- Defendant's Expert Disclosures for         May 29, 2025
    Certification (if any) due:

-- Deposition of Defendant's Expert due:      June 12, 2025

-- Deadline to file for Rule 23 Class         July 28, 2025
    Certification and for Decertification
    of the Collective Action (if any), and
    Daubert Motions associated with Expert
    Disclosures for Certification is:

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Defendant offers senior living in central Illinois.[CC]

VINEYARD VINES: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Vineyard Vines Retail, LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-00874 (D.
Minn., Mrach 10, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's
Website (www.vineyardvines.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's
Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are
blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general
non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and
auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In
addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a
companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act
(MHRA).

The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is
responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning
the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her
experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past
year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff
found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that
deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to
important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its
sighted Website users.

Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to
access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or
shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant
offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and
operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully
accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with
vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class
have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to
be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to
provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is
compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore
disabled under the ADA.

The Defendant offers clothing and accessories for sale including,
but not limited to, pants, shirts, hats, shorts, shoes, handbags,
swimwear and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Gustafson, Esq.
          Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
          Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
          THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
          Jason Gustafson (#0403297)
          222 South Ninth Street, Suite 1600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (763) 515-6110
          Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com
                 pat@throndsetlaw.com
                 chad@throndsetlaw.com

VOYA FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Ravarino 401(k) Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
annual period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 21, 2025, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Ravarino Voya 401(k) Savings
Plan class suit in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut.

Litigation also includes Ravarino, et al. v. Voya Financial, Inc.,
et al. (USDC District of Connecticut, No. 3:21-cv-01658)(filed
December 14, 2021). In this putative class action, the plaintiffs
allege that the named defendants breached their fiduciary duties of
prudence and loyalty in the administration of the Voya 401(k)
Savings Plan. The plaintiffs claim that the named defendants did
not exercise proper prudence in their management of allegedly
poorly performing investment options, including proprietary funds,
and passed excessive investment-management and other administrative
fees for proprietary and non-proprietary funds onto plan
participants.

The plaintiffs also allege that the defendants engaged in
self-dealing through the inclusion of the Voya Stable Value Option
into the plan offerings and by setting the "crediting rate" for
participants' investment in the Stable Value Fund artificially low
in relation to Voya's general account investment returns in order
to maximize the spread and Voya's profits at the participants'
expense.

The complaint seeks disgorgement of unjust profits as well as costs
incurred.

On June 13, 2023, the Court issued a ruling granting in part and
denying in part Voya's motion to dismiss.

The court largely dismissed the claims for breach of fiduciary
duty.

The remaining claims concern allegations of breaches of the ERISA
prohibited transactions rule and a claim for failure to monitor the
Voya Small Cap Growth fund.

The Company continues to deny the allegations, which it believes
are without merit, and intends to defend the case vigorously.

Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and
employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through
four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee
Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as
ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in
April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is
based in New York, New York.




VUCIC CONSULTING: Gaines Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Under FLSA, NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------------
TIFFANY GAINES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. VUCIC CONSULTING, INC., CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
Case No. 1:25-cv-01911 (S.D.N.Y., March 7, 2025) seeks to recover
minimum wage and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights
Law (NYCHRL) and the New York Labor Law.

Ms. Gaines is a 29-year-old African American female, and resides
and is domiciled in the Bronx, New York.

Vucic is a marketing and promotions agency that specializes in
direct marketing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Fred V. Charles, Esq.
          CHARLES LAW, P.C.
          244 Fifth Ave., Suite#2717
          New York, NY 100001
          Telephone: (646) 494-2662
          E-mail: fcharles@charleslawpc.com

W.T.F.N. INC: Winslow Sues Over Fragrances' Pheromone Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
INDIA WINSLOW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. W.T.F.N. INC. and OUI LAB, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 2:25-cv-00737-CKD (E.D. Cal., March 3, 2025) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law,
and California False Advertising Law, breach of express warranty,
breach of implied warranty, and quasi contract/unjust
enrichment/restitution.

The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Pure Instinct
brand pheromone fragrances. According to the complaint, the
Defendants advertise and label the products with the word
"Pheromone," claiming that the products contain "human-compatible
pheromones capable of influencing moods, emotions, and affection
and triggering social responses." Unbeknownst to consumers, the
products cannot influence and/or attract others because humans do
not have a functional vomeronasal organ (VNO), and thus humans are
incapable of detecting the products' pheromones. Had the Plaintiff
and similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not
have purchased the products or would have paid less for them.

W.T.F.N. Inc. is a manufacturer of personal care products, with a
principal place of business in Chatsworth, California.

Oui Lab, Inc. is a manufacturer of personal care products, with a
principal place of business in City of Industry, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
       Katherine Phillips, Esq.
       Ammad Bajwa, Esq.
       TREEHOUSE LAW, LLP
       3130 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 555
       Santa Monica, CA 90403
       Telephone: (310) 751-5948
       Email: bheikali@treehouselaw.com
              kphillips@treehouselaw.com
              abajwa@treehouselaw.com

                - and -

       Zachary Arbitman, Esq.
       George Donnelly, Esq.
       FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER TANNER WEINSTOCK & DODIG,
LLP
       1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor
       Philadelphia, PA 19103
       Telephone: (215) 567-8300
       Email: zarbitman@feldmanshepherd.com
              gdonnelly@feldmanshepherd.com

WASATCH VALLEY PIZZA: Brown FLSA Suit Transferred to D. Utah
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Charles Brown, on his own behalf and on
behalf of those similarly situated v. Wasatch Valley Pizza, LLC,
Case No. 8:24-cv-02380 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Utah on March 10, 2025.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00180-DBP to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Wasatch Valley Pizza, located in American Fork, UT, is a Pizza Hut
franchise that offers a wide variety of classic and signature
pizzas, wings, pastas, and desserts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq.
          PERRONG LAW LLC
          2657 Mt. Carmel Ave
          Glenside, PA 19038
          Phone: (215) 225-5529
          Fax: (888) 329-0305
          Email: a@perronglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jill Ann Guldin, Esq.
          PIERSON FERDINAND LLP
          One Liberty Place
          1650 Market Street Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (609) 896-4096
          Fax: (856) 494-1566
          Email: jill.guldin@pierferd.com

WASTE CONNECTIONS: Underpays Maintenance Technicians, Martinez Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS H. MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WASTE CONNECTIONS OF FLORIDA,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-20965 (S.D. Fla., February 28,
2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Martinez was employed by the Defendant as a maintenance
technician in Florida from approximately April 01, 2012, to
November 28, 2024.

Waste Connections of Florida, Inc. is a company that owns and
operates a sanitation or trash collection and recycling business in
Broward and Dade County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
       ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA
       9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
       Miami, FL 33156
       Telephone: (305) 446-1500
       Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
       Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

WESTLAKE SERVICES: Palacios Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Westlake Services
LLC. The case is styled as Baron Maylon Palacios, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Westlake Services
LLC, Does 1 through 100, Case No. 25STCV06961 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., March 11, 2025).

Westlake Services, LLC -- https://www.westlakefinancial.com/ --
provides financial services. The Company offers auto finance,
equity loans, and other financial products, as well as automobile
dealer inventory search.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Ginzburg, Esq.
          FRONTIER LAW CENTER
          23901 Calabasas Rd., Ste. 1084
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Phone: (818) 914-3433
          Fax: (818) 914-3433
          Email: dan@frontierlawcenter.com

WORKIT HEALTH: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
WORKIT HEALTH, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-11691-LVP-DRG (E.D. Mich.),
the Hon. Judge Linda Parker entered an order:

-- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final settlement approval,

-- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees and service
    award, and

-- approving class action settlement.

The Settlement Class, which will be bound by this Final Approval
Order, shall include all members of the Settlement Class who did
not submit timely and valid requests to be excluded from the
Settlement Class. There are no objections and no requests for
exclusion (i.e., opt-outs) to the Settlement.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this
Court finally approves the Settlement, as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement. This Court finds that the Settlement meets
all requirements of Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and is, in all respects, fair, reasonable and adequate,
and in the best interests of the Settlement Class, including
Plaintiffs.

On Sept. 7, 2024, the Court preliminarily approved the proposed
Settlement pursuant to the terms of the Parties' Settlement
Agreement, and directed that Notice be given to the Settlement
Class.

Workit Health is a Joint Commission-accredited B-Corporation
offering online, on-demand evidence-based addiction treatment.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 6, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oWU8AL
at no extra charge.[CC]

WYOMING DOC: Armajo Files Suit in D. Wyoming
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wyoming Department of
Corrections, et al. The case is styled Charles Alfred Armajo, Jr,
on behalf of other Native American Adherents' similarly situated in
WDOC's custody v. Wyoming Department of Corrections; Wyoming
Department of Corrections Medium Correctional Institution; Wyoming
Department of Corrections Director, also known as: Daniel Shannon,
individually and in his official capacity; Wyoming Department of
Corrections Medium Correctional Institution Warden also known as:
Seth Norris, individually and in his official capacity; Wyoming
Department of Corrections Medium Correctional Institution Security
Guard also known as: Landen Sanders, individually and in his
official capacity; Case No. 2:25-cv-00071-KHR (D. Wyo., March 10,
2025).

The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.

The Wyoming Department of Corrections --
https://corrections.wyo.gov/ -- is a state agency of Wyoming that
operates adult correctional facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

XPLR INFRASTRUCTURE: Faces Jarvis Suit Over Unit Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN PAUL JARVIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. XPLR INFRASTRUCTURE, LP f/k/a NEXTERA ENERGY
PARTNERS, LP, JOHN W. KETCHUM, JAMES L. ROBO, BRIAN W. BOLSTER,
TERRELL KIRK CREWS II, and REBECCA J. KUJAWA, Case No.
9:25-cv-80334 (S.D. Fla., March 10, 2025) is a federal securities
class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired
XPLR securities between January 26, 2021, and January 27, 2025,
both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

Throughout the Class Period, XPLR operated as a "yieldco" -- that
is, a business that owns and operates fully built and operational
power generating projects, focused on delivering large cash
distributions to investors. Following the failures of other
high-profile yieldcos, XPLR was one of the last remaining yieldcos
on the market.

Indeed, the Company maintained its yieldco business model while
championing its ability to do so, consistently increasing the
amount of its cash distributions to investors throughout the Class
Period. In addition, from January 2021 to September 2023, XPLR
continually asserted that it expected 12% to 15% per year growth in
limited partner distributions as being a reasonable range of
expectations through at least 2024.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that XPLR
was struggling to maintain its operations as a yieldco.

Accordingly, KeyBanc concluded that although XPLR “has several
levers it can pull to fund growth and continue to deliver on its
12%- 15% DPU [distribution per unit] growth target, we think that
overcoming circularity in the cost of capital/dilution equation in
the current market is likely to be challenging, even for a premier
developer like [XPLR].

On this news, XPLR's unit price fell $3.78 per unit, or 6.33%, to
close at $55.94 per unit on April 26, 2023.

On a subsequent conference call that XPLR hosted with investors and
analysts the same day, Defendants further revealed, inter alia,
that the Company was revamping its entire management team and had
appointed a new chief financial officer.

Following these disclosures, XPLR's unit price fell $3.97 per unit,
or 25.13%, to close at $11.83 per unit on January 28, 2025. XPLR's
unit price continued to fall an additional $1.39 per unit, or
11.75%, over the following two consecutive trading sessions, to
close at $10.44 per unit on January 30, 2025.

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, the suit alleges.

The Plaintiff acquired XPLR securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation
of the alleged corrective disclosures.

XPLR acquires, owns, and manages contracted clean energy projects
in the U.S., including a portfolio of contracted renewable
generation assets consisting of wind, solar, and battery storage
projects. The Company also owns contracted natural gas pipeline
assets. The Company changed its name from "NextEra Energy Partners,
LP" to "XPLR Infrastructure, LP” in January 2025.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James M. LoPiano, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
          E-mail: jlopiano@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
          Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq.
          MILLER SHAH LLP
          2103 N. Commerce Parkway
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33326
          Telephone: (954) 515-0123
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: jagoldstein@millershah.com
                  nczipperian@millershah.com

ZWILLING J.A. HENCKELS: Sued Over Illegal Use Trap & Trace Process
------------------------------------------------------------------
REBEKA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZWILLING J.A. HENCKELS, LLC,, a
Delaware company, d/b/a WWW.ZWILLING.COM, Defendant, Case No.
25STCV05246 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., February 25, 2025)
arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct of using trap
and trace technology to identify users of its website in violation
of the California Invasion of Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant uses a trap and trace
process on its website, zwilling.com, by deploying the TikTok
Software designed to capture the phone number, email, routing,
addressing and other signaling information of website visitors,
including Plaintiff. As such, the TikTok Software is solely to
identify the source of the incoming electronic and wire
communications to the website. The Defendant did not obtain consent
from Plaintiff and Class Members before using trap and trace
technology, says the suit.

Zwilling J.A. Henckels, LLC is an entity that sells kitchen
appliances, gadgets, and cutlery.[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

[^] CLASS ACTION MONEY & ETHICS CONFERENCE 2025 -- Agenda
---------------------------------------------------------
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 in New York.

Conference Chairs Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., and Jennifer A. Riley,
both Partners at Duane Morris LLP, will welcome participants with
their Opening Remarks and present key findings from their inaugural
Duane Morris-Class Action Review 2025.

"AI in Law" will follow with Denise Scotto, Esq., Managing Director
and Senior Litigation Analyst at Esquire Bank; Etia Rottman Frand,
VP Litigation Partnerships at Darrow; and Mark Berman, Member at
Bond, Schoeneck & King PLLC.

"Guarding the Process: How to Combat Fraud in Class Action Claims"
will be led by Bryan Heller, Chief Operating Officer at ClaimScore;
Eric Schachter, Vice President at AB Data; and Ryan Clarkson,
Managing Partner at Clarkson Law Firm.

This will be followed by "How Securities Litigation Benefits
Investors," to be headed by James Christie and Lauren Ormsbee, both
Partners at Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP.

The morning session will close with a panel on "Data Breach
Litigation: The Next Wave of High-Stakes Class Actions," by
moderator Bryn Bridley, VP of Business Development at Atticus
Administration; Christopher Longley, Co-Founder & CEO at Atticus;
Chris Wood, Partner at Lewis Brisbois; William Federman, Founder &
Managing Member at Federman & Sherwood; Terry Coates, Managing
Partner at Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC; and Alfred "Al"
Saikali, Chair, Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice at Shook Hardy
Bacon.

A Lunch Panel, "Bankruptcy Developments in the Past Year"
spearheaded by the Hon. Melanie L. Cyganowski (Ret.), Partner at
Otterbourg P.C., will discuss how mass tort claims are being
facilitated in bankruptcy.

The session resumes in the afternoon with "Connecting with
Plaintiffs in the Age of Tech," to be led by Evyatar Ben Artzi,
Co-Founder & CEO at Darrow; Rebecca Gilliland, Principal at Beasley
Allen; and Bryan Heller, Chief Operating Officer at ClaimScore.

"The Rise of Mass Arbitration: Strategy, Ethics, and Corporate
Response," will follow with Dai Wai Chin Feman, Managing Director
and Corporate Counsel at Parabellum Capital; Jonathan Waisnor,
Partner & Chair of ADR Practice at Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP;
Ryan Ellersick, Partner at Zimmerman Reed LLP; Tim Kolesk, Partner
at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP; and Raphael Janove, Founder at
Janove PLLC, leading the discussion.

Josh Janow, CEO at SMI Aware, will then lead the discussion on
"Ethics of Social Media Discovery Panel."

Nick Baum, CEO at Tremendous, will cap the day's events with
"Beyond the Check: How Digital Payments Are Transforming Class
Action Payouts and Fighting Fraud."

The Conference Agenda is available at
https://www.classactionconference.com/agenda.html  Register 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!

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

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 more information, contact:

     Will Etchison
     Tel: 305-707-7493
     E-mail: will@beardgroup.com


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Receives 1,400 New Exposure Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal
Company, Inc., is one of many defendants in a substantial number of
lawsuits filed throughout the U.S. by persons alleging bodily
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company states, "In 1963, Crown Cork acquired a subsidiary that
had two operating businesses, one of which is alleged to have
manufactured asbestos-containing insulation products.

"During the year ended December 31, 2024, Crown Cork received
approximately 1,400 new claims, settled or dismissed approximately
600 claims, and had approximately 59,300 claims outstanding at the
end of the period. Of the Company's outstanding claims,
approximately 18,000 claims relate to claimants alleging first
exposure to asbestos after 1964 and approximately 41,300 relate to
claimants alleging first exposure to asbestos before or during
1964, of which approximately 13,000 were filed in Texas, 1,300 were
filed in Pennsylvania, 6,000 were filed in other states that have
enacted asbestos legislation and 21,000 were filed in other states.
Due to the passage of time, the Company considers it unlikely that
the plaintiffs in these cases will pursue further action. The
exclusion of these inactive claims had no effect on the calculation
of the Company's accrual as the claims were filed in states where
the Company's liability is limited by statute. The Company devotes
significant time and expense to defend against these various
claims, complaints and proceedings, and there can be no assurance
that the expenses or distractions from operating the Company's
business arising from these defenses will not increase materially.

"Crown Cork made cash payments of $15 million, $17 million and $21
million in 2024, 2023 and 2022 to settle asbestos claims and pay
related legal and defense costs. These payments and any such future
payments will reduce the cash flow available to Crown Cork for its
business operations and debt payments."  

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3fMNp3
   

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dayton Power Still Defends in Asbestos Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Dayton Power and Light Company has reported that asbestos and
other regulated substances are, and may continue to be, present at
their facilities, and they have been named as a defendant in
asbestos litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "The continued presence of asbestos and other
regulated substances at these facilities could result in additional
litigation being brought against us, which could have a material
adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition
and cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oZr5Mg


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Domtar Corp. Defends Exposure Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------
Domtar Corporation is involved in a number of asbestos-related
lawsuits filed primarily in U.S. state courts, including certain
cases involving multiple defendants, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "These lawsuits principally allege direct or
indirect personal injury or death resulting from exposure to
asbestos-containing premises. While the Company disputes the
plaintiffs' allegations and intends to vigorously defend these
claims, the ultimate resolution of these matters cannot be
determined at this time. These lawsuits frequently involve claims
for unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and the Company
is unable to reasonably estimate a range of possible losses, which
may not be covered in whole or in part by its insurance coverage.
However, unfavorable rulings, judgments or settlement terms could
materially impact the Consolidated Financial Statements. Hearings
for certain of these matters are scheduled to occur in the next
twelve months."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xAgRap


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Reports $545MM A&E Liabilities
------------------------------------------------------------
Enstar Group Limited has reported $545 million of defendant
asbestos and environmental liabilities as of December 31, 2024,
substantially all of which consists of defendant asbestos
liabilities, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Defendant asbestos liabilities include amounts
for indemnity and defense costs for pending and future
asbestos-related claims, determined by management using actuarial
methods.

"The actuarial methods utilize data resulting from claim experience
and include the development of estimates of the potential value of
asbestos-related claims asserted but not yet resolved, as well as
the number and potential value of asbestos-related claims not yet
asserted. In developing the estimate of liability for potential
future claims, the actuarial methods project the potential number
of future claims based on the Company's historical claim filings
and health studies. The actuarial methods also utilize assumptions
based on the Company's historical proportion of claims resolved
without payment, historical claim resolution costs for those claims
that result in a payment, and historical defense costs. The
liabilities are estimated by management using pending and projected
future claim filings, projected payment rates, average claim
resolution amounts, and an estimate for defense costs, which are
derived based on assumptions relating to defense cost to indemnity
cost ratios. Management utilizes judgment when determining the
assumptions related to the expected number of future claims (which
includes projected future claim filings and projected payments
rates), average claim resolution amounts, and estimated defense
costs."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3kI1dt



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Group Has $216MM Loss Reserves at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Group, Ltd., with respect to asbestos only, had net
asbestos loss reserves of $216 million, at December 31, 2024, or
89.0%, of total net A&E reserves, all of which was for assumed
business, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "At December 31, 2024, we had gross asbestos
loss reserves of $233 million, or 89.6% of total gross A&E
reserves, all of which was for assumed business.

"Ultimate loss projections for A&E liabilities cannot be
accomplished using standard actuarial techniques. We believe that
our A&E reserves represent management’s best estimate of the
ultimate liability; however, there can be no assurance that
ultimate loss payments will not exceed such reserves, perhaps by a
significant amount.

Industry analysts use the "survival ratio" to compare the A&E
reserves among companies with such liabilities. The survival ratio
is typically calculated by dividing a company’s current net
reserves by the three-year average of annual paid losses. Hence,
the survival ratio equals the number of years that it would take to
exhaust the current reserves if future loss payments were to
continue at historical levels. Using this measurement, our net
three-year asbestos survival ratio was 6.6 years at December 31,
2024. These metrics can be skewed by individual large settlements
occurring in the prior three years and therefore, may not be
indicative of the timing of future payments."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LhBiu2


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corp. Has 11,683 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corporation, as of December 31, 2024, is a defendant of
approximately 11,683 premises and product asbestos claims pending
in several jurisdictions, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Since the 1980s, approximately 123,000
asbestos claims against FMC have been discharged, the overwhelming
majority of which have been dismissed without any payment to the
claimant. Since the 1980s, settlements with claimants have totaled
approximately $230 million."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g3FSi7


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Forum Energy Still Faces Product Liability Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Forum Energy Technologies, Inc.'s subsidiary has been and continues
to be named as a defendant in asbestos related product liability
actions, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "The actual amounts expended on
asbestos-related claims in any year may be impacted by the number
of claims filed, the nature of the allegations asserted in the
claims, the jurisdictions in which claims are filed, and the number
of settlements. As of December 31, 2024, our subsidiary has a net
liability of $0.3 million for the estimated indemnity cost
associated with the resolution of its current open claims and
future claims anticipated to be filed during the next five years.

"Due to a number of uncertainties, the actual costs of resolving
these pending claims could be substantially higher than the current
estimate. Among these are uncertainties as to the ultimate number
and type of lawsuits filed, the amounts of claim costs, the impact
of bankruptcies of other companies with asbestos suits or of our
insurers, and potential legislative changes and uncertainties
surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction and from case to case. In addition, future claims
beyond the five-year forecast period are possible, but the accrual
does not cover losses that may arise from such additional future
claims. Therefore, any such future claims could result in a loss.

"Significant costs are incurred in defending asbestos claims and
these costs are recorded at the time incurred. Receipt of
reimbursement from our insurers may be delayed for a variety of
reasons. In particular, if our primary insurers claim that certain
policy limits have been exhausted, we may be delayed in receiving
reimbursement due to the transition from one set of insurers to
another. Our excess insurers may also dispute the claims of
exhaustion, or may rely on certain policy requirements to delay or
deny claims. Furthermore, the various per occurrence and aggregate
limits in different insurance policies may result in extended
negotiations or the denial of reimbursement for particular
claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1JX3aR


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IPALCO Enterprises Posts $378.5MM ARO Liabilities
------------------------------------------------------------------
IPALCO Enterprises, Inc., has been named as a defendant in asbestos
litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

At December 31, 2024, the Company's asset retirement obligations
("ARO") totaled $378.5 million. The Company's ARO liabilities
relate primarily to environmental issues involving
asbestos-containing materials, ash ponds, landfills and
miscellaneous contaminants associated with its generating plants,
transmission system and distribution system. The Company recorded
revisions to its existing ARO liabilities of $117.7 million during
2024 primarily to reflect revisions to cash flow estimates due to
increases in closure costs and groundwater treatment measures for
ash ponds and landfills.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3PCvhD


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Perrigo Co. Defends 150 Individual Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc has been named, together with other
manufacturers, in product liability lawsuits in a variety of state
courts alleging that the use of body powder products containing
talcum powder causes mesothelioma and lung cancer due to the
presence of asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

As of February 2025, the Company has been named in approximately
150 individual lawsuits seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
The Company has several defenses and continues to vigorously defend
these lawsuits as well as explore various means of expeditiously
resolving these claims. Trials for these lawsuits are currently
scheduled throughout 2025 and 2026.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ysXrNj


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Inc. Faces Product Liability Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Numerous lawsuits against American Optical, Pfizer and certain of
its previously owned subsidiaries are pending in various federal
and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from
exposure to products allegedly containing asbestos and other
allegedly hazardous materials sold by Pfizer and certain of its
previously owned subsidiaries, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned
American Optical Corporation (American Optical), which manufactured
and sold respiratory protective devices and asbestos safety
clothing. In connection with the sale of American Optical in 1982,
Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain
liabilities, including certain asbestos-related and other claims.
Warner-Lambert was acquired by Pfizer in 2000 and is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Pfizer. Warner-Lambert is actively engaged in the
defense of, and will continue to explore various means of
resolving, these claims.

"There also are a small number of lawsuits pending in various
federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged exposure to
asbestos in facilities owned or formerly owned by Pfizer or its
subsidiaries."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kDsRGq

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Accrues $84.57MM Liabilities
------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc., in its press release dated February
27, 2025, has reported accrued asbestos liabilities of $84.57
million for the year ended December 2024, according to the
Company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PRzETy



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has 1,287 Exposure Cases at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
At December 31, 2024, 1,287 cases were outstanding for which
Standard Motor Products, Inc., may be responsible for any related
liabilities, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Since inception in September 2001 through
December 31, 2024, the amounts paid for settled claims and awards
of asbestos-related damages, including interest, were approximately
$91.4 million. A substantial increase in the number of new claims,
or increased settlement payments, or awards of asbestos-related
damages, could have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial condition and results of operations.

"In 1986, we acquired a brake business, which we subsequently sold
in March 1998. When we originally acquired this brake business, we
assumed future liabilities relating to any alleged exposure to
asbestos-containing products manufactured by the seller of the
acquired brake business. In accordance with the related purchase
agreement, we agreed to assume the liabilities for all new claims
filed after September 2001. Our ultimate exposure will depend upon
the number of claims filed against us on or after September 2001,
and the amounts paid for settlements, awards of asbestos-related
damages, and defense of such claims. We do not have insurance
coverage for the indemnity and defense costs associated with the
claims we face.

"In accordance with our policy to perform an annual actuarial
evaluation in the third quarter of each year, an actuarial study
was performed as of August 31, 2024. The results of the August 31,
2024 study included an estimate of our undiscounted liability for
settlement payments and awards of asbestos-related damages,
excluding legal costs, ranging from $99.6 million to $210.8 million
for the period through 2065. Based upon the results of the August
31, 2024 actuarial study, and all other available information to
us, we increased our asbestos liability to $99.6 million, the low
end of the range, and recorded an incremental pre-tax provision of
$29.3 million in loss from discontinued operations in the
accompanying statement of operations. Future legal costs, which are
expensed as incurred and reported in loss from discontinued
operations in the accompanying statement of operations, are
estimated, according to the August 31, 2024 study, to range from
$49.8 million to $115.9 million for the period through 2065."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xHy2uN


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Has 524 Pending Cases as of Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation, as of December 31, 2024, was a party to 524
pending cases involving an aggregate of 4,968 claimants primarily
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing
materials formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and
otherwise) manufactured or distributed by its former Lamons
division and certain other related subsidiaries for use primarily
in the petrochemical refining and exploration industries, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute
its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers
prior to acquisition.

The Company may be subjected to significant additional
asbestos-related claims in the future, and will aggressively defend
or reasonably resolve, as appropriate. The cost of settling cases
in which product identification can be made may increase, and the
Company may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former
activities of its acquired gasket distributors. The cost of claims
varies as claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions
without specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the
requisite or maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be
amended to alter the amount sought. The large majority of claims do
not specify the amount sought. Of the 4,968 claims pending at
December 31, 2024, 28 set forth specific amounts of damages (other
than those stating the statutory minimum or maximum). At December
31, 2024, of the 28 claims that set forth specific amounts, there
were no claims seeking more than $5 million for punitive damages

Relatively few of the claims have reached the discovery stage and
even fewer claims have gone past the discovery stage. Total
settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such cases,
some of which were filed over 30 years ago, have been $13.7
million. All relief sought in the asbestos cases is monetary in
nature. Based on the settlements made to date and the number of
claims dismissed or withdrawn for lack of product identification,
the Company believes that the relief sought (when specified) does
not bear a reasonable relationship to its potential liability.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WsrdPi



                            *********

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 ***