---

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

              Monday, March 24, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 59

                            Headlines

ABBVIE INC: Camargo Suit over Adalimumab Prices Ongoing
ABBVIE INC: Faces Antitrust Suit over Anti-inflammatory Meds
ABC COMMUNITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ventour Alleges
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Ray Seeks to Withdraw Class Cert w/o Prejudice
APPLE INC: Faces Class Suit Over Apple Watch Carbon Neutral Claims

AQUA ILLINOIS: Faces Arnold Suit Over Water Contamination
ARMS OF ANDES: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hampton Claims
B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Coan, Kamholz Class Suit
B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Donaldson Class Suit
B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Gale Shareholder Class Suit

BEACH TRADING: Evans Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Website
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Class Cert Filing in Mirvis Extended to May 16
BLUE CROSS: Graham Loses Bid for Certification to N.M. Supreme Ct.
BOB'S DISCOUNT: Plaintiffs Lose Bid for Summary Judgment
BOEING CO: Class Cert Bid in Securities Suit Partly OK'd

BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES: Class Cert Deadline Held in Abeyance
CELESTRON ACQUISITION: DPPs Win Bid for Class Certification
CENTURYLINK INC: Bultemeyer's Bid for $35MM in Attys.' Fees Denied
CHAMBERS DEVELOPMENT: Class Initial Disclosure Due April 4
CLIPPER REALTY: Sanchez Loses Bid for Interlocutory Appeal

CMYK SUNRISE: Battle Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
COLLEGE OF ST. SCHOLASTICA: Bishop Sues Over Discriminative Website
COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER: Rodriguez Suit Removed to D. Connecticut
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Donahue Sues Over Data Security Incident
CRAWLEY PETROLEUM: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Hearing

CRAWLEY PETROLEUM: Response to Partial Summary Judgment Stayed
CROMWELL PROPERTIES: Feltzin Sues Over Discriminative Property
CROWN BAKERIES: Stanley Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
CSAA GENERAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to May 16
CSU: Anders Wins Renewed Bid for Class Certification

CTOS LLC: Alvarado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CURRY COLLEGE: MacIntyre and Fitts Sue Over Untimely Wage Payment
DANDY MEN: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Espinal Suit Says
DAVIS SERVICE: Moore Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
DAY-LEE FOODS: Barra Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

DELTONA, FL: Plaintiffs Bid for Class Certification OK'd
DEVRY UNIVERSITY: Bell Suit Removed to S.D. California
DISA GLOBAL: Bele Sues Over Failure to Properly Safeguard PII
DISH NETWORK: Continues to Defend Data Breach Suit in Colorado
DISH NETWORK: Continues to Defend Lingam Class Suit in Colorado

DISH NETWORK: Jones Class Suit Stayed Pending Mediation
DISNEY DTC LLC: Jaimes Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
DUNE COMPANY: Removes Garcia Suit from Cal. Super. to S.D. Calif.
EPIC GAMES: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Orellana Suit Granted
EQT CORP: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Ross Suit Due May 13

EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Simai Files FCRA Suit in E.D. New York
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Figueredo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ETHOS TECHNOLOGIES: Karpiel Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
EVOLUCION INNOVATIONS: Walker Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Sept. 14, 2026

FABLETICS INC: Bateman Sues Over Unlawful Membership Program
FASTAFF LLC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response in Egan
FCA US: Faces Class Action Over Hybrid Wrangler Vehicles
FERGUSON ENTERPRISES: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to August 18
FIRST ADVANTAGE: Reply Briefs Due April 18

FIRSTENERGY CORP: Accord on Fact Deposition in Securities Suit OK'd
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Court Grants Fact Deposition in MFS Series Suit
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Court OK's Fact Deposition in Brighthouse Suit
FIVE9 INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in California
FLAGLER 251: Feltzin Sues Over Discriminative Property

FLUENCE ENERGY: Abramov Sues Over Securities Law Breaches
FLYWIRE CORP: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Smith-Journigan Seeks Class Certification
FRANKLIN COUNTY,OH: Plaintiffs Seek to File Docs Under Seal
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Christensen Sues to Recover Compensation

FRESNO COMMUNITY: Removes Deneus-Coley Suit to E.D. Calif.
G. SKILL: Hurd Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd
GANNETT CO: Court Narrows Claims in Anderson Suit
GENWORTH LIFE: Sued Over Improper Cost of Insurance Charges
GENWORTH: Summary Judgment Bid in Insurance Dispute Granted in Part

GEORGIA: Rowe Failed to State Claim on All Counts, Court Says
GERDAU AMERISTEEL: 401(k) Retirement Plan Class Gets Certification
GOOD SAM: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Espinal Suit Says
H&M FASHION: S.D. New York Narrows Claims in McDonald FLSA Suit
HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Morales Seeks Prelim Class Settlement Approval

HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
HEMPSTEAD TOWN, NY: GB's Bid to Amend Complaint Granted in Part
HERRSCHNERS INC: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
HERSHEY COMPANY: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to June 13
HERSHEY COMPANY: Filing for Class Cert in Loza Revised to June 13

HRM RESOURCES: Class Cert Bids in McCormick Suit Due May 9
HURLEY INTERNATIONAL: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
IBOTTA INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
ICF TECHNOLOGY: Seeks Class Cert Oral Argument in Mondello Suit
IFOSTER INC: Wince Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

J. DOERER: Papazian Loses Class Certification Bid
JAIME S. SCHWARTZ: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Tuulik Alleges
JANIE AND JACK: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Okays Settlements in San Miguel RICO Suit
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Court OK's Settlement in Seidner Suit

LASERAWAY LLC: Taylor Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
LATE JULY SNACKS: Barber Suit Removed to C.D. California
LENWICH HOLDINGS: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Suit Says
LHNH LAVISTA: Filing or Class Cert Bid in Lanz Amended to March 31
LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to June 5

LOS ANGELES, CA: Scheduling Conference Order Entered in Garbutt
LPH INC: Marabelli Files FDCPA Suit in D. Montana
LPH INC: Schmitt Files FDCPA Suit in D. Montana
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Court Dismisses Putative Class Action Lawsuit
M2 PRODUCTS GROUP: McGuire Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina

MACKIE WOLF: Bid to Dismiss Pierce Suit Tossed
MARYLAND: Palmer Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
MDL 2724: DPP's Bid for Class Certification OK'd in Antitrust Suit
MGM RESORTS: Settles Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit for $45-Mil.
MOSAIC CAPITAL: Sawlaw Sues Over Alleged ERISA Breaches

MOTT'S LLP: Faces Class Action Over for Misleading Consumers
MURGADO AUTOMOTIVE: Karpiel Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
NABFLY INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Toscano Suit Claims
NATROL LLC: Class Cert Hearing in Yamasaki Suit Reset to May 22
NATROL LLC: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Bid to May 8

NDC ASSET: Filing for Conditional Class Cert in Morris Due Oct. 7
NEW YORK ONLINE REALTY: Brown Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York
NEWSMAX MEDIA: Butkus Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Faces Garner and Adams Suit Over ERISA Violations
OSBORN CORRECTIONAL: Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice

OVERLAKE HOSPITAL: Court Narrows Claims in Nienaber Privacy Suit
PEPSICO INC: Faces Pure Leaf Tea False Advertising Class Action
PEPSICO INC: N.D. California Narrows Claims in McCausland Suit
PHILADELPHIA CONTRIBUTIONSHIP: Wadsworth Files Suit in Pa. Ct.
PHILADELPHIA, PA: All Fact Discovery in Eastman Due Sept. 1

PLATINUM CHOICE: Wells Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Missouri
POPILUSH LLC: Ashworth Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Class Settlement in Verardo Gets Final Nod
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Class Settlement in Volino Gets Final Nod
PROTALIX BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Thomas Suit Seeks to Correct Bylaws

R&L CARRIERS: N.D. California Dismisses Rubalcaba Employment Suit
R. J. REYNOLDS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Vallejo Suit Claims
RAKUTEN USA: Bauer Sues Over Alleged Theft of Referral Fees
REDWIRE CORP: Settles Securities Class Action Lawsuit
REGAL CINEMAS: Final Judgment and Dismissal Issued in Jones Suit

ROCKET LAB: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set April 28
ROCKET MORTGAGE: Sued Over Violation of Truth in Lending Act
ROTISYSTEMS INC: Arteaga Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SAJNI N SONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Tixelema Alleges
SECURIX LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Divine Due May 27

SHENZHEN CHARMAST: Faces Yim Suit Over Defective Power Bank
SKY WORLD COURIER: Lee Sues to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
SKYWEST AIRLINES: Bid to Remand Campbell Suit to State Court Denied
SPRING VALLEY: Can Compel Arbitration in Stubbins Lawsuit
SPRINGER NATURE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Lee VPPA Class Action Lawsuit

STANLEY STEEMER: Settles 2023 Data Breach Class Action
STYX ACQUISITION: Byrd Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SUNFLOWER MEDICAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Crisp Alleges
SUNFLOWER MEDICAL: S.W. Files Suit in W.D. Missouri
TD BANK: Taylor Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII

TOOL: Faces Potential Class Suit Over Concerts' Setlist Variance
TOPGOLF PAYROLL: Court Narrows Claims in Benyamin Suit
TRINITY PETROLEUM: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Warner Alleges
TSD TELECOM: Class Certification Bid in Mott Suit Granted in Part
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Bonfiglio Suit Removed to S.D. California

UDISENSE INC: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
UNION PACIFIC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Black Due July 30
UNITED NATURAL: Sills Securities Suit Seeks to Certify Class
UNITED STATES: White Class Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice
UPSTART HOLDINGS: Faces Consolidated Suit over SEC Disclosures

US BANCORP: Court Denies Renewed Bid for Arbitration in Fong Suit
US PAROLE COMMISSION: Bid to Stay Summary Judgment Briefing OK'd
USA DISCOUNT: Thomas Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
UTAH HIGH SCHOOL: Court Stays Szymakowski Case Proceedings
VALENTIN MARIAN: Alfaro Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages

VOLATO INC: Gray Seeks to Certify Employee Class
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Settles Turbocharger Defect Class Action
WALMART INC: Faces Adams and Price Suit Over Deceptive Labeling
WELCH FOODS: Batanian Suit Removed to C.D. California
WHOLE FOODS: Molock Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Certification Tossed

WHOOP INC: Court Certifies Class and Subclass in Sanderson Suit
WILSON COUNTY, TN: Edwards Bid for Class Certification Tossed
WOOLF MERINO: Espinal Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
XPLR INFRASTRUCTURE: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
XTO ENERGY: Seeks to Exclude McArthur's Legal Opinions in Kriley

ZULLAS LC: Lamas Files Suit in D. Utah
[] New Dietary Supplement Class Lawsuits Remain Steady in 2024

                            *********

ABBVIE INC: Camargo Suit over Adalimumab Prices Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 16, 2025, that a putative class action
lawsuit, "Camargo v. AbbVie Inc.," filed in April 2023 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
is still ongoing.

Said case was filed on behalf of arthritis drug "Humira"
(adalimumab) patients who paid for Humira based on its list price
or who, after losing insurance coverage, discontinued Humira
because they could not pay based on its list price, alleging that
Humira's list price is excessive in violation of multiple states'
unfair and deceptive trade practices statutes. The plaintiff
generally seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys'
fees.

AbbVie Inc. is a pharmaceutical company headquartered in North
Chicago, Illinois.


ABBVIE INC: Faces Antitrust Suit over Anti-inflammatory Meds
------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 16, 2025, that in January 2025, a putative
class action lawsuit, "Sheet Metal Workers' Health Plan of Southern
California, Arizona, and Nevada v. AbbVie Inc.," was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
on behalf of third-party payors of the drug "Humira" (adalimumab),
alleging that AbbVie's rebating practices are impairing biosimilar
competition with Humira in violation of federal and state antitrust
laws. The plaintiff generally seeks monetary damages, injunctive
relief and attorneys' fees.

AbbVie Inc. is a pharmaceutical company headquartered in North
Chicago, Illinois.


ABC COMMUNITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ventour Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE VENTOUR; and DEIYAE GILMORE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ABC COMMUNITY
SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00446-JPH-TAB (S.D.
Ind., March 7, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid
wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as service
coordinators.

Abc Community Services, LLC provides healthcare services. The
Company offers physical and special therapies, nursing, skill
development, transportation, and adult day services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert A. Hicks, Esq.
          MACEY SWANSON HICKS & SAUER
          429 N. Pennsylvania Street, Suite 204
          Indianapolis, IN 46204-1800
          Telephone: (317) 637-2345
          Facsimile: (317) 637-2369
          Email: rhicks@maceylaw.com

ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Ray Seeks to Withdraw Class Cert w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jerry W. Ray, on Behalf of
Himself and Others Similarly Situated, v. AdaptHealth Corp., et
al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00898-TDS-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order granting his motion to withdraw class
certification without prejudice to him filing a new motion for
class certification by the deadline contained in the Court's case
management order (currently June 16, 2025).

On Jan. 9, 2025, Mr. Ray filed his motion for class certification
seeking to certify a broad class of North Carolina consumers
who were wrongfully billed by AdaptHealth or any of its "family of
companies."

AdaptHealth opposed Mr. Ray's motion for class certification on
Feb. 14, 2025, and (1) argued that individualized determinations
prevented the putative class from satisfying the requirements of
commonality, typicality, and ascertainability of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23, and (2) filed a declaration from Shaw Rietkerk,
its Chief Business Officer, stating that "AdaptHealth does not
commence litigation against patients to collect any outstanding
patient responsibility balances."

After considering the arguments advanced by AdaptHealth and the
implications of the concession in Mr. Rietkerk's declaration, Mr.
Ray moved swiftly to amend his Class Action Complaint
to contain three classes supported by information AdaptHealth has
produced in this litigation:

  -- Class A (the Billed After Date of Service Class),

  -- Class B (the Late Fee Class), and

  -- Class C (the Legal Action Class).

Mr. Ray filed this motion to amend within the time for amending set
by the Court.

Classes A and B are both subsets of the class as defined in the
Class Action Complaint and which Mr. Ray originally moved to
certify. The two classes narrow and clarify the claims of the
consumers with factual predicates most like Mr. Ray -- i.e.,
consumers billed for dates of service after they returned,
rejected, or did not receive equipment ordered from AdaptHealth.
Mr. Ray believes that this narrowing sufficiently
addresses the issues raised by AdaptHealth and will allow the Court
to readily conclude the requirements of Rule 23 are met.

Class C, by contrast, focuses on AdaptHealth's misrepresented
intentions about plans to pursue legal action against consumers to
collect their purported debts.

AdaptHealth provides home medical equipment.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 7, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0HX3Yx at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chad D. Hansen, Esq.
          Richard J. Keshian, Esq.
          Chase H. Stevens, Esq.
          KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
          1001 West Fourth Street
          Winston-Salem, NC 27101
          Telephone: (336) 607-7322
          Facsimile: (336) 734-2645
          E-mail: rkeshian@kilpatricktownsend.com
                  chadhansen@kilpatricktownsend.com
                  chstevens@kilpatricktownsend.com

APPLE INC: Faces Class Suit Over Apple Watch Carbon Neutral Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports a proposed class action
lawsuit claims Apple has misled consumers about the true
environmental impact of its purportedly "carbon neutral" Apple
Watch Series 9, Apple Watch SE (2nd generation) and Apple Watch
Ultra 2.

The 41-page lawsuit contends that in a bid to capitalize on growing
public concern for the climate crisis, the tech giant has widely
promoted the purported carbon neutrality of the Apple Watches at
issue, emphasizing the claim in marketing materials and packaging
that bears a green, flower-like "carbon neutral" symbol.

Per the case, though the brand's curated identity and ostensible
commitment to environmental sustainability have allowed Apple to
charge a premium for the smartwatches, the company's claims are
misleading because the two carbon emissions offsetting projects on
which the representation primarily relies -- the Chyulu Hills REDD+
carbon project in Kenya and the Guinan Afforestation ARR project in
China -- fail to provide genuine carbon reductions or legitimate
environmental benefits.

According to the class action suit, the carbon reductions linked to
these programs, which account for most of Apple's apparent offsets,
would have occurred regardless of the company's involvement or the
very existence of the projects. Despite Apple's representations,
the programs are "ineffective and redundant" and amount to no real
carbon offset value, the case alleges.

The case explains that to be "carbon neutral," the production and
use of an item must result in no net addition of carbon dioxide to
the atmosphere. To achieve this, a manufacturer such as Apple can
balance, or offset, carbon emissions by providing for an emission
reduction elsewhere, including by purchasing "carbon credits" in
verified offset projects, the complaint shares. A carbon credit
constitutes one metric tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
that has been reduced, avoided or removed from the atmosphere, and
a "retired" credit refers to one that has been removed from the
carbon offset market and can no longer be used by any other entity
to claim carbon reduction, the filing states.

Per the case, Apple represents that its carbon neutrality efforts
have resulted in a 78-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions
for the Apple Watch Series 9 paired with the Sport Loop wristband,
a 75-percent reduction for the SE model with the Sport Loop band
and an 81-percent reduction for the Ultra 2 model paired with the
Alpine Loop wristband. Apple claims to have offset the remaining
percentages by "retiring" a total of 485,000 carbon credits through
its projects in Kenya and China, the lawsuit relays.

To claim carbon neutrality, a manufacturer must meet stringent
standards to ensure their credits represent real and measurable
emissions reductions, the Apple Watch lawsuit says. Per the suit,
these standards particularly emphasize "additionality," a
requirement that offset projects result in emissions reductions
that would not have happened without the initiative.

The case contends that Apple's Chyulu Hills offsetting project,
which purports to generate carbon credits by preventing
deforestation, fails to meet the "additionality" requirement and
provide genuine carbon reductions. According to the complaint, a
significant part of the program's land is located within a Kenyan
national park that has been legally protected from deforestation
since 1983.

Moreover, the primary aim of the company's Guinan offsetting
initiative in China is to create new forest cover on supposedly
barren land, the filing describes. However, the lawsuit alleges
that the project area was already heavily forested and covered by
dense vegetation before the program began, and satellite imagery
allegedly indicates no significant increase in tree cover
attributable to the initiative.

"In both cases, the carbon reductions would have occurred
regardless of Apple's involvement or the projects' existence," the
suit argues. "And because Apple's carbon neutrality claims are
predicated on the efficacy and legitimacy of these projects,
Apple's carbon neutrality claims are false and misleading."

The lawsuit looks to represent all United States residents who,
within the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased an
Apple Watch Series 9, Apple Watch SE (2nd generation) or Apple
Watch Ultra 2 for purposes other than resale. [GN]

AQUA ILLINOIS: Faces Arnold Suit Over Water Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------
ROZITA ARNOLD; PATSY BANKS; ADRIENNE BAUGH; PHOEBE BEAMON; ALICIA
BENAVIDES; SETIAN BEY; ROCHELLE BLOCKER; GLORI BOND; KARI BOYKIN;
EDDIE BRADLEY; JENNIFER BRANIGAN; LOUIS BROOKS; ISHEONA BROWN;
SHIRLEY BROWN; STEPHANIE BROWN; DOLORES BUCKLEY; LEROY BURTON;
VICTOR BURTON; JOYCE CALVIN-HARMON; ENDELLA COLE; JACQUELINE
COLEMAN; VIVIAN COVINGTON; LONZELL CROSS; CHRISTOPHER CRUZ; LENEKA
DAVIS; LORENZO DAVIS; RONALD DAVIS; SHAVON DAVIS; LATASHA DOWNING;
DIANE DOYLE; ERICA DUNCAN; SHARON ELLIOTT; TOMMIE GALLOWAY; OTIS
GARDNER; TODD GARDNER; CHRISTOPHER GRAHAM; LESHEM GRAHAM; ELAINE
GREEN; ROOSEVELT HALL; ROBERT HAWKINS; LYDIA HENRY; DOROTHY
HICKMAN; ROGER HICKMAN; ERIC HIRSCH JR.; ANTHONY HUDSON; LOUVON
ZELOR HUMPHRIES; JAMES JACKSON; VETA JACKSON; SHIRLEY
JACKSON-GORDON; ZAKIA JARRETT; ANDRE JOHNSON; CHARLENE JOHNSON;
CRYSTAL JOHNSON; DWAYNE JOHNSON; CLARENCE JONES; IRENE JONES;
MARJORIE JONES; DARLISSA JORDAN; JOSEPH LEWIS; JENNIFER MADDEN;
WILTON MARTIN; SADE MCFADDEN; YVETTE MELLS; MICHAEL MERRILL; CARA
MEYERS; DEIDRE MEYERS; CARMELITA MOORE; MIKE OGBARA; DEBORAH ORR;
PORCHIA PELT; LOLITA PERKINS; LISA PLUMMEREL; HENRY PORTER; KELLY
REMBERT; SHIRLEY RIVERS; NATASHA ROBERSON; JAMES ROBERSON; PHYLLIS
SAUNDERS; PEGGY SIMS; MICHELLE SMITH-WILLIAMS; GEORGE SNYDER; JIMMY
SORRELL; HESTER SPURLOCK; LAQUESHA STEPHENSON; SYLVIA STEVENS;
LATANYA STEWART; JOHN TURNER; TANIKA VERCHER; ROBIN WALKER; PHYLLIS
WARREN; ERNESTINE WATSON; MARY WHITE; CLEO WILDER; GINA WILLIAMS;
JOHNNY WILLIAMS; MARQUITA WILLIS; GREGORY WOODING; and SHARON WYNN;
individually; and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. AQUA ILLINOIS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-02522 (N.D. Ill., March 11, 2025) is an action arising out
of the contamination of the water supply of the Plaintiffs and
thousands of other residents and entities in the Village of
University Park, Illinois (the "Village") by Aqua, which owns and
operates the public water system in the Village (the "Public Water
System").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant caused
and threatened the release of a contaminant, i.e., SeaQuest or
lead, into the drinking water supply throughout the Village by
altering the properties of the Public Water Supply. The release and
threatened release of SeaQuest and lead into the Plaintiffs' and
Class members' drinking water caused them to incur significant
costs and other damages for which they seek redress in this
action.

Aqua Illinois, Inc. provides water and wastewater services. The
Company offers collection, treatment, and distribution of potable
water for homes, businesses, industries, and fire protection
service. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
          Sharon A. Harris, Esq.
          Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, Illinois 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440-0020
          Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
          Email: tom@attorneyzim.com
                 sharon@attorneyzim.com
                 matt@attorneyzim.com
                 jeff@attorneyzim.com

ARMS OF ANDES: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hampton Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
PHYLLIS HAMPTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Arms of Andes, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-02529 (N.D. Ill., March 11, 2025), arises from Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons.

The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a
T-shirt made from alpaca wool on the website. Despite her 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. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks
redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Headquartered in Sherman Oaks, CA, Arms of Andes offers the public
a website known as Armsofandes.com, which provides consumers the
ability to view and purchase a variety of clothing made from alpaca
wool, such as T-shirts, hoodies, jackets, bottoms, gloves, socks,
and arm sleeves. [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

B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Coan, Kamholz Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
B. Riley 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 20, 2025, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the consolidated Coan and Kamholz
securities class suit in the United States Federal District Court
for the Central District of California.

On January 24, 2024, a putative securities class action complaint
was filed by Mike Coan in U.S. Federal District Court, Central
District of California, against the Company, Mr. Riley, Tom
Kelleher and Phillip Ahn ("Defendants"). The purported class
includes persons and entities that purchased shares of the
Company's common stock between May 10, 2023 and November 9, 2023.
The complaint alleges that (a) the Company failed to disclose to
investors that (i) Mr. Kahn, had been implicated in a conspiracy to
defraud third party investors, and (ii) the Company financed Mr.
Kahn and others in connection with a going private transaction
involving FRG, and (b) as a result of the foregoing, the Company
engaged in securities fraud in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

A second putative class action lawsuit was filed on March 15, 2024
by the KL Kamholz Joint Revocable Trust ("Kamholz"). This complaint
asserts similar allegations as the Coan complaint and covers an
alleged class period between February 28, 2022 and November 9,
2023. The Kamholz complaint further alleges that Defendants knew or
should have known that Mr. Kahn was engaged in illegal activities,
including a conspiracy to commit fraud, and nonetheless proceeded
with the FRG going-private transaction.

On August 8, 2024, the Court entered an order consolidating the two
actions.

The Company cannot estimate the amount of potential liability, if
any, that could arise from these matters and believes these claims
are meritless and intends to defend these actions.

B. Riley Financial, Inc. and its subsidiaries provide investment
banking, brokerage, wealth management, asset management, direct
lending, business advisory, valuation and asset disposition
services to public and private companies, financial sponsors,
investors, financial institutions, legal and professional services
firms, and individuals.


B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Donaldson Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
B. Riley 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 20, 2025, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Donaldson securities class suit
in the Superior Court for the States of California, County of Los
Angeles.

On May 2, 2024, a putative class action was filed by Ted Donaldson
in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los
Angeles on behalf of all persons who acquired the Company's senior
notes pursuant to the shelf registration statement filed with the
SEC on Form S-3 dated January 28, 2021, and the prospectuses filed
and published on August 4, 2021 and December 2, 2021 (the "Note
Offerings").

The action asserts claims under §§ 11, 12, and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, against the Company, certain of
the Company's officers and directors, and the underwriters of the
Note Offerings.

The complaint alleged that defendants knew or should have known
that Mr. Kahn was engaged in illegal activities, including an
alleged conspiracy to commit fraud.

On September 27, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

The amended complaint also asserts claims under §§ 11, 12, and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and alleges that
defendants knew or should have known that the risk to the Company
from its investments in businesses affiliated with Mr. Kahn and
loans to Mr. Kahn and his affiliates was greater than disclosed in
the offering documents used in connection with the Note Offerings.


The Company believes these claims are meritless and intends to
defend this action.

B. Riley Financial, Inc. and its subsidiaries provide investment
banking, brokerage, wealth management, asset management, direct
lending, business advisory, valuation and asset disposition
services to public and private companies, financial sponsors,
investors, financial institutions, legal and professional services
firms, and individuals.



B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Gale Shareholder Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Riley 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 20, 2025, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Gale shareholder class suit in
the Delaware Chancery Court.


On July 9, 2024, a putative class action was filed by Brian Gale,
Mark Noble, Terry Philippas and Lawrence Bass in the Delaware
Chancery Court against Freedom VCM, Mr. Kahn, Andrew Laurence,
Matthew Avril, and the Company.

This complaint alleges that former shareholders of FRG suffered
damages due to alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by officers,
directors and other participants in the August 2023 management-led
take private transaction of FRG and that the Company aided and
abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

The claim seeks an award of unspecified damages, rescissory damages
and/or quasi-appraisal damages, disgorgement of profits, attorneys'
fees and expenses, and interest thereon.

The Company believes these claims are meritless and intends to
defend this action.

B. Riley Financial, Inc. and its subsidiaries provide investment
banking, brokerage, wealth management, asset management, direct
lending, business advisory, valuation and asset disposition
services to public and private companies, financial sponsors,
investors, financial institutions, legal and professional services
firms, and individuals.



BEACH TRADING: Evans Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Website
--------------------------------------------------------
JAMES EVANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Beach Trading Company, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-02526 (N.D. Ill., March 11, 2025), accuses the
Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Defendant's website contains significant access barriers that
make it difficult if not impossible for the blind and
visually-impaired customers to use the website. Moreover, the
Defendant failed to take actions to correct these access barriers
in the face of substantial harm and discrimination to blind class
members, says the suit.

Headquartered in Edison, NJ, Beach Trading Company, Inc. provides
to the public a website known as Buydig.com which provides
consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including,
the ability to view a wide range of consumer electronics, including
cameras, TVs, audio equipment, laptops, and smartphones.[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

BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Class Cert Filing in Mirvis Extended to May 16
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mirvis, et al., v.
Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02210
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sanket J. Bulsara entered an order on
motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery:

-- Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and expert reports
    must be served by May 16, 2025.

-- Defendants' consolidated opposition to the motion for class
    certification, Daubert motion as to Plaintiffs' experts, and
    expert reports must be served by Aug. 12, 2025.

-- Plaintiffs' consolidated reply to the opposition to the motion

    for class certification, Daubert motion as to Defendants'
    experts, opposition to Defendants' Daubert motion, and
    rebuttal expert report must be served by Nov. 14, 2025.

-- Defendants' consolidated opposition to Plaintiffs' Daubert
    motion and reply to Plaintiffs' opposition to Defendants'
    Daubert motion must be served by Dec. 2, 2025.

-- Plaintiffs' reply to Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs'
    Daubert motion must be filed by Dec. 19, 2025.

The suit alleges violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act
involving torts - personal injury.

Berkshire is an American multinational conglomerate holding company
headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska.[CC]

BLUE CROSS: Graham Loses Bid for Certification to N.M. Supreme Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled JULIE GRAHAM, Plaintiff v. BLUE CROSS AND
BLUE SHIELD OF NEW MEXICO, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00305-KG-GJF
(D.N.M.), Chief District Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Mexico denies the
Plaintiff's motion for certification to the New Mexico Supreme
Court.

The matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Julie Graham's Motion
for Certification to the New Mexico Supreme Court, and Defendant
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Mexico's (BCBSNM) Cross-Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings.

In this case, the Plaintiff alleges that BCBSNM unlawfully denied
her requests for necessary, out-of-state medical care under the
Medicaid Program.

The Court previously held that BCBSNM is merely a trade name used
by parent corporation HCSC Insurance Services Company (HISC) and
that BCBSNM is not a legally distinct entity from HISC. BCBSNM is
the named party, however, and the Court will continue to refer to
Defendant as BCBSNM.

Under the Medicaid program, the federal government directs funding
to states, including New Mexico, so that they may provide medical
care to low-income individuals, who would not otherwise be able to
afford healthcare. In exchange for these federal funds, the
Medicaid Act requires that each state furnish healthcare services
to all Medicaid-eligible citizens in compliance with numerous
standards.

New Mexico, acting through its Human Services Department ("HSD"),
opts to meet these requirements by contracting with private managed
care organizations ("MCOs"), which arrange for delivery of
healthcare services to individuals, who enroll with them. Under the
terms of the "Medicaid Contract" between the state and several
MCOs, each MCO must provide all medically necessary services to the
Medicaid enrollee. MCOs accomplish this by negotiating contracts
with service providers and creating an in-state network through
which enrollees have access to care.

On March 21, 2022, Ms. Graham filed the instant action in the First
Judicial District Court of New Mexico, alleging the following six
claims against BCBSNM: (I) breach of contract (of the Medicaid
contract between BCBSNM and the State of New Mexico); (II) breach
of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (also related to the
Medicaid contract); (III) breach of fiduciary duty (to Ms. Graham
directly); (IV) violation of the New Mexico Insurance Code by
misrepresentation of benefits, advantages, conditions, or terms of
the policy; (V) violation of the New Mexico Insurance Code by
misrepresentation of facts, bad faith failure to promptly handle
claims, and failure to provide reasonable explanation of denial of
care; and (VI) violation of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act.

Ms. Graham also proposes a class action for similarly situated
Medicaid recipients. Subsequently on April 22, 2022, BCBSNM removed
the action to Federal Court.

Ms. Graham suffers from chronic pancreatitis, which grew more acute
with time. Ms. Graham is a registered nurse, but she was
hospitalized enough that she lost three different jobs and became
Medicaid eligible. She enrolled with Defendant BCBSNM as her
Medicaid MCO.

In June 2020 Ms. Graham's doctors at the University of New Mexico
hospital recommended a total pancreatectomy with islet cell
autologous transplantation ("TP-IAT"). That specialized treatment
was not available in New Mexico. BCBSNM first recommended that Ms.
Graham seek treatment in Texas, which it required she do at her own
expense, and where her required care was in fact unavailable. She
sought a second opinion at the Virginia Commonwealth University
Health System ("VCU"), which confirmed she was a good candidate for
the TP-IAT procedure and that it could perform the surgery there.

Ms. Graham requested pre-authorization for the surgery at VCU in
Richmond. Because BCBSNM was required to provide necessary care,
including out-of-network services when not available in-state, Ms.
Graham asserts she was entitled to authorization. But BCBSNM denied
her request. In its denial, BCBSNM, citing to its member handbook,
reasoned that out-of-network care was not permitted except in
emergency circumstances and, even then, care must be within one
hundred miles of the state border under New Mexico regulations.

But this reasoning was erroneous, Ms. Graham asserts. She submitted
the request precisely for the purpose of seeking non-emergency
prior approval, in compliance with the Member Handbook. And the New
Mexico Administrative Code permits, rather than forbids, care
beyond one hundred miles of the border in necessary circumstances.
In these ways, the justification for denial of care was, according
to Ms. Graham, false, misleading, and unreasonable.

After the first denial, Ms. Graham's personal doctor once again
requested she receive care at VCU, noting it was medically
necessary and not available at UNM. Her doctor at VCU made the same
request, noting the procedure was not available at the University
of Colorado and that the situation was urgent. She filed a second
request for authorization, in the form of an internal appeal of the
first denial.

BCBSNM again denied the internal appeal. This time BCBSNM reasoned
that there is network adequacy for the delivery of this service,
and the surgery was not "medically necessary," and, citing to the
Member Handbook, concluded that the request did meet criteria for
an "out-of-network" exception.

Once again, Ms. Graham asserts, the reasoning was factually
erroneous--there were no New Mexico providers available for the
surgery. And the denial's citation to Member Handbook page 19 was
unreasonable because nothing there addresses out-of-network care
provision. Furthermore, the decision was once again procedurally
deficient because Dr. David G. Williams, a family physician--not a
clinical expert in pancreatic issues--made the decision.

Ms. Graham pursued her right to a fair hearing conducted by an
administrative law judge from the state HSD. After the hearing
convened, BCBSNM requested a recess, reversed course, and approved
Ms. Graham's care. Because there was no longer an adverse decision
to appeal, the fair hearing appeal was dismissed. Ms. Graham
alleges that, to avoid scrutiny from the state, BCBSNM approved her
care before an administrative law judge could adjudicate the
dispute.

On Feb. 28, 2023, BCBSNM moved to dismiss all of Ms. Graham's
claims against it pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The Court ultimately
ruled in Ms. Graham's favor on the New Mexico Trade and Fraud
Practices Act (TFPA) and the Unfair Trade Practices Act (UPA)
claims. It rejected BCBSNM's argument that federal law preempted
Ms. Graham's TFPA claims and that the New Mexico Public Assistance
Act provided the sole remedy for private Medicaid MCOs.

The Court also disagreed with BCBSNM's assertion that it was not an
insurer simply because it lacked a direct insurance contract with
Ms. Graham. Instead, the Court found that MCOs function like
insurers by assuming financial risk, receiving state premium
payments, and making coverage determinations—actions akin to
those of insurers.

Regarding Ms. Graham's UPA claims, the Court rejected BCBSNM's
argument that the UPA requires a strict commercial relationship
between the claimant and the defendant. Citing Lohman v.
Daimler-Chrysler Corp., 2007-NMCA-100, ¶¶ 30, 31, 33, the Court
emphasized that the law does not require a direct sale between the
plaintiff and defendant, only that the misrepresentation occurred
"in connection with" a sale.

Following the Court's Order on BCBSNM's Motion to Dismiss, Ms.
Graham filed a Motion for Certification. BCBSNM opposed the motion
and filed a Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

Judge Gonzales notes that Ms. Graham's Motion for Certification and
BCBSNM's Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings revisit many of
the same questions raised in BCBSNM's Motion to Dismiss: Does the
TFPA apply to MCOs? Is an MCO considered an insurer? Is a Medicaid
enrollee an insured under the TFPA? Does a Medicaid contract
between the State of New Mexico and an MCO qualify as a policy
under the TFPA? And did BCBSNM engage in any unfair trade practice
or unconscionable behavior in connection with the sale, lease,
rental, or loan of goods or services?

In BCBSNM's Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, BCBSNM
argues that it is entitled to judgment on the pleadings on all of
Ms. Graham's remaining claims, specifically her claims under the
TFPA (Count IV and V) and under the UPA (Count VI).

Judge Gonzales opines that while MCOs like BCBSNM fall under the
scope of the TFPA, it is unclear whether Ms. Graham, as a Medicaid
enrollee, can assert a private action against BCBSNM under the
TFPA. The Court will reserve ruling on whether dismissal is
appropriate on Ms. Graham's TFPA claims pending additional briefing
by the parties.

Regardless of whether BCBSNM's conduct was unfair or
unconscionable, Judge Gonzales finds it lacks the necessary
connection to an actual or potential purchase by Ms. Graham.
Because BCBSNM's actions were not connected to the sale, rental,
lease, or loan of goods or services by Ms. Graham, her UPA claim
fails.

Ms. Graham sought certification to the New Mexico Supreme Court on
the following questions: Is a for-profit health insurance company
that provides Medicaid benefits pursuant to a contract with the
State of New Mexico subject to the common law of insurance, the
Insurance Code, NMSA Section 59A-16-1, et seq., and the Unfair
Practices Act, NMSA Section 57-12-1, et seq. when it 1) refuses to
provide benefits that are due under law, 2) forces the beneficiary
to file multiple appeals in order to receive those benefits, and 3)
communicates false information to the Medicaid recipient to whom it
is obligated to provide benefits?

After considering BCBSNM's cross-motion for judgment on the
pleadings, the Court concludes that there is a clear and principled
course of answering Ms. Graham's proposed questions. As a result,
the Court finds no need to certify these questions to the New
Mexico Supreme Court and will deny Ms. Graham's Motion to Certify.

Consistent with its analysis, the Court reserves ruling on BCBSNM's
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings regarding Ms. Graham's TFPA
claims (Counts IV and V) pending further briefing on whether Ms.
Graham, as a Medicaid enrollee and a non-party to the Medicaid
contract, can assert a private action against BCBSNM under the TFPA
in light of the New Mexico Supreme Court's decisions in Jolley v.
Associated Elec. & Gas Ins. Servs. Ltd., 2010-NMSC-029, Para. 22,
Hovet v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2004-NMSC-010, and Russell v.
Protective Ins. Co., 1988-NMSC-025.

Further, the Court finds dismissal with prejudice is appropriate
for Ms. Graham's UPA claim (Count VI) and that certification to the
New Mexico Supreme Court is unnecessary. Therefore, the Court
grants in part BCBSNM's Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
and denies Ms. Graham's Motion for Certification.

The Plaintiff is directed to file further briefing no later than
thirty (30) days from the date of this order. A responsive brief is
due no later than fourteen (14) days thereafter.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4mrfwu5y from PacerMonitor.com.


BOB'S DISCOUNT: Plaintiffs Lose Bid for Summary Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OMAR A. ESPINAL, FREDY O.
CARBAJAL, ARLEN Y. MARTINEZ, OSCAR RENE CALDERON ROMERO and
WELLINGTON TORRES, v. BOB'S DISCOUNT FURNITURE, LLC, RXO LAST MILE,
INC., ABC CORPS., and JANE & JOHN DOES, Case No.
2:17-cv-02854-JKS-JBC (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Jamel Semper denies
the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, grants Bob's motion
for summary judgment, and denies RXO LM's motion for summary
judgment. An appropriate order follows.

The Court concludes no reasonable juror could find that Bob's was
the Plaintiffs' employer. Bob's motion for summary judgment is
granted as to Plaintiffs' NJWHL and NJWPL claims.

The Court concludes that a reasonable jury could find that under
the Enterprise test, RXO LM was Plaintiffs' joint employer.
Consequently, based on RXO LM's theory that it was not a joint
employer under the Enterprise factors, RXO LM's motion for summary
judgment is denied.

The action arises from allegations that the Defendants failed to
pay overtime to Plaintiffs.

On Jan. 26, 2023, the Court certified the following class:

    "All individuals that were based out of Defendants' Edison and

    Carteret, New Jersey warehouses that performed truck driving
    and/or helper functions for the Defendants from April 26, 2015

    through to January 2017 out of the Edison Facility and from
    May 1, 2017 through to the present out of the Carteret
    Facility, who did not have direct contracts with either the
    Defendant, and who worked more than 40 hours per week
    performing deliveries for the Defendants."

Bob's sells furniture in retail stores and online.

A copy of the Court's opinion dated March 7, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A68UzN at no extra
charge.[CC] 


BOEING CO: Class Cert Bid in Securities Suit Partly OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re The Boeing Company Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:24-cv-00151-LMB-LRV (E.D. Va.), the Hon.
Judge Leonie Brinkema entered an order granting in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class
representatives and class counsel.

   1. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and
      (b)(3), the Court certifies a Class consisting of:

      "All persons and entities who or which, during the period
      from Jan. 7, 2021 to Jan. 8, 2024, inclusive, purchased or
      otherwise acquired publicly-traded Boeing Company ("Boeing")

      common stock (NYSE:BA), and were damaged thereby."

      Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendants; (ii) members of

      the immediate family of any Defendant who is an individual;
      (iii) any person who was an officer, director, or control
      person of Boeing during the Class Period; (iv) any firm,
      trust, corporation, or other entity in which any Defendant
      has or had a controlling or beneficial interest; and (v) the

      legal representatives, affiliates, heirs, successors-in-
      interest, or assigns of any such excluded person or entity.

   2. The Lead Plaintiffs the State of Rhode Island Office of the
      General Treasurer on behalf of the Employees' Retirement
      System of Rhode Island and Local #817 IBT Pension Fund have
      satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
      Procedure 23(a) and are appointed Class Representatives.

   3. Co-Lead Counsel Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP and Robbins
      Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP have satisfied the requirements of
      Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) and are appointed
      Class Counsel.

   4. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and The Office of Craig
      C. Reilly are appointed Liaison Counsel.

Boeing is an American multinational corporation that designs,
manufactures, and sells airplanes, rotorcraft, rockets, satellites,
and missiles.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0HxuEh at no extra
charge.[CC]

BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES: Class Cert Deadline Held in Abeyance
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Propst v. BROOKFIELD
PROPERTIES MULTIFAMILY LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00636 (D.D.C., Filed
March 4, 2025), the Hon. Judge Jia M. Cobb entered an order
granting consent motion to hold class certification deadline in
abeyance:

-- The Plaintiff is excused from moving for class certification
    under Local Rule 23.1(b) until a scheduling order in this
    matter is entered.

The nature of suit states consumer credit.

Brookfield Properties is a North American subsidiary of commercial
real estate company Brookfield Property Partners.[CC]

CELESTRON ACQUISITION: DPPs Win Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Spectrum Scientifics, LLC
et al v. CELESTRON ACQUISITION, LLC et al. (RE TELESCOPES ANTITRUST
LITIGATION), Case No. 5:20-cv-03642-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Edward Davila entered an order denying motion to strike for
purposes of class certification and granting Direct Purchaser
Plaintiffs (DPPs') motion for class certification.

The Court finds that a class action is superior to other available
methods to adjudicate this controversy. This is a highly litigated
and nearly five-year-old action alleging a complex antitrust
conspiracy in which Defendants have produced millions of documents.


DPPs represent that most of the class members do not have
sufficient individual telescope purchase volume to give them an
incentive to prosecute such claims individually, particularly where
the overcharge for which each class member individually may collect
damages is only a portion of the overall purchase price.

The Court is also not aware of other class members initiating
separate litigation against Defendants, or vice versa. Finally, the
Court has not identified any issues managing this litigation as a
class action that would defeat predominance at this time.

The Plaintiffs Aurora Astro Products LLC and Pioneer Cycling &
Fitness, LLP bring this putative antitrust class action on behalf
of themselves and a proposed class of plaintiffs who directly
purchased telescopes manufactured or sold by the Defendants.

Celestron manufactures life science equipment.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QjvY1t at no extra
charge.[CC]

CENTURYLINK INC: Bultemeyer's Bid for $35MM in Attys.' Fees Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Steven P. Logan of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona denies without prejudice the Plaintiff's Motion for
Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Service Award in the lawsuit styled
Lydia Bultemeyer, Plaintiff v. CenturyLink Incorporated, Defendant,
Case No. 2:14-cv-02530-SPL (D. Ariz.).

The Plaintiff sought attorneys' fee in the total amount of
$35,046,875, an additional $111,137.33 in unreimbursed taxable and
non-taxable costs, and a $100,000 service award for herself.

Defendant CenturyLink Incorporated filed a response. Also before
the Court is the Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply in
Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, which the
parties have fully briefed.

On Nov. 14, 2014, Plaintiff Lydia Bultemeyer filed this lawsuit
alleging that the Defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA") by obtaining her credit report, and those of putative
class members, without a permissible purpose. On Feb. 2, 2023, the
Court certified this matter as a class action pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 23(b)(3).

On Sept. 16, 2024, following a jury trial, judgment was entered in
favor of the Plaintiff. The jury found that Defendant violated the
FCRA and awarded the Plaintiff damages in the amount of $500 in
statutory damages and $2,000 in punitive damages per class member.

The Defendant subsequently filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit issued an Order staying
appeal until the Court ruled on pending tolling motions in the
case.

The Plaintiff subsequently filed the present Motion for Attorneys'
Fees, Costs, and Service Award. The Plaintiff requests the Court
award attorneys' fees under the "percentage-of-recovery" method in
the amount of 25 percent of the common fund created by their
successful litigation, which the Plaintiff purports to total
$35,046,875.00; an additional $111,137.33 in unreimbursed taxable
and non-taxable costs; and a $100,000 service award for Named
Plaintiff Lydia Bultemeyer.

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's motion should be denied
because (1) a common fund award is inappropriate here, and the
Plaintiff's alternative request for a lodestar award with a
multiplier of 11 is unwarranted; (2) the Plaintiff did not comply
with the requirements of LRCiv 54.1 for her request for costs; and
(3) there is no basis for a service award to the Named Plaintiff
under the FCRA.

The Court finds it prudent to defer ruling on the Plaintiff's
requests for costs, fees, and awards until the Defendant's appeal
is resolved. Given the complex history of the case and issues on
appeal, Judge Logan points out that there is a significant
potential that the Ninth Circuit's disposition may affect the
Court's consideration of the Plaintiff's Motion.

Accordingly, the Court denies without prejudice Plaintiff Lydia
Bultemeyer's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. The parties may
refile their motions and supporting documents within 30 days after
the appeal is final, if warranted by the Ninth Circuit's decision.
The parties will file response and reply memoranda in accordance
with Rule 7.2, Local Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendant CenturyLink's Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply is
denied as moot and without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bfxfy3tz from PacerMonitor.com.


CHAMBERS DEVELOPMENT: Class Initial Disclosure Due April 4
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK FRANCI and RANDY
BUMBAUGH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. CHAMBERS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., Case No.
2:24-cv-00800-WSS (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge William S. Stickman IV
entered a case management order as follows:

-- Any consented-to amended pleadings or      May 14, 2025
    joinder of parties shall be filed by:

-- Lacking consent, any party may file a      May 14, 2025
    Motion to Amend Pleadings and/or any
    Motion to Join Parties by:

-- Discovery shall commence:                  March 12, 2025

-- The parties shall exchange initial         April 4, 2025
    disclosures, as required by Rule
    26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of
    Civil Procedure, by:

Chambers Development provides comprehensive environmental services
to municipal, business, industrial and residential customers.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 12, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vuj9sW at no extra
charge.[CC]

CLIPPER REALTY: Sanchez Loses Bid for Interlocutory Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODNEY SANCHEZ, on behalf
of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiff and the Class, v. CLIPPER
REALTY, INC., d/b/a CLIPPER REALTY, et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-08502-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla
entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for interlocutory
appeal, without prejudice to its later renewal.

In addition, the Court orders the Defendants to file a supplemental
submission addressing the scope of notice issues raised in this
Order on or before April 4, 2025.

If Plaintiff wishes to respond to the Defendants' submission, he
shall do so on or before April 18, 2025.

If either party believes that the existing schedule for briefing on
Plaintiff's class certification motion should be delayed pending
resolution of this issue, that party must promptly notify the
Court. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at
docket entry 121.

Accordingly, the Court directs Defendants to explain to it how they
arrived at the list of names provided to Plaintiff for notice, with
particular emphasis on how Defendants were certain that individuals
excluded from notice because they were subject to the 2022 Addendum
or the 2023 CBA performed no work that was outside of the scope of
these agreements. Depending on the information it receives, the
Court may reconsider its prior restrictions on notice.

The Court granted the motion to conditionally certify a collective
action limited to: (i) porters, handymen, concierges, and
repairmen, i.e., the specific types of employees that the Plaintiff
has sufficiently detailed being subject to the Defendants' common
policy or plan; and (ii) employees who worked at Clover House, 50
Murray Street, and 53 Park Place, i.e., the buildings at which
Plaintiff and the declarants attest to experiencing the alleged
common policy or plan.

However, the Court excluded from the collective those "employees
who are bound by the 2022 Addendum or the collective bargaining
agreement between the Union and Clover House effective March 1,
2023, through Feb. 28, 2025."

Clipper Realty is a self-administered and self-managed real estate
company.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q1pVVt at no extra
charge.[CC]

CMYK SUNRISE: Battle Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------
Andre Battle, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Cmyk Sunrise, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02574 (N.D. Ill.,
March 12, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually impaired persons.

The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services LJC Apparel provides to their non-disabled customers
through
https://www.mohawkgeneralstore.com (hereinafter
"Mohawkgeneralstore.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, Mohawkgeneralstore.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 Cmyk Sunrise'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.

Cmyk Sunrise provides to the public a website known as
Mohawkgeneralstore.com which provides consumers with access to an
array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a
variety of tops, pants, sweaters, outerwear, suits, jackets,
sandals, sneakers, boots, jewelry, bags, socks and wallets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Uri Horowitz, Esq.
          14441 70th Road
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: 718.705.8706
          Fax: 718.705.8705
          Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com

COLLEGE OF ST. SCHOLASTICA: Bishop Sues Over Discriminative Website
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cedric Bishop, for himself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, v. COLLEGE OF ST. SCHOLASTICA, INC., Case No.
1:25-cv-02019 (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2025), is brought against the
Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA") and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("RA")
prohibiting discrimination against the blind. Because Defendant's
interactive website, https://www.css.edu, including all portions
thereof or accessed thereon, including, but not limited to,
https://csssaints.com/,
https://sideline.bsnsports.com/schools/minnesota/duluth/college-of-st.-scholastica,
and https://shop.css.edu/ (collectively the "Website" or
"Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA and the RA.
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually impaired consumers.

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

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.

COLLEGE OF ST. SCHOLASTICA, INC., operates the CSS online
interactive Website and retail store across the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
                 dana@gottlieb.legal
                 jeffrey@gottlieb.legal

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER: Rodriguez Suit Removed to D. Connecticut
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Roberto Rodriguez, individually and on behalf
of those similarly situated v. Community Health Center, Inc., Case
No. NNH-CV25-6152371-S was removed from the Connecticut Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
on March 12, 2025.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00358 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: Donahue Sues Over Data Security Incident
----------------------------------------------------------
Kasey Donahue, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, INC., Case No.
3:25-cv-00176-MPS (D. Conn., Feb. 5, 2025), is brought arising out
of the recent data security incident and data breach that was
perpetrated against Defendant (the "Data Breach"), which held in
its possession certain personally identifiable information ("PII")
and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively, the
"Private Information") of Plaintiff and other current and former
patients of Defendant, the putative class members ("Class").

The Data Breach resulted from Defendant's failure to implement
adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols
necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which
they were entrusted for either treatment or employment or both. The
Plaintiff brings this class to address Defendant's inadequate
safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that they
collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and
adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their
information was subjected to unauthorized access by an unknown
third party and precisely what type of information was accessed.

The Defendant maintained the Private Information in a reckless
manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on
Defendant's computer network in a condition vulnerable to
cyberattacks. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the
Data Breach and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's
and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to
Defendant, and thus Defendant was on notice that failing to take
steps necessary to secure the Private Information from those risks
left that property in a dangerous condition, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff used Defendant's healthcare services, requiring her
to provide her Private Information to Defendant.

The Defendant provides comprehensive healthcare services in many
locations across the state of Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Reilly, Esq.
          CICCHIELLO & CICCHIELLO, LLP
          364 Franklin Avenue
          Hartford, CT 06114
          Phone: 860-296-3457
          Fax: 860-296-3457
          Email: mreilly@cicchielloesq.com

               - and -

          Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
          EKSM, LLP
          1105 Milford Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (888) 350-3931
          Fax: (888) 276-3455
          Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com
                 service@eksm.com

CRAWLEY PETROLEUM: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Hearing
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as D & N Farms, LLC et al.,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. Crawley
Petroleum Corporation, Case No. 6:23-cv-00234-RAW-DES (E.D. Okla.),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order continuing the hearing
on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification until the week of
June 23, 2025 and extending the deadline for the parties to
complete mediation to any time prior to the class certification
hearing.

The Court entered a scheduling order dated Dec. 13, 2023, which was
amended by the Court on July 10, 2024.

Pursuant to the Amended Scheduling Order, the evidentiary hearing
on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is set for June
9, 2025, at 9:00 a.m.

Crawley offers oil and gas products.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 14, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zUB1TH at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Chaille G. Walraven, Esq.
          Mark E. Walraven, Esq.
          GRAFT & WALRAVEN, PLLC
          4801 Gaillardia Pkwy, Ste 300
          Oklahoma City, OK 73142
          Telephone: (405) 253-6444
          E-mail: chaille@gwlawok.com
                  mark@gwlawok.com

                - and -

          Bryan O. Blevins Jr., Esq.
          PROVOST UMPHREY LAW FIRM
          350 Pine Street, Ste 1100
          Beaumont, TX 77701
          Telephone: (409) 835-6000
          E-mail: bblevins@pluf.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Patrick L. Stein, Esq.
          Jodi C. Cole, Esq.
          J. Craig Buchan, Esq.
          MCAFEE & TAFT
          Two Leadership Square, 10th Floor
          211 North Robinson Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 552-2238
          E-mail: patrick.stein@mcafeetaft.com
                  jodi.cole@mcafeetaft.com
                  craig.buchan@mcafeetaft.com

CRAWLEY PETROLEUM: Response to Partial Summary Judgment Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as D & N Farms, LLC, et al.,
v. Crawley Petroleum Corporation, Case No. 6:23-cv-00234 (E.D.
Okla., Filed July 12, 2023), the Hon. Judge entered an order that
the Defendant's deadline to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for
partial summary judgment is stayed until after the Court has
addressed the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Dispute.

Crawley is a privately-held oil and gas exploration and production
company that was formed in 1972.[CC]


CROMWELL PROPERTIES: Feltzin Sues Over Discriminative Property
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Feltzin, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. THE CROMWELL PROPERTIES, LLC, Case No.
2:25-cv-14084-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 12, 2025), is brought for
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result
of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff
by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the commercial property.

Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of
Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities
accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Plaintiff found
the Commercial Property and the business located within the
commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff
encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and
the business located within the commercial property and wishes to
continue his patronage and use of the premises.

The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and
businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to
access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each
denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial
Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA.
The barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies),
embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff and others similarly
situated.

The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff
by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located
therein, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate.

THE CROMWELL PROPERTIES LLC, owns, operates, and oversees the
Commercial Property, its general parking lot/or and parking spots
specific to the business therein, 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
          Phone: (305) 553-3464
          Primary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com
          Secondary Emails: 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
          Phone: (305) 350-3103
          Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com

CROWN BAKERIES: Stanley Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Stanley, individually, and on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated current and former employees v. CROWN BAKERIES,
LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00293 (M.D. Tenn., March 12, 2025), is
brought against Defendant as a multi-plaintiff action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid overtime
compensation and other damages owed to Plaintiff and other
similarly situated hourly-paid employees.

The Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff and
those similarly situated for all hours worked over 40 per week
within weekly pay periods at one and one-half times their regular
hourly pay rates. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated worked
40 hours or more within weekly pay periods during all times
material to this action. The Defendant had a common practice and
policy of failing to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated for
all their overtime hours worked either by a failure to record such
overtime hours into its timekeeping system or editing out such
overtime hours from its timekeeping system, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid lead
warehouse employee.

Crown Bakeries, LLC, is located in Nashville, Tennessee, with
bakery facilities in Nashville, Dickson, Murfreesboro, and
Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, as well as in Chicago, Illinois, Norcross,
Georgia, and other U.S. cities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          J. Joseph Leatherwood, Esq.
          Joshua Autry, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Phone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
                 rbryant@jsyc.com
                 jholt@jsyc.com
                 jautry@jsyc.com

CSAA GENERAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to May 16
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kay Franklin, v. CSAA
General Insurance Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-00540-JJT (D. Ariz.),
the Hon. Judge John Tuchi entered an order amending class
certification briefing as follows:

               Event                    Current          New   
                                        Deadline         Deadline

  Motion for Class Certification:    Apr. 25, 2025    May 16, 2025

  Response to Motion for Class       June 13, 2025    July 7, 2025
  Certification:

  Reply in Support of Motion for     July 18, 2025    Aug. 8, 2025
  Class Certification:

All other aspects of the Court's Sept. 24, 2024 Order remain in
effect.

CSAA offers auto and home insurance services.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ARJzb3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
 


CSU: Anders Wins Renewed Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Taylor Anders, et al., v.
California State University (CSU), Fresno, et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-00179-KJM-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order
denying Fresno State's motion to dismiss and granting the
plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification.

A status conference is set for April 10, 2025 at 2:30 p.m. The
parties shall meet and confer and file a joint status report with a
proposed schedule for the case moving forward into the merits phase
no later than 14 days before the status conference. This order
resolves ECF Nos. 151 and 165.

The court finds the class claims relate back to the original date
of the filing of the complaint and are not moot.

The court finds both of plaintiffs' proposed classes meet the
requirements of Rule 23 23(b)(2). Both classes comprise current and
future female students at Fresno State who seek to 24 participate
in intercollegiate athletics.

The Plaintiffs bring a putative class action lawsuit against the
defendants, including Fresno State, alleging Fresno State violated
Title IX by not effectively accommodating female varsity athletes
and by not giving them equal treatment.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify two classes. For their effective
accommodation claim, the plaintiffs seek to certify a class that
includes:

    "Current and future female Fresno State students who: (i) have

    lost membership on a women's varsity intercollegiate athletics

    team at Fresno State; (ii) have sought but not achieved
    membership on a women's varsity intercollegiate athletics team

    at Fresno State; and/or (iii) are able and ready to seek
    membership on a women's varsity intercollegiate athletics team

    at Fresno State but have not done so due to a perceived lack
    of opportunity."

For their equal treatment claim, plaintiffs seek to certify a class
that includes:

    "Current and future female Fresno State students who: (i)
    participate or have participated in women's varsity
    intercollegiate athletics at Fresno State; and/or (ii) are
    able and ready to participate in women's varsity
    intercollegiate athletics at Fresno State but have been
    deterred from doing so by the treatment received by female
    varsity intercollegiate student-athletes at Fresno State."

CSU is a public university system in California, and the largest
public university system in the United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rtFUeB at no extra
charge.[CC]

CTOS LLC: Alvarado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CTOS, LLC, et al. The
case is styled as Daniel Alvarado and Timoteo Prado Calderon on
behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. CTOS, LLC, Case No.
BCV-25-100908 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., March 12, 2025).

The nature of suit is stated as "Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited."

Custom Truck One Source (Custom Truck) --
https://www.customtruck.com/ -- is the first true single-source
provider of specialized truck and heavy equipment solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Julian B. King, Esq.
          Elliot J. Siegel, Esq.
          KING & SIEGEL LLP
          601 University Ave., Ste. 201
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Phone: 213-465-4802
          Fax: 213-465-4803
          Email: julian@kingsiegel.com
                 elliot@kingsiegel.com

               - and -

          Navid Barahmand, Esq.
          BARAHMAND LAW GROUP
          7324 Sepulveda Blvd. Ste. B.
          Van Nuys, CA 91405-5034
          Phone: 818-574-3355
          Fax: 818-574-3757
          Email: navid@barahmandlaw.com

CURRY COLLEGE: MacIntyre and Fitts Sue Over Untimely Wage Payment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EMILY MACINTYRE and KEITH FITTS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CURRY COLLEGE, Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-10585 (D. Mass., March 11, 2025), arises from
Defendant’s failure to timely pay wages on a weekly or bi-weekly
basis to Plaintiffs and all other individuals employed at Curry
College as Associate Lecturers, Lecturers, and Senior Lecturers and
full-time faculty who taught overload courses during the class
period.

The Defendant maintains a uniform policy and/or practice of paying
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees monthly on the
first of the month for the work performed during the previous month
or even the month before that, even though Plaintiffs and similarly
situated employees did not elect to be paid monthly, says the
suit.

Curry College is a private university located in Milton, MA. It has
a satellite campus in Plymouth, MA. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

           Fran Rudich, Esq.
           Julian Hammond, Esq.
           HAMMONDLAW, P.C.
           Telephone: (914) 602-1120
           E-mail: flrmarks@gmail.com

DANDY MEN: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Espinal Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
FRANGIE ESPINAL, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DANDY MEN, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-02045 (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2025), arises from
Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to make its
website available in a manner compatible with computer screen
reader programs. The website contains several access barriers that
have caused a denial of Plaintiff's full and equal access multiple
times in the past, and now deter Plaintiff on a regular basis from
visiting Defendant's website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks
redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York
State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the
New York State General Business Law.

Headquartered in Bentonville, AR, owns and operates the interactive
website and online store, https://dandymen.com/, which offers
grooming products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

DAVIS SERVICE: Moore Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Moore, individually, and on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated current and former employees v. DAVIS SERVICE
AND TOWING CENTER, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00104 (E.D. Tenn., March
12, 2025), is brought against Defendant as a multi-plaintiff action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to recover unpaid
minimum wages and overtime compensation, and other damages owed to
Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff and those similarly situated routinely worked more
than 40 hours per week for Defendant within weekly pay periods
during all times material herein. The Defendant paid Plaintiff and
those similarly situated at the same rate of pay for overtime hours
(over 40 per week within weekly pay periods) as it paid them for
hours under 40 per week. (That is, they were compensated only at a
percentage of Defendant's tow and recovery charges to customers,
irrespective of whether they worked more than 40 hours per week
within weekly pay periods during all times material herein.)

By compensating Plaintiff and those similarly situated only at the
same rate for hours worked over 40 per week as paid for hours
worked under 40 per week, Defendant failed to pay them one and
one-half times their regular hourly rate of pay for all hours
worked over 40 hours per week within weekly pay periods during all
times material, as required by the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has been employed by and performed work for Defendant
as a truck driver.

The Defendant has owned and operated a mixture of larger tow trucks
and smaller "snatch" trucks in which it uses to tow and recover
vehicles in Knoxville, Tennessee, Clintwood, Virginia and Stones
Gap, Virginia and their surrounding areas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          J. Joseph Leatherwood, Esq.
          James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Phone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
                 rbryant@jsyc.com
                 jholt@jsyc.com
                 jleatherwood@jsyc.com

DAY-LEE FOODS: Barra Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Day-Lee Foods Inc.
The case is styled as Sonia Yanet De La Barra, an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Day-Lee Foods Inc., Case
No. 25STCV07247 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 12,
2025).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."

Day-Lee Foods, Inc. -- https://day-lee.com/ -- manufactures premium
quality Asian inspired entrees, single serve, and appetizer
products, including two national retail brands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
          BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1460 Westwood Blvd.
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: 310-438-5555
          Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com

DELTONA, FL: Plaintiffs Bid for Class Certification OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAMIAN ANSON, DEBRA
BENNETT, et al., v. CITY OF DELTONA, Case No. 6:23-cv-00766-JSS-LHP
(M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Julie Sneed entered an order granting
Plaintiffs move for class certification.

Deltona is a city in Volusia County, Florida. It is located on the
northern shore of Lake Monroe.

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

DEVRY UNIVERSITY: Bell Suit Removed to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Delainya Bell, on behalf of others similarly
situated and the state of California under the Private Attorneys
General Act v. DEVRY UNIVERSITY, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 25CU004094C 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 13, 2025, and assigned Case No.
3:25-cv-00595-H-DEB.

The Plaintiff alleges Defendant is obligated to pay civil penalties
to Plaintiff for Defendant's allege failure to pay Plaintiff for
all hours worked; pay Plaintiff overtime for all overtime hours
worked; properly calculate and administer sick leave; timely pay
wages during employment; timely pay wages upon separation of
employment; administer compliant wage statements; properly
reimburse expenses; and maintain adequate records.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mark W. Wallin, Esq.
          Michael P. Witczak, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 300
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 284-3880
          Facsimile: (310) 284-3894
          Email: Mark.wallin@btlaw.com
                 michael.witczak@btlaw.com

DISA GLOBAL: Bele Sues Over Failure to Properly Safeguard PII
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cherisse Bele and James Sullivan, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DISA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No.
4:25-cv-01165 (S.D. Tex., March 12, 2025), is brought against
Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard highly
valuable, protected, personally identifiable information including,
inter alia, names, social security numbers, driver's license
numbers, other government ID numbers, financial account
information, and other data elements (collectively, "PII"); and for
its failure to comply with industry standards to protect
information systems that contain PII.

Despite its duties to safeguard individuals' PII, on April 22,
2024, DISA discovered that it was the victim of a cyber incident
where an unauthorized third party accessed a portion of its network
between February 9, 2024, and April 22, 2024 and procured certain
PII (the "Data Breach" or "Breach").

As a direct and proximate result of DISA's negligent failure to
implement and
follow basic security procedures, Plaintiff's and Class Members'
PII—names, social security numbers, driver's license numbers,
other government ID numbers, financial account information,
and other data elements—is now in the hands of cybercriminals.

The Plaintiffs and Class Members are now at a significantly
increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft,
and other harms caused by the unauthorized disclosure of their
PII—risks which may last for the rest of their lives.
Consequently, Plaintiffs and Class Members must devote
substantially more uncompensated lost time, money, and energy to
protect themselves, to the extent possible, from these crimes, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiffs received a breach notification from Defendant
indicating that their PII had been compromised during the Data
Breach.

DISA is a third-party administrator ("TPA") that allows employers
to make informed staffing decisions by utilizing DISA's
"comprehensive scope of services, including drug and alcohol
testing, background check, occupational health, transportation
compliance, and financial due diligence."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC - DALLAS
          3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Phone: (214) 744-3000
          Fax: (214) 744-3015
          Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com

               - and -

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP
          510 Walnut Steet, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Phone: (215) 592-1500
          Fax: 215-592-4663
          Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
          4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
          Cincinnati, OH 45242
          Phone: (513) 345-8291
          Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com

               - and -

          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514-1851
          Phone: (516) 874-4505
          Email: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com

DISH NETWORK: Continues to Defend Data Breach Suit in Colorado
--------------------------------------------------------------
DISH Network Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 12, 2025, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the consolidated data breach class suit in
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.


On May 9, 2023, Susan Owen-Brooks, an alleged customer, filed a
putative class action complaint against the Company in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado. She purports to
represent a nationwide class of all individuals in the United
States who allegedly had private information stolen as a result of
the February 23, 2023 Cyber-security Incident (and a North Carolina
statewide subclass of the same individuals).

Since that filing, ten additional putative class action complaints
have been filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado, purporting to represent the same nationwide
class of people, and Owen-Brooks has filed an amended complaint.

On August 2, 2023, the Court issued an order consolidating the
first ten cases (the eleventh was dismissed) and, on November 16,
2023 and January 16, 2024, the plaintiffs filed consolidated
amended class action complaints.

On September 27, 2024, the Court granted its motion to dismiss the
First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint as to eight of
the eleven named plaintiffs and as to certain causes of action.

On October 29, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed the operative Second
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, which deletes the
allegations as to the dismissed plaintiffs and causes of action,
leaving three named plaintiffs and causes of action for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and declaratory
judgment.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this case.

It cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the
suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or
damages.

DISH Network Corporation is a holding company that operate two
primary business segments namely Pay-TV and wireless the latter of
which consists of retail wireless and 5G network deployment.


DISH NETWORK: Continues to Defend Lingam Class Suit in Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------------
DISH Network Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 12, 2025, that the Company continues
to defend Lingam class suit in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado.

On March 23, 2023, a securities fraud class action complaint was
filed against the Company and Messrs. Ergen, Carlson and Orban in
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The
complaint was brought on behalf of a putative class of purchasers
of its securities during the February 22, 2021 to February 27, 2023
class period. In general, the complaint alleged that DISH Network's
public statements during that period were false and misleading and
contained material omissions, because they did not disclose that it
allegedly maintained a deficient cybersecurity and information
technology infrastructure, were unable to properly secure customer
data and its operations were susceptible to widespread service
outages.

In August 2023, the Court appointed a new lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel, and, on October 20, 2023, they filed an
amended complaint that abandoned the original allegations. In their
amended complaint, plaintiffs allege that, during the class period,
the defendants concealed problems concerning the 5G network
buildout that prevented scaling and commercializing the network to
obtain enterprise customers.

The amended complaint added as individual defendants James S.
Allen, its Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer; John
Swieringa, its President, Technology and Chief Operating Officer;
Dave Mayo, its former Executive Vice President of Network
Development; Marc Rouanne, its former Executive Vice President and
Chief Network Officer; and Stephen Bye, its former Executive Vice
President and Chief Commercial Officer.

After the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs
filed a further amended complaint, asserting the same theory, on
February 23, 2024.

The new complaint drops Erik Carlson, John Swieringa, Paul Orban
and James Allen as individual defendants.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this case. It cannot
predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or
determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

DISH Network Corporation is a holding company that operate two
primary business segments namely Pay-TV and wireless the latter of
which consists of retail wireless and 5G network deployment.


DISH NETWORK: Jones Class Suit Stayed Pending Mediation
-------------------------------------------------------
DISH Network Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 12, 2025, that the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado stayed the Jones 401(k)
class suit pending its mediation.

On December 20, 2021, four former employees filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado against the Company, its Board of Directors at that time,
and our Retirement Plan Committee at that time alleging fiduciary
breaches arising from the management of our 401(k) Plan. The
putative class, comprised of all participants in the Plan on or
after January 20, 2016, alleges that the Plan had excessive
recordkeeping and administrative expenses and that it maintained
underperforming funds.

On February 1, 2023, a Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation
that the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint be granted,
and on March 27, 2023, the district court judge granted the motion.


As permitted by the Court's order, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on April 10, 2023, which is limited to allegations
regarding the alleged underperformance of the Fidelity Freedom
Funds.

On November 7, 2023, a Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation
that the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint be
denied as to the duty to prudently monitor fund performance, but be
granted as to the duty of loyalty and, on November 27, 2023, the
district court judge entered an order adopting the recommendation.


On March 1, 2024, by stipulation, the plaintiffs dismissed their
claims against the Board of Directors and the Retirement Plan
Committee, leaving DISH Network as the sole defendant.

On April 30, 2024, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the Court
certified the proposed plaintiff class.

On October 30, 2024, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the
Court stayed the litigation pending a mediation.

DISH Network Corporation is a holding company that operate two
primary business segments namely Pay-TV and wireless the latter of
which consists of retail wireless and 5G network deployment.


DISNEY DTC LLC: Jaimes Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Disney DTC LLC. The
case is styled as Jessica Jaimes, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated v. Disney DTC LLC, Case No.
3:25-cv-00571-GPC-DDL (S.D. Cal., March 11, 2025).

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

Disney DTC LLC, now known as Disney Platform Distribution, Inc., is
a former direct-to-consumer division of The Walt Disney Company,
primarily focused on streaming services like Disney+, Hulu, and
ESPN+.[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

DUNE COMPANY: Removes Garcia Suit from Cal. Super. to S.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of ADRIAN GARCIA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DUNE COMPANY
OF IMPERIAL VALLEY, LLC; THE DUNE COMPANY OF SALINAS, LLC; GOWAN
SEED COMPANY, LLC; GOWAN SEEDTECH LLC; GOWAN COTTON COMPANY, LLC;
EARTHWORK SEEDS, LLC; GOWAN USA, LLC; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Imperial
(Case No. ECU003940) to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on March 12, 2025.

The clerk of court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:25-cv-00590-MMA-MSB. The case is assigned to Michael M.
Anello and referred to Judge Michael S. Berg.

The Dune Company of Imperial Valley, LLC provides retail sale of
specialized lines of merchandise. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Dessi N. Day, Esq.
          PIERSON FERDINAND, LLP
          12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (629) 278-4515
          Email: dday@pierferd.com

EPIC GAMES: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Orellana Suit Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Julie S. Sneed of the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida. ruled on Epic Games, Inc. and Sony
Interactive Entertainment LLC's motions to compel arbitration and
stay proceedings in the case captioned as RAMONA ORELLANA,
individually, and on behalf of A.O., a minor, N.O., a minor, and
J.O., a minor, Plaintiffs, v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, APPLE INC., SONY
INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC and EPIC GAMES, INC., Defendants,
Case No: 6:24-cv-762-JSS-RMN (M.D. Fla.) pending arbitration. The
Court granted Epic's motion and granted in part and denied in part
Sony's motion. This case is stayed pending the completion of the
arbitration proceedings.

Plaintiff, Ramona Orellana, alleges that her minor children, A.O.,
N.O., and J.O., are addicted to playing video games. According to
Orellana, her children's video game addictions developed from using
Defendants' products and have caused her children to develop
withdrawal symptoms, sleep deprivation, and aggression, among other
injuries. Specifically, Orellana asserts that N.O. and J.O. are
addicted to playing Fortnite, a video game developed by Epic that
is available through Sony's PlayStation Network on Sony's
PlayStation 4 (PS4) and PlayStation 5 (PS5) video game consoles.
Orellana further asserts that A.O., N.O., and J.O. are addicted to
playing Roblox, a video game developed by Defendant Roblox
Corporation, that is available through Sony's PlayStation Network
on Sony's PS4 and PS5 video game consoles and
Defendant Apple Inc.'s App Store on its iPhone and iPad products.
Orellana alleges that Sony and Apple "acted in concert" with each
other and with Epic and Roblox "to distribute, market, supply,
and/or sell" their respective games "and all in-game downloadable
products and upgrades and in-game purchases contained therein."

Based on these allegations, Orellana brings the following claims
pursuant to the court's diversity jurisdiction against Defendants:
strict liability - defective design (Count I), strict liability -
failure to warn (Count II), negligent design (Count III), negligent
failure to warn (Count IV), negligence (Count V), gross negligence
(Count VI), intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count
VII), negligent infliction of emotional distress (Count VIII),
fraud (Count IX), negligent misrepresentation (Count X), civil
conspiracy (Count XI), aiding and abetting (Count XII), and loss of
consortium (Count XIII).

Epic moves to compel arbitration of N.O.'s and J.O.'s claims
pursuant to the parties' agreement to the Fortnite End User License
Agreement (EULA). Sony moves to compel arbitration of A.O.'s,
N.O.'s, and J.O.'s claims pursuant to the parties' agreement to the
PlayStation Network's Terms of Service and User Agreement (PSN
TSUA). Epic and Sony further move to stay this case pending
arbitration. Plaintiffs oppose arbitration and a stay of any
nonarbitrable claims if the court compels A.O., N.O., and J.O. to
arbitrate.

Epic and Sony maintain that J.O. and N.O. entered into valid
arbitration agreements by agreeing to the EULA to play Fortnite and
to the PSN TSUA to create PlayStation Network accounts to play
video games on the PS4 or PS5. Sony further maintains that A.O.
should be required to arbitrate as a third-party beneficiary to the
valid agreements J.O. and N.O. entered into with
Sony.

The Court finds N.O. and J.O. entered into a valid written
agreement to arbitrate their claims with Epic.

Judge Sneed explains, "Notice of the arbitration provision is
prominently displayed in bold capital letters on the first page of
the EULA. The arbitration agreement represented Epic's offer to
submit to arbitration any dispute arising from the use of Epic's
products, with a few narrowly tailored exceptions that are not
applicable here. N.O. and J.O. accepted this offer by clicking
accept each time the EULA was amended and by continuing to play
Fortnite. There is valid consideration for the arbitration
agreement because the parties mutually waived their right to suit
in favor of arbitration."

The Court finds A.O., as a non-signatory to the PSN TSUA, cannot be
compelled to arbitrate based on equitable estoppel.

Orellana contends that the court should not compel arbitration
because:

   (1) J.O. and N.O. disaffirmed the EULA and PSN TSUA by filing
the complaint,
   (2) the EULA and PSN TSUA are voidable because N.O. and J.O.
were minors when they signed them,  
   (3) the arbitration agreements contained in the EULA and PSN
TSUA are unconscionable, and
   (4) A.O.'s, N.O.'s, and J.O.'s claims arise out of video game
addiction and therefore fall outside the scope of the arbitration
agreements.

Epic and Sony assert that if the Court determines the agreements to
arbitrate are valid, the case should proceed to arbitration. Epic
and Sony reason that the EULA and PSN TSUA include delegation
provisions that expressly delegate questions about the
enforceability, scope, and applicability of the parties'
arbitration agreements to the arbitrator.

Orellana challenges the enforceability of the entire EULA and PSN
TSUA and the scope of the arbitration agreements contained therein
but does not directly challenge the delegation provisions.

The Court sends N.O.'s and J.O.'s claims to arbitration for the
arbitrator to decide their related enforceability and scope
arguments.

The nonarbitrable claims against Epic and Sony will be stayed
because they are dependent upon the arbitrator's decision regarding
the arbitrable claims.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hgIkr6 from PacerMonitor.com.

EQT CORP: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Ross Suit Due May 13
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD A. ROSS and
FIELDSTONE VENTURES, LLC, on their own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. EQT CORPORATION, EQT PRODUCTION
COMPANY, RICE DRILLING B, LLC, VANTAGE ENERGY APPALACHIA LLC, and
VANTAGE ENERGY APPALACHIA II, LLC, (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
William Stickman IV entered an amended final case management order
as follows:

-- Expert reports relating to class certification are to be
    served by April 30, 2025.

-- Rebuttal reports relating to class certification to be served
    by May 23,2025.

-- Plaintiffs' motion for class certification with brief support
    is due May 13, 2025.

EQT is an integrated energy company with emphasis on Appalachian
area natural gas production, gathering, and transmission.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kgiShB at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William Pietragallo, II, Esq.
          P. Brennan Hart, Esq.
          Matthew R. Barnes, Esq.
          PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO
          BOSICK RASPANTI LLP
          One Oxford Centre, 38th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 263-2000
          E-mail: WP@pietragallo.com
                  PBHP@pietragallo.com
                  MRBP@pietragallo.com

                - and -

          Scott M. Hare, Esq.
          Anthony T. Gestrich, Esq.
          RAINES FELDMAN LITTRELL, LLP
          11 Stanwix St., Suite 1100
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 899-6460
          E-mail: Share@raineslaw.com
                  AGestrich@raineslaw.com

                - and -

          Matthew T. Logue, Esq.
          QUINN LOGUE LLC
          200 First Avenue, Third Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 765-3800
          E-mail: Matt@mattlogue.com

                - and -

          Alex J. Dravillas, Esq.
          KELLER POSTMAN LLC
          150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
          Chicago, IL 60606

The Defendants are represented by:

          James L. ROckney, Esq.
          Justin H. Werner, Esq.
          Allison L. Ebeck, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          2225 Fifth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 288-3131
          Facsimile: (412) 288-3063
          E-mail: JRockney@reedsmith.com
                  JWerner@reedsmith.com
                  AEbeck@reedsmith.com

EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Simai Files FCRA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information
Services, LLC, et al. The case is styled as David E. Simai, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v.
Equifax Information Services, LLC, Experian Information Solutions,
Inc., Green Dot Corporation doing business as: Green Dot Bank, Case
No. 2:25-cv-00653-AYS (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 5, 2025).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Equifax -- https://www.equifax.com/ -- is one of the three
nationwide providers of consumer reports.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
          735 Central Avenue
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Phone: (516) 668-6945
          Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com

EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Figueredo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equinox Holdings,
Inc. The case is styled as Juan Camilo Figueredo, Karoly Mayer,
Sonali Chandra, an individual on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Equinox Holdings, Inc., Case No. 25STCV07051
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 12, 2025).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."

Equinox Holdings, Inc. -- https://www.equinox.com/ -- is an
American luxury fitness company and health club headquartered in
New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Power Jean Hopkins, Esq.
          D.LAW, INC.
          450 N. Brand Blvd., Ste 840
          Glendale, CA 91203-2920
          Phone: 818-875-2008
          Email: j.power@d.law

ETHOS TECHNOLOGIES: Karpiel Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ethos Technologies
Inc. The case is styled as Jason Karpiel, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ethos Technologies Inc.,
Case No. 1:25-cv-21163-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 12, 2025).

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

Ethos Technologies Inc. -- https://ethostec.com/ -- operates as a
technology company for insurance sector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew John 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

EVOLUCION INNOVATIONS: Walker Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------------
LEAH WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EVOLUCION INNOVATIONS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-02520 (N.D. Ill., March 11, 2025) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://evo.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

Evolucion Innovations LLC retails sporting equipment. The Company
offers sporting goods, snowboards, bikes, bicycles, skates,
sleeping bags, ropes, handles, and related parts and accessories.
[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


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Sept. 14, 2026
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALERIANO SAUCEDO,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No.
1:22-cv-01584-KES-HBK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Helena
Barch-Kuchta entered an order denying motion to bifurcate in part
initial case management and scheduling order:

   1. The Defendant's motion to bifurcate is denied in part. The
      Court will limit discovery to issues of class certification
      for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b), but with the
      caveat that merits discovery concerning Plaintiff's claim
      may proceed simultaneously.

   2. The following deadlines shall govern this action:
  
      Action or Event                              Date

      Deadline for providing mandatory         Mar. 20, 2025
      initial disclosures:

      Deadline to file Rule 12(c) motion:      Apr. 10, 2025

      Class Certification Discovery to         Mar. 30, 2026
      Include Plaintiff's Merits Discovery
      Cutoff:

      Expert Disclosure Deadlines:             Apr. 30, 2026

      Class Certification Motion Filing        Sept. 14, 2026
      Deadline:

      Class Certification Opposition           Oct. 29, 2026
      Deadline:

      Class Certification Reply Deadline:      Nov. 19, 2026.

      Class Certification hearing:             Dec. 18, 2026, at
                                               10:00 a.m.

Experian offers credit information, analytical tools, and marketing
services.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Bgoqvq at no extra
charge.[CC]

FABLETICS INC: Bateman Sues Over Unlawful Membership Program
------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Bateman, Christian Bures, Megan Carter, John Forgas, Lance
Goble, Daniel Golez, Elizabeth Gosein Vasquez, Thomas Hamilton,
Kelli Langton, Jessica Sias, and Max Reinisch, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. FABLETICS, INC., Case
No. 2:25-cv-02200 (C.D. Cal., March 12, 2025), is brought seek
damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"); violation of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL");
and violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
as a result of the Defendant's illegal conduct in connection with
its VIP Membership Program ("the Program").

The Defendant misleads customers into joining its automatically
renewing, subscription-based Program by touting the value of a so
called "Promotional Member Credit." In exchange for paying a $59.95
monthly membership fee, Program members receive a monthly
Promotional Member Credit. The Promotional Member Credit purports
to allow a Program member to purchase any single item or two-piece
outfit from Defendant for up to $100. However, the vast majority of
the individual items or two-piece outfits on offer--nearly all, in
fact--do not even exceed the cost of the $59.95 monthly membership
fee. Thus, Fabletics lures customers to join a monthly recurring
subscription program with the promise of a Promotional Member
Credit that exceeds the $59.95 monthly membership fee.

In addition to its deceptive pricing, Defendant further harms
Program members by refusing to honor Promotional Membership Credits
received in exchange for the $59.95 monthly fee under the Program,
which are voided if unused within twelve months after they are
issued. Further, at various times, Defendant has failed to fairly
apprise Program members that their VIP Membership Program
subscription automatically renews on a month-to-month basis.
Defendant therefore automatically charges Program members without
providing notice or obtaining consent every month, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs were members of the Defendant's VIP Membership
Program.

Fabletics claims it is the "largest digitally native activewear
brand in the world."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank S. Hedin (SBN 291289)
          HEDIN LLP
          535 Mission Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: (305) 357-2107
          Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
          Email: fhedin@hedinllp.com

FASTAFF LLC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response in Egan
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THERESA EGAN, BRIAN
BARKER, and SABRINA BUDDEN-WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. FASTAFF, LLC and U.S. NURSING
CORPORATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-03364-CYC (D. Colo.), the Defendants
ask the Court to enter an order granting their unopposed motion and
extending the deadline to respond to the Plaintiffs' motions for
class certification up to and including April 4, 2025 and extending
the Plaintiffs' deadlines to reply to April 25, 2025.

On Feb. 21, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification of State Law Overtime Claims and motion for Rule
23(b)(3) Certification of Bait and Switch Classes.

The deadline for Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs' motions is
March 21, 2025.

Prior to receipt of the motions, the Defendants were not aware that
the Plaintiffs intended to file two separate motions for class
certification, each requiring a separate response.

Because Defendants must respond to two motions for class
certification, Defendants seek additional time to address the
issues raised in Plaintiffs' motions.

Fastaff offers staffing services.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 7, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g7epAt at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          George A. Hanson, Esq.
          Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
          Crystal Cook Leftridge, Esq.
          K. Ross Merrill, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Stueve, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
                  ricke@stuevesiegel.com
                  cook@stuevesiegel.com
                  merrill@stuevesiegel.com
                  ben.stueve@stuevesiegel.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Bronwyn H. Pepple, Esq.
          Mairead Dolan, Esq.
          WILLIAMS WEESE PEPPLE & FERGUSON PC
          1801 California Street, Suite 3400
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 861-2828
          E-mail: bpepple@williamsweese.com
                  mdolan@williamsweese.com

FCA US: Faces Class Action Over Hybrid Wrangler Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Adams, writing for AboutLawsuits.com, reports that a New
York man has filed a class action lawsuit over Jeep Wrangler fire
risks, indicating that Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA)'s plug-in
hybrid vehicles are still prone to battery fires, despite multiple
recalls that were supposed to address the problems.

The complaint was brought by Michael Gandelman in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on March 4, naming FCA
US, LLC as the sole defendant.

Plug-in hybrid Jeep Wrangler vehicles have been subject to at least
two recalls in recent years due to battery fire risks. The first
recall was issued in November 2023, and the second was issued in
September 2024.

However, Gandelman claims that neither recall has fixed the problem
and owners of hybrid Jeep Wranglers are still at risk of battery
fires. The lawsuit claims that the batteries can still catch fire
whether the vehicle is running or turned off, which could cause
serious property damage, severe injuries or even death.

In his complaint, Gandelman indicates that in May 2023, he leased a
2023 Jeep Wrangler 4xe, which is a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle
with a lithium-ion battery.

A software update was performed on Gandelman's vehicle in January
2025, to repair a defect that could potentially cause the battery
to catch fire either when the vehicle is on or when it is off.
However, Gandelman points out that the update did not include
replacing what he believes is a defective battery.

The complaint states that Samsung, the battery's manufacturer, told
FCA that certain lithium-ion batteries used in Jeep Wrangler 4xe
vehicles contain a physical defect that can cause the battery to
catch fire at any time.

Samsung issued a recall of its electric vehicle batteries due to
poor manufacturing quality in 2022, including those used in certain
FCA vehicle models. However, FCA did not offer owners and lessees
any remedy to correct the issue at the time, only telling them to
refrain from recharging the electric batteries and to keep the
vehicles parked outside until a final repair was issued.

For this reason, Gandelman argues that the software patch his
vehicle received in January 2025 is not enough to address the Jeep
Wrangler battery fire problem. He claims FCA has prioritized
vehicle sales over customer safety by continuing to sell vehicles
with batteries the company knows are defective.

"Defendant knew or should have known about the Battery Defect
present in the Class Vehicles, along with the corresponding safety
risk, and concealed this information from Plaintiff and members of
the Class and Sub-Class at the time of sale or lease, repair, and
thereafter," Gandelman's complaint states. "If Plaintiff and
members of the Class and Sub-Class had known about the Battery
Defect at the time of sale or lease, Plaintiff and members of the
Class and Sub-Class would not have purchased or leased the Class
Vehicles or would have paid less for them."

Gandelman has presented claims against FCA US for violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of express warranty, breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent concealment,
negligent misrepresentation and violation of New York's general
business laws.

He is seeking appropriate injunctive and equitable relief, for
himself and others similarly situated, including a subclass for
residents of the state of New York.

Jeep Wrangler Hybrid Battery Issues

Gandelman is not the first individual to file a Jeep battery defect
lawsuit against FCA US. A class action lawsuit was filed against
FCA US in November 2024 over fire risks affecting certain 2021 to
2023 Jeep Wrangler and Gladiator models. This follows an earlier
lawsuit filed in March 2024, which alleged that Jeep Wrangler
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles were prone to catching fire and
exploding.

According to both complaints, the affected Jeep vehicles contain
batteries made by Samsung, which has allegedly known about problems
with its plug-in hybrid batteries since at least 2020. The lawsuits
also claim that FCA should have been aware of these battery defects
during that time. [GN]

FERGUSON ENTERPRISES: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to August 18
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE MADRIGAL,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, LLC, California limited liability company;
and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-00733-MRA-JPR
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mónica Ramírez Almadani entered an
order granting stipulation to continue trial dates:

  Final Pretrial Conference (3:00 p.m.)          Oct. 19, 2026

  Last Date to hear Daubert Motions:             Aug. 24, 2026

  Last Date to hear Non-Discovery Motions:       July 27, 2026

  Expert Discovery Cut-off:                      July 6, 2026

  Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off:                  April 24, 2026

  Hearing on Motion for Class Certification:     Nov. 17, 2025

  Reply Motion for Class Certification           Oct. 20, 2025
  Filing Deadline:

  Opposition to Motion for Class                 Sept. 29, 2025
  Certification Filing Deadline:

  Motion for Class Certification Filing          Aug. 18, 2025
  Deadline:

  Class Certification Discovery Cut-Off:         Oct. 20, 2025

Ferguson sells plumbing supplies, HVAC products, and building
supplies to professional contractors and homeowners.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bUkvWQ at no extra
charge.[CC]

FIRST ADVANTAGE: Reply Briefs Due April 18
------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jones v. First Advantage
Background Services Corp., Case No. 3:23-cv-00553 (D. Conn., Filed
May 1, 2023), the Hon. Judge Kari A. Dooley entered an order
granting motion for extension of time.

-- The parties' respective oppositions to the motion for class
    certification and motion for partial summary judgment shall be

    filed on or before March 21, 2025.

-- The parties' respective reply briefs shall be filed on or
    before April 18, 2025.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

First Advantage provides background screening and post-hire
workforce monitoring services.[CC]

FIRSTENERGY CORP: Accord on Fact Deposition in Securities Suit OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, grants the
parties' Joint Motion and Stipulation Regarding Fact Deposition
Examinations in the consolidated class action lawsuit titled In re
FIRSTENERGY CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
2:20-cv-03785-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio). This Document Relates To: ALL
ACTIONS. MFS Series Trust I, et al., Plaintiffs v. FirstEnergy
Corp., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-05839-ALM-KAJ (S.D.
Ohio). Brighthouse Funds Trust II - MFS Value Portfolio, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. FirstEnergy Corp., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-00865-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio).

Before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion and Stipulation
Regarding Fact Deposition Examinations. After reviewing the
unopposed joint motion and stipulation, and finding good cause, the
Court orders as follows.

A party, who wishes to question a fact witness at deposition, must
select one attorney as the primary examiner, and may select another
attorney as a secondary examiner.

A party wishing to use a secondary examiner will identify the
secondary examiner at or prior to the commencement of the
deposition. The secondary examiner will be limited to no more than
30 minutes of questioning. The 30 minutes allotted to the secondary
examiner will be included in the total nine hours allocated to the
secondary examiner's "side" (i.e., the Plaintiffs or the
Defendants, as the case may be).

The secondary examiner must commence their direct (or cross)
examination immediately after the primary examiner has concluded
their direct (or cross) examination. No further questioning by the
primary or secondary examiner will occur until their re-direct (or
recross) examinations.

The secondary examiner may reserve a portion of the 30 minutes for
re-direct (or re-cross) examination, so long as the scope of any
re-direct (or re-cross) examination is limited to the subject
matter of any other party's intervening cross, re-direct or
re-cross examination, as the case may be. The secondary examiner
must commence their re-direct (or re-cross) examination immediately
after the primary examiner has concluded their re-direct (or
re-cross) examination, if any. The scope of the primary examiner's
re-direct (or re-cross) examination will likewise be limited to the
subject matter of any other party's intervening cross, re-direct or
re-cross examination, as the case may be.

Judge Jolson points out that nothing in this Order will expand or
decrease the nine hours of time (or other mutually agreed amount of
time) allocated to each "side."

As so-ordered in the Deposition Protocol, objections based on an
examiner's questioning exceeding the permissible scope will be
reserved for a later appropriate time, and "the only objections
permissible during depositions will be objections to 'form' (and
such objection will preserve any and all objections, not limited
only to the form of the question) or instructions regarding
attorney-client privilege."

Nothing in this Order is intended, or will be construed, to affect
examinations at any hearing or trial.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bdfj5dc5 from PacerMonitor.com.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Court Grants Fact Deposition in MFS Series Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, grants the
parties' Joint Motion and Stipulation Regarding Fact Deposition
Examinations in the class action lawsuit entitled MFS Series Trust
I, et al., Plaintiffs v. FirstEnergy Corp., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 2:21-cv-05839-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio). In re FIRSTENERGY CORP.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-03785-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio).
This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS. Brighthouse Funds Trust II -
MFS Value Portfolio, et al., Plaintiffs v. FirstEnergy Corp., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00865-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio).

Before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion and Stipulation
Regarding Fact Deposition Examinations. After reviewing the
unopposed joint motion and stipulation, and finding good cause, the
Court orders as follows.

A party, who wishes to question a fact witness at deposition, must
select one attorney as the primary examiner, and may select another
attorney as a secondary examiner.

A party wishing to use a secondary examiner will identify the
secondary examiner at or prior to the commencement of the
deposition. The secondary examiner will be limited to no more than
30 minutes of questioning. The 30 minutes allotted to the secondary
examiner will be included in the total nine hours allocated to the
secondary examiner's "side" (i.e., the Plaintiffs or the
Defendants, as the case may be).

The secondary examiner must commence their direct (or cross)
examination immediately after the primary examiner has concluded
their direct (or cross) examination. No further questioning by the
primary or secondary examiner will occur until their re-direct (or
recross) examinations.

The secondary examiner may reserve a portion of the 30 minutes for
re-direct (or re-cross) examination, so long as the scope of any
re-direct (or re-cross) examination is limited to the subject
matter of any other party's intervening cross, re-direct or
re-cross examination, as the case may be. The secondary examiner
must commence their re-direct (or re-cross) examination immediately
after the primary examiner has concluded their re-direct (or
re-cross) examination, if any. The scope of the primary examiner's
re-direct (or re-cross) examination will likewise be limited to the
subject matter of any other party's intervening cross, re-direct or
re-cross examination, as the case may be.

Judge Jolson points out that nothing in this Order will expand or
decrease the nine hours of time (or other mutually agreed amount of
time) allocated to each "side."

As so-ordered in the Deposition Protocol, objections based on an
examiner's questioning exceeding the permissible scope will be
reserved for a later appropriate time, and "the only objections
permissible during depositions will be objections to 'form' (and
such objection will preserve any and all objections, not limited
only to the form of the question) or instructions regarding
attorney-client privilege."

Nothing in this Order is intended, or will be construed, to affect
examinations at any hearing or trial.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/vbwx42u4 from PacerMonitor.com.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Court OK's Fact Deposition in Brighthouse Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, grants the
parties' Joint Motion and Stipulation Regarding Fact Deposition
Examinations in the class action lawsuit captioned Brighthouse
Funds Trust II - MFS Value Portfolio, et al., Plaintiffs v.
FirstEnergy Corp., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-00865-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio). In re FIRSTENERGY CORP.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-03785-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio).
This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS. MFS Series Trust I, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. FirstEnergy Corp., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-05839-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio).

Before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion and Stipulation
Regarding Fact Deposition Examinations. After reviewing the
unopposed joint motion and stipulation, and finding good cause, the
Court orders as follows.

A party, who wishes to question a fact witness at deposition, must
select one attorney as the primary examiner, and may select another
attorney as a secondary examiner.

A party wishing to use a secondary examiner will identify the
secondary examiner at or prior to the commencement of the
deposition. The secondary examiner will be limited to no more than
30 minutes of questioning. The 30 minutes allotted to the secondary
examiner will be included in the total nine hours allocated to the
secondary examiner's "side" (i.e., the Plaintiffs or the
Defendants, as the case may be).

The secondary examiner must commence their direct (or cross)
examination immediately after the primary examiner has concluded
their direct (or cross) examination. No further questioning by the
primary or secondary examiner will occur until their re-direct (or
recross) examinations.

The secondary examiner may reserve a portion of the 30 minutes for
re-direct (or re-cross) examination, so long as the scope of any
re-direct (or re-cross) examination is limited to the subject
matter of any other party's intervening cross, re-direct or
re-cross examination, as the case may be. The secondary examiner
must commence their re-direct (or re-cross) examination immediately
after the primary examiner has concluded their re-direct (or
re-cross) examination, if any. The scope of the primary examiner's
re-direct (or re-cross) examination will likewise be limited to the
subject matter of any other party's intervening cross, re-direct or
re-cross examination, as the case may be.

Judge Jolson points out that nothing in this Order will expand or
decrease the nine hours of time (or other mutually agreed amount of
time) allocated to each "side."

As so-ordered in the Deposition Protocol, objections based on an
examiner's questioning exceeding the permissible scope will be
reserved for a later appropriate time, and "the only objections
permissible during depositions will be objections to 'form' (and
such objection will preserve any and all objections, not limited
only to the form of the question) or instructions regarding
attorney-client privilege."

Nothing in this Order is intended, or will be construed, to affect
examinations at any hearing or trial.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2byybh42 from PacerMonitor.com.


FIVE9 INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------------
Five9 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 20, 2025, that the Company continues to
defend itself from the securities class suit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

On December 4, 2024, a purported holder of the Company's securities
filed a putative class action complaint against the Company, its
Chief Executive Officer, and our Chief Financial Officer in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California alleging violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, promulgated
thereunder, based on alleged false and/or misleading statements or
omissions regarding the Company and its business and seeking
unspecified damages on behalf of all persons and entities (subject
to specified exceptions) that purchased or otherwise acquired its
securities, including call options, from June 4, 2024, through the
close of trading on August 8, 2024.

On February 3, 2025, Lucid Alternative Fund, LP moved to be
appointed lead plaintiff of this action pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

The Company cannot predict the duration or outcome of this lawsuit
at this time. As a result, it is unable to estimate the reasonably
possible loss or range of reasonably possible losses arising from
this lawsuit. It intends to vigorously defend itself in this
lawsuit.

Headquartered in San Ramon, CA, Five9, Inc. provides cloud contact
center software. Its common stock trades on the NASDAQ stock
exchange under the ticker symbol "FIVN." [BN]

FLAGLER 251: Feltzin Sues Over Discriminative Property
------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Feltzin, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. FLAGLER 251, LLC; MARSHALLS OF MA, INC. d/b/a MARSHALLS
#650; SOVEREIGN OF MIAMI LLC d/b/a SOVEREIGN ASIAN KITCHEN; and
DOWNTOWN PIZZA PARADISE, LLC d/b/a D'ORO PIZZA BAR, Case No.
2:25-cv-14080-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 11, 2025), is brought for
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result
of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff
by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the commercial property.

Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of
Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities
accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Plaintiff found
the Commercial Property and the business located within the
commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff
encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and
the business located within the commercial property and wishes to
continue his patronage and use of the premises.

The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and
businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to
access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each
denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial
Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA.
The barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies),
embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff and others similarly
situated.

The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff
by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located
therein, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate.

3551 SW MARTIN HWY, LLC owns, operates, and oversees the Commercial
Property, its general parking lot/or and parking spots specific to
the business therein, located in Martin County, Florida, that is
the subject of this Action..[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq.
          GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
          350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
          Coral Gables, Fl 33134
          Phone: (305) 553-3464
          Primary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com
          Secondary Emails: 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
          Phone: (305) 350-3103
          Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com

FLUENCE ENERGY: Abramov Sues Over Securities Law Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL ABRAMOV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FLUENCE ENERGY, INC., JULIAN NEBREDA, and
AHMED PASHA, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00444 (E.D. Va., March
11, 2025) accuses the Defendants of violating Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities and
Exchange Commission's Rule 10b-5.

The Plaintiff brings this securities fraud class action on behalf
of all those who purchased, or otherwise acquired, Fluence common
stock during the period from November 29, 2023 to February 10,
2025, inclusive. Throughout the class period, the Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material facts, including that: (1) Fluence's relationship with its
founders and largest sources of revenue, Siemens AG and The AES
Corporation, was poised to decline; (2) Siemens Energy, Siemens
AG's U.S. affiliate, had accused the Company of engineering
failures and fraud; (3) Fluence's margins and revenue growth were
inflated as Siemens and AES were moving to divest; and (4) based on
the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their
positive statements related to Fluence's battery energy storage
business, as well as related financial results, growth, and
prospects.

Fluence Energy is an energy storage and software provider
headquartered in Arlington, Virginia. The company’s stock trades
on the Nasdaq under the ticker symbol "FLNC." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Steven J. Toll, Esq.
         Julie Goldsmith Reiser, Esq.
         S. Douglas Bunch, Esq.
         COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
         1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 800
         Washington, DC 20005
         Telephone: (202) 408-4600
         Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
         E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
                 jreiser@cohenmilstein.com
                 dbunch@cohenmilstein.com

                 - and -

         Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
         Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
         BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
         260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
         Boston, MA 02110
         Telephone: (617) 398-5600
         Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
         E-mail: jeff@blockleviton.com
                 jake@blockleviton.com

FLYWIRE CORP: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Flywire Corporation (NASDAQ: FLYW) resulting from
allegations that Flywire may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

So What: If you purchased Flywire securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=36539 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.

What is this about: On February 26, 2025, Seeking Alpha published
an article entitled "Flywire stock plunges after Q4 earnings miss;
disconcerting 2025 guidance." The article stated that Flywire stock
had "tumbled" after "the provider of payment services with a
concentration in education reported that student visa trends in
some of its key markets worsened since the company's Q3 earnings
call." Further, the article stated that an analyst had downgraded
Flywire stock, and that the analyst had said that "[e]ven if FY25
guidance that missed Street estimates by a long shot is baking in a
worst-case scenario, we do not see how investors can gain any
confidence in the company's top-line growth algorithm until it
strings together a few quarters of consistency."

On this news, Flywire stock fell $6.59 per share, or 37.3%, to
close at $11.05 per share on February 26, 2025.

Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS
Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class
action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4
each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438
million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was
named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's
attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Contacts

     Laurence Rosen, Esq.
     Phillip Kim, Esq.
     The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
     275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel: (212) 686-1060
     Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
     Fax: (212) 202-3827
     case@rosenlegal.com
     www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Smith-Journigan Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TREY SMITH-JOURNIGAN, on
behalf of a class of others similarly situated, v. FRANKLIN COUNTY,
OHIO, Case No. 2:18-cv-00328-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order granting renewed motion for class
certification.

-- Class

    "All detainees who, at the time of final judgment, have been
    placed into the custody of the Franklin County Correctional
    Center and/or Franklin County Workhouse, after being charged
    with misdemeanors, summary violations, traffic infractions,
    civil commitments or other minor crimes, including on arrest
    warrants, and who were immediately eligible for bail under
    Ohio law and the bail schedule and regulations mandated by the

    Franklin County Municipal Court that in fact posted bail
    within 24 hours of being taken into custody by Franklin
    County."

    The class period commences on April 11, 2016 and continues
    until Nov. 18, 2025.

    Specifically excluded from the Class are the Defendant and any

    and all of its respective affiliates, legal representatives,
    heirs, successors, employees, or assignees.

-- Subclass

    "All members of the foregoing class who, on Franklin County's
    "Miscellaneous Update Document," indicated that they had the
    financial means to post bond, or where information about the
    financial ability to post bond is absent from the form."

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq.
          KEACH LAW FIRM
          One Pine West Plaza, Suite 120
          Albany, NY 12205
          Telephone: (518) 434-1718
          E-mail: bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com

                - and -

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

                - and -

          D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
          ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, PC
          707 Grant Street, Suite 125
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-7229
          E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com

                - and -

          Andrew Baker, Esq.
          THE BAKER LAW GROUP
          107 South High Street, Suite 400
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 228-1882
          E-mail: andrew.baker@bakerlawgroup.net

FRANKLIN COUNTY,OH: Plaintiffs Seek to File Docs Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TREY SMITH-JOURNIGAN,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATIED, v. FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO, Case No. 2:18-cv-00328-MHW-CMV
(S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
granting motion for leave to file documents under seal, and for
leave to file an overlength brief.

The Plaintiff completed their renewed motion for class
certification this past Friday, March 10, 2025. In that filing, the
Plaintiff provided the Court with a list of proposed class members
from one month, November 2019, who were charged with vehicle and
traffic offenses.

The Plaintiff also provided the Court with specific examples of
proposed class members, and how they were treated by Franklin
County during the booking process.

The Plaintiff also suggests that addressing these individuals by
their initials in legal pleadings is sufficient to allow for the
public to understand the import of these pleadings while also
protecting the identities of these proposed class members. In
short, the Plaintiff requests leave of court, nunc pro tunc, to
file Exhibits A, F, V and W under seal, to allow for the filing of
redacted copies of these documents on the public record, and to
allow for the pleadings in this case to refer to individuals
identified in these records by their initials.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 10, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y5ftGE at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq.
          KEACH LAW FIRM
          One Pine West Plaza, Suite 120
          Albany, NY 12205
          Telephone: (518) 434-1718
          E-mail: bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com

FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Christensen Sues to Recover Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------
Chris C. Christensen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-01827
(D.N.J., March 12, 2025), is brought to recover compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other equitable
relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA").

The Plaintiff and the Putative Plaintiffs regularly worked (and
continue to work) in excess of 40 hours in a work week. During all
times material to this Complaint, based on Defendant's companywide
policy, the Plaintiff and the Putative Plaintiffs were required to
perform work "off-the-clock" and without pay.

As a result of Defendant's company-wide policy and practice of
requiring the Plaintiff and the Putative Plaintiffs to perform
their Clock-in Duties off-the-clock before the beginning of their
shifts and before returning from breaks, the Plaintiff and the
Putative Plaintiffs were not compensated for all hours worked,
including all worked in excess of 40 in a workweek at the rates
required by the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant in a fully remote position
as a Customer Service Specialist starting in December 2020.

The Defendant is a national mortgage lender that helps millions of
Americans buy and refinance their homes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Javier Merino, Esq.
          DANNLAW
          825 Georges Road, Second Floor
          New Brunswick, NJ 08902
          Phone: 201-355-3440
          Email: jmerino@dannlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
          Anna R. Caplan, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP
          4200 Regent Street, Ste 210
          Columbus, oh 43219
          Phone: 614-221-4221
          Email: bederose@barkanmeizlish.com
                 acaplan@barkanmeizlish.com

               - and -

          Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Ste 610
          Corpus Christi, tx 78401
          Phone: 361-452-1279
          Email: lauren@a2xlaw.com
                 clif@a2xlaw.com
                 austin@a2xlaw.com
                 carter@a2xlaw.com

FRESNO COMMUNITY: Removes Deneus-Coley Suit to E.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of LEA DENEUS-COLEY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRESNO
COMMUNITY HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER d/b/a CLOVIS COMMUNITY
MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit
from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Fresno (Case No. 24CECG05029) to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California on March 12, 2025.

The clerk of court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:25-at-00201. The case is assigned to Judge Jennifer L.
Thurston and referred to Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta.

Fresno Community Hospital & Medical Center provides medical and
surgical hospital services. The Hospital offers asthma program,
breast care, dialysis, general surgery, neuroscience, pharmacy,
radiology, and other medical services. [BN]

The Defendant is reprsented by:

          Andrew M. Paley, Esq.
          Ashley D. Stein, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          Email: apaley@seyfarth.com
                 astein@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Bailey K. Bifoss, Esq.
          Brian B. Gillis, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 397-2823
          Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
          Email: bbifoss@seyfarth.com
                 bgillis@seyfarth.com

G. SKILL: Hurd Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tristan Hurd et. al., v.
G. Skill International Enterprise Co., LTD. et. al., Case No.
2:22-cv-00685-SSS-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine Sykes
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Court certifies the following classes under Rule 23(b)(2) and
Rule 23(b)(3):

   (1) California class: for the UCL, FAL, CLRA, express warranty,

       and negligent misrepresentation claims, all California
       individuals who made an online purchase of G.Skill's High-
       Speed Memory within the governing statute of limitations
       period.

   (2) New York class: for the N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law section349 and
       section350 claims, all New York individuals who made an
       online purchase of G.Skill's High-Speed Memory within the
       governing statute of limitations period.

The Court also certifies the following classes solely under Rule
23(b)(2):

   (3) Consumer protection class: for claims applying the relevant

       state consumer protection statutes for each state, all
       individuals who made an online purchase of G.Skill's High-
       Speed Memory within the governing statute of limitations
       period from the following states: California, Connecticut,
       Delaware, Washington, D.C., Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Maryland,

       Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska,
       Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina,
       Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont,
       Washington, and West Virginia.

Additionally, the Plaintiffs Tristan Hurd and Ken Dimicco are
APPOINTED as class representatives, and the law firms of Dovel &
Luner and Kneupper & Covey are designated as class counsel.

The parties are ordered to meet and confer to discuss the issue of
notice by March 28, 2025.

Following that conference, the Plaintiffs' counsel is ordered to
prepare a notice to the class and submit the proposed notice and a
distribution plan to the Court by April 25, 2025.


In all, Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of predominance
and superiority under Rule 23(b)(3) for the California and New York
subclasses and the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion regarding these
subclasses. The Plaintiffs' multi-state class fails for lack of
predominance, and the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion regarding
this class.

The Plaintiffs Hurd and Dimicco allege G.Skill misled consumers by
advertising Dynamic Random-Access Memory modules for use in desktop
computers at speeds higher than the actual speed.

G.Skill is a Taiwanese computer hardware manufacturing company.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VjkxA4 at no extra
charge.[CC]

GANNETT CO: Court Narrows Claims in Anderson Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLE ANDERSON, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. GANNETT CO., INC.,
Case No. 3:22-cv-05088-ZNQ-RLS (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Zahid N.
Quraishi granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's
motion to dismiss without prejudice the amended complaint without
leave to further amend.

The Defendant's motion to strike will be denied as moot.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff lacks Article III
standing to bring any of her claims and that they must therefore be
dismissed without prejudice.

Because the Court finds that the Plaintiff not only does not have
standing for an outstanding debt, but also that she never had
standing because she never paid the $9.99 renewal fee, the Court
concludes that the Defendant did not commit an improper "pick-off"
Plaintiff's claims. Likewise, the Court does not reach whether the
Plaintiff states a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) for her NJCFA, EFTA,
breach of contract, and unjust enrichment claims.

Thus, the Court finds that allowing Plaintiff to file a further
amended complaint would only serve to needlessly extend this
litigation, and subject Defendant to additional cost in added time,
attention, and financial expense. As such, the Court concludes that
any further amendment would be futile. Accordingly, the Court will
dismiss the Amended Complaint without leave to further amend.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached its contract with
consumers in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA)
and the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA).

As a result of the Defendant's fraudulent conduct, the Amended
Complaint alleges that "Plaintiff suffered an injury-in-fact in the
form of an outstanding balance of $9.99 in unauthorized charges for
a monthly subscription that" had already been canceled.

The Defendant is a media company whose portfolio includes USA
Today, Courier News, and many other local media outlets.

A copy of the Court's opinion dated March 7, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X6XUtI at no extra
charge.[CC]

GENWORTH LIFE: Sued Over Improper Cost of Insurance Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------
TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for CONSOLIDATED WEALTH
MANAGEMENT, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GENWORTH LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00184 (E.D. Va., Mar. 7, 2025) alleges
that the Defendant forced the Plaintiff to pay improperly inflated
monthly cost of insurance ("COI") charges after September 19, 2013
(the "Class Period") that are not, as the policies require,
determined by Genworth according to its current expectations of
future mortality.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, Genworth has violated
and continues to violate its contractual commitment to
policyholders to calculate COI rates on a monthly basis that are
determined "according to expectations of future mortality."
Genworth has refused to decrease COI rates, and instead has
increased COI rates, despite its annual reviews during the Class
Period concluding that it has improving future mortality
expectations in each of those years.

Each and every failure to adjust its COI rates properly during the
Class Period constituted a discrete violation of the insurance
contract in place at that time. Each such failure to follow
contractual mandates violated the contractual rights of plaintiff
and all class members who owned an insurance policy in force at
that time. Plaintiff therefore seeks monetary relief for the COI
overcharges that Genworth has wrongly imposed on plaintiff and the
proposed Class during the Class Period, the suit says.

Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company operates as an
insurance firm. The Company offers life, accident, and health
insurance services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Gogal, Esq.
          Laurie L. Kirkland, Esq.
          Ian J. McElhaney, Esq.
          BLANKINGSHIP & KEITH, P.C.
          4020 University Drive, Suite 300
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 691-1235
          Facsimile: (703) 691-3913
          Email: dgogal@bklawva.com
                 lkirkland@bklawva.com
                 imcelhaney@bklawva.com

               - and -

          Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
          Glenn C. Bridgman, Esq.
          Nicholas N. Spear, Esq.
          Kim Page, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
          Telephone: (310) 789-3100
          Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
          Email: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
                 gbridgman@susmangodfrey.com
                 nspear@susmangodfrey.com
                 kpage@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Seth Ard, Esq.
          Ryan Kirkpatrick, Esq.
          Jeff Melsheimer, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          One Manhattan West, 50th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 336-8330
          Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
          Email: sard@susmangodfrey.com
                 rkirkpatrick@susmangodfrey.com
                 jmelsheimer@susmangodfrey.com

GENWORTH: Summary Judgment Bid in Insurance Dispute Granted in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eric M. Davis of the Delaware Superior Court granted in part
and denied in part the cross motions for summary judgment filed by
the parties in the case captioned as GENWORTH FINANCIAL, INC.,
GENWORTH LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, AND GENWORTH LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY OF NEW YORK, PLAINTIFFS, V. AIG SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, AXIS INSURANCE COMPANY, U.S. SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
AND ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No.: N22C-05-057 EMD CCLD
(Del. Super. Ct.).

This is an insurance coverage dispute assigned in the Complex
Commercial Litigation Division of this Court. Plaintiffs Genworth
Financial, Inc., Genworth Life Insurance Company, and Genworth Life
Insurance Company of New York seek coverage from Defendants AIG
Specialty Insurance Company, Axis Insurance Company, U.S. Specialty
Insurance Company, and ACE American Insurance Company for
settlements that resolved three separate class actions related to
Genworth's long-term care insurance policies.

The three underlying class actions (the "Skochin Action," the
"Halcom Action," and the "Haney Action), challenged Genworth's
previous increases of LTC Policy premiums. The Actions alleged that
Genworth, pursuant to a companywide plan to cover revenue
shortfalls, inadequately disclosed material information regarding
Genworth's intent to seek additional premium increases in the
following years. The Actions contended that this inadequate
disclosure prevented the plaintiffs from making informed decisions
regarding whether to renew their policies.

The Actions each asserted a claim of fraudulent inducement by
omission, and sought both recession of their policy renewals, and a
return of premiums paid for each year of a renewal of the policy
was rescinded.

The settlements resolved the Actions. Pursuant to the settlements
Genworth made additional disclosures, through a Special Election
Letter and offered class members different Special Elections
Options, to change their LTC Policy status and receive damages.
Under the Special Election Option Options, class members were
eligible for different damage payments based on their coverage
status.

Genworth asks the Court to hold that its payments to class members
under the Non-Forfeiture Status Options do not fall under the
Premiums Exclusion. The NFS Option gave class members a flat
payment of $1,000, $1,250, or $2,500, not damages calculated based
upon an amount of premiums the Class Members either paid or would
not have paid if given adequate disclosures. Genworth argues that
because the NFS payments were calculated without reference to
premiums paid, these payments cannot constitute a return of
premiums.

Based on the settlements' text, the NFS Option payment did not
return premiums to class members, the Court finds. The NFS payments
were flat awards, without reference to premiums paid. Conversely,
both the Paid-Up Benefits Option and Reduced Benefits Option
payments were calculated based on premiums paid. That the NFS
payment did not incorporate premiums, while the PBO and RBO
payments did, further supports the conclusion that NFS payments
were not a return of premiums. Genworth's motion for summary
judgment regarding the NFS payments is granted. Insurers' motion
for summary judgment on that issue is denied.

Genworth also asks the Court to enter summary judgment holding the
RBO and PBO Special Election Options payments did not return
premiums to class members. The Court against relies on the
settlements' plain text and concludes the PBO and RBO payments
returned premiums to class members. As such, those payments fall
within the Premiums Exclusion and are recoverable under the
policies. Genworth's motion for summary judgment on the PBO and RBO
payments is denied. Insurers' motion for summary judgment regarding
those payments is granted.

The Court finds there is a genuine issue of fact regarding what
portion of Genworth's class counsel award is attributable to the
NFS payments. More briefing regarding the proper allocation of
class counsel fees and expenses between the NFS and the PBO/RBO
options is required before the Court can address that issue. Thus,
plaintiffs' and defendants' motions for summary judgment are denied
regarding the class counsel fee and expenses portion of the
settlements.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4UtG24


GEORGIA: Rowe Failed to State Claim on All Counts, Court Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD CARL ROWE, III, v.
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES – DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT
SERVICES and OPAL LOWE, Case No. 3:24-cv-00235-TCB (N.D. Ga.), the
Hon. Judge Timothy Batten, Sr. entered an order granting
Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings in its entirety.

-- Because Rowe has failed to state a claim on all counts, his
    motion for a preliminary injunction and motion for class
    certification are denied.

-- Rowes motions for judicial notice are withdrawn. His motion to
    withdraw is granted.

-- Because Rowe fails to adequately allege a constitutional
    violation, he fails to state a claim on his section 1983 claim

    against Lowe. Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendants'
    motion for judgment on the pleadings for Rowe's section 1983
    claim.

On Dec. 16, Rowe filed an amended complaint, in which he brings
four claims: (1) fraud on the Court; (2) violation of his
Fourteenth Amendment due process rights under 42 U.S.C. section
1983; (3) violation of Title IV-D of the Social Security Act; and
(4) intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED") resulting
from his child custody proceedings.

Georgia Department of Human Services investigates child and elderly
abuse, facilitates adoption and foster parenting, accepts
applications for Medicaid.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AxcuS1 at no extra
charge.[CC]

GERDAU AMERISTEEL: 401(k) Retirement Plan Class Gets Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GRANT MOLLA, on behalf of
the Gerdau Ameristeel US 401(k) Retirement Plan, himself, and all
others similarly situated, v. GERDAU AMERISTEEL US, INC., Case No.
8:22-cv-02094-VMC-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Virginia
Hernandez Covington entered a preliminary approval order:

   1. The Court pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(1) of the Federal
      Rules of Civil Procedure certifies for settlement purposes
      the following class:

      "All persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of
      the Gerdau Ameristeel US 401(k) Retirement Plan, from Sept.
      9, 2016, through the date the Court enters an Order granting

      preliminary approval of the Settlement."

   2. The Court finds that pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
      Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiff is an adequate class

      representative and certifies him as Class Representative for

      the Class, and appoints the law firms of Wenzel Fenton
      Cabassa, P.A. and Morgan & Morgan, P.A. as Class Counsel.
      The Plaintiff and Class Counsel have fairly and adequately
      represented the Class in terms of both litigating the claims

      of the Class and entering into and implementing the
      Settlement, and have satisfied all the requirements of the
      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4) and 23(g),
      Respectively.

   3. The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on July 8,
      2025, at 10:00 a.m.

Gerdau provides steel products for civil construction, industry,
automotive, mining, and agricultural sector.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EiihG5 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 N. Florida Ave., Suite 640
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 379-2560
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brett J. Preston, Esq.
          HILL, WARD & HENDERSON, P.A.
          101 East Kennedy Blvd., Suite 3700
          Tampa, FL 33601
          Telephone: (813) 221-3900
          Facsimile: (813) 221-2900
          E-mail: brett.preston@hwhlaw.com

GOOD SAM: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Espinal Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
FRANGIE ESPINAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOOD SAM ENTERPRISES, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-02073 (S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2025) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://goodsam.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

Good Sam Enterprises, LLC provides membership based direct
marketing services for recreational vehicles. The Company offers
roadside assistance, RV rentals, maintenance and repair, RV loans,
extended warranty, vehicle insurance, finance, travel assistance,
and travel planning services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

H&M FASHION: S.D. New York Narrows Claims in McDonald FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Valerie Caproni of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants in part and denies in part the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled TERRILL MCDONALD
and MARIEL BAEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. H&M FASHION USA INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-02476-VEC (S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs Terrill McDonald and Mariel Baez initiated this action
against H&M Fashion USA Inc. in their individual capacities and on
behalf of all others similarly situated. The Plaintiffs allege that
the Defendant's practice of paying retail workers on a biweekly,
rather than weekly, basis violates the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). The Plaintiffs also
allege that the Defendant's work-scheduling practices violate the
New York City Fair Workweek Law, Title 20, Chapter 12 of the New
York City Administrative Code ("FWW").

The Defendant moved to dismiss. While that motion was pending, the
Plaintiffs moved for certification of a collective under the FLSA.
For the reasons set forth in this Opinion & Order, the Court grants
in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The
Defendant may renew the portion of its motion that was denied
following jurisdictional discovery. The Plaintiffs' motion to
certify a collective is denied as moot.

H&M is a foreign business corporation organized under the laws of
Wisconsin. Plaintiff Terrill McDonald is a New York resident, who
was employed by the Defendant in New York City from approximately
2012 until 2018 and from approximately October 2022 until Oct. 13,
2023. Plaintiff Mariel Baez is a Pennsylvania resident, who was
employed by the Defendant from approximately 2011 through September
2023.

Plaintiffs McDonald and Baez spent over 25 percent of their shifts
as manual workers, performing physical tasks, such as moving boxes,
stocking shelves, hanging and folding clothes, and cleaning the
stores. H&M compensated both on a bi-weekly basis.

On April 1, 2024, the Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit individually
and on behalf of putative class members. Specifically, the
Plaintiffs' first cause of action, an FLSA claim, is brought on
behalf of all similarly-situated persons, who work or have worked
as retail workers for the Defendant (the "FLSA Collective"). It is
premised on the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiffs and the
FLSA Collective weekly.

The Plaintiffs' remaining causes of action are brought on behalf of
putative classes pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
("CAFA"). The Plaintiffs allege H&M violated the NYLL by failing to
pay class members weekly (the "NYLL Class"), and the FWW through a
variety of work-scheduling practices.

The Defendant moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. While the
Defendant's motion was pending, the Plaintiffs moved for
preliminary certification of an FLSA Collective, court-authorized
notice, and expedited discovery, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b).

Judge Caproni finds that the Plaintiffs premise their FLSA claim on
a legal theory that is not cognizable. The gravamen of the
Plaintiffs' FLSA claim is that the Defendant's failure to adhere to
the NYLL's requirement that manual workers be paid within seven
days of the work performed violates the FLSA.

Standing alone, such allegations are insufficient to state an FLSA
claim, Judge Caproni holds. Adopting the Plaintiffs' position would
render the FLSA's prompt pay requirement dependent on the laws of
the State in which the given employee works, undermining the
general principle that federal laws have uniform nationwide
application and the FLSA's goal of a uniform national wage-and-hour
policy, Judge Caproni explains.

The Plaintiffs have identified a single case, Cooke v. Frank
Brunckhorst Co., LLC, in which a Magistrate Judge held that the
failure to adhere to the weekly pay requirement under NYLL Section
191 gives rise to a plausible FLSA claim. The Court does not find
Cooke to be persuasive.

Beyond their bare assertion that violating NYLL Section 191
necessarily gives rise to an FLSA claim, Judge Caproni opines that
the Plaintiffs fail to allege any facts that would allow the Court
to analyze their FLSA claim by reference to objective standards.
The Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' FLSA claim is,
therefore, granted with prejudice.

Because the Court is dismissing the Plaintiffs' FLSA claim, the
Plaintiffs' motion, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), for
preliminary certification of an FLSA Collective, court-authorized
notice, and expedited discovery, is denied as moot.

Because the Court has dismissed the Plaintiffs' FLSA claim, it no
longer has supplemental jurisdiction over their state law claims.

Because the facts relevant to determining the Court's jurisdiction
are within the Defendant's knowledge, the Court will order limited
jurisdictional discovery. The Defendant's motion to dismiss for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is denied without prejudice to
renewal after jurisdictional discovery. The scope of discovery is
strictly limited to the location of the Defendant's principal place
of business and the applicability of the home-state exception.

Because jurisdictional questions ordinarily must precede merits
determinations, the Court will defer reaching the merits of the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the NYLL and FWW claims until after
the Court has ascertained it has jurisdiction; the Defendant may
renew its motion regarding the merits of the FWW claims alongside
any renewed motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

For these reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part the
Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs' FLSA claim is
dismissed with prejudice. The Defendant's motion to dismiss the
balance of the Amended Complaint is denied without prejudice to
renewing the motion upon the completion of jurisdictional
discovery.

Judge Caproni holds that the Initial Pretrial Conference originally
scheduled for Aug. 16, 2024, and subsequently adjourned sine die,
will take place on March 28, 2025, to address the schedule for
jurisdictional discovery. By Thursday, March 20, 2025, the parties
must submit a joint letter proposing an expedited discovery
deadline and flagging any issues to be addressed at the conference,
as well as indicating whether the parties believe the conference is
necessary.

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the open motions at
Dkts. 22 and 35.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4m229nz9 from PacerMonitor.com.


HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Morales Seeks Prelim Class Settlement Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEJANDRO MORALES, on
behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. HEALTHCARE
REVENUE RECOVERY GROUP, LLC and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Case No.
2:15-cv-08401-JBC (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff will move the for an
order granting preliminary approval of the class settlement.

Healthcare Revenue provides collection services to health care
sector.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 7, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6ddI0z at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          Mark Jensen, Esq.
          Eliyahu D. Kaweblum, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com
                  mjensen@kimlf.com
                  ekaweblum@kimlf.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mitchell L. Williamson, Esq.
          BARRON & NEWBURGER, P.C.
          458 Elizabeth Ave - Suite 5371
          Somerset, NJ 08873

HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order granting it an extension of time up to and including
April 24, 2025 to file its response to the Plaintiffs' motion.

The Plaintiffs Omar Santos and Amanda Clements filed their Renewed
Motion for Class Certification on March 6, 2025.

The current deadline for Experian to respond to the Plaintiffs'
Motion is March 20, 2025.

Healthcare Revenue provides collection services to health care
sector.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 10, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EGSf8x at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          A.M. Cristina Perez Soto, Esq.
          John A. Vogt, Esq.
          William R. Taylor, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 714-9700
          E-mail: cperezsoto@jonesday.com
                  javogt@jonesday.com
                  wtaylor@jonesday.com

HEMPSTEAD TOWN, NY: GB's Bid to Amend Complaint Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned GB, a pseudonym; NP, a pseudonym; MA, a
pseudonym, as legal guardian of BA, a pseudonym; PM a pseudonym, as
parent and natural guardian of BF a pseudonym; HK a pseudonym; and
MV, a pseudonym, as parent and natural guardian of RD, a pseudonym,
on behalf of themselves individually and all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD, ANTHONY
SANTINO, WILLIAM MULLER III, DIANABIANCULLI-MULLER, NASRIN G.
AHMAD, MICHAEL ZAPPOLO, CITIZENS FOR SANTINO, FEDERICO AMORINI,
MATTHEW R. COLEMAN, JOSEPH J. RA, JOHN/JANE DOE REPUBLICAN
ORGANIZATIONS, and JOHN/JANE DOE OTHER ENTITIES, Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-06625-JMA-ARL (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Joan M. Azrack of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York grants in
part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' motion to amend their
complaint.

The Plaintiffs, handicapped adults and parents of handicapped
infants, who attend a camp for the developmentally disabled run by
the Defendant Town of Hempstead (the "Town" or "TOH"), bring this
putative class action asserting constitutional violations and state
law claims arising out of the release of the Plaintiffs' personal
information against the Town, Anthony Santino, Nasrin G. Ahmad,
Michael Zappolo, Frederick Amorini, Matthew R. Coleman, Joseph J.
Ra (collectively "Town Defendants"), William Muller III and Diana
Bianculli-Muller (together "Muller Defendants") and Citizens for
Santino ("CFS" and collectively, "Defendants").

Presently before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion to amend their
complaint. The Court presumes familiarity with the background of
this case, which is set forth in Magistrate Judge Arlene R.
Lindsay's Feb. 10, 2025 Report and Recommendation ("R&R") on the
instant motion.

In the R&R, Judge Lindsay recommended that the Court grant in part
and deny in part the Plaintiffs' motion. The Plaintiffs and the
Town Defendants filed timely objections to the R&R. For the reasons
explained in this Memorandum & Order, the Court overrules the
parties' objections and adopts the R&R.

In the R&R, Judge Lindsay recommended that the Court permit the
Plaintiffs to file the Second Amended Complaint to the extent it
does not contain claims asserted against the Nassau Republican
Committee ("NRC"), an Equal Protection Claim against any of the
Defendants or a Substantive Due Process claim against Defendant
Bianculli-Muller.

Specifically, the R&R found that claims against the Nassau
Republican Committee are untimely, the Equal Protection Claim is
futile for lack of sufficiently similar comparators, and
substantive due process claims against Defendant Binculli-Muller
are futile. Judge Lindsay, then, recommended that the Court permit
the remainder of the amendments. The Town Defendants and the
Plaintiffs object to the R&R for various reasons.

The Court agrees with Judge Lindsay that at this late hour in
litigation, allowing substitution and the reopening of discovery
would be inappropriate. The Court also agrees and finds, among
other things, that Dazio is not a sufficiently similar comparator
to Muller.

The Court agrees with and adopts Judge Lindsay's analysis and
recommendations set forth in the R&R. The parties' objections to
the R&R are overruled. The Court adopts the R&R.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum & Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mwayfzzb from PacerMonitor.com.


HERRSCHNERS INC: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Cole, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Herrschners, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-02521 (N.D. Ill., March 11,
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://herrschners.com (hereinafter "Herrschners.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, Herrschners.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 Herrschners' 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.

Herrschners provides to the public a website known as
Herrschners.com which provides consumers with access to an array of
goods and services, including, the ability to view a wide variety
of yarns, crochet kits, knit kits, crochet hooks, craft books,
painting supplies, and puzzles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

HERSHEY COMPANY: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to June 13
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLE LOZA, KIMBERLY
HALL, AND NICOLE RIVERA, on behalf of themselves, the general
public, and those similarly situated, v. THE HERSHEY COMPANY, Case
No. 3:24-cv-01455-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maxine Chesney
entered an order extending class certification deadlines:

-- The Plaintiffs' deadline to file their motion for class
    certification is continued to June 13, 2025.

-- The Defendant's deadline to oppose is continued to Aug. 22,
    2025.

-- The Plaintiffs' deadline to file their reply is continued to
    Oct. 3, 2025.

-- The hearing on the Plaintiffs class certification motion is
    set for Oct. 24, 2025.

Hershey is an American multinational confectionery company.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yn8r5l at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Hayley A. Reynolds, Esq.
          Marie Ann McCrary, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 639-9090
          E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
                  hayley@gutridesafier.com
                  marie@gutridesafier.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gary T. Lafayette, Esq.
          Brian H. Chun, Esq.
          LAFAYETTE & KUMAGAI LLP
          1300 Clay Street, Suite 810
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415) 357-4600
          Facsimile: (415) 357-4605
          E-mail: glafayette@lkclaw.com
                  bchun@lkclaw.com

                - and -

          Jane Metcalf, Esq.
          Anna Blum, Esq.
          PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP
          1133 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 336-2000
          E-mail: jmetcalf@pbwt.com
                  ablum@pbwt.com

HERSHEY COMPANY: Filing for Class Cert in Loza Revised to June 13
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLE LOZA, KIMBERLY
HALL, AND NICOLE RIVERA, on behalf of themselves, the general
public, and those similarly situated, v. THE HERSHEY COMPANY, Case
No. 3:24-cv-01455-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter a revised class certification schedule as follows:

                Event             Current         Proposed
                                  Deadline        Deadline

  Plaintiffs file motion for    May 16, 2025     June 13, 2025
  class certification:

  Defendant files opposition    July 25, 2025    Aug. 22, 2025
  to class certification:

  Plaintiffs file reply in      Sept. 5, 2025    Oct. 3, 2025
  support of motion for
  class certification:

  Hearing on Plaintiffs'        Sept. 26, 2025   Oct. 24, 2025,
  class certification motion:                    or other date per

                                                 the Court's
                                                 availability

Hershey and Plaintiffs have conferred and agreed to these
requests.

On Feb.24, 2025, the Court set a March 7, 2025, deadline for the
parties to meet and confer and either agree or raise a dispute in a
joint discovery letter as to topics and dates
for Hershey’s 30(b)(6), ESI search terms, and noncustodial
sources of documents.

Hershey is an American multinational confectionery company.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 7, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nGxXi1 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Hayley A. Reynolds, Esq.
          Marie Ann McCrary, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 639-9090
          E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
                  hayley@gutridesafier.com
                  marie@gutridesafier.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gary T. Lafayette, Esq.
          Brian H. Chun, Esq.
          LAFAYETTE & KUMAGAI LLP
          1300 Clay Street, Suite 810
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415) 357-4600
          Facsimile: (415) 357-4605
          E-mail: glafayette@lkclaw.com
                  bchun@lkclaw.com

                - and -

          Jane Metcalf, Esq.
          Anna Blum, Esq.
          PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP
          1133 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 336-2000
          E-mail: jmetcalf@pbwt.com
                  ablum@pbwt.com

HRM RESOURCES: Class Cert Bids in McCormick Suit Due May 9
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CINDY MCCORMICK, RONALD
MCCORMICK, and TRUPP LAND MANAGEMENT LLC, v. HRM RESOURCES, LLC,
HRM RESOURCES II, LLC, HRM RESOURCES III, LLC, HRM RESOURCES IV,
LLC, L. ROGER HUTSON, TERRY PAPE, PAINTED PEGASUS PETROLEUM, LLC,
and JOHN HOFFMAN, Case No. 1:24-cv-00823-CNS-CYC (D. Colo.), the
Hon. Judge Cyrus Chung entered an order denying HRM Defendants'
motion to modify scheduling order.

The Court sets the following deadlines:

-- Class certification motions:               May 9, 2025

-- Deadline to add parties and request        Sept. 5, 2025
    punitive damages:

-- Fact discovery cutoff:                     Nov. 7, 2025

-- Expert discovery cutoff:                   April 3, 2026

To the extent that the HRM Defendants believe that early resolution
of their dispositive motions will contribute to efficiency in this
case, they are free to request such a motion in line with Judge
Sweeney's practice standards, the Court says.

The HRM Defendants have not shown the sort of diligence that Fed.
R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) requires to demonstrate good cause, and the
efficiency gains they tout are not entirely clear.

On Feb. 22, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed this putative class action
in state court, alleging that the HRM Defendants sought to shirk
their financial responsibility for plugging near-defunct oil and
gas wells by fraudulently transferring them to the defendant
Painted Pegasus Petroleum, LLC so that it could enter bankruptcy
and discharge any such responsibility.

HRM Resources explores and produces oil and gas.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xKj6Ol at no extra
charge.[CC]

HURLEY INTERNATIONAL: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Hurley International, LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-00892 (D.
Minn., March 11, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's
Website (www.hurley.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, tops, bottoms, swimwear, wetsuits, outerwear,
hats, shoes, sunglasses 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)
          80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (763) 515-6110
          Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com
                 pat@throndsetlaw.com
                 chad@throndsetlaw.com

IBOTTA INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Ibotta, Inc. (NYSE: IBTA) resulting from
allegations that Ibotta may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

So What: If you purchased Ibotta securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=36526 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.

What is this about: On February 26, 2025, after market hours,
Investing.com published an article entitled "Ibotta shares plunge
30% as Q4 earnings miss, Q1 guidance disappoints." This article
stated, in pertinent part, that Ibotta "saw its shares tumble [. .
.] after reporting fourth-quarter earnings that fell short of
expectations and providing weak guidance for the first quarter of
2025."

On this news, Ibotta stock fell 46% on February 27, 2025.

Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS
Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class
action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4
each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438
million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was
named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's
attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Contacts

     Laurence Rosen, Esq.
     Phillip Kim, Esq.
     The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
     275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel: (212) 686-1060
     Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
     Fax: (212) 202-3827
     case@rosenlegal.com
     www.rosenlegal.com [GN]


ICF TECHNOLOGY: Seeks Class Cert Oral Argument in Mondello Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER MONDELLO, on
behalf of herself situated, and all others similarly situated, v.
ICF TECHNOLOGY, INC., ACCRETIVE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC., Case No.
8:24-cv-01037-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order granting request for oral argument on the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification and the Defendants'
opposition to class certification.

The Defendants believe that oral argument is necessary to better
assist this Court in understanding the factual and legal issues
raised by the parties' arguments in this matter.

Counsel for the Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff takes no
position on this Motion, and the Plaintiff believes the issues have
been fully presented to the Court by her Motion for Class
Certification, but has no opposition to a hearing, if the Court
requires additional information.

ICF is a global advisory and technology services provider.

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Cheryl Wilke, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS
          110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 495-2220
          E-mail: Cheryl.Wilke@lewisbrisbois.com

                - and -

          Michael T. Kitson, Esq.
          Shirley S. Lou-Magnuson, Esq.
          Hannah Ard, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR LLP
          1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4200
          Seattle, WA 98111-9402
          Telephone: (206) 223-7000
          E-mail: kitsonm@ballardspahr.com
                  loumagnusons@ballardspahr.com
                  ardh@ballardspahr.com

IFOSTER INC: Wince Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against IFoster, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Ashanti Wince, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. IFoster, Inc., Angel's Nest TLP, Case
No. 25STCV06901 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 11,
2025).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction).

iFoster -- https://www.ifoster.org/ -- provides life changing
resources for foster and kinship children and youth to put them on
the path to becoming independent successful adults.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arie Ebrahimian, Esq.
          David Lavi, Esq.
          E&L, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., 2nd Fl.
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638
          Phone: 213-213-0000
          Fax: 213-213-0025
          Email: arie@ebralavi.com
                 dlavi@ebralavi.com

J. DOERER: Papazian Loses Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES MICHAEL PAPAZIAN, v.
J. DOERER, Case No. 1:24-cv-01182-JLT-HBK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Helena Barch-Kuchta entered an order assigning to District
Judge findings and recommendations to deny the Plaintiff's motion
for class certification.

The Plaintiff's motion for class certification be denied.

The Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United
States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(l). Within 14 days after
being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a
party may file written objections with the Court. The document
should be captioned, "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and
Recommendations" and shall not exceed 15 pages.

The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the Objections. To
the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party
should reference the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document
and page number, when possible, or otherwise reference the exhibit
with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the fifteen (15)
page limitation may be disregarded by the District Judge when
reviewing these Findings and Recommendations under 28 U.S.C.
section 636(b)(l)(C).

The Plaintiff, a federal prisoner incarcerated at United States
Penitentiary, Atwater, proceeds pro se in this civil action.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=u4uxCW at no extra
charge.[CC]

JAIME S. SCHWARTZ: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Tuulik Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
DARLENE TUULIK; CARLA J. UTTER; and CHRISTEEN JOHNSON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JAIME
S. SCHWARTZ, MD; JAIME S. SCHWARTZ, MD PC; KAREN HERBST, MD; KAREN
HERBST, MD PC; and TOTAL LIPEDEMA CARE, Defendants, Case No.
3:25-cv-00576-JES-MSB (S.D. Cal., March 11, 2025) is an action
alleging the Defendants' illegal disclosure and negligent failure
to preserve their confidential Personal Medical Information.

According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, despite charging
clients thousands of dollars and having access to their
confidential personal medical information, including photos and
videos of them naked, the Defendants failed to provide even
minimally adequate computer systems and data security practices,
necessary to protect such information from cybercriminals and data
leaks.

As a result, the Defendants' data was hacked and all of their
patients' confidential personal medical information is now in the
hands of cybercriminals. What's worse is the Defendants knew for
over a year and said nothing to their patients.

JAIME S. SCHWARTZ, MD PC is in plastic surgery business,
specializing in advanced surgical techniques. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alreen Haeggquist, Esq.
          Aaron M. Olsen, Esq.
          Anna C. Schwartz, Esq.
          HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP
          225 Broadway, Suite 2050
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 342-8000
          Facsimile: (619) 342-7878
          Email: alreenh@haelaw.com
                 aarono@haelaw.com
                 annas@haelaw.com

JANIE AND JACK: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Janie and Jack LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-00911-DSD-DJF (D.
Minn., March 12, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's
Website (www.janieandjack.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 baby and children's clothing and accessories
for sale including, but not limited to tops, bottoms, jackets,
swimwear, shoes, pajamas, accessories 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)
          80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (763) 515-6110
          Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com
                 pat@throndsetlaw.com
                 chad@throndsetlaw.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Okays Settlements in San Miguel RICO Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kea W. Riggs of the United States District Court for the
District of New Mexico granted the plaintiff's motion for final
class certification, appointment of class counsel, final approval
of settlements, approval of plan of allocation, and award of
attorney's fees and expenses in the case captioned as SAN MIGUEL
HOSPITAL CORPORATION, d/b/a ALTA VISTA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PUBLIX
SUPERMARKET, INC., HENRY SCHEIN, INC., WALGREEN CO., WALGREEN
EASTERN CO., INC., CVS PHARMACY, INC., CVS Rx Services, Inc., CVS
ORLANDO FL DISTRIBUTION, LLC, WALMART, INC., f/k/a Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC., ALBERTSONS, LLC, SAFEWAY, INC.,
GIANT EAGLE, INC., HBC SERVICES COMPANY, KROGER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
I, KROGER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP II, THE KROGER CO., HIKMA
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., INDIVIOR, INC., ET AL., Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-00903 KWR/JFR (D.N.M.).

This motion seeks the certification of a settlement class and the
approval of a global settlement between various Acute Care
Hospitals against certain opioid manufacturers and distributors.
Since 2017, acute care hospitals represented by Interim Settlement
Class Counsel have been litigating claims similar to those alleged
in this suit in various proceedings in state and federal court. In
this case, Plaintiffs brought a RICO claim seeking reimbursement
from opioid manufacturers or distributors for the costs certain
hospitals incurred in treating opioid users.

The motion is unopposed and no class member has filed an
objection.

Class Certification

Plaintiffs seek to certify a settlement class as follows:

All Acute Care Hospitals in the United States that (i) are not
owned or operated by a federal, state, county, parish, city, or
other municipal government; and (ii) treated patients diagnosed
with opioid use disorder and/or other opioid-related conditions  at
any time from January 1, 2009 through the date of entry of the
Preliminary Approval Order.

The class includes all entities listed in Exhibit A and all other
plaintiffs listed in Exhibit B to each settlement agreements.
Excluded from the classes are any Acute Care Hospitals whose
Released Claims have been released by any other settlement with the
Settling Defendants.

The Court appointed the following as interim class counsel:

John W. Barrett of Barrett Law Group, P.A.; Warren T. Burns of
Burns Charest LLP; Robert A. Clifford of Clifford Law Offices,
P.C.; Steven B. Farmer of Farmer Cline & Campbell, PLLC; Charles J.
LaDuca of Cuneo, Gilbert, & LaDuca, LLP; and Steven A. Martino of
Taylor Martino, P.C. Barrett was designated as Lead Counsel

Plaintiffs assert that the class includes over 5,000 acute care
hospitals or entities. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs
have established that a class is so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable.

The Court finds Plaintiffs have also established commonality.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs are members of the proposed class
and their interests align with the settlement class. Plaintiffs, as
well as the proposed class, are acute care hospitals who treated
patients diagnosed with opioids use disorder and/or other
opioid-related conditions. The relief they seek is based on the
same evidence and legal theories as the settlement class.

There is nothing in the record to suggest that Plaintiffs or class
counsel have any conflict of interest with the class members.
Moreover, class counsel and Plaintiffs will clearly vigorously
prosecute the action on behalf of the class. Class counsel are
highly experienced in class actions. Therefore, the Court finds
that Plaintiffs have made an adequate showing under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a)(4).

The Court finds that certification is appropriate under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(b)(3) because questions common to the class predominate
over those that are individualized.

The Court has reviewed the relevant claims and elements, and the
record does not reflect that individualized inquiries would
predominate over common questions. Common questions
regarding the existence of a RICO conspiracy, Settling Defendants'
participation in the conspiracy, and causation predominate over
potential individual issues.

The Court finds that a class action under Rule 23(b)(3) is superior
to other available methods of adjudication. The claims asserted in
the ACH Opioid Litigation are highly complex and require
significant investment of time and capital by the acute care
hospitals and their counsel. Therefore, the class members have
little interest individually controlling the prosecution. This is a
global settlement involving the settlement of claims brought by
multiple plaintiffs, several of whom have been appointed as class
representatives. No class member has objected to the settlement or
the class certification or asserted that they wish to continue
pursuing their claims outside of the settlement.  Finally, the
difficulties in managing this class action do not appear to be
great.

The Court finds Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) for class certification.

Plaintiffs request that the Court appoint Interim Settlement Class
Counsel as Settlement Class Counsel. The Court agrees.

Settlement Agreement

This motion seeks the approval of a settlement of claims against
the following four groups of Defendants:

    * Defendants Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd., Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Cephalon, Inc., Actavis Pharma, Inc.,
Actavis LLC, Watson Laboratories, Inc. and Anda, Inc., along with
other released entities specified in the Teva Defendants Class
Action Settlement Agreement;

   * Defendants Cencora, Inc. (formerly Amerisource Bergen
Corporation), Cardinal Health, Inc., and McKesson Corporation,
along with other released entities identified in the Distributors
Settlement Agreement;

   * Defendants Allergan Finance, LLC (f/k/a Actavis, Inc. f/k/a
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.); Allergan Sales, LLC; and Allergan
USA, Inc., along with released entities specified in the Allergan
Defendants' Class Action Settlement Agreement; and

   * Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Janssen
Pharmaceutica, Inc., including the released entities identified in
the Janssen Settlement Agreement.

The settlements combined provide a $651 million common fund for the
putative class.

Plaintiffs request that the Court approve the four settlement
agreements. The Court finds the settlements proposed in this class
action are fair, adequate and reasonable, and therefore
approves the settlements.

Attorneys' Fees/Costs

The Court approves Plaintiffs' requested attorneys' fees.
Plaintiffs request attorneys' fees in the amount of 1/3rd of the
common fund. An award of one-third of the $651 million total
Settlement amounts to $217 million. Counsel billed approximately
$137.7 million. This equates to a 1.58 multiplier to their
collective lodestar, which falls well within the range deemed
acceptable within the Tenth Circuit.

Plaintiffs request approximately $35,330,637.54 in litigation
expenses across the various ACH opioid cases which are included in
this global class action settlement. No party or class member has
objected to these requested costs and expenses.

Moreover, Plaintiffs seek compensation for the costs incurred for
implementation of the Class Notice plan, totaling $311,757.66, with
$72,569.86 to A.B. Data and $239,187.81 to Cherry Bekaert.
Plaintiffs also requests that the Notice and Claims Administrators
and the Escrow Agent be allowed to submit itemized statements of
fees and expenses for the Court's approval on a monthly basis.
Similarly, Plaintiffs propose allowing Special Master Hon. Thomas
Hogan to submit on a monthly basis an itemized statement of fees
and expenses.

The Court approves the costs and fees, and Plaintiffs' proposed
procedure for reimbursement of the administration and special
master fees and costs.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ijG9G8 from PacerMonitor.com.

KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Court OK's Settlement in Seidner Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINA C. SEIDNER and
JARED MACKRORY, Individually, and as representatives of a Class of
Participants and Beneficiaries of the Kimberly-Clark Corporation
401(k) & Profit Sharing Plan, v. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION and
BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE OF KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00867-L (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Sam Lindsay
entered an order of approval of claim action settlement and
release:

   1. Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(1) of the Federal Rules of
      Civil Procedure, the court certifies for settlement purposes

      only the following Settlement Class:

      "All participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, at any time

      during the Class Period, including any beneficiary of a
      deceased person who was a participant in the Plan at any
      time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payees, in
      the case of a person subject to a QDRO who was a participant

      in the Plan at any time during the Class Period."

   2. The court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on July 18,
      2025, at 9:00 a.m.

   3. The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for final approval of

      the proposed Settlement no later than July 3, 2025, and
      shall file their motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses,
      and Class Representative Service Award, no later than June
      13, 2025.

Kimberly-Clark is an American multinational consumer goods and
personal care corporation that produces mostly paper-based consumer
products.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zw8b3L at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul M. Secunda, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          235 N. Executive Dr., Suite 240
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (414) 828-2372
          Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
          E-mail: psecunda@walcheskeluzi.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Karl G. Nelson, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER
          2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2100
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 698-3203
          Facsimile: (2140 571-2945
          E-mail: knelson@gibsondunn.com

LASERAWAY LLC: Taylor Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LaserAway, LLC. The
case is styled as Sara Taylor, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LaserAway, LLC, Case No.
2:25-cv-02157-AH-SK (C.D. Cal., March 11, 2025).

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

LaserAway -- https://www.laseraway.com/ -- is a dermatology company
offering tattoo removal and skin rejuvenation services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Gustavo Ponce, Esq.
          Mona Amini, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fischer Ave., Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Fax: (800) 520-5523
          Email: ak@kazlg.com
                 gustavo@kazlg.com
                 mona@kazlg.com

               - and -

          David James McGlothlin, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          301 East Bethany Home Road, Suite C-195
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Fax: (800) 520-5523
          Email: david@kazlg.com

LATE JULY SNACKS: Barber Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Melanie Barber, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. LATE JULY SNACKS, LLC, Case No.
CV2404055 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County
of Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on March 12, 2025, and assigned Case No.
5:25-cv-00658.

In her First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the
marketing and labeling of the Products are false and misleading
because Late July "failed to disclose that the Products contain an
artificial preservative ingredient called citric acid."
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges the phrase "No Artificial Flavors
or Preservatives" is false and misleading due to the presence of
citric acid.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Charles C. Sipos, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
          Seattle, WA 98101-3099
          Phone: +1.206.359.8000
          Facsimile: +1.206.359.9000
          Email: CSipos@perkinscoie.com

               - and -

          Natalie K. Sanders, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1888 Century Park East, Suite 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-1721
          Phone: +1.310.788.9900
          Facsimile: +1.310.788.3399
          Email: NSanders@perkinscoie.com

LENWICH HOLDINGS: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS SUMLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LENWICH HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-01974 (S.D.N.Y., March 10, 2025) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://lenwich.com, is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

Lenwich Holdings, LLC sandwich shop franchise chain based in New
York City.

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

LHNH LAVISTA: Filing or Class Cert Bid in Lanz Amended to March 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDER LANZ, et al., v.
LHNH LAVISTA LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-05344-LMM (N.D. Ga.),
the Hon. Judge Leigh Martin May entered an order Amending March 3,
2025, Order:

To resolve a discovery dispute between the parties, the Court
entered an Order on Jan. 31, 2025 giving Defendants 30 days from
the entry of the Order to complete its document production. The
Court also extended Plaintiffs' deadline to move for class
certification forty-five (45) days.

Thereafter, pursuant to an agreement reached by the parties, the
Court amended the deadlines to give (1) Defendants through Friday,
March 7, 2025 to complete their document production and (2)
Plaintiffs through Saturday, March 22, 2025 to file their motion
for class certification.

Pursuant to the foregoing consent agreement reached between the
parties and communicated to the Court, and the Court finding good
cause for the amendments, the Court adopts the parties' agreement
and amends its prior March 3, 2025 Order to give

  (1) Defendants through Monday, March, 10, 2025 to complete its
      document production and through Friday, March 14, 2025 to
      produce a privilege log and serve supplemental responses to
      Plaintiffs' written discovery requests and

  (2) Plaintiffs through Monday, March 31, 2025 to file their
      motion for class certification.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0pHneT at no extra
charge.[CC]

LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to June 5
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIANNE BELARDES, and
MARY SZANYI-COFFEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC, Case No.
8:23-cv-02115-JWH-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Holcomb
entered an order as follows:

   1. The Plaintiff's ex parte application to continue motion for
      class certification briefing schedule and hearing is
      granted.

   2. The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file a motion for class
      certification is extended to June 5, 2025.

   3. The deadline for loanDepot to file an opposition to such
      motion is extended to July 7, 2025.

   4. The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file a reply in support
      of such motion is extended to July 31, 2025.

   5. The hearing on such motion is continued to Aug. 19, 2025 at
      10:00 a.m.

The Court disagrees that the need for ex parte relief is a crisis
of Plaintiffs' creation. As loanDepot argued in its Motion to Stay,
the Court's decision in the Kearns Matter may bear on the class
certification issues in this action, particularly as those issues
relate to Coffey's role as a plaintiff in this action.

Moreover, in view of loanDepot's pending request to stay this
action, the Court is not persuaded that loanDepot would be
prejudiced by additional delay. Accordingly, the Court grants the
application.

The Plaintiffs commenced the putative class action in Nov. 2023,
and they filed their Amended Complaint in March 2018. The
Plaintiffs assert that loanDepot violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by "negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully
contacting Plaintiffs on their telephone[s]."

LoanDepot.com offers debt consolidation, home improvement, small
business, consumer, and mortgage loans.

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

LOS ANGELES, CA: Scheduling Conference Order Entered in Garbutt
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAMRYN GARBUTT, v. COUNTY
OF LOS ANGELES, et al. Case No. 2:24-cv-10947-WLH-BFM (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Wesley Hsu entered an order setting scheduling
conference:

-- If plaintiff has not already served the operative complaint on
    all defendants, plaintiff shall do so promptly and shall file
    proofs of service of the summons and complaint within three
    (3) days thereafter.

-- The scheduling conference will be held pursuant to Fed. R.
    Civ. P. Rule 16(b). T

-- The Joint Rule 26(f) Report must be filed not later than 14
    days before the scheduling conference. A Mandato

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

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

LPH INC: Marabelli Files FDCPA Suit in D. Montana
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LPH Inc. The case is
styled as Marcela Marabelli, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LPH Inc. d/b/a Northwest Collectors,
Case No. 9:25-cv-00038-KLD (D. Mont., March 12, 2025).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

LPH Inc. doing business as Northwest Collectors Inc. is a
family-owned-and-operated company that offers debt collection,
accounts receivable, and recovery services since 1970.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dawn McCraw, Esq.
          CONSUMER JUSTICE LAW FIRM PLC
          8095 N. 85th Way
          Scottsdale, AZ 85258
          Phone: (602) 807-1527
          Email: dmccraw@consumerjustice.com

LPH INC: Schmitt Files FDCPA Suit in D. Montana
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LPH Inc. The case is
styled as George Michael Schmitt, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LPH Inc. d/b/a Northwest Collectors,
Case No. 9:25-cv-00039-KLD (D. Mont., March 12, 2025).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

LPH Inc. doing business as Northwest Collectors Inc. is a
family-owned-and-operated company that offers debt collection,
accounts receivable, and recovery services since 1970.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dawn McCraw, Esq.
          CONSUMER JUSTICE LAW FIRM PLC
          8095 N. 85th Way
          Scottsdale, AZ 85258
          Phone: (602) 807-1527
          Email: dmccraw@consumerjustice.com

LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Court Dismisses Putative Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael D. Leffel and Kelsey C. Boehm of Foley & Lardner LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, review that it is well-settled
that under Article III of the Constitution, United States federal
courts are limited to trying "cases and controversies." Moreover, a
case or controversy exists only if a plaintiff has standing to file
the suit, requiring the plaintiff to demonstrate injury in fact,
causation, and redressability. On February 19, 2025, the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued a
noteworthy decision and dismissed a putative class action lawsuit
filed against lululemon athletica inc., and lululemon usa inc.
("Lululemon") without leave to amend for lack of Article III
standing.

A group of consumers filed the lawsuit alleging that Lululemon made
"false, deceptive, and misleading representations" regarding the
company's products and actions as they relate to environmental
initiatives in accordance with the company's "Be Planet" campaign.
Gyani v. Lululemon USA Inc., et al., 2025 WL 548405, (S.D. Fla.).
For example, the plaintiffs alleged that Lululemon's website stated
that it is "committed to making products that are better in every
way-for . . . the planet." In fact, according to the plaintiffs,
"Lululemon is responsible for significant GHG gas emissions,
landfill waste, and release of microplastics into the environment."
The plaintiffs claimed that they relied on various
misrepresentations from the "Be Planet" campaign in deciding to
purchase Lululemon products.

The court dismissed plaintiffs' claims, which were premised on
alleged violations of various states' consumer protection statutes.
First, the court found the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead an
injury in fact to support claims for monetary damages. The court
highlighted that "mere allegations of having paid a price premium
are insufficient — a plaintiff must tie the value of the product
to any purported misrepresentations." On this point, the court
found Valiente v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 2023 WL 3620538 (S.D.
Fla. May 24, 2023) instructive. In Valiente, a plaintiff allegedly
purchased cough drops due to the "phrase 'honey lemon,' the
'pictures of these ingredients,' and the statement that the product
'soothes sore throats.'" The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim
for lack of injury because the plaintiff failed to allege that the
cough drops were in any way "defective" or "worthless." The court
in Gyani found the facts before it similar in that the plaintiffs'
complaint failed to allege Lululemon's products were defective or
worthless. 2025 WL 548405. Moreover, the plaintiffs failed to
allege deceptive or unfair acts as to the products themselves,
failing to connect the allegedly problematic "Be Planet" statements
to the price premium the plaintiffs alleged that they paid for
Lululemon's products.

Next, the court held that the plaintiffs failed to plead an injury
in fact to support a claim for injunctive relief. The court relied
on Williams v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, 65 F.4th 1243 (11th Cir.
2023) and Piescik v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 576 F. Supp. 3d 1125 (S.D.
Fla. 2021), where the plaintiffs alleged that they "would like" to
purchase the company's products in the future "if" the defendant
improved the products at issue. In Gyani, the complaint similarly
alleged that the plaintiffs "would like" to purchase Lululemon's
products, however, "only if" the plaintiffs "can rely on Lululemon
'to be truthful in their marketing statements regarding the
sustainability and environmental impact of Lululemon's products and
actions.'" 2025 WL 548405. The court held that such allegations
failed to demonstrate harm that was actual or imminent.

Finally, the court refused to grant leave to amend. The court held
that the plaintiffs' request was procedurally improper in that the
plaintiffs embedded the request in their opposition brief rather
than making the request via motion.

Retailers and manufacturers concerned with risk associated with a
growing number of environmental or "green" marketing claims will
certainly welcome the Gyani decision. The ruling emphasizes that
plaintiffs must demonstrate concrete economic injury linked to the
at-issue marketing claims to pursue monetary relief as well as a
real and immediate threat of future harm to seek injunctive relief;
general allegations relating to a price premium and an equivocal
desire to make future purchases are not enough. However, the
decision certainly will not put an end to putative class actions
asserting greenwashing claims. If faced with a similar lawsuit,
retailers and manufacturers should consider whether to seek
dismissal at the pleading stage when the complaint does not tie the
alleged misrepresentations to the value of the product and/or does
not adequately allege any real threat of future harm. [GN]

M2 PRODUCTS GROUP: McGuire Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against M2 Products Group
LLC. The case is styled as Chad McGuire, individually and on behalf
of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. M2
Products Group LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01654-SAL (D.S.C., March 12,
2025).

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

M2 Products Group, LLC is in the Motion Picture and Tape
Distribution industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dave Maxfield, Esq.
          DAVE MAXFIELD, ATTORNEY, LLC
          PO Box 11865
          Columbia, SC 29211
          Phone: (803) 509-6800
          Fax: (855) 299-1656
          Email: dave@consumerlawsc.com

MACKIE WOLF: Bid to Dismiss Pierce Suit Tossed
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JERRY PIERCE AND JANET
PIERCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. MACKIE WOLF ZIENTZ & MANN, P.C.; REAL TIME
RESOLUTIONS, INC.; RESOLUTION CAPITAL, L.P.; AND DOES I-25, Case
No. 1:23-cv-01431-DAE (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge David Alan Ezra
entered an order adopting United States Magistrate Judge Susan
Hightower's Report and Recommendation in full.

The Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied.

The Court agrees that the Plaintiffs have alleged a sufficient
concrete injury traceable to Defendants and shown their standing to
sue.

On Jan. 29, 2025, Judge Hightower submitted a Report and
Recommendation, recommending that the Court deny the Motion to
Dismiss.

On Feb. 12, 2025, Defendants filed Objections to the
Recommendation.

On Feb. 26, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their response to the
Objections.

Mackie Wolf offers a wide range of legal services catering to the
mortgage banking and financial services sectors.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UkBL04 at no extra
charge.[CC]

MARYLAND: Palmer Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMIEN PALMER, et al., v.
STATE OF MARYLAND, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00899-CDA (D. Md.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the class and
subclasses, defined as:

Class:

    "all persons who do not affirmatively opt out of the class
    after a fair attempt at due notice, and who adequate records
    show were detained from 2019-2021 at Baltimore Central Booking

    and Intake Center for over two hours after the "records staff
    approval" time entered in the Offender Case Management
    System."

Subclass A:

    "Class Members who were detained for more than 2 hours, but
    equal to or less than 2.5 hours, after the RS Time."

Subclass B:

    "Class Members who were detained for more than 2.5 hours, but
    equal to or less than 3 hours, after the RS Time."

Subclass C:

    "Class Members who were detained for more than 3 hours, but
    equal to or less than 3.5 hours, after the RS Time."

Subclass D:

    "Class Members who were detained for more than 3.5 hours, but
    equal to or less than 4 hours, after the RS Time."

Subclass E:

    "Class Members who were detained over 4 hours after the RS
    Time."

The case involves a potential class action to address the fact that
people are being unconstitutionally overdetained at the Baltimore
Central Booking and Intake Center (Central Booking) after a
commissioner or court orders their release. In fact, the median
release time for the over 14,000 identified victims is 8 hours and
the mean is over 12 hours.

A class action is necessary here to finally address this ongoing
loss of freedom and to compensate the proposed class members who
lost so much over the three-year period at issue.

Maryland is a state in the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic regions
of the United States.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 10, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HuXW3K at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Cary J. Hansel, Esq.
          Kristen M. Mack, Esq.
          HANSEL LAW, PC
          2514 North Charles Street
          Baltimore, MD 21218
          Telephone: (301) 461-1040
          Facsimile: (443) 451-860
          E-mail: cary@hansellaw.com
                  kmack@hansellaw.com

MDL 2724: DPP's Bid for Class Certification OK'd in Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: GENERIC PHARMACEUTICALS PRICING
ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 2:16-md-02724 (E.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Rufe will grant direct purchaser plaintiffs' (DPPs) motions
for class certification and for appointment of class counsel. An
order will be entered.

Accordingly, at oral argument, Defendants presented another theory
that the revised proposed classes pose a fail-safe issue. There,
Defendants argued that a potential jury could find that the
conspiracy occurred at a different time, or for a different
duration of time than the class periods proposed in the revised
class definitions. If that did occur, Defendants argue that class
members would fall out of the class. The Court is not convinced by
Defendants' argument -- inclusion of a class period in the class
definition does not create a fail-safe issue.

DPPs' revised definition does not present a fail-safe issue. Should
they have included "conspiratorial price increases" in their
revised definition, the Court's decision may very well have been
different. As it stands, regardless of the phrasing DPPs used to
introduce their revision, the revised class definition does not
exclude entities on the basis of liability.

DPPs initially sought to certify the following classes of DPP's who
allege injury arising from the allegedly anticompetitive actions by
the Defendants:

-- For Clobetasol:

    "All persons or entities that directly purchased Clobetasol
    (generic clobetasol propionate topical ointment .05% (15, 30,
    45, or 60 gm), topical solution .05% (25 or 50 ml), topical
    gel .05% (15, 30, or 60 gm), topical cream .05% (15, 30, 45,
    or 60 gm), or topical emollient cream .05% (15, 30, or 60 gm))

    from one or more of the Clobetasol Defendants in the United
    States and its territories and possessions at any time during
    the period from June 3, 2014 through Dec. 31, 2018 (the
    "Clobetasol Class Period")."

    Excluded from the Class are the Defendants [] and their
    officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, or
    affiliates, judicial officers and their personnel, and all
    governmental entities.

-- For Clomipramine:

    "All persons or entities that directly purchased Clomipramine
    (generic clomipramine hydrochloride 25, 50, or 75 mg capsules)

    from one or more of the Clomipramine Defendants in the United
    States and its territories and possessions at any time during
    the period from May 1, 2013 through the Dec. 31, 2018 (the
    Clomipramine Class Period)."

    Excluded from the Class are the Defendants [] and their
    officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, or
    affiliates, judicial officers and their personnel, and all
    governmental entities.

Each revised definition is as follows:

-- For Clobetasol:

    "All persons or entities that directly purchased clobetasol
    (generic clobetasol propionate topical ointment .05% (15, 30,
    45, or 60 gm), topical solution .05% (25 or 50 ml), topical
    gel .05% (15, 30, or 60 gm), topical cream .05% (15, 30, 45,
    or 60 gm), or topical emollient cream .05% (15, 30, or 60 gm))

    from one or more of the Clobetasol Defendants in the United
    States and its territories and possessions at any time during
    the period from June 3, 2014 through Dec. 31, 2018 (the
    Clobetasol Class Period).

    Excluded from the Clobetasol Class are (a) the Defendants and
    former defendants [] and their officers, directors,
    management, employees, subsidiaries, or affiliates, (b)
    judicial officers and their personnel, (c) all governmental
    entities, and (d) all persons or entities that (i) purchased
    at least one form of clobetasol (i.e., ointment, topical
    solution, topical gel, topical cream, or topical emollient
    cream) during the period May 15, 2013 to May 14, 2014
    ("Clobetasol Pre Period") and at least one of the same forms
    during the Clobetasol Class Period and (ii) whose purchase
    prices (measured in dollars and cents) for all of the form(s)
    purchased in both Periods did not increase during the
    Clobetasol Class Period as compared to the Clobetasol Pre
    Period.

-- For Clomipramine:

    "All persons or entities that directly purchased clomipramine
    (generic clomipramine hydrochloride 25, 50, or 75mg capsules)
    from one or more of the Clomipramine Defendants in the United
    States and its territories and possessions at any time during
    the period from May 1, 2013 through Dec. 31, 2018 (the
    Clomipramine Class Period)."

    Excluded from the Clomipramine Class are (a) the Defendants or

    former defendants [] and their officers, directors,
    management, employees, subsidiaries, or affiliates, (b)
    judicial officers and their personnel, (c) all governmental
    entities, and (d) all persons or entities that (i) purchased
    at least one strength of clomipramine (i.e., 25, 50, or 75mg
    capsules) during the period March 18, 2012 to March 17, 2013
    ("Clomipramine Pre Period") and at least one of the same
    strengths during the Clomipramine Class Period and (ii) whose
    purchase prices (measured in dollars and cents) for all of the

    strength(s) purchased in both Periods did not increase during
    the Clomipramine Class Period as compared to the Clomipramine
    PrePeriod.

The MDL concerns alleged price-fixing schemes involving numerous
generic drugs and generic drug manufacturers.

A copy of the Court's opinion dated March 7, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e1xSkQ at no extra
charge.[CC]

MGM RESORTS: Settles Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit for $45-Mil.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that MGM Resorts International agreed to
a $45 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims
that two data breaches in 2019 and 2023 compromised consumer
information.

The MGM data breach settlement benefits individuals whose private
information was compromised in the July 2019 and/or September 2023
data breaches and who were sent a notice of the data breaches from
MGM.

According to a class action lawsuit, the MGM Resorts data breach
compromised sensitive consumer information such as names,
addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, birth dates, driver's
license numbers, military identification numbers, passport numbers
and Social Security numbers.

Plaintiffs in the MGM data breach class action lawsuit allege the
company could have prevented the breaches through reasonable
cybersecurity measures.

MGM Resorts is a global entertainment company that operates hotels
and casinos in Las Vegas, Macau, Japan and other locations. MGM has
not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $45 million settlement
to resolve these allegations.

Under the terms of the MGM data breach settlement, class members
can receive a minimum flat cash payment, subject to a possible
pro-rata increase, based on the type of information compromised:

     1. Social security or military identification numbers -- a $75
payment.

     2. Passport numbers or driver's license numbers -- a $50
payment.

     3. Names, addresses and/or dates of birth -- a $20 payment.

Class members who experienced documented losses as a result of the
MGM Resorts data breach can receive up to $15,000 in reimbursement
for fraud, identity theft, professional fees, credit expenses and
other losses. This reimbursement is available to all class members,
regardless of the type of information that was compromised in the
data breaches.

Additionally, all class members can receive one year of free
financial account monitoring. This service includes three-bureau
identity theft protection, credit monitoring and at least $1
million in fraud and identity theft insurance.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is May 19, 2025.

The final approval hearing for the MGM Resorts settlement is
scheduled for June 18, 2025.

In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit
a valid claim form by June 3, 2025.

Who's Eligible

The MGM Resorts settlement benefits individuals whose personal
information was compromised in July 2019 and September 2023 data
breaches and who received a notice from MGM informing them of their
inclusion in the settlement.

Potential Award
Varies. Payments vary according to the type of data compromised
plus one year's monitoring of financial accounts. Reimbursable
expenses are up to $15,000.

Proof of Purchase
For reimbursable claims, you must provide documentation of losses,
such as credit card or bank statements, invoices, telephone records
and receipts.

NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.

Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.

Claim Form Deadline
06/03/2025

Case Name
In re: MGM International Resorts Data Breach Litigation, Case No.
2:20-cv-00376-GMN-NJK, and Tanya Owens, et al. v. MGM Resorts
International, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01480-FRB in the United
States District Court District Of Nevada

Final Hearing
06/18/2025

Settlement Website
MGMdataSettlement.com

Claims Administrator

     MGM Data Incident Litigation Settlement Administrator
     PO Box 3020
     Portland, OR 97208-3020
     (888) 899-8358

Class Counsel

     John A. Yanchunis
     MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP

     E. Michelle Drake
     BERGER MONTAGUE PC

     Doug McNamara
     COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
     
     David Berger
     GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP

     J. Gerard Stranch IV
     STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC

     Lynn Toops
     COHEN & MALAD LLP

     James Pizzirusso
     HAUSFELD LLP

     Gary M. Klinger
     MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC

     Jeff Ostrow
     KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA

Defense Counsel

     Neil Gilman
     HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP

     Eric M. Roberts
     DLA PIPER LLP (US) [GN]

MOSAIC CAPITAL: Sawlaw Sues Over Alleged ERISA Breaches
-------------------------------------------------------
Forrest Sawlaw, as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, and on behalf of the Hollandia Produce Group,
Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, Plaintiff v. Mosaic Capital
Investors I, LP, True West Capital Partners Fund II, L.P., Keith
Butcher, Michael Zeller, Ian Mohler, Iain Douglas, Moore & Van
Allen PLLC, and GreatBanc Trust Company, Defendants, Case No.
2:25-cv-02156 (C.D. Cal., March 11, 2025), arises under the the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

Allegedly, the Defendants allegedly abused the Employee Stock
Ownership Plan (ESOP) for their own profit. In addition, GreatBanc
Trust Company failed to protect the ESOP from its co-Defendants. As
a result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, the value of Hollandia
workers' retirement accounts has diminished, says the suit.

Mosaic Capital Investors I, LP is a private equity firm based in
North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan Ghaffari, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN P.A.
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 2200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 787-8589
          Facsimile: (213) 418-3982
          E-mail: eghaffari@forthepeople.com

                  - and -

          Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
          Jennifer K. Lee, Esq.
          ENGSTROM LEE LLC
          323 N Washington Ave., Suite 200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 305-8349
          Facsimile: (612) 677-3050
          E-mail: cengstrom@engstromlee.com
                  jlee@engstromlee.com

                  - and -

          Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 577-4722
          Facsimile: (813) 257-0572
          E-mail: medelman@forthepeople.com

MOTT'S LLP: Faces Class Action Over for Misleading Consumers
------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit accuses manufacturer Mott's of misleading consumers
by falsely advertising ReaLime and ReaLemon products as "real,"
"natural" and "100%" juice.

According to the 23-page lawsuit, the company markets the products
as containing only "real" lime or lemon ingredients with
front-label statements such as "100% Lime Juice," "100% Lemon
Juice" and "Natural Strength" superimposed over pictures of the
respective fruits. However, despite the representations, the
ReaLime and ReaLemon products contain artificial preservatives
sodium benzoate and sodium metabisulfite, the case claims.

The class action suit contends that because there is no mention of
artificial ingredients on the front label, consumers are led to
believe the products are completely "real" and natural.

"A reasonable consumer viewing the front labeling of the Products
would come away with the impression that the Products are composed
of only natural, real ingredients," the complaint argues. "Nothing
about the front label would compel a reasonable consumer to flip
the Products around to check whether, in fact, the Products contain
artificial preservatives."

In addition, the filing takes issue with the front-label statement
that the ReaLime and ReaLemon products contain juice from
concentrate "with added ingredients." The suit alleges the items
are misbranded under federal and state regulations, claiming that
the label should read, "with added preservatives."

"Given that artificial preservatives are such a turn-off for
consumers buying what they perceive as a natural 100% juice
product, it is not appropriate, and is misleading, for [Mott's] to
simply state 'with added ingredients,' as opposed to 'with added
preservatives,'" the ReaLime and ReaLemon lawsuit charges.

The lawsuit looks to represent all United States residents who
purchased a ReaLime or ReaLemon product for personal or household
use within the past four years. [GN]

MURGADO AUTOMOTIVE: Karpiel Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Murgado Automotive
Group, Inc. The case is styled as Jason Karpiel, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Murgado Automotive
Group, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-21153-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 11,
2025).

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

Murgado Automotive Group -- https://www.murgadoautomotivegroup.com/
-- sells new and used vehicles, specializing in Buick and GMC
vehicles in the Florida area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew John 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

NABFLY INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Toscano Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
DIEGO TOSCANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NABFLY, INC. D/B/A BESPOKE POST, Defendant,
Case No. 2:25-cv-02085 (C.D. Cal., March 8, 2025) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

nabfly, Inc., doing business as Bespoke Post, provides e-commerce
products and services. The Company offers aged cocktail kits, shave
sets, and coffee products, as well as gives gift subscription
services that allows users to redeem, ship, and to read stories,
tips, and tricks. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          1515 NE 26 th Street
          Wilton Manors, FL 33305
          Telephone: (754) 444-7539
          Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com


NATROL LLC: Class Cert Hearing in Yamasaki Suit Reset to May 22
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Yamasaki v. Natrol, LLC,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00182 (N.D. Cal., Filed Jan. 13, 2023), the Hon.
Judge entered an order resetting the hearing on class certification
and related motions to exclude for May 22, 2025.

The nature of suit states diversity-fraud.

Natrol sells vitamins and dietary supplements.[CC]

NATROL LLC: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Bid to May 8
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VENUS YAMASAKI, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. NATROL, LLC, Case
No. 3:23-cv-00182-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order that the hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification and the Defendant's motions to exclude is continued
to May 8, 2025.

On Dec. 19, 2024, the Plaintiff filed her Motion for Class
Certification.

On Jan. 23, 2025, the Defendant filed a Motion to Exclude the
Opinions and Testimony of Dr. Richard Bazinet and a Motion to
Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Colin B. Weir.

On Feb. 24, 2025, the Court reset the hearing on the Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification and Defendant's Motions to Exclude
to April 10, 2025.

Natrol is a seller of vitamins and dietary supplements.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
          Hassan A. Zavareei
          Allison W. Parr
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 254-6808
          E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com
                  hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                  aparr@tzlegal.com

                - and -

          Stuart E. Scott
          Kevin Hulick
          SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER
          LLP
          1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 696-3232
          E-mail: sscott@spanglaw.com
                  khulick@spanglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lawrence G. Scarborough, Esq.
          Desmonne A. Bennett, Esq.
          Kaylee A. Racs, Esq.
          FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          1177 Avenue of the Americas, 41st Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 248-3140
          Facsimile: (212) 248-3141
          E-mail: lawrence.scarborough@faegredrinker.com
                  desmonne.bennett@faegredrinker.com
                  kaylee.racs@faegredrinker.com

NDC ASSET: Filing for Conditional Class Cert in Morris Due Oct. 7
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY MORRIS,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NDC
ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-01319-DSC (W.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge David Stewart Cercone entered a case management order as
follows:

-- The case is placed under Local Rule 16.1 for all pretrial
    procedures and all provisions thereof will be strictly
    enforced.

-- The action will proceed in phases. Phase I shall encompass an
    initial phase of fact discovery on all relevant matters in the

    case, including class certification(s) and issues as to
    liability and damages.

-- Phase one fact discovery shall be completed by July 7, 2025.

-- All written discovery shall be initiated in sufficient time to

    permit responses to be completed and depositions to be taken
    in compliance with all applicable deadlines.

-- The Plaintiff shall file a motion for conditional class
    certification and submissions/brief in support thereof on or
    before Oct. 7, 2025.

-- The Defendant's responses/briefs in opposition shall be filed
    on or before Nov. 7, 2025.

-- The Plaintiff may file a reply brief on or before Nov. 21,
    2025.

NDC Asset is a real estate company located in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.

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

NEW YORK ONLINE REALTY: Brown Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York Online
Realty Corp. The case is styled as Jarell Brown, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. New York Online
Realty Corp., Case No. 2:25-cv-01377 (E.D.N.Y., March 11, 2025).

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

New York Online Realty Corp. -- https://www.nyonlinerealty.com/ --
is a premier real estate hub in New York.[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

NEWSMAX MEDIA: Butkus Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Newsmax Media, Inc.
The case is styled as Carl Butkus, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Newsmax Media, Inc., Case No.
0:25-cv-60470-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 11, 2025).

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

Newsmax, Inc. -- https://www.newsmax.com/ -- is an American cable
news, political opinion commentary, and digital media company
founded by Christopher Ruddy in 1998.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW, LLC
          43 Danbury Road
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Phone: (203) 653-2250
          Fax: (203) 653-3424
          Email: slemberg@lemberglaw.com

NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Faces Garner and Adams Suit Over ERISA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LAURA GARNER and LAWRENCE ADAMS, individually and as
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, on behalf
of the NORTHROP GRUMMAN SAVINGS PLAN, Plaintiffs v. NORTHROP
GRUMMAN CORPORATION, the NORTHROP GRUMMAN BENEFIT PLAN
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, and DOES No. 1-20, Whose Names Are
Currently Unknown, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00439 (E.D. Va.,
March 11, 2025), accuses the Defendants for (1) breach of the
fiduciary duties established under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, (2) violation of ERISA's anti-inurement provision,
and (3) engaging in self-dealing and transactions prohibited by
ERISA.

The class action arises out of Defendants' alleged wrongful use,
for their own benefit, of assets in their employees' retirement
plan. Defendants used forfeited Plan assets to reduce Northrop
Grumman's employer contribution obligations rather than for the
benefit of Plan participants, in violation of their fiduciary
responsibilities and several provisions of ERISA.

Northrop Grumman is a multinational aerospace and defense
corporation headquartered in West Falls Church, VA. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Glenn E. Chappell, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: gchappell@tzlegal.com

                  - and -

          James E. Miller, Esq.
          Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
          MILLER SHAH LLP
          65 Main Street
          Chester, CT 06412
          Telephone: (866) 540-5505
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: jemiller@millershah.com
                  lrubinow@millershah.com

                  - and -

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          MILLER SHAH LLP
          8730 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 400
          Los Angeles, CA 90211
          Telephone: (866) 540-5505
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: jcshah@millershah.com

                  - and -

          Alec J. Berin, Esq.
          MILLER SHAH LLP
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (866) 540-5505
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: ajberin@millershah.com

OSBORN CORRECTIONAL: Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DiCicco v. Osborn
Correctional Institute, Case No. 3:24-cv-00637 (D. Conn., Filed
April 3, 2024), the Hon. Judge Stefan R. Underhill entered an order
denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to appoint
counsel.

The court is aware that pro bono counsel may soon appear in one or
more of the many cases currently pending in this District related
to the conditions of confinement at Osborn CI.

If that happens, the court anticipates a motion to certify a class
action. If counsel is not appointed, or if a motion for class
certification is denied, plaintiff may file a second motion to
appoint counsel.

The nature of suit states prisoner civil rights.

Osborn Correctional Institution, formerly known as the Connecticut
Correctional Institution – Somers, is a medium-security state
prison that includes a high-security mental health unit for men of
the Connecticut Department of Correction located in Somers,
Connecticut.[CC]
 


OVERLAKE HOSPITAL: Court Narrows Claims in Nienaber Privacy Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Tana Lin of the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington granted in part and denied in part Overlake
Hospital Medical Center's motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint in the case captioned as JACQ NIENABER, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OVERLAKE
HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-01159-TL (W.D.
Wash.).

In Plaintiff's Second Amended Class Action Complaint, Plaintiff, a
current patient of Defendant, alleges that Defendant, a nonprofit
healthcare organization, installed and implemented browser plugins
-- including the Facebook Tracking Pixel, Facebook's Conversions
Application Programming Interface, and Google's Tag Manager and
Analytics tools -- on its website https://www.overlakehospital.org,
through which patients (and members of the public) can conduct
searches about various medical conditions and treatments and the
practitioners at each location who provide medical services.  The
Website also allows patients to log in to Defendant's private
patient portal. Plaintiff alleges that she has used the Website to,
among other things, search for healthcare providers, pay bills,
research and identify treatment options, and log into Defendant's
patient portal.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant uses the plugins in order to track
and enable the transmission and disclosure of information from
visitors to Defendant's Website to third parties, including
Facebook and Google. The data transmitted includes Plaintiff's and
Class Members' health conditions; desired medical treatment or
therapies; and phrases and search queries (such as searches for
symptoms, treatment options, or types of providers).

Plaintiff contends that Defendant's transmissions of information
violated its own privacy policies, HIPAA standards, and industry
standards. She reasserts claims for negligence, invasion of
privacy, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, violation
of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and violation of the
Washington Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff also newly brings
claims for breach of fiduciary duty and violation of RCW Secs.
7.70.010–.160.

The principal theory of Plaintiff's case, which underlies all
claims, is that Defendant transmits to third parties the Private
Information that patients input into Defendant's public website,
without those patients' consent.

The Court finds Plaintiff's SAC still does not clear the bar for
her negligence claim, as she does not establish injury or damages.
Accordingly, as to Plaintiff's claim for negligence, Defendant's
motion is granted with leave to amend.

While Plaintiff has not alleged the transmission of information
from a private patient portal, she has alleged the disclosure of
Private Information. However, that Plaintiff has alleged the
disclosure of highly sensitive information does not negate the lack
of allegations regarding an intrusion in this case.  Accordingly,
as to Plaintiff's claim for invasion of privacy, Defendant's motion
is granted without leave to amend.

While the Court has determined that the information Plaintiff
alleges was shared discloses patient status and is therefore
protected under HIPAA, she still must allege that Defendant made a
promise to protect that information beyond what it is required to
do under HIPAA. Plaintiff has thus failed to allege the existence
of an implied contract, the Court concludes. Accordingly, as to
Plaintiff's claim for breach of implied contract, Defendant's
motion is granted with leave to amend.

The Court emphasizes that while Plaintiff now specifically
identifies what private information she shared with Defendant and
contends was shared with third parties, the loss of privacy alone
is insufficient to establish a benefit conferred at Plaintiff's
expense for purposes of an unjust-enrichment claim. Accordingly, as
to Plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment, Defendant's motion is
granted with leave to amend.

Plaintiff newly brings a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against
Defendant on behalf of herself and the putative nationwide class.
Defendant moves to dismiss, arguing that there is no precedent to
recognize a duty of a healthcare provider in its capacity as a
website operator.

The Court finds Plaintiff, a patient of Defendant, has stated a
viable claim for breach of fiduciary duty against her healthcare
provider for disclosing her Private Information.  Accordingly, as
to Plaintiff's claim for breach of fiduciary duty, Defendant's
motion is denied.

Plaintiff brings an amended claim for violations of the ECPA on
behalf of herself and the putative nationwide class. Defendant
seeks dismissal, arguing that Plaintiff fails to allege any
unlawful interception, that there is no civil liability for the
alleged "procurement" by Defendant, and that Plaintiff fails to
allege the disclosure of any "contents."

The Court finds Plaintiff still fails to plead a tortious or
criminal use of the acquired communications, separate from their
recording, interception, or transmission. Accordingly, as to
Plaintiff's ECPA claim, Defendant's motion is granted without leave
to amend.

Plaintiff newly brings a claim for violation of RCW Secs.
7.70.010–.160 on behalf of herself and the putative nationwide
class. Defendant seeks dismissal, arguing that this is not a case
involving "health care" under the statute and that this is not a
medical malpractice case.

Because Plaintiff does not allege that her injury occurred as a
result of "health care" as defined under RCW Secs. 7.70.010–.160,
she has not alleged a claim for medical malpractice. Accordingly,
as to Plaintiff's claim under RCW Chapter 7.70, Defendant's motion
is granted with leave to amend.

Plaintiff brings an amended claim for violation of the CPA.
Defendant seeks dismissal, arguing that Plaintiff has failed to
allege a cognizable injury under the CPA. Plaintiff does include
factual allegations detailing the value of her Personal
Information, including her protected health information, but she
does not provide sufficient allegations regarding any time or money
spent to remedy the disclosure of her Private Information, and she
cites to no caselaw indicating that loss of value alone is
sufficient to establish a harm for purposes of a Washington CPA
claim. Accordingly, as to Plaintiff's CPA claim, Defendant's motion
is granted with leave to amend.

The Court will grant Plaintiff one final opportunity to amend her
complaint. Should she choose to do so, the final amended complaint
must be filed by March 25, 2025.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZOrpzE from PacerMonitor.com

PEPSICO INC: Faces Pure Leaf Tea False Advertising Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Garo Daldalian is suing
PepsiCo, Unilever and Pepsi Lipton Tea Partnership.

Why: Daldalian claims the companies falsely advertise Pure Leaf tea
products as being "Brewed in USA."

Where: The Pure Leaf class action was filed in California federal
court.

A new class action lawsuit alleges Pure Leaf tea products are
falsely advertised as "Brewed in USA."

Plaintiff Garo Daldalian filed the class action lawsuit against
PepsiCo, Unilever and Pepsi Lipton Tea Partnership on Feb. 21 in a
California federal court, alleging violations of California's
consumer protection laws.

The class action lawsuit alleges the companies' Pure Leaf tea
products are falsely labeled as "Brewed in USA" despite containing
foreign-sourced, grown or manufactured ingredients, primarily tea
leaves.

Daldalian argues that the labeling misleads consumers into
believing the products are made entirely in the United States,
influencing their purchasing decisions.

The Pure Leaf class action lawsuit claims that as major players in
the beverage industry, the companies should have been aware of the
strict regulations on "Made in USA" claims but chose to ignore them
for financial gain.

The companies' misrepresentation violates federal and state laws
designed to protect consumers from deceptive advertising, the class
action says.

Pure Leaf tea contains foreign ingredients, plaintiff says

According to the lawsuit, Daldalian purchased Pure Leaf tea
believing it was made with U.S.-sourced ingredients. The plaintiff
claims he relied on the "Brewed in USA" label, which also featured
U.S. flag imagery, reinforcing the impression that the product was
of American origin.

The Pure Leaf tea class action alleges that consumers paid a
premium for the misleadingly labeled products, believing they were
supporting American jobs and companies.

The class action argues that the companies' actions violate
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law
and False Advertising Law. It also alleges breach of express
warranty, unjust enrichment and both negligent and intentional
misrepresentation.

The plaintiff wants to represent all California consumers who
purchased Pure Leaf products labeled "Brewed in USA" within the
last four years and seeks damages, restitution and injunctive
relief.

On Feb. 20, McCormick & Company Inc. faced a similar class action
lawsuit alleging it falsely advertises its French's brand mustard
products as made in the United States.

The plaintiff is represented by Abbas Kazerounian and Pamela E.
Prescott of Kazerouni Law Group APC.

The Pure Leaf class action lawsuit is Daldalian v. PepsiCo Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01491, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California. [GN]


PEPSICO INC: N.D. California Narrows Claims in McCausland Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge P. Casey Pitts of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California grants in part and denies in part the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit styled IAN MCCAUSLAND, et
al., Plaintiffs v. PEPSICO, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:23-cv-04526-PCP (N.D. Cal.).

In this class action lawsuit, Plaintiffs Ian McCausland, Carlo
Garcia, and Michael Zurl allege that PepsiCo, Inc., deceptively
advertises and labels its Gatorade Protein Bars. PepsiCo now moves
to dismiss the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint under Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

PepsiCo previously moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' initial
complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6). The Court granted its motion in part and denied its
motion in part. Specifically, the Court rejected PepsiCo's motion
to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety on the ground
that their claims were preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act ("FDCA") or because they had not plausibly alleged
that PepsiCo's labeling and marketing of the Gatorade Protein Bars
is likely to deceive a reasonable consumer.

The Court also rejected PepsiCo's argument that the Plaintiffs
failed to state a claim under either the "unlawful" or "unfair"
prongs of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). The Court
granted PepsiCo's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' request for
equitable restitution and injunctive relief.

The Plaintiffs, then, filed the operative first amended complaint,
modestly amending the allegations in support of their requests for
equitable restitution and injunctive relief. In moving to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint, PepsiCo raises arguments
similar to those presented in its previous motion to dismiss.

PepsiCo requests that the Court take judicial notice of the
complete packaging and labels for Gatorade Protein Bars. Because
these materials are discussed extensively in the first amended
complaint and central to the Plaintiffs' claims, the Court grants
PepsiCo's request.

PepsiCo argues that the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint fails
to omit certain allegations that the Court found preempted in its
prior order. According to PepsiCo, without those allegations the
Plaintiffs fail to state a plausible consumer deception claim.

The Court begins by noting that the plain text of its prior order
does not find all of the allegations that PepsiCo identifies to be
preempted by the FDCA. For the same reason, the Court again cannot
decide on this motion to dismiss whether those protein allegations
are preempted.

Separately, the Court expressly held that the sugar labeling
allegations, although "preempted to the extent that they seek to
impose labeling requirements that are not identical to the
requirements of federal law," remained "relevant to determining
what a reasonable consumer might understand about the bars' sugar
content and whether PepsiCo's other statements about its bars are
misleading or deceptive in light thereof."

Judge Pitts finds the Plaintiffs did not err by keeping these
partially preempted allegations in their first amended complaint.
In any event, the Court did not rely on the allegations that it did
find preempted in holding that the Plaintiffs' original complaint
stated a plausible consumer deception claim. The Plaintiffs'
allegations in support of their consumer deception claims have not
changed in the amended complaint. Accordingly, PepsiCo's motion to
dismiss those claims is denied for the same reasons set forth in
the Court's prior order.

Because the Court finds that the Plaintiffs continue to state
plausible claims of consumer deception, Judge Pitts finds they
plausibly state derivative UCL claims. Accordingly, PepsiCo's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' UCL claim is denied.

In granting in part PepsiCo's first motion to dismiss, the Court
dismissed the Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief for lack of
standing with leave to amend, concluding that they had not alleged
a concrete threat of future harm.

In their first amended complaint, the Plaintiffs again request
injunctive relief and add the following allegations to address the
Court's reasoning: that they (1) make food purchases without
researching the labeling fine print as a matter of both necessary
expediency and habit, and (2) intend to, seek to, and will purchase
the Product again when they can do so with the assurance its
representations are consistent with the Products' attributes and/or
composition.

PepsiCo argues that these additional allegations do not establish
the Plaintiffs' standing to seek injunctive relief for the same
reasons articulated in the Court's prior order. The Court agrees.

Because the plaintiffs here are aware that they can review the
product's label to ascertain the bars' sugar content, Judge Pitts
finds they face no such vulnerability. Indeed, the case that the
Plaintiffs rely on demonstrates why their additional allegations do
not establish their standing to seek injunctive relief, citing In
Miller v. Nature's Path Foods, Inc., No. 23-CV-05711-JST, 2024 WL
4177940 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2024).

Accordingly, Judge Pitts holds that the Plaintiffs' request for
injunctive relief is dismissed for lack of standing without leave
to amend. Because the claim is dismissed for lack of standing, the
dismissal is without prejudice.

In addition to injunctive relief, the Plaintiffs seek equitable
monetary relief in the form of disgorgement and restitution of all
monies from the sale of Gatorade Protein Bars that were unjustly
acquired. The Court dismissed this request in the Plaintiffs'
initial complaint because they failed to allege that they lacked an
adequate legal remedy as required to state a claim for equitable
relief.

PepsiCo argues that the Plaintiffs' request for equitable relief in
its first amended complaint fails for the same reason. The Court
agrees. The Plaintiffs fail to allege any facts supporting their
allegation that they lack an equitable legal remedy. Accordingly,
the Plaintiffs' claims for monetary relief under the UCL and
Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") are dismissed without leave to
amend.

Because the dismissal is premised upon the Court's inability to
assert equitable jurisdiction over these requests for monetary
relief, the dismissal is without prejudice to the Plaintiffs'
reassertion of those claims in a state court not subject to such
restrictions.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4n3rme6d from PacerMonitor.com.


PHILADELPHIA CONTRIBUTIONSHIP: Wadsworth Files Suit in Pa. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Philadelphia
Contributionship. The case is styled as Donna Wadsworth,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The
Philadelphia Contributionship d/b/a The Philadelphia
Contributionship Insurance Company, Case No. 250301569 (Pa. Ct. of
Common Pleas, March 12, 2025).

The case type is stated as "Breach of Contract."

The Philadelphia Contributionship was founded in 1752 as an insurer
of urban homes located in Philadelphia, Philadelphia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael D. Shaffer, Esq.
          SHAFFER & GAIER, LLC
          1628 JFK Blvd., Ste. 400
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 751-0100
          Email: mshaffer@shaffergaier.com

               - and -

          Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
          MILLER SHAH LLP
          1845 Walnut Street, Ste. 806
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (866) 540-5505
          Email: nfinkelman@millershah.com

PHILADELPHIA, PA: All Fact Discovery in Eastman Due Sept. 1
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN EASTMAN, et al.,
v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Case No. 2:21-cv-02248-MSG (E.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Mitchell Goldberg entered an order that:

   1. The civil actions are consolidated for all purposes pursuant

      to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a).

   2. The Plaintiffs shall file their Amended Complaint by March
      17, 2025.

   3. The Defendants shall respond to the Plaintiffs' amended
      complaint by March 31, 2025.

   4. All fact discovery shall be completed by Sept. 1, 2025.

   5. Expert reports are due Oct. 1, 2025.

   6. Dispositive motions and motions for class certification
      shall be filed no later than Nov. 3, 2025. Reponses shall be

      filed no later than Nov. 24, 2025. Replys (if necessary)
      shall be filed no later than Dec. 8, 2025.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9Kp80j at no extra
charge.[CC]

PLATINUM CHOICE: Wells Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Platinum Choice
Health Care LLC. The case is styled as Connie Wells, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Platinum Choice
Health Care LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00173-FJG (W.D. Mo., March 11,
2025).

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

Platinum Choice Health Care LLC --
https://www.platinumchoicehealthcare.com/ -- provide families and
individuals with Medicare Supplement, Medicare Advantage,
Prescription Part D Drug Plans, health insurance, dental/vision
coverage and final expense insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxwell Cory Nelson, Esq.
          MCN LAW LLC
          12433 Antioch # 25442
          Overland Park, KS 66225
          Phone: (913) 358-5800
          Email: mcorynelson@mcnlawllc.com

POPILUSH LLC: Ashworth Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Popilush, LLC. The
case is styled as Beth Sarver Ashworth, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. Popilush, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00026
(E.D. Va., March 12, 2025).

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

Popilush LLC is in the retail apparel and fashion industry located
in Williamsburg, Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Peter Robinson, III, Esq.
          1934 Old Gallows Road, Suite 350K
          Vienna, VA 22181
          Phone: (703) 789-4800
          Email: william@robinsonslaw.com

PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Class Settlement in Verardo Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL VERARDO, ET AL.,
v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., Case No.
1:22-cv-01714-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lorna Schofield
entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement
as follows:

The Court previously certified the Settlement Classes in its
Preliminary Approval Order.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court confirms as final its certification of the Settlement Classes
for settlement purposes based on its findings in the Preliminary
Approval Order and in the absence of any objections from Class
Members to such certification.

The Court confirms the appointments of Plaintiffs John Plotts,
Zachary Goodier, James England, Kevin Lukasik, Lorenzo Costa,
Michael Verardo, and Lori Lippa as Settlement Class Representatives
for the Settlement Classes.

The Court confirms the appointments of Carney Bates & Pulliam,
PLLC, Jacobson Phillips PLLC, Normand PLLC, Edelsberg Law, P.A.,
Shamis & Gentile, and Bailey Glasser LLP as Class Counsel.

Pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court finally approves and confirms the Settlement embodied in the
Settlement Agreement as fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the
best interests of the Settlement Class Members.

The Parties entered into an Amended Class Action Settlement
Agreement, which provides that the Defendants shall create a common
fund of $48,000,000 (the "Settlement Fund") for
the benefit of the Settlement Classes.

Progressive is an American insurance company.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0as2tr at no extra
charge.[CC]

PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Class Settlement in Volino Gets Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOMINICK VOLINO, ET AL.,
v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., Case No.
1:21-cv-6243-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lorna Schofield entered
an order granting final approval of class action settlement as
follows:

The Court previously certified the Settlement Classes in its
Preliminary Approval Order.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court confirms as final its certification of the Settlement Classes
for settlement purposes based on its findings in the Preliminary
Approval Order and in the absence of any objections from Class
Members to such certification.

The Court confirms the appointments of Plaintiffs John Plotts,
Zachary Goodier, James England, Kevin Lukasik, Lorenzo Costa,
Michael Verardo, and Lori Lippa as Settlement Class Representatives
for the Settlement Classes.

The Court confirms the appointments of Carney Bates & Pulliam,
PLLC, Jacobson Phillips PLLC, Normand PLLC, Edelsberg Law, P.A.,
Shamis & Gentile, and Bailey Glasser LLP as Class Counsel.

Pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court finally approves and confirms the Settlement embodied in the
Settlement Agreement as fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the
best interests of the Settlement Class Members.

The Parties entered into an Amended Class Action Settlement
Agreement, which provides that the Defendants shall create a common
fund of $48,000,000 (the "Settlement Fund") for
the benefit of the Settlement Classes.

Progressive is an American insurance company.

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


PROTALIX BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Thomas Suit Seeks to Correct Bylaws
-------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN MATHEW THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DROR BASHAN; ELIOT RICHARD
FORSTER; AMOS BAR SHALEV; SHMUEL BEN ZVI; POL F. BOUDES; GWEN A.
MELINCOFF; AHARON SCHWARTZ; and PROTALIX BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2025-0259 (Del. Ch., Mar. 10, 2025) is an
action to compel reformation of the Amended and Restated Bylaws of
Protalix BioTherapeutics, Inc. (as adopted on December 27, 2024,
the "Bylaws") consistent with the Delaware General Corporation
Law.

The Plaintiff seeks in the complaint to bring the Bylaws into
compliance with the Delaware General Corporation Law, eliminate the
chilling effect that the uncorrected Bylaws have on stockholder
action via consent, ensure that directors may only be removed by a
vote that clears the statutorily specified threshold, and hold the
Director Defendants to account for their knowing and intentional
misconduct.

Protalix BioTherapeutics Inc. is a biotechnology company that has
developed plant cell culture technology and a bioreactor system.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          F. Troupe Mickler IV, Esq.
          ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A.
          500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor
          P.O. Box 1150
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: (302) 654-1888

               - and -

          William J. Fields, Esq.
          Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
          Samir Shukurov, Esq.
          FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP
          141 Tompkins Ave, Suite 404
          Pleasantville, NY 10570
          Telephone: (212) 231-1500

               - and -

          D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
          Adrienne Bell, Esq.
          KASKELA LAW LLC
          18 Campus Blvd., Suite 100
          Newton Square, PA 19073
          Telephone: (484) 258-1585

R&L CARRIERS: N.D. California Dismisses Rubalcaba Employment Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOSEPH RUBALCABA, Plaintiff v. R&L CARRIERS
SHARED SERVICES, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-06581-HSG
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California grants the
Defendant's motion to dismiss without leave to amend.

Pending before the Court is Defendant R&L Carriers Shared Services
L.L.C.'s motion to dismiss Plaintiff Joseph Rubalcaba's operative
Second Amended Class Action Complaint. The Court finds this matter
appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the matter is
deemed submitted.

In January 2024, the Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint,
alleging that his previous employer, R&L, committed several labor
violations against him and other similarly situated individuals in
its employ. R&L moved to dismiss, and the Court granted R&L's
motion with leave to amend.

The Plaintiff, then, filed the operative second amended class
action complaint. R&L again moves to dismiss. In his second amended
complaint, the Plaintiff asserts eight causes of action under
California law for the Defendant's alleged failure to (1) pay
overtime compensation; (2) pay meal period premiums; (3) pay rest
period premiums; (4) pay minimum wages; (5) pay wages upon ending
employment; (6) provide accurate wage statements; (7) indemnify
necessary business expenses; and for (8) the Defendant's unfair
competition practices (in violation of Business & Profession Code
17200, et seq.).

As with his prior complaint, the Plaintiff again seeks to represent
a class comprised of "all current and former hourly-paid or
nonexempt employees" of R&L who worked "within the State of
California at any time during the period from April 11, 2019, to
final judgment."

R&L moves to dismiss with prejudice, arguing that the Plaintiff
primarily asserts the same conclusory and generalized allegations
that the Court rejected in the last iteration of the complaint and
stating that the Plaintiff failed to narrow the class scope as
instructed by the Court. The Plaintiff contends that his amended
pleading is "carefully and meticulously crafted in response to the
Court's comments," specifying that it pleads numerous, additional
and detailed facts in support of each cause of action.

Judge Gilliam notes that the Plaintiff's second amended class
action complaint remains largely resembles his first and retains
its deficiencies.

The Plaintiff alleges that R&L failed to pay all overtime and
minimum wages due to him and the putative class under California
Labor Code sections 510, 1198, 1194, 1197, and 1197.1. R&L contends
that these allegations are conclusory. In its order addressing
R&L's first motion to dismiss, the Court held that the Plaintiff's
complaint was "simply too bereft of facts to push the allegations
concerning his unpaid overtime and minimum wage claims from the
realm of the possible into the plausible."

To cure those deficiencies, the Court instructed the Plaintiff to
plead specific facts that raise a plausible inference that his
overtime or minimum wages were denied.

Judge Gilliam finds the Plaintiff has not done so. The Plaintiff
has materially amended his pleadings as to these claims in two
ways, but neither cures the pleading deficiencies that the Court
previously identified.

Accordingly, since the first and fourth causes of action--payment
of minimum and overtime wages--are not supported by sufficient
factual allegations, the Court grants R&L's motion to dismiss
them.

Judge Gilliam finds the Plaintiff has not plausibly pled a specific
corporate policy prohibiting meal and rest breaks or a specific
instance where the Plaintiff was denied a required break. Judge
Gilliam also finds, among other things, that simply listing pay
periods, absent further facts alleging that R&L both failed to pay
the required wages and acted willfully, is insufficient to state a
plausible claim.

Accordingly, the Court grants R&L's motion to dismiss. Judge
Gilliam opines that the Plaintiff appears unable or unwilling to
plead the necessary factual details to push his claims from the
realm of the possible into the plausible. The Court already
specified the further facts that the Plaintiff needed to allege in
order to state a claim. It is unclear to the Court why the
Plaintiff will not comply with those instructions and Ninth Circuit
precedent.

But ultimately, the Plaintiff appears to be convinced that he does
not need to do anything more than he already has, which suggests
that granting further leave to amend would be futile, Judge Gilliam
explains.

The Plaintiff suggests for the first time in his opposition brief
that additional facts contained in several wage statements
substantiate his claims. These wage statements, dated May 2023,
were presumably available to the Plaintiff when he filed his second
amended complaint in May 2024. But the Plaintiff did not
incorporate factual material from the statements into this
operative complaint, his original complaint (filed Oct. 6, 2023),
or his first amended complaint (filed Jan. 18, 2024).

Judge Gilliam points out that the Plaintiff is not entitled to a
fourth opportunity to plead facts that he could and should have
asserted in prior pleadings if he thought they mattered.
Regardless, it does not appear that the wage statements attached to
the Plaintiff's opposition brief could cure the deficiencies
identified in the Court's prior order and again in this order.

Based on the Plaintiff's failure to remedy deficiencies that the
Court clearly identified, granting leave to further amend the
complaint would be futile. The Clerk is, therefore, directed to
enter judgment in favor of the Defendant and to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4wytak8z from PacerMonitor.com.


R. J. REYNOLDS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Vallejo Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
MOISES VALLEJO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 8:25-cv-00466 (C.D. Cal., March 11, 2025) seeks to stop
the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company produces tobacco products. [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
          Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com


RAKUTEN USA: Bauer Sues Over Alleged Theft of Referral Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
KARIN BAUER, 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-02466 (N.D. Cal., March 11, 2025), arises from Defendants'
alleged exploitation of last click attribution and theft of
referral fees from affiliate marketers.

Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and members of the Classes, Rakuten has
been using the Rakuten Browser Extension to manipulate users'
network transmissions to allow Rakuten to take credit for referral
fees it did not earn. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress
for Defendants' unlawful conduct and asserts claims for unjust
enrichment, tortious interference with contractual obligations,
tortious interference with prospective economic advantage,
conversion, and for violations of the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the North
Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, says the suit.

Headquartered in San Mateo, CA, Rakuten USA, Inc. offers a range of
online and digital services, including e-commerce, cashback
rewards, digital content and financial technology solutions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Adam M. Apton, Esq.
         1160 Battery Street East, Suite 100
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: 415-373-1671
         Facsimile: 212-363-7171
         E-mail: aapton@zlk.com

                 - and -

         Mark S. Reich, Esq.
         Alyssa Tolentino, Esq.
         LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
         33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
         New York, NY 10004
         Telephone: (212) 363-7500
         Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
         E-mail: mreich@zlk.com
                 atolentino@zlk.com

REDWIRE CORP: Settles Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP announces that the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida has approved the
following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that
would benefit purchasers of securities of Redwire Corporation f/k/a
Genesis Park Acquisition Corp. (NYSE: RDW):

SUMMARY NOTICE

TO:
All Persons and entities which, between March 25, 2021 and March
31, 2022, inclusive, (a) purchased or otherwise acquired Redwire
Corporation common stock ("RDW") or Genesis Park Acquisition Corp.
common stock ("GNPK") publicly traded on the New York Stock
Exchange ("NYSE"); (b) purchased or otherwise acquired Genesis Park
Acquisition Corp. warrants ("GNPK WS") or Redwire Corporation
warrants ("RDW WS") publicly traded on the NYSE; (c) purchased or
otherwise acquired call options on Redwire Corporation common
stock; or (d) sold or otherwise disposed of put options on Redwire
Corporation common stock (collectively, the "Settlement Class").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, that a hearing
will be held on July 31, 2025, at 11:00 a.m., before the Honorable
Timothy J. Corrigan at the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Bryan Simpson U.S. Courthouse,
Courtroom 10D, 300 North Hogan Street, Jacksonville, FL 32202, for
the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of
the claims in the above-captioned Action for the sum of $8,000,000
in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (2) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation to distribute
the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate and
therefore should be approved; and (3) whether the application of
Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and Litigation
Expenses, including interest earned thereon, and award to Lead
Plaintiff, from the Settlement Fund, should be approved.

The Court reserves the right to hold the Settlement Hearing
telephonically or by other virtual means. The Court appointed
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as Lead Counsel to represent you
and the other Settlement Class Members. However, you have the right
to retain your own counsel and the right to appear at the
Settlement Hearing through counsel of your choosing.

Your rights may be affected by this Settlement if, during the
period between March 25, 2021 and March 31, 2022, inclusive, you
(a) purchased or otherwise acquired Redwire Corporation common
stock ("RDW") or Genesis Park Acquisition Corp. common stock
("GNPK") publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE");
(b) purchased or otherwise acquired Genesis Park Acquisition Corp.
warrants ("GNPK WS") or Redwire Corporation warrants ("RDW WS")
publicly traded on the NYSE; (c) purchased or otherwise acquired
call options on Redwire Corporation common stock; or (d) sold or
otherwise disposed of put options on Redwire Corporation common
stock. As further described in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), you will be bound by any
Judgment entered in the Action, whether or not you make a claim,
unless you request exclusion from the Settlement Class.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. The Notice and the Proof
of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form") can be downloaded from the
website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.strategicclaims.net/redwire ("Settlement Website"). You may
also obtain copies of the Notice and Claim Form by contacting the
Claims Administrator at Redwire Corporation Securities Litigation,
c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, P.O.
Box 230, Media, PA 19063; toll-free: (866) 274-4004; fax: (610)
565-7985; email: info@strategicclaims.net.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you must submit a
Claim Form to the Claims Administrator postmarked, or online at the
Settlement Website by 11:59 p.m. ET, no later than June 24, 2025 in
order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed
Settlement. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit
a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will
nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the
Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion to the Claims Administrator such that it is received no
later than July 10, 2025, in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the
Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders
entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to
share in the proceeds of the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees,
reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, and award to Lead Plaintiff,
must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and
Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than July
10, 2025, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Redwire, or
its counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice,
the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:

     Reed Kathrein, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300
     Berkeley, CA 94710
     Telephone: (510) 725-3000
     reed@hbsslaw.com

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to the Claims
Administrator at:

     Redwire Corporation Securities Litigation
     c/o Strategic Claims Services
     600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205
     P.O. Box 230
     Media, PA 19063
     Toll Free Number: (866) 274-4004
     Settlement Website: www.strategicclaims.net/redwire
     Email: info@strategicclaims.net

Dated: January 24, 2025
BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA [GN]

REGAL CINEMAS: Final Judgment and Dismissal Issued in Jones Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Margaret M. Garnett of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York issued a Final Judgment and Order of
Dismissal in the lawsuit entitled TIM JONES, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REGAL CINEMAS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-11145-MMG (S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff Tim Jones and Defendant Regal Cinemas, Inc., have entered
into a Class Action Settlement Agreement, which, together with the
exhibits attached thereto, sets forth the terms and conditions for
a proposed settlement and dismissal of the Action with prejudice as
to the Defendant upon the terms and conditions set forth therein
(the "Settlement Agreement").

On Nov. 20, 2024, the Court granted the Plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, conditionally
certifying a Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) of "all
individuals in the United States who purchased electronic tickets
to any film screening in any of Defendant's cinemas located in New
York state from Defendant's Website from July 31, 2023 to and
through July 15, 2024, using the guest checkout process."

Judge Garnett says nothing has occurred since the entry of the
Preliminary Approval Order, which causes this Court to alter the
findings it made in the Preliminary Approval Order in support of
the approval of the settlement entered into between the Parties.

The Court finds that the Defendant properly and timely notified the
appropriate government officials of the Settlement Agreement,
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. The Court has
reviewed the substance of the Defendant's notice and finds that it
complied with all applicable requirements of CAFA. Further, more
than ninety (90) days have elapsed since the Defendant provided
notice pursuant to CAFA and the Final Approval Hearing.

The Court now gives final approval to the Settlement Agreement, and
finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate,
and in the best interests of the Settlement Class. The settlement
consideration provided under the Settlement Agreement constitutes
fair value given in exchange for the release of the Released Claims
against the Released Parties.

The Court finds that the Class Representative and Class Counsel
adequately represented the Settlement Class for the purposes of
litigating this matter and entering into and implementing the
Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, the Settlement is finally
approved in all respects.

The Parties are directed to implement the Settlement Agreement
according to its terms and provisions. The Settlement Agreement is
incorporated into this Final Judgment in full and will have the
full force of an Order of the Court.

The Court dismisses the Action on the merits and with prejudice.

The Court has also considered the Plaintiff's Motion For Attorneys'
Fees, Costs, Expenses, And Service Award, as well as the supporting
memorandum of law and declarations, and adjudges that the payment
of attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses in the amount of
$833,333.33 is reasonable in light of the multi-factor test used to
evaluate fee awards in the Second Circuit. Such payment will be
made pursuant to and in the manner provided by the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.

The Court has also considered Plaintiff's Motion, memorandum of
law, and supporting declarations for an incentive award to the
Class Representative. The Court adjudges that the payment of an
incentive award in the amount of $5,000 to the Class Representative
to compensate him for his efforts and commitment on behalf of the
Settlement Class, is fair, reasonable, and justified under the
circumstances of this case. Such payment will be made pursuant to
and in the manner provided by the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.

All payments made to Settlement Class Members pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement that are not negotiated within one hundred and
eighty (180) days of issuance will revert to the Legal Aid Society,
which the Court approves as an appropriate cy pres recipient.

Except as otherwise set forth in this Order, the Parties will bear
their own costs and attorneys' fees.

A full-text copy of the Court's Final Judgment and Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5n79m6za from PacerMonitor.com.


ROCKET LAB: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set April 28
---------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP reminds stockholders that a class action was filed on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Rocket Lab USA, Inc. (NASDAQ:RKLB) securities between November 12,
2024 and February 25, 2025. Rocket Lab is a space company which
provides launch services, spacecraft design services, spacecraft
components, spacecraft manufacturing and other spacecraft and
on-orbit management solutions.

For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas,
Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003.

The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that
Rocket Lab USA, Inc. (RKLB) Misled Investors About its Business
Prospects

According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company's plans for
three barge landing tests were significantly delayed; (2) a
critical potable water problem was not scheduled to be fixed until
January 2026, which delayed preparation of the launch pad; (3) as a
result of the foregoing, there was a substantial risk that Rocket
Lab's Neutron rocket would not launch in mid-2025; (4) Neutron's
only contract was made at a discount with an unreliable partner;
and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

When the truth was revealed on February 25, 2025, Rocket Lab's
stock price fell $2.21, or 9.8%, to close at $20.28 per share.

What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against Rocket Lab USA, Inc. Shareholders who want to serve as lead
plaintiff for the class must file their papers with the court by
April 28, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You
do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a
recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent
class member. For more information, click here.

All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.

About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights
litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been
dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate
governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for
their wrongdoing since 2002.

To be notified if a class action against Rocket Lab USA, Inc. or to
receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing,
sign up for Stock Watch today.

Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Contact:

     Aaron Dumas, Jr.
     Robbins LLP
     5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
     San Diego, CA 92122
     Telephone: (800) 350-6003
     E-mail: adumas@robbinsllp.com
     www.robbinsllp.com [GN]


ROCKET MORTGAGE: Sued Over Violation of Truth in Lending Act
------------------------------------------------------------
FRANZ BUNNEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROCKET MORTGAGE, LLC; and CHARLES SCHWAB
BANK SSB, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-01181 (S.D. Tex., March 12,
2025) alleges violation of the Truth in Lending Act.

Rocket Mortgage, LLC provides mortgage lending services. The
Company offers mortgage refinance, loans, debt consolidation, and
home buying services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott M. Clearman, Esq.
          THE CLEARMAN LAW FIRM PLLC
          2335 Richton St.
          Houston, TX 77098
          Telephone: (713) 304-9669
          Email: scott@clearmanlaw.com

ROTISYSTEMS INC: Arteaga Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rotisystems, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Yesli Arteaga, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rotisystems, Inc., Does
1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CGC25623197 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., March 11, 2025).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."

Rotisystems, Inc. is a gourmet rotisserie food truck and retail
product company based in Oakland, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          725 South Figueroa St., 31st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-232-3128
          Email:  kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com

SAJNI N SONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Tixelema Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL TIXELEMA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff v. SAJNI N SONS CORP. d/b/a Mughlai Indian
Cuisine; KARENA FOODS INC d/b/a Mughlai Indian Cuisine; EDA FOOD
INC. d/b/a Mughlai Indian Cuisine; DEK FOODS INC d/b/a Mughlai
Indian Cuisine; KDEM EATS INC d/b/a Mughlai Indian Cuisine; GARY
TULSIANI; MAHENDER TULSIANI; and SAMSON SEVERES, Defendants, Case
No. 1:25-cv-01942 (S.D.N.Y., March 10, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendants for their alleged failure to pay proper
wages to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees.

Plaintiff Tixelema was employed by the Debtors as a dishwasher.

Sajni N Sons Corp. d/b/a Mughlai Indian Cuisine owns and operates
an Indian restaurant in New York City, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clifford Tucker, Esq.
          SACCO & FILLAS, LLP
          3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor
          Astoria, NY 11102
          Telephone: (718) 269-2251
          Facsimile: (718) 679-9660
          Email: ctucker@saccofillas.com


SECURIX LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Divine Due May 27
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Divine, et al., v.
Securix, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00196 (S.D. Miss., Filed Aug. 10,
2023), the Hon. Judge Bradley W. Rath entered an order that the
deadline for Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is May 27,
2025.

The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.

Securix delivers IT security solutions.[CC]

SHENZHEN CHARMAST: Faces Yim Suit Over Defective Power Bank
-----------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA YIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHENZHEN CHARMAST TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-02351 (N.D. Cal., March 7, 2025)
alleges that the Defendant's Charmast Power Banks, model W1056 1
(the "Product") with lithium-ion battery in the power banks can
overheat and ignite, posing fire and burn hazards to consumers.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, at the time of the
purchases, the Defendant didn't notify the Plaintiff and similarly
situated consumers, of the Product's fire risk through the product
labels, instructions, other packaging, advertising, or in any other
manner, in violation of the state and federal law.

Because the Plaintiff and all consumers purchased the worthless and
dangerous Product, which they purchased under the presumption that
the Product was safe, they have suffered losses. As a result of the
above losses, Plaintiff seeks damages and equitable remedies.

Shenzhen Charmast Technology Co., LTD. sells portable chargers
range from high-capacity external battery packs to travel-friendly
multiports chargers to high-tech offerings. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John C. Bohren, Esq.
          YANNI LAW APC
          145 South Spring Street, Suite 850
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: (619) 433-2803
          Email: yanni@bohrenlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
          POULIN|WILLEY|ANASTOPOULO, LLC
          32 Ann Street
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Telephone: (803) 222-2222
          Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com

SKY WORLD COURIER: Lee Sues to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cheolwng Lee, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. SKY WORLD COURIER EXPRESS, INC. d/b/a Sky World Courier
Express d/b/a Sky World Courier Expres, SNS GLOBAL LOGISTIC INC.
d/b/a Sky World Courier Express d/b/a PSP Logistics NY d/b/a Sky
World Courier Expres, SEUNG JOON OH a/k/a Seungjoon Oh, YOAN KIM
a/k/a Yo Han Kim, and, BENJAMIN CHANG a/k/a Benjamin Bong Chang
a/k/a Bong Gu Chang, Case No. 1:25-cv-01393 (E.D.N.Y., March 11,
2025), is brought alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") for various willful
and unlawful employment policies, patterns, and/or practices and to
recover minimum wage, overtime compensation, and spread of hours
premium that Defendants improperly withheld from Plaintiff, and
damages for Defendants' failure to provide Plaintiff with Wage
Theft Protection Act ("WTPA") statements and notices.

The Defendants have deprived Plaintiff and other similarly situated
current and former employees of minimum wage and overtime
compensation in violation of the FLSA. The Defendants have deprived
Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and former employees
of minimum wages, overtime compensation, spread of hours premium,
and the wages that they were entitled to receive but did not
receive in violation of the NYLL, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants at Sky World Courier
Express as a courier service employee from January 27, 2019 until
February 21, 2025.

Sky World Courier Express operate as a courier company that
primarily provide courier services to customers throughout New York
and New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Diana Seo, Esq.
          SEO LAW GROUP, PLLC
          136-68 Roosevelt Ave., Suite 726
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Phone: (718) 500-3340
          Email: diana@seolawgroup.com

SKYWEST AIRLINES: Bid to Remand Campbell Suit to State Court Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled ALLISON CAMPBELL, an individual, on behalf of
herself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-02141-TWR-SBC (S.D. Cal.),
Judge Todd W. Robinson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California denies the Plaintiff's motion to remand
action to state court.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Allison Campbell's Motion
to Remand Action to State Court, as well as Defendant SkyWest
Airlines, Inc.'s Response in Opposition to and the Plaintiff's
Reply in Support of the Motion. Having considered the Parties'
arguments, the Plaintiff's Complaint, the Defendant's Notice of
Removal to Federal Court, and the relevant law, the Court denies
the Plaintiff's Motion.

The Defendant is an airline corporation that provides flight
services in California and other states. The Plaintiff was employed
by the Defendant from August 2023 to Feb. 2, 2024, and was at all
times classified by the Defendant as a non-exempt employee and paid
on an hourly basis. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was legally entitled
to meal and rest breaks, minimum and overtime wages, and other
employment rights and benefits.

On Aug. 22, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Superior
Court for the State of California, County of San Diego, on behalf
of herself and two classes of similarly situated individuals: (1)
the "California Class," including all individuals who are or
previously were employed in California, including any employees
staffed with the Defendant by a third party, and classified as
non-exempt employees at any time during the period beginning four
years prior to the filing of the Complaint; and (2), the
"California Labor Sub-Class," including all members of the
California Class who are or previously were employed by the
Defendant in California, including any employees staffed with the
Defendant by a third party, and classified as non-exempt employees
at any time during the three (3) years prior to the filing of the
Complaint.

The Plaintiff's Complaint contains the following nine claims: (1)
unfair competition in violation of California Business &
Professional Code Section 17200; (2) failure to pay minimum wages
in violation of California Labor Code Sections 1194, 1197, and
1197.1; (3) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
California Labor Code Section 510; (4) failure to provide required
meal periods in violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7
and 512 and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
Order; (5) failure to provide required rest periods in violation of
California Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512 and the applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order; (6) failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements in violation of California Labor
Code Section 226; (7) failure to reimburse employees for required
expenses in violation of California Labor Code Section 2802; (8)
failure to provide timely wages when due in violation of California
Labor Code Sections 201, 202, and 203; and (9) failure to provide
sick pay wages in violation of California Labor Code Section 201,
202, 203, 233, and 246.

While emphasizing that violations were "from time to time," the
Plaintiff's Complaint generally alleges that the Defendant had a
"policy and practice," of failing to compensate class members for
time worked.

On Oct. 15, 2024, the Plaintiff served the Defendant with the
Complaint, and on Nov. 11, 2025, the Defendant timely filed a
Notice of Removal of Action with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d).

The Notice of Removal asserts that CAFA provides this Court with
original jurisdiction over civil class actions in which there are
more than 100 putative class members, any plaintiff is diverse from
any defendant, and the total amount-in-controversy exceeds five
million dollars. The Defendant asserts that the CAFA requirements
are satisfied here because the Defendant is a citizen of Utah,
while members of the putative class are citizens of other states,
including California, there are more than 100 class members, and
the amount-in-controversy for two of the Plaintiff's nine claims is
at least $13,999,182, well exceeding five million dollars.

On Dec. 13, 2024, in response to the Defendant's Notice of Removal,
the Plaintiff filed the instant Motion. The Plaintiff's Motion
primarily challenges the Defendant's amount-in-controversy
estimate, but it also argues that the Defendant's assertions
regarding the size of the putative class and the diversity of the
parties are unsupported and unsubstantiated. As such, the Plaintiff
asks this Court to remand the pending action to the Superior Court
of California, County of San Diego.

On Jan. 16, 2025, the Defendant filed its Opposition, in which it
recalculated the amount-in-controversy, this time estimating the
potential damages for five of the Plaintiff's nine claims as at
least $39,756,197.58. To support this estimate, the Defendant
submitted a Declaration from Steven Spagnolo, a manager familiar
with the Defendant's payroll practices, timekeeping systems, and
related records, as well as the Defendant's Flight Attendant Policy
Manual.

The Defendant also filed a Request for Judicial Notice asking that
the Court take judicial notice of a California Secretary of State
records search showing that the Defendant is incorporated in the
state of Utah and has its principal address in Utah.

On Jan. 30, 2025, the Plaintiff filed her Reply, challenging the
Defendant's initial and revised calculations but without making any
further argument regarding diversity of citizenship or the size of
the putative class. The Court took the Motion under submission
without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1).

According to the Defendant's employment records, there would be
4,958 members in the California Class and 4,613 class members in
the California Labor Sub-Class. Altogether, Judge Robinson finds
the Defendant has met its burden of demonstrating that the size of
the class exceeds 100 members.

In addition to adequately pleading the minimal diversity of the
parties in its Notice of Removal, Judge Robinson finds the
Defendant has provided evidence that it is a citizen of Utah. As
such, the Defendant has sufficiently established the diversity of
the parties to confer jurisdiction to this Court under CAFA.

In sum, the Defendant estimates that the Plaintiff's minimum wage
claim seeks $1,752,310 in actual damages, $1,752,310 in liquidated
damages, and $11,087,800 in statutory penalties. Thus, Judge
Robinson finds the amount-in-controversy for this one claim alone
totals $14,592,420, well exceeding CAFA's five million dollar
jurisdictional requirement. The Court finds that the Defendant's
estimated amount-in-controversy for the Plaintiff's minimum wage
claim, $14,592,420, is supported by evidence, founded on reasonable
assumptions, and well above the five million dollar threshold set
by CAFA.

Judge Robinson holds that the Defendant has established, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that CAFA's jurisdictional
requirements are satisfied; specifically, the Defendant has
demonstrated that the proposed class includes at least 100 members,
minimal diversity exists among the parties, and the
amount-in-controversy exceeds five million dollars. As such, the
Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/242hnrum from PacerMonitor.com.



SPRING VALLEY: Can Compel Arbitration in Stubbins Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah of the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada granted the defendants' motion to
compel arbitration in the case captioned as TAYLOR STUBBINS, on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. SPRING VALLEY HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER; VALLEY HEALTH
SYSTEMS, INC.; UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01672-EJY (D. Nev.). The
plaintiff's motion for circulation of notice is denied as moot.

Plaintiff is a former employee of Spring Valley Hospital, which is
part of the Valley Health System. Apparently, when first applying
for her position, Plaintiff completed an Applicant Acknowledgment
form that bears her March 21, 2020 electronic signature.  The
Acknowledgement includes several provisions pertinent to the issue
presented to the Court.

On May 28, 2020, Plaintiff was offered a position with Spring
Valley Hospital, which she accepted that same day. On May 29, 2020,
Plaintiff electronically signed the Alternative Resolution for
Conflicts Agreement.

Paragraph 9 of the ARC Agreement is titled "An Employee's Right to
Opt Out of Arbitration." This title, and the title of all
paragraphs in the ARC Agreement, are bolded. The first sentence of
paragraph 9 is also bolded and states: "Arbitration is not a
mandatory condition of Employee's employment at the Company, and
therefore an Employee may submit a form stating that the Employee
wishes to opt out and not be subject to this Agreement." Paragraph
9 goes on to explain that in order to opt out of arbitration
employees must submit a signed and dated statement on an
Alternative Resolution for Conflicts Agreement Opt Out Form that is
available from local or corporate human resources or online at
www.uhsinc.com/careers/ARC Program.

Plaintiff contends she has no recollection of signing the ARC
Agreement, but does appear to recall the arbitration provision in
the Acknowledgement. Importantly, Plaintiff does not dispute the
authenticity of her electronic signature on the ARC Agreement,
which was attested to by Defendants through the Declaration of Curt
Shaner. Plaintiff admits she did not submit an opt out form
contending this is because she was not aware of the ARC Agreement.


In sum, Plaintiff says the ARC Agreement is unenforceable because
the Acknowledgement conditioned any subsequent change of any
agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants, such as an agreement to
arbitrate disputes, to only be made by the President. Based on the
terms in the Acknowledgment, and that the ARC Agreement,
supposedly, fails to comply with the President-only authorization
clause contained in the Acknowledgement, Plaintiff contends the ARC
Agreement is inoperable on its face.

Plaintiff further argues that even if the ARC Agreement is operable
it cannot be enforced because it is procedurally and substantively
unconscionable. Plaintiff also argues the Acknowledgement and ARC
Agreements require strict confidentiality, and Plaintiff takes
issue with the fee shifting clause in the Acknowledgement and ARC
Agreement.

The Court finds Plaintiff signed the ARC Agreement, her e-signature
is effective, there is no argument let alone evidence of any
wrongful act, Plaintiff is presumed to know the contents of the
Agreement, and Plaintiff consented to the terms therein.  Given
that Plaintiff does not dispute she electronically signed the ARC
Agreement, the lack of a witness, which is not required by any law
the Court could find, is of no import.

With respect to Plaintiff's contention that her lack of
recollection regarding the ARC Agreement renders the contract
illusory, she is wrong, the Court says.

The promises made in the ARC Agreement are mutual -- that is,
Defendants are obligated to arbitrate all claims covered by the
Agreement just as Plaintiff is obligated to arbitrate all covered
claims. There is no provision applicable solely to Plaintiff or
Defendants except that Defendants cannot opt out of the Agreement,
while Plaintiff can do so.  There is no provision allowing
Defendants to unilaterally change the terms of the ARC Agreement
and Plaintiff does not argue Defendants' obligations are purely
optional. Nor does Plaintiff allege there was a lack of
consideration for the Agreement. In sum, the Court finds no legal
or factual basis to conclude the ARC Agreement is illusory.

The Court finds the presence of the integration clause in the
post-employment ARC Agreement, and the lack of an integration
clause in the pre-employment Acknowledgement, supports
the conclusion that the parties intended the ARC Agreement to be
the complete and final expression of their agreement to arbitrate,
and that the terms of the ARC Agreement are controlling. The
language in the ARC Agreement, entered after the Acknowledgement,
makes clear that it is the full and complete agreement relating to
the formal resolution of employment related disputes. Based on a
review of the entirety of the circumstances surrounding the two
agreements, the Court finds the parties intended the ARC Agreement
to be their integrated binding agreement pertaining to alternative
dispute resolution.

The Court also finds the failure of the "President" to sign the ARC
Agreement does not invalidate the Agreement. All facts before the
Court demonstrate that even if the president's signature was for
some reason required on the ARC Agreement, the failure of that
signature does not invalidate the Agreement as Defendants clearly
intended to be bound and have acted in accordance with that intent.


The Court finds severing the confidentiality provision in ARC
Agreement is appropriate as the language is such that the potential
for substantive disadvantage to Plaintiff should not be risked.

The Court finds the fee/cost shifting provision conscionable and,
therefore, does not sever this provision. The ARC Agreement is
enforceable as stated, the Court concludes.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FjNaph from PacerMonitor.com.

SPRINGER NATURE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Lee VPPA Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lewis J. Liman of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York denied Springer Nature America,
Inc.'s motion to dismiss the case captioned as MARK LEE, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -v-
SPRINGER NATURE AMERICA, INC. Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-04493-LJL
(S.D.N.Y.) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6). Plaintiff's motion to strike is denied as procedurally
improper.

Plaintiff is an individual who is domiciled in St. Petersburg,
Florida. Plaintiff requested or obtained prerecorded audio-visual
material from the Website using his internet-connected device and
web-browsing software installed on that device. He is a subscriber
of Defendant's and has been for over ten years. He alleges that to
become a subscriber, he was required to submit his full name and
email address to the Website and to confirm that email address. He
requested or obtained prerecorded audio-visual materials through
his subscription to the Website in the two years preceding the
filing of this action. He also alleges that he had a Facebook
profile during the entire time he was a subscriber of Defendant's.
He brings this case as a putative class action on behalf of all
persons in the United States who during the time period from June
12, 2022, to the filing of the complaint, requested or obtained
prerecorded audio-visual material through a subscription to the
Website operated by Defendant and had a Facebook Profile during the
period during which the Pixel was active on the Website.

The complaint alleges that Defendant violated the Video Privacy
Protection Act of 1988, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2710, by knowingly
disclosing to Meta the FIDs and URLs identifying the prerecorded
audio-visual material he and other class members requested or
obtained without obtaining informed written consent.

Defendant argues that the complaint should be dismissed because
Plaintiff has failed to allege facts that support his standing. It
also argues that the
complaint fails to state a claim for relief under the VPPA because:


   (i) Defendant is not a video tape service provider,  
  (ii) Plaintiff is not a "consumer" under the VPPA,  
  (iii) Plaintiff's FID and accessed URLs do not constitute
personally identifiable information
under the VPPA, and
   (iv) the complaint fails to allege that Defendant  "knowingly"
disclosed Plaintiff's PII.

The Court finds Plaintiff has alleged standing.

Taking the allegations of the complaint as true, the Court finds
Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant is a videotape service
provider. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant offered videos on its
Website. He also alleges that Defendant conditioned access to more
than three videotapes on its Website on a user registering and
becoming a subscriber. The complaint further alleges that access to
the videos enhanced the user's viewing experience. Defendant
allowed users to "view on-demand, pre-recorded audio-visual
materials through its website" as part of its business model.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant invites users to become
subscribers to its Website by asking them to submit their name, a
valid email address, and payment information. He further alleges
that, during the class period, users were required to become
subscribers in order to watch more than three videos on the
Website. Finally, he alleges that he is a subscriber of Defendant
and became a subscriber by submitting his full name and email
address to Defendant, and then confirming that email address. By so
doing, he conveyed valuable personal information to Defendant and
established a relationship permitting Defendant to be in touch with
him regarding the Website. At the pleading stage, that is enough to
make him a VPPA subscriber, the Court says.

In this case, Defendant allegedly provided Meta with Plaintiff's
Facebook ID and the title of the prerecorded audio-visual material
that he requested or obtained from the Website.  Because Facebook
IDs are PII, Plaintiff has alleged a prohibited disclosure, the
Court finds.

Because Plaintiff alleges that Defendant intentionally installed
the Facebook pixel on the website to benefit from the transmission
of users' personally identifiable information, the knowledge
element of the VPPA is satisfied, the Court concludes.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tcJQn1 from PacerMonitor.com.


STANLEY STEEMER: Settles 2023 Data Breach Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Stanley Steemer has agreed to a
$700,000 class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it
failed to prevent a 2023 data breach that compromised employee and
customer information.

The Stanley Steemer settlement benefits individuals who received a
notification letter from Stanley Steemer informing them that their
personal information was compromised in a data breach in February
2023.

The Stanley Steemer data breach settlement also benefits a subclass
of Stanley Steemer employees and a subclass of Stanley Steemer
customers.

According to the data breach class action lawsuit, Stanley Steemer
allegedly failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to
protect its customers and employees from a data breach in February
2023. The breach reportedly compromised sensitive information such
as Social Security numbers.

Stanley Steemer is a cleaning company that offers services for
carpets, hardwood floors, tile, upholstery, air ducts and more.
Stanley Steemer has not admitted wrongdoing but agreed to a
$700,000 settlement to resolve allegations.

Under the terms of the Stanley Steemer settlement, class members
can receive reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses related to the
data breach. This includes unreimbursed costs, expenses, losses or
charges incurred as a result of identity theft or fraud, credit
monitoring costs, credit report expenses and other miscellaneous
expenses.

Out-of-pocket expenses are subject to a $10,000 cap.

Alternatively, class members can receive a pro rata cash payment.
These payments are capped at $100 for employees and $50 for
customers.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is April 28, 2025.

The final approval hearing for the Stanley Steemer data breach
settlement is scheduled for May 27, 2025.

In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit
a valid claim form by April 28, 2025.

Who's Eligible
Individuals who received a notification letter from Stanley Steemer
stating that their personal information was or may have been
compromised in the data breach. This includes an employee subclass
and a customer subclass.

Potential Award
A cap of $10,000 for documented out-of-pocket expenses and a pro
rata cash payout of up to $100 for eligible employees and $50 for
eligible customers.

Proof of Purchase
Documentation of expenses, such as bank statements, credit card
statements, invoices, receipts, bills or other statements.

Claim Form

NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.

Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.

Claim Form Deadline
04/28/2025

Case Name
In re: Stanley Steemer International Data Breach Litigation, Case
No. 2:23-cv-03932-SDM-EPD in the United States District Court For
The Southern District Of Ohio

Final Hearing
05/27/2025

Settlement Website
Stanley Steemer International Data Breach Litigation

Claims Administrator

     Stanley Steemer Data Incident
     P.O. Box 2088
     Portland, Oregon
     97208-2088
     info@StanleySteemerSettlement.com
     (888) 846-1020

Class Counsel

     Andrew Shamis
     SHAMIS & GENTILE PA

     Raina Borrelli
     STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC

Defense Counsel

     John T. Mills
     GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP [GN]

STYX ACQUISITION: Byrd Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Byrd and Corey Cook, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. STYX ACQUISITION, LLC d/b/a BUEHLER'S
FRESH FOODS, Case No. 5:25-cv-00478 (N.D. Ohio, March 11, 2025), is
brought against the Defendant seeking to recover unpaid overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"),
the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, ("Ohio MFWSA"), including
damages available under the Ohio Prompt Pay Act ("OPPA").

During the Collective and applicable Class relevant periods,
consistent with Defendant's policy, pattern and/or practice,
Plaintiffs and the putative Collective and Ohio Class regularly
worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek without being paid
premium overtime wages. During their time working as DMs within the
Collective and applicable Class relevant periods, Plaintiffs
routinely worked more than 40 hours a week but were not paid
overtime premiums in the amount required by state and federal law
for non-exempt employees for the hours they worked in excess of 40,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by and were permitted to work for the
Defendant.

The Defendant maintains control, oversight, and discretion over the
operation of its retail grocery stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Andrew Head, Esq.
          Bethany Hilbert, Esq.
          HEAD LAW FIRM, LLC
          4422 N. Ravenswood Ave.
          Chicago, IL 60640
          Phone: (404) 924-4151
          Fax: (404) 796-7338
          Email: ahead@headlawfirm.com
                 bhilbert@headlawfirm.com

SUNFLOWER MEDICAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Crisp Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN CRISP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUNFLOWER MEDICAL GROUP, P.A., Defendant,
Case No. 4:25-cv-00174-BCW (W.D. Mo., March 12, 2025) is an action
arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive
data.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed
its duties when its inadequate security practices caused the Data
Breach. The Defendant's negligence is evidenced by its failure to
prevent the Data Breach and stop cybercriminals from accessing the
highly sensitive personal identifiable information and protected
health information. And thus, the Defendant caused widespread
injury and monetary damages, says the suit.

Sunflower Medical Group, P.A. provides health care services. The
Company offers primary care, laboratory tests, x-rays, ultrasounds,
immunizations, bone density scans, internal medicine, family
practice, pediatrics, gynecology, and other related services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John F. Garvey, Esq.
          Colleen Garvey, Esq.
          Ellen Thomas, Esq.
          STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
          701 Market Street, Suite 1510
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 390-6750
          Email: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com
                 cgarvey@stranchlaw.com
                 ethomas@stranchlaw.com

               - and -

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          Michael C. Iadevaia, Esq.
          STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC
          223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
          Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
                 miadevaia@stranchlaw.com

SUNFLOWER MEDICAL: S.W. Files Suit in W.D. Missouri
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunflower Medical
Group, P.A. The case is styled as S.W., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Sunflower Medical Group, P.A.,
Case No. 5:25-cv-06041-JAM (W.D. Mo., March 12, 2025).

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

Sunflower Medical Group, P.A. -- https://www.sunflowermed.com/ --
is a private multi-specialty medical group in Johnson County and
Wyandotte County, Kansas.[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

TD BANK: Taylor Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Taylor, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TD BANK, N.A., Case No. 1:25-cv-00995-ESK-AMD (D.N.J.,
Feb. 4, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and/or Class Members'
protected health information and personally identifiable
information stored within Defendant's information network,
including, without limitation, names, addresses, phone numbers,
social security numbers, dates of birth, transaction data and
account numbers, these types of information, inter alia, being
thereafter referred to, collectively, as "personally identifiable
information" or "PII").

With this action, the Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible
for the harms it caused and will continue to cause the Plaintiff
and thousands of other similarly situated persons in the massive
and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendant
(the "Data Breach"). Defendant announced that "between May and
October of 2023 one of Defendant's employees improperly accessed
some of your personal information and may have provided it to an
unauthorized third. Pary. We believe this was the cause of the
fraudulent activity on your account.

The Defendant did not begin informing victims of the Data Breach
until February 2025, even though they knew of the Data Breach for
some time. Indeed, the Plaintiff and Class Members were wholly
unaware of the Data Breach until they received letters from
Defendant informing them of it. the Plaintiff became aware of the
Data Breach in February 2025. Defendant acquired, collected and
stored the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information.
Therefore, Defendant knew or should have known that the Plaintiff
and Class Members would use Defendant's services to store and/or
share sensitive data, including highly confidential Private
Information.

The Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class
Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly and/or negligently
failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure that the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information
was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an
unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable,
required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures
regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a victim of the Data Breach.

The Defendant is a financial institution that has 27.9 million
customers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jared R. Cooper, Esq.
          ROBINSON YABLON COOPER & BONFANTE, LLP
          232 Madison Avenue, Suite 909
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 725-8566
          Facsimile: (212) 725-8567
          Email: jared@rycbinjury.com

TOOL: Faces Potential Class Suit Over Concerts' Setlist Variance
----------------------------------------------------------------
THEPRP News reports that it seems that the disappointment
experienced by some fans at the recent first-ever 'Tool Live In The
Sand' destination festival headlined by American metal band Tool
may result in a class-action lawsuit. By now you've likely heard
that the acclaimed multi-platinum band's pair of headlining shows
this past weekend on the beaches of Punta Cana, Dominican Republic
underwhelmed at least a few attendees.

The chief issue is that despite back-to-back performances on March
07th & 08th, the group opted to provide little setlist variance,
including the same four songs ("Fear Inoculum", "Rosetta Stoned",
"Pneuma" and "Jambi") during both sets. See below for how the
concerts played out.

  Friday, March 07th:

   "Stinkfist"
   "Fear Inoculum"
   "Rosetta Stoned"
   "Pneuma"
   "Jambi"
   "Schism"
   "The Grudge"
   "The Flood"
   "Invincible"
   "Vicarious" (first time since 2020)

  Saturday, March 08th:

   "Fear Inoculum"
   "Ænema"
   "Rosetta Stoned"
   "Pneuma"
   "Jambi"
   "Descending"
   "Chocolate Chip Trip"
   "Intolerance"
   "Swamp Song"

With a premium price being paid to attend the event given its
tropical locale, that decision did not sit well with some fans who
attended. Angry fans even took to booing the group during the
second night of the festival after the band decided to repeat
several songs from the opening show.

Now an advertisement is purportedly circulating on Facebook from a
lawyer who appears to be gauging potential interest in filing a
class action suit against the band for allegedly underdelivering on
the festival's claims to serve up 'two unique headlining sets' from
the band.

The band themselves have yet to publicly address the wave of
backlash they've been experiencing since performing at the
festival. They'll next be onstage later this week as part of their
first Latin American headlining tour to date, hitting the following
cities:

  03/15 Mexico City, MEX - Azteca Stadium Esplanade
  03/18 Guadalajara, MEX - Calle 2 (feat. The Cult & Seven Hours
After Violet)
  03/22 Buenos Aires, ARG - Lollapalooza Argentina
  03/23 Santiago, CHL - Lollapalooza Chile
  03/28 Bogota, COL - Festival Estereo Picnic
  03/30 Sao Paulo, BRA - Lollapalooza Brasil [GN]


TOPGOLF PAYROLL: Court Narrows Claims in Benyamin Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOB B. BENYAMIN, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. TOPGOLF PAYROLL
SERVICES, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00303-DAD-SCR (E.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Dale Drozd entered an order:

   1. The Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part and
      denied in part as follows:

      a. The Plaintiff's claim for failure to reimburse business
         expenses in violation of California Labor Code section
         2802 (claim 5), and claim for violation of California
         Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.
         (claim 8) are dismissed, with leave to amend; and

      b. The Defendants' motion to dismiss is otherwise denied;

   2. Within 21 days from the date of entry of this order, the
      plaintiff shall file either a fourth amended complaint, or a

      notice of his intent not to do so and to proceed only on the

      claims found to be cognizable in this order; and

   3. If the plaintiff files a notice of his intent not to file a
      fourth amended complaint, then defendants shall file an
      answer as to the claims found to be cognizable in this order

      within 21 days of service of that notice.

The court declines to address the issue now as it is more
appropriately suited for the class certification stage of this
litigation.

Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's class
allegations is denied without prejudice to renewal at the
appropriate time and through the appropriate mechanism.

This is a putative class action arising from the Defendants'
alleged violation of various California wage-and-hour laws. On
March 18, 2024, the Plaintiff Bob B. Benyamin filed the operative
third amended complaint in this action.

The Plaintiff worked for defendants from August 2016 to May 2022.

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

TRINITY PETROLEUM: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Warner Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM D. WARNER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRINITY PETROLEUM MANAGEMENT, LLC;
and RIMROCK RESOURCE OPERATING, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:25-cv-00748 (D. Colo., March 7, 2025) is an action against the
Defendants for their negligent failure to protect and safeguard the
Plaintiff's and the Class's highly sensitive personally
identifiable information.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that as a result of the
Defendants' negligence and insufficient data security,
cybercriminals easily infiltrated Trinity's inadequately protected
computer systems and stole the PII of Plaintiff and the Class (the
"Data Breach" or "Breach").

Now, the Plaintiff's and the Class's PII is in the hands of
cybercriminals who will undoubtedly use their PII for nefarious
purposes for the rest of their lives.

Trinity Petroleum Management LLC provides services to the oil and
gas industry. They provide accountancy, land development, and
construction services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          Kennedy M. Brian, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
          Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com
                 kpb@federmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Larry D. Lahman, Esq.
          MITCHELLDECLERCK
          202 West Broadway Ave.
          Enid, OK 73701
          Telephone: (580) 747-3114
          Email: ldl@mdpllc.com

TSD TELECOM: Class Certification Bid in Mott Suit Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Regina M. Rodriguez of the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado in the case granted in part and denied in
part the plaintiff's motion for conditional certification and
distribution of court-authorized notice in the case captioned as
KENNETH MOTT, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TSD Telecom Service LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-00185-RMR-STV (D. Colo.). The motion is granted in part
to allow for conditional certification of a collective action and
denied in part as to the proposed notice.

Defendants oppose the motion.

Plaintiff brings this lawsuit on behalf of himself and other
alleged similarly situated employees of Defendant pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, et seq. Plaintiff
alleges that he and those similarly situated were improperly
classified as exempt under the FLSA by Defendant TDS Telecom
Service LLC and unlawfully denied overtime compensation. TDS
provides broadband, video, and voice communications services to
residential, commercial, and wholesale customers. According to
Plaintiff, those employed by TDS as "Network Specialists" all
perform similar duties, despite variation in their specific job
titles. Under the umbrella of Network Specialists, Plaintiff
includes all those who worked for Defendant as "Network Specialist
– OSP Engineering & Construction, Outside Plant Engineering
Specialist," and/or "Outside Plant Construction Specialist,
including Network Specialists, Network Specialists I, Network
Specialists II, or Senior Network Specialists, or in other job
titles performing similar duties anywhere in the
United States.

Accordingly, Plaintiff asks the Court to:

   (1) conditionally certify this case as a nationwide FLSA
collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Sec. 216(b);
   (2) approve Plaintiff's proposed notices and authorize counsel
to send initial notice by mail, email and text message, with a
reminder email 30 days before the close of the 60-day notice
period; and
   (3) order Defendants to produce an electronic file with contact
information for all Network Specialists employed since Jan. 22,
2021.

The parties disagree as to whether Plaintiff substantially alleges
that the potential opt-in plaintiffs are similarly situated.
Plaintiff contends that he is similarly situated to the other
potential opt-in plaintiffs due to the nature of the work performed
by Network Specialists and the common application of TDS's policy,
which he alleges misclassified Network Specialists as exempt and
failed to pay overtime. Thus, Plaintiff asks the Court to
conditionally certify the following:

All persons who worked for Defendants as a Network Specialist (also
referred to as Network Specialist – OSP Engineering &
Construction, Outside Plant Engineering Specialist, and/or Outside
Plant Construction Specialist) (including Network Specialists,
Network Specialists I, Network Specialists II, or Senior Network
Specialists), or in other job titles performing
similar duties anywhere in the United States any time since three
years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the present.

In opposing Plaintiff's motion, Defendant argues the potential
opt-in plaintiffs are not similarly situated and are not subject to
a single decision, plan, or policy.

The Court concludes that Plaintiff has met his burden of showing
that the potential opt-in plaintiffs are similarly situated for
purposes of conditional class certification.

Judge Rodriguez says the Plaintiff need only assert 'substantial
allegations that the putative class members were together the
victims of a single decision, policy, or plan.' Here, Plaintiff's
allegations are 'sufficient to establish at this early stage that
there may be other similarly-situated putative collective action
plaintiffs who were affected by a single decision, policy, or
plan.' TDS's arguments against certification -- which relate to the
different factual and employment settings, various defenses
available as to individual plaintiffs, and fairness—are better
suited for the stricter standard employed at the second stage of
the inquiry into whether the employees are similarly situated.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ANVPEF from PacerMonitor.com.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Bonfiglio Suit Removed to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Matt Bonfiglio, as an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
25CU005387C was removed from the Southern District of California
from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on March 12, 2025, and assigned Case No.
3:25-cv-00592-AJB-MSB.

The Plaintiff asserts three causes of action against Uber, as
follows: Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990;
Violations of the California Unruh Act; and Violations of the
California Disabled Persons Act.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Courtney L. Baird, Esq.
          Deanna J. Lucci, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 2900
          San Diego, CA 92101-4681
          Phone: 619 744 2200
          Facsimile: 619 393 0884
          Email: CLBaird@duanemorris.com
                 DJLucci@duanemorris.com

               - and -

          C. Sean Patterson, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          Spear Tower
          One Market Plaza, Suite 2200
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415 957 3000
          Facsimile: 415 957 3001
          Email: CSPatterson@duanemorris.com

UDISENSE INC: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Udisense Inc. The
case is styled as Emily Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Udisense Inc., a Delaware
corporation, d/b/a WWW.NANIT.COM, Case No. 25CU013074C (Cal. Super.
Ct., San Diego Cty., March 12, 2025).

Udisense Inc. doing business as Nanit -- https://www.nanit.com/ --
is a startup developing smart baby monitors and sleep tracker
devices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, 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

UNION PACIFIC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Black Due July 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FAYE BLACK and JEANNINE
TOLSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Case No.
6:23-cv-01218-EFM-ADM (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Angel D. Mitchell
entered a third amended class certification stage scheduling order
as follows:

             Event                             Deadline/Setting

  Physical and mental examinations               April 9, 2025
  Completed:

  Jointly filed mediation notice:                March 17, 2025

  The Plaintiffs' disclosure of class experts    May 12, 2025
  and production of reliance materials:

  Mediation completed:                           June 2, 2025

  Class certification discovery completed:       July 25, 2025

  Motions for class certification, for     
  summary judgment on issues related to    
  class certification, and to exclude      
  class certification experts:

                                Motions:         July 30, 2025

                                Responses:       Sept. 15, 2025

Union Pacific is a publicly traded railroad holding company.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ei50JF at no extra
charge.[CC]

UNITED NATURAL: Sills Securities Suit Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAN SILLS and GEORGE DICK,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
UNITED NATURAL FOODS, INC., J. ALEXANDER MILLER DOUGLAS, JOHN W.
HOWARD, and CHRISTOPHER P. TESTA, Case No. 1:23-cv-02364-JGLC-VF
(S.D.N.Y.), the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff Dan Sills and
Plaintiff George Dick move the Court to enter an order:

   1. Certifying the following Class pursuant to Rules 23(a) and
      (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

      "All persons and entities who or which purchased or
      otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of UNFI,

      and/or purchased publicly traded call options on such stock,

      and/or wrote publicly traded put options on such stock,
      between Dec. 8, 2021 and Sept. 25, 2023, inclusive."

      Excluded from the Class are: (a) persons and entities that
      suffered no compensable losses; and (b)(i) Defendants; (ii)
      any person who served as an officer and/or director of UNFI
      during the Class Period, and members of their immediate
      families; (iii) present and former parents, subsidiaries,
      assigns, successors, affiliates, and predecessors of UNFI;
      (iv) any entity in which any excluded person or entity has
      or had a controlling interest; (v) any trust of which an
      Individual Defendant is the settlor or which is for the
      benefit of an Individual Defendant and/or member(s) of their

      immediate families; and (vi) the legal representatives,
      heirs, successors, predecessors, and assigns of any person
      or entity excluded under provisions (i) through (v) hereof.

   2. Appointing Dan Sills and George Dick as Class
      Representatives for the Class;

   3. Appointing Lead Counsel Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as Class

      Counsel; and

   4. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems
      necessary and proper.

United Natural offers natural products consisting of groceries and
general merchandise, nutritional supplements, bulk and foodservice
products.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Kara M. Wolke, Esq.
          Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
          Melissa Wright, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com
                  kwolke@glancylaw.com
                  csadler@glancylaw.com
                  mwright@glancylaw.com
                  prajesh@glancylaw.com
                  glinkh@glancylaw.com

                - and -

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem PA 19020
          Telephone: (215) 638-4847
          E-mail: hsmith@howardsmithlaw.com

                - and -

          Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 914-5007
          E-mail: fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com

UNITED STATES: White Class Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARRY WHITE, v. UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-03023-JWL (D. Kan.),
the Hon. Judge John Lungstrum entered an order dismissing White
suit without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

The Court further entered an order that the Plaintiff's Motion for
Appointment of Counsel and Motion for Class Certification are
denied.

The Plaintiff brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. section
1983. Plaintiff is in custody at the Missouri Eastern Correctional
Center in Pacific, Missouri.

The Plaintiff seeks to compel former state governor [sic] and
former U.S. Senator Nancey [sic] Kassabaum [sic] to fulfill
obligations under a 1984 contract she allegedly entered into with
Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff also alleges that his family is in danger based on
allegations of organized crime, a national security breach,
domestic terrorism, murder, kidnapping, raping children under 12,
and cybercrimes against Kansas and the United States. The Plaintiff
has made similar claims in a prior case filed in this Court.

On Feb. 12, 2025, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order denying
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
finding Plaintiff is subject to the “three-strikes” provision
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Court examined the Complaint and
found no credible showing of imminent danger of serious physical
injury. The Court granted Plaintiff until March 7, 2025, to submit
the $405.00 filing fee.

The M&O provides that “[t]he failure to submit the fee by that
date will result in the dismissal of this matter without prejudice
and without additional prior notice.” (Doc. 6, at 4.) Plaintiff
has failed to pay the filing fee by the deadline set forth in the
M&O.

The Plaintiff has failed to pay the filing fee by the deadline set
forth in the Court's order. As a consequence, the Court dismisses
this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to
comply with court orders.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HzsFjb at no extra
charge.[CC] 


UPSTART HOLDINGS: Faces Consolidated Suit over SEC Disclosures
--------------------------------------------------------------
Upstart Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 9, 2023, that it is facing a consolidated
class action "In re Upstart Holdings Securities Litigation." This
was initially filed on July 27, 2022, as a class action lawsuit
captioned "Handelsbanken Fonder AB v. Upstart Holdings, Inc., et
al.," Case No. 2:22-cv-02706-SDM-EPD.

On July 7, 2022, said class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court, Southern District of Ohio against the
company, the company's Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial
Officer alleging, among other things, that the defendants made
false and/or misleading statements or omissions about the company's
business, operations, and prospects in violation of Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, as well as
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Ward lawsuit claimed
unspecified damages and legal fees.

On July 12, 2022, motions to appoint lead plaintiff and lead
counsel were filed in the Handelsbanken Fonder action. The
consolidated amended complaint brings a claim under Section 20A of
the Exchange Act. On December 5, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint, which names the same defendants as
the previous complaint, along with two Company executives, as well
as Third Point LLC and its CEO and Third Point Ventures LLC and its
managing partner (also a former Upstart board member). The
consolidated amended complaint adds a claim under Section 20A of
the Exchange Act. On February 24, 2023, Upstart filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On September 29, 2023,
the Court issued an order, granting in part and denying in part the
Upstart defendants’ motion. On November 7, 2023, the Upstart
defendants filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court
denied on August 5, 2024. On February 2, 2024, Lead Plaintiff,
Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH, and plaintiffs, Kathy Brooks
and Kevin Crain, filed a motion for an order to certify this
matter, as a class action, appoint themselves as class
representatives, and approve their selection of Motley Rice LLC and
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as co-class counsel. On November
21, 2024, the Upstart defendants filed an opposition to
plaintiffs’ class certification motion, and on December 10, 2024
plaintiffs filed a reply in support thereof.

On December 6, 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
first amended complaint. On January 21, 2025, Third Point Ventures
LLC, Third Point LLC, and its CEO filed a motion to intervene for
the limited purpose of opposing plaintiffs' motion for leave to
file a first amended complaint, and on February 18, 2025 plaintiffs
filed a reply in support thereof.

Upstart Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiaries provides lending
partners with access to a proprietary, cloud-based, artificial
intelligence lending marketplace.


US BANCORP: Court Denies Renewed Bid for Arbitration in Fong Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dena Coggins of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California denies the Defendants' renewed motion to
compel arbitration in the lawsuit styled PETER FONG, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. U.S. BANCORP, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-01291-DC-CSK (E.D. Cal.).

The matter came before the Court on Feb. 21, 2025, for a hearing on
the Defendants' renewed motion to compel arbitration and the
Plaintiffs' motion to strike.

On April 21, 2000, Plaintiffs Peter Fong and Sut Fong opened a safe
deposit box at one of the Sacramento branches of Defendants U.S.
Bancorp and U.S. Bank National Association ("U.S. Bank"), which is
a wholly-owned subsidiary of U.S. Bancorp. For over two decades,
the Plaintiffs stored a substantial amount of cash, gold, and
jewelry in their safe deposit box.

The Plaintiffs allege that on Nov. 17, 2021, the Defendants
"drilled" into their safe deposit box to access its contents
without the Plaintiffs' knowledge or consent. Upon learning this
information, the Plaintiffs rushed to the bank and found their safe
deposit box unlocked and stored outside of the bank vault. The
Plaintiffs allege "hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of cash,
jewelry, and other family heirlooms were missing" from their safe
deposit box.

On July 21, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint
against the Defendants asserting claims for strict liability,
conversion, trespass to chattels, negligence per se, negligence,
promissory estoppel, intentional infliction of emotional distress,
unjust enrichment, and unfair business practices under California's
Unfair Competition Law, California Business & Professions Code.
They seek to recover property, damages, and restitution.

On Sept. 14, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration of the Plaintiffs' individual claims and to dismiss
this action or alternatively stay proceedings pending completion of
arbitration. According to the exhibits the Defendants attached to
that motion, on Nov. 19, 2013, the Plaintiffs signed a one-page
"Consumer Safe Deposit Box Contract," which states "Renter(s)
agrees to the terms of the 'Safe Deposit Box Lease Agreement,' . .
. ." The Safe Deposit Box Lease Agreement, which contains an
arbitration provision, is set forth on page 19 and 20 in a lengthy
document entitled "Your Deposit Account Agreement."

In their motion, the Defendants argued the Safe Deposit Box Lease
Agreement with its arbitration provision was properly incorporated
by reference into the Consumer Safe Deposit Box Contract under
California law, which requires a reference to be "clear and
unequivocal," "called to the attention of the other party and he
must consent thereto," and "the terms of the incorporated document
must be known or easily available to the contracting parties,"
citing Shaw v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 58 Cal. App. 4th 44, 54,
67 (1997).

In their opposition to that motion, the Plaintiffs argued the Safe
Deposit Box Lease Agreement's arbitration clause was not
incorporated by reference into the Consumer Safe Deposit Box
Contract they signed in November 2013. The Plaintiffs explained
that, after being informed by the Defendants that the bank's key
for the slot where their safe deposit box was located was damaged
in 2013, they visited the bank to move their safe deposit box to a
different slot, were provided new keys, and signed the Consumer
Safe Deposit Box Contract to indicate they had received the new
keys.

The Plaintiffs argued, among other things, that the purported
incorporation of the Safe Deposit Box Lease Agreement in the
one-page Consumer Safe Deposit Box Contract they signed was not
"clear and unequivocal" and they did not consent to the arbitration
clause within the Safe Deposit Box Lease Agreement.

On Aug. 17, 2023, the Court issued an order granting the
Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and dismissed this case
because the Court found the Safe Deposit Box Lease Agreement was
properly incorporated by reference into the Consumer Safe Deposit
Box Contract under California law. In addition, the Court rejected
the Plaintiffs' argument that the Defendants waived their right to
compel arbitration because the Court concluded the Defendants did
not act inconsistently with their right to invoke arbitration.

The Court also found that the arbitration agreement was enforceable
as to both Defendants because the Plaintiffs' claims against the
subsidiary and its parent company were based on the same facts and
inherently inseparable.

The Plaintiffs appealed the Court's Aug. 17, 2023 order to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In a
memorandum disposition, the Ninth Circuit held the Defendants
failed to establish the Safe Deposit Box Lease Agreement was
incorporated by reference into the Consumer Safe Deposit Box
Contract that the Plaintiffs signed in 2013 when they moved their
safe deposit box to a new slot.

The Ninth Circuit panel also explained several reasons for its
conclusion that the Defendants failed to show the Safe Deposit Box
Lease Agreement was "called to the attention of" or "easily
available" to the Plaintiffs when they signed the Consumer Safe
Deposit Box Contract. The Panel said that it would not have been
clear to a reasonable consumer under the circumstances that the
Consumer Safe Deposit Box Contract "represented a new agreement."
Notably, the Plaintiffs went to the branch in November 2013 to move
their safe deposit box to a new slot, not to open a new account or
get a new safe deposit box.

Ultimately, the Ninth Circuit vacated the Aug. 17, 2023 order
compelling arbitration and remanded to this Court for further
proceedings consistent with its disposition. Following the Ninth
Circuit's decision, the Defendants filed a Petition for Panel
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, both of which were denied.

On remand, the Court directed the parties to file a joint status
report regarding their proposals for how this case should proceed
on remand. On Nov. 12, 2024, the parties filed their joint status
report. Therein, the Defendants expressed their intention to file a
renewed motion to compel arbitration "to address the new issues
raised by the Ninth Circuit on appeal and to present further
evidence to address those issues."

In the Defendants' view, the Ninth Circuit based its decision on
issues the Plaintiffs had not argued, specifically that the
Plaintiffs might have understood that the contract they signed in
2013 might have incorporated or referred to a prior controlling
contract. The Defendants stated they have "new evidence" to show
that even if the Plaintiffs reasonably believed in 2013 that an
earlier document controlled, they executed a new contract in 2012,
which likewise incorporated by reference the Safe Deposit Box Lease
Agreement that contained the arbitration provision.

In response to the Defendants' view, the Plaintiffs expressed their
opposition to the filing of a renewed motion to compel arbitration,
arguing such a motion would be based on evidence the Defendants
have had in their possession for years, and the Ninth Circuit's
decision forecloses the Defendants' incorporation by reference
arguments.

Without waiting for the Court to consider the parties' respective
proposals and issue an order regarding how this case will proceed,
on Nov. 19, 2024, the Defendants filed a renewed motion to compel
arbitration purportedly based on "new evidence."

According to the Defendants, their renewed motion seeks to debunk
and put to rest the Ninth Circuit's speculation about whether the
Plaintiffs might have believed an earlier contract controlled when
signing the Consumer Safe Deposit Box Contract in 2013 by providing
evidence to show that in 2012, the Plaintiffs were advised that
they must execute new contracts in order to maintain their safe
deposit box, and they did so.

On Dec. 3, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
Defendants' renewed motion to compel arbitration, along with
supporting declarations. On Dec. 13, 2024, the Defendants filed a
reply thereto, as well as objections to specific portions of the
Plaintiffs' declarations.

In addition to opposing the substance of the Defendants' renewed
motion, on Dec. 3, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike
the Defendants' renewed motion to compel arbitration. Therein, the
Plaintiffs argue the Defendants' renewed motion violates the
Court's Local Rules, this Court's order directing the parties to
submit a joint status report proposing how the case should proceed,
and long-established precedent that one may not file successive
motions on the same issue by iterating the evidence it has had
available to it for years, and re-submitting new attempts seriatim
until the motion eventually succeeds.

As a preliminary matter, to the extent district courts have
discretion to entertain successive motions to compel arbitration,
the Court declines to exercise that discretion here.

Judge Coggins notes that the Defendants rely on documentation
showing that in 2012, the Plaintiffs signed a Safe Deposit Box
Contract that purportedly incorporated by reference a Safe Deposit
Box Lease Agreement that contained an arbitration clause. But the
Defendants made the same argument with respect to a 2013 version of
the Consumer Safe Deposit Box Contract in their first motion to
compel arbitration--an argument the Ninth Circuit squarely rejected
on appeal, Judge Coggins opines.

Critically, Judge Coggins says, the Defendants do not assert the
2012 documents are newly discovered. The Defendants had both
versions of the contracts in their possession and available to them
when they filed their first motion to compel arbitration.

In sum, Judge Coggins finds the Defendants' successive motion to
compel arbitration does not present an expanded factual record
based on new evidence. Rather, the Defendants again advance the
same incorporation by reference arguments that have been foreclosed
by the Ninth Circuit. Therefore, the Court will deny the
Defendants' successive motion to compel arbitration. Consequently,
the Court will also deny the Plaintiffs' motion to strike the
Defendants' successive motion as having been rendered moot by this
order.

For the reasons explained, the Court denies the Defendants' renewed
motion to compel arbitration. The Plaintiffs' motion to strike the
Defendants' renewed motion to compel arbitration is denied as
moot.

The Court directs the parties to meet and confer regarding the
scheduling of this case and file a joint status report within
twenty-one (21) days from the date of entry of this order that
addresses certain items, including contemplated amendments to the
pleadings, including to simplify or clarify the issues and
eliminate previous claims and defenses; the statutory bases for
jurisdiction and venue; and anticipated discovery and the
scheduling of discovery.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/48zawmas from PacerMonitor.com.

Jason Toji Calabro -- tojicalabro@calabro-law.com -- Calabro Law
Office, in Kansas City, Missouri 64108, Attorney for the
Plaintiffs.

Michael Krauss -- kraussm@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, in
Minneapolis, MN; Karin Bohmholdt -- bohmholdtk@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg Traurig, LLP, in Los Angeles, CA, Attorneys for the
Defendants.


US PAROLE COMMISSION: Bid to Stay Summary Judgment Briefing OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES LEWIS, et al., v.
US PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02182-RCL (D.D.C.),
the Hon. Judge Royce Lamberth entered an order as follows:

-- The first motion for an extension of time is granted.

-- The second motion for an extension of time is denied as moot.

-- The motion to stay summary judgment briefing is granted.

United States Parole is an independent entity within the Department
of Justice.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Lo3HYk at no extra
charge.[CC]
 


USA DISCOUNT: Thomas Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against USA Discount
Continuing Education LLC. The case is styled as Jordan Thomas,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. USA
Discount Continuing Education LLC doing business as: Florida
Discount Continuing Education, Case No. 1:25-cv-21139-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., March 11, 2025).

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

USA Discount Continuing Education LLC doing business as Florida
Discount Continuing Education -- https://www.floridadiscountce.org/
-- offers online continuing education courses for various
fields.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew John 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

UTAH HIGH SCHOOL: Court Stays Szymakowski Case Proceedings
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZACHARY SZYMAKOWSKI, an
individual; and JOHANNA URIBE, on behalf of FELIPE URIBE, a minor;
on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of similarly situated
F-1 students, v. UTAH HIGH SCHOOL ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATION, INC., a
Utah nonprofit corporation, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00751-RJS-CMR
(D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Robert Shelby entered an order granting
in part the Defendants' motion to stay.

All proceedings in this court are stayed pending resolution of
Defendants' appeal of the preliminary injunction. In light of this
ruling, the court denies without prejudice Defendants' motion to
dismiss and the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

When the appeal is resolved, should the parties wish to do so, they
may refile their Motions in their present form or as revised with
the benefit of guidance from the Tenth Circuit. The court also
denies the Defendants' motion for extension of time as moot.

The court agrees with the Defendants that the relevant factors
counsel toward granting a stay. And because the Plaintiffs do not
oppose the issuance of a stay, the court will grant it.

However, the court finds the Defendants' request to stay all
proceedings except the Motion to Dismiss would prejudice
Plaintiffs—Defendants may not use a stay as both a shield and a
sword.

The court therefore stays all proceedings in this case pending
resolution of the Defendants' appeal of the preliminary
injunction.

Szymakowski initiated this lawsuit on Oct. 7, 2024, when he filed a
proposed class action complaint asserting constitutional and
statutory civil rights claims against the Defendants.

On Jan. 2, 2025, the court entered a preliminary injunction
enjoining the Defendants from enforcing a Utah High School
Activities Association rule limiting F-1 visa holders' eligibility
for varsity athletics.

Utah High School is the leadership organization for fine arts and
athletics in Utah.

The Defendants include ROBERT CUFF, an individual; MARILYN
RICHARDS, an individual; AMBER SHILL, an individual; BURKE STAHELI,
an individual; DAVID WARREN, an individual; DAVID LUND, an
individual; ZACK MCKEE, an individual; PAUL SWEAT, an individual;
LUKE RASMUSSEN, an individual; JERRE HOLMES, an individual; JASON
SMITH, an individual; MIKE MEES, an individual; DEVIN SMITH, an
individual; BRYAN DURST, an individual; and BRENT STRATE, an
individual.

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

VALENTIN MARIAN: Alfaro Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Alfaro, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Valentin Marian and Inga Marian in their individual capacities,
and Hunzinger Williams, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-02618 (N.D. Ill.,
March 12, 2025), is brought arising under the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"), for failure to
pay at least the minimum wage for all hours worked in that
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff for several weeks.

By not paying Plaintiff at all for several weeks of pay, Defendants
failed to pay Plaintiffs the minimum wage for all time worked in
violation of the FLSA. The Defendants willfully violated the FLSA
by refusing to pay Plaintiff the minimum wage for all time worked
in individual work weeks. The Plaintiff is entitled to recover
unpaid wages for up to three years prior to the filing of this suit
because Defendants' willful failure to pay the minimum wage for all
hours worked up to 40 hours per week was a willful violation of the
FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in their business performing
landscaping work for the 2024 season.

Hunzinger Williams Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws
of the State of Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jorge Sanchez, Esq.
          LOPEZ & SANCHEZ LLP
          77 W. Washington St., Suite 1313
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 420-6784

VOLATO INC: Gray Seeks to Certify Employee Class
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOUANN GRAY and JENNIFER
NICHOLS, on their own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated, v. VOLATO, INC. and VOLATO GROUP, INC., Case No.
3:24-cv-00952-WWB-PDB (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

  (1) certifying the case as a class action for the group of
      former employees pursuant to the WARN Act and state wage
      laws;

  (2) appointing Louann Gray, Khea Trevena, and Michael Rickets as

      class representatives;

  (3) appointing Ryan Barack, Michelle Nadeau, and Arthur
      Schofield as class counsel;

  (4) and approving the proposed class notice

Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek to certify a class defined as:

    "All former employees of Volato, Inc. and Volato Group, Inc.,
    or their related entities, who worked at or reported to the
    Defendants' facilities and were not given a minimum of 60
    Days' written notice of termination and whose employment was
    terminated without cause on Aug. 30, 2024, within 30 days of
    that date or thereafter, as part of, or as the reasonably
    expected consequence of the mass layoffs or plant closings (as

    defined by the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification
    Act of 1988)."

The putative Class Members hold identical claims for identical
statutory WARN Act remedies consisting of sixty days’ pay and the
consequent loss of benefits during that period.

The proposed class satisfies all of Rule 23's requirements and
fulfills the objective and rationale for efficiently resolving such
claims on a class-wide basis, the Plaintiff contends.

Because Volato failed to comply with the WARN Act's notification
requirements, Volato is liable for statutory damages under the Act,
the Plaintiff adds.

On Aug. 30, 2024, Volato provided Plaintiffs an email that
contained "formal notice of the termination of your employment with
Volato, effective Friday, August 30, 2024."

Volato is an aviation company providing fractional ownership,
aircraft management, jet card, deposits and charter programs.

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

The Plaintiffs is represented by:

          Ryan D. Barack, Esq.
          Michelle Erin Nadeau, Esq.
          KWALL BARACK NADEAU PLLC
          304 S. Belcher Rd., Suite C
          Clearwater, FL 33765
          Telephone: (727) 441-4947
          Facsimile: (727) 447-3158
          E-mail: rbarack@employeerights.com
                  mnadeau@employeerights.com

                - and -

          Arthur Schofield, Esq.
          ARTHUR T. SCHOFIELD, P.A
          Via Jardin Building
          330 Clematis Street, Suite 207
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 655-4211
          Facsimile: (561) 655-5447
          E-mail: aschofield@flalabor.com

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Settles Turbocharger Defect Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org reports that a motion
has been submitted for preliminary approval of a settlement that
aims to resolve a proposed class action lawsuit filed on behalf of
hundreds of Volkswagen and Audi drivers whose vehicles have
allegedly defective engine turbochargers.

If approved by the court, the deal will provide reimbursement to
current and former owners or lessees of certain Volkswagen and Audi
vehicles distributed by Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. in the
United States and Puerto Rico. Covered vehicles include those
equipped with Generation 1, Generation 2 or Generation 3 EA888
engines and whose specific vehicle identification number (VIN) is
included in the settlement.

Vehicles covered under the VW turbocharger settlement may include
the following Volkswagen models:

  -- 2008-2021 VW GTI;
  -- 2008-2019 VW Golf R;
  -- 2012-2013 VW Beetle;
  -- 2009 VW Jetta Sportwagen;
  -- 2008-2013 VW Jetta Sedan;
  -- 2008-2013, 2019-2024 VW Jetta GLI;
  -- 2009-2016 VW Eos;
  -- 2008-2010 VW Passat;
  -- 2009-2017 VW CC;
  -- 2009-2018 VW Tiguan;
  -- 2015-2018 VW Golf;
  -- 2015-2019 VW Golf Sportwagen and Alltrack;
  -- 2019-2021 VW Arteon;
  -- 2018-2023 VW Atlas; and
  -- 2020-2023 VW Atlas Cross Sport.

Vehicles covered under the settlement may include the following
Audi models:

  -- 2008-2009, 2015-2020 Audi A3;
  -- 2015-2024 Audi Q3;
  -- 2009-2014 Audi A4;
  -- 2010-2014 Audi A5;
  -- 2013-2015 Audi A6;
  -- 2011-2014 Audi Q5; and
  -- 2011-2012, 2016-2023 Audi TT.

If you're unsure whether your vehicle is covered, you'll be able to
enter its VIN on the official settlement website (which is not yet
live) to find out.

According to court documents, class members may be entitled to
reimbursement for unreimbursed out-of-pocket expenses associated
with certain turbocharger repairs or replacements.

In order to be reimbursed, class members must file a timely, valid
claim form online or by mail. Claims must be submitted with
supporting documentation, such as a written estimate, invoice or
proof of payment.

Covered Volkswagen and Audi drivers who submit a timely, valid
claim form can receive 50 percent reimbursement for one repair or
replacement of a failed or malfunctioned turbocharger, depending on
the documented reason for the repair or replacement.

Repairs or replacements must have been performed within 8.5 years
or 85,000 miles (whichever occurred first) from the class vehicle's
in-service date.

If a class member's proof of repair expense documentation does not
specify the reason for the turbocharger repair or replacement,
reimbursement will be limited to 40 percent.

Payments will be capped at $3,850 if the repair was not performed
by an authorized Volkswagen or Audi dealer.

The Volkswagen turbocharger settlement also provides a warranty
extension for class members who drive a covered vehicle with a
Generation 3 engine. The warranty extension will cover 50 percent
of the cost of a turbocharger repair or replacement by an
authorized Audi or Volkswagen dealer for a period of 8.5 years or
85,000 miles from the vehicle's in-service date, whichever occurs
first, if the cause of the failure or malfunction was that the
wastegate failed due to fork head and/or link pin corrosion.

For Generation 3 class vehicles over 8.5 years old as of the date
that notice of the settlement is mailed to class members, the
warranty extension will be up to 60 days after the notice date or
85,000 miles from the vehicle's in-service date, whichever occurs
first.

Court documents state that notice of the class action settlement
will be issued to eligible class members within 100 days following
preliminary approval of the deal.

Initially filed in June 2022, the Volkswagen class action lawsuit
claimed the automakers "wrongfully and intentionally" concealed a
defect from consumers that could cause their vehicle's engine
turbocharger to fail prematurely at any time. Drivers have been
unfairly forced to pay thousands out of pocket to repair or replace
the faulty part, the filing alleged. [GN]

WALMART INC: Faces Adams and Price Suit Over Deceptive Labeling
---------------------------------------------------------------
RAGENA ADAMS and BRADEN PRICE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WALMART, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 4:25-cv-02452 (N.D. Cal., March 11, 2025) arises from
Defendant's deceptive labeling of its Equate Hair, Skin & Nails
2,500 mcg Biotin Gummies.

The Defendant's advertising misleads reasonable consumers into
believing that each gummy contains the advertised dosage. However,
contrary to the labeling, each unit only contains a fraction of the
advertised dosage. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now bring a class
action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
consumers in the United States, alleging violations of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and
False Advertising Law. Plaintiffs also assert further causes of
action for breach of express and implied warranties, negligent
misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation/fraud, and
quasi-contract/unjust enrichment.

Headquartered in Bentonville, AR, Walmart, Inc. operates a chain of
hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lilach H. Klein, Esq.
          Michael T. Houchin, 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
          E-mail: lilach@crosnerlegal.com
                       mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com
                       zach@crosnerlegal.com

WELCH FOODS: Batanian Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Arda Batanian, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. WELCH FOODS, INC. A COOPERATIVE, d/b/a
WELCH'S, Case No. 25STCV00782 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 12, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02181.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant labeled certain Welch's brand
fruit snacks (the "Products") as containing "no preservatives," but
the Products contain sodium citrate and citric acid, which
Plaintiff alleges are preservatives. The Plaintiff asserts claims
for violation of the California False Advertising Act and violation
of the California Unfair Business Practices Act.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel S. Silverman, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310.229.9900
          Facsimile: 310.229.9901
          Email: DSSilverman@venable.com

               - and -

          Melissa C. McLaughlin, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          750 E. Pratt Street, Suite 900
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Phone: 410.244.7400
          Facsimile: 410.244.7742
          Email: MCMcLaughlin@venable.com

WHOLE FOODS: Molock Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Certification Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL MOLOCK, et al., v.
WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-02483-APM (D.D.C.), the
Hon. Judge Amit Mehta entered an order denying the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

The court denies as moot the Defendant's motions to strike parts of
the evidentiary record, and the Defendant's motion to strike
portions of the Plaintiffs' reply brief.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' proffered "common issue" of "whether
there were unsupported transfers in their respective stores, "
Pls.' motion, cannot resolve the question of liability on a
class-wide basis. An unsupportable transfer does not necessarily
equate to an improper transfer. Only an individualized
determination of the transfer’s purpose can answer that question.


The Plaintiffs proposed a class consisting of:

    "Past and present Whole Foods employees who were not paid
    wages owed to them under the Gainsharing program."

The Plaintiffs also proposed the following sub-classes to align
with their state-law statutory causes of action and their common
law fraud claim:

(a) Past and present employees of Whole Foods who were employed in
the District of Columbia and did not receive all earned wages at
least twice during each calendar month on regular paydays in
violation of the District of Columbia Wage Payment and Collection
Law.

(b) Past employees of Whole Foods who were employed in the District
of Columbia and were not paid all earned wages within seven days
after resignation or termination.

(c) Past and present employees of Whole Foods who were employed in
the State of Maryland and did not receive all earned wages at least
once in every two weeks or twice in each month on regular paydays,
in violation of MD Code, Labor and Employment.

(d) Past employees of Whole Foods who were employed in the State of
Maryland and were not paid all earned wages for work that the
employee performed before the termination of employment, on or
before the employee’s next anticipated payday, in violation of MD
Code, Labor and Employment, section 3–505.

(e) Past and present employees of Whole Foods who were employed in
the State of Maryland and were not at the time of their hiring
provided full and accurate notice of their rates of pay, in
violation of MD Code, Labor and Employment, section 3–504; and,
(f) Past and present employees of Whole Foods who accepted
employment from Whole Foods in reliance on the promised
compensation (including Gainsharing payments) but did not receive
the promised payments.

Whole Foods owns and operates a chain of natural and organic foods
supermarket.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dDNu3I at no extra
charge.[CC]

WHOOP INC: Court Certifies Class and Subclass in Sanderson Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONRICK SANDERSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WHOOP, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-05477-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Charles Breyer entered an order:

-- granting the motion for 23(b)(3) certification,

-- certifying the Plaintiff's proposed 23(b)(3) class and
    subclass,

-- appointing Dovel & Luner as class counsel, and

-- appointing Donrick Sanderson as class representative.

The Court denies the motion for 23(b)(2) certification.

The Court concludes that Plaintiff has met all of the 23(a) and
23(b)(3) requirements, and certifies a 23(b)(3) class and subclass.
The Court declines to certify a 23(b)(2) class.

The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following class:

    "All persons in California who purchased a Whoop Membership
    through the Whoop website, were enrolled in [Whoop's]
    automatically renewing Whoop Membership subscription, and
    were automatically renewed and charged for at least one
    renewal term after their initial membership or commitment
    period ended, during the applicable statute of limitations."

The Plaintiff also seeks to certify the following subclass:

    "All members of the Class who were automatically renewed and
    charged for at least one renewal term that they did not use
    (the 'No Use Autorenewal' subclass)."

The Plaintiff filed suit in 2023, alleging that Whoop sold an
auto-renewing membership to the Plaintiff without properly
disclosing the terms of the auto-renewal, in violation of the ARL.

Whoop sells wearable fitness trackers and a subscription-based
membership that allows users to access associated tracking
software.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mstM9l at no extra
charge.[CC]

WILSON COUNTY, TN: Edwards Bid for Class Certification Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARSHALL EDWARDS and ALICE
EDWARDS, v. WILSON COUNTY GOVERNMENT, et al., Case No.
3:24-cv-00831 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Aleta Trauger will
overrule the Plaintiffs' objections and accept the R&R's
recommendations in their entirety.

The plaintiffs' motion for class certification and petition for
Writ of Mandamus will both be denied.

The plaintiffs' claims arise from an automobile accident that
occurred on Aug. 25, 2022 in Wilson County, Tennessee, when their
car was hit by a semi-truck driven by the defendant William Brown,
who was employed by Fresh Foods, causing both plaintiffs serious
injuries.

The plaintiffs allege that the accident was caused by Brown’s
negligence and recklessness. The police officer who was dispatched
to the scene of the accident from the City of Lebanon Police
Department, Officer Andy Byrnes, allowed Brown to leave the scene
of the accident without issuing him a citation for outdated
insurance, despite "clear evidence that Brown lacked proper
insurance coverage for the commercial vehicle."

The plaintiffs allege that Byrnes failed to enforce the law and
demonstrated "bias" by "prioritizing the interests of the
commercial entity over the safety and legal rights of individual
citizens" and that this was not an isolated incident but "part of a
broader, systemic issue within the department" of according
leniency to commercial operators at the expense of the well-being
of the general public.

The plaintiffs' motion for class Certification nonetheless seeks an
order appointing the plaintiffs as class representatives and
certifying a class of plaintiffs consisting of:

    "All individuals who, within the applicable statute of
    limitations period, were: a) Provided with fraudulent or
    misleading insurance documentation by Defendants Brown & Brown

    Insurance Brokers, Fresh Co. Foods, LLC, or their agents; b)
    Subjected to discriminatory practices or denial of due process

    by Defendants Wilson County Court, Judge Michael Collins, City

    of Lebanon Police Department, Wilson County Government, Wilson

    County Board of Commissioners, Wilson County Judicial
    District, or Wilson County Human Resources Department; or c)
    Harmed as a result of negligent hiring, retention, or
    supervision practices by any of the Defendants.

A copy of the Court's memorandum dated March 7, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=R1kXZk at no extra
charge.[CC]

WOOLF MERINO: Espinal Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
--------------------------------------------------------------
FRANGIE ESPINAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. WOOLF MERINO USA INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-02046 (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2025) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://woolfmerino-us.com/, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

Woolf Merino Usa Inc. designs and distributes outer wear, snow
sports apparel, functional sportswear, accessories, and footwear.
[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
          Tel: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
                 Dana@Gottlieb.legal
                 Michael@Gottlieb.legal


XPLR INFRASTRUCTURE: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against XPLR Infrastructure, LP f/k/a NextEra Energy Partners, LP
("XPLR" or the "Company") (NYSE:XIFR) and certain officers. The
class action, filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, and docketed under 25-cv-80334, is 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 (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused
by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

If you are an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired XPLR
securities during the Class Period, you have until May 9, 2025 to
ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A
copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To
discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free,
Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares
purchased.

XPLR acquires, owns, and manages contracted clean energy projects
in the United States, 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.

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.

Key to XPLR's (temporary) survival as a yieldco were the various
private convertible equity portfolio financing ("CEPF")
arrangements to which it was a party. Under these CEPF
arrangements, the Company would issue convertible securities, such
as convertible notes or convertible debt, to large investors, which
would later convert into equity in the Company based on a specified
triggering event, such as automatically converting upon the CEPF's
maturity date. To avoid these triggering events, the Company would
need to exercise its option to purchase, or buy out, the
outstanding equity interests in each CEPF. In return for entering
into a CEPF, XPLR received new equity capital, which it used to
support its acquisition of additional cash-generating assets,
thereby increasing its cash flows and, ultimately, its cash
distribution to its unitholders.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) XPLR was struggling to maintain its operations
as a yieldco; (ii) Defendants temporarily relieved this issue by
entering into CEPF arrangements while downplaying the attendant
risks; (iii) XPLR could not buy out CEPFs before their maturity
date without risking significant unitholder dilution; (iv) as a
result, Defendants planned to halt cash distributions to investors
and instead redirect those funds to, inter alia, buy out the
Company's CEPFs; (v) as a result of all the foregoing, XPLR's
yieldco business model and distribution growth rate was
unsustainable; and (vi) as a result, Defendants' public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On April 25, 2023, KeyBanc Capital Markets ("KeyBanc") cut its
recommendation on XPLR to sector weight from overweight, citing
"impending equity dilution in an unfavorable financial landscape."
KeyBanc's downgrade focused on XPLR's CEPF arrangements, expressing
concern "that upcoming conversions would create a medium-term
overhang in the higher capital cost environment[.]" 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 September 27, 2023, XPLR issued a press release announcing that
it "is revising its limited partner distribution per unit growth
rate to 5% to 8% per year through at least 2026, with a target
growth rate of 6%."

On this news, XPLR's unit price fell $9.44 per unit, or 20.13%, to
close at $37.46 per unit on September 27, 2023. XPLR's unit price
continued to fall an additional $16.46 per unit, or 43.94%, over
the following six consecutive trading sessions on unusually high
trading volume, eventually closing at $21.00 per unit on October 5,
2023.

On November 9, 2023, Seaport Global Securities ("Seaport")
downgraded XPLR units to sell from neutral with a $15.50 price
target, having determined that the Company's revised cash
distribution outlook was still likely too high. Seaport further
predicted that a "dividend cut should become clear in Q1 2024,"
while citing "growing unease" over the Company's financing
structure.

On this news, XPLR's unit price fell $3.07 per unit, or 11.35%, to
close at $23.99 per unit on November 9, 2023.

Then, on January 28, 2025, XPLR issued a press release announcing
that it was abandoning its yieldco business model and indefinitely
suspending its cash distribution to unitholders, stating it would
redirect those funds to execute on several priorities, the first of
which was to buy out its remaining CEPF obligations. The same press
release also revealed that the Company had appointed a new chief
executive officer.

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.

Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members.
See www.pomlaw.com.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes. [GN]

XTO ENERGY: Seeks to Exclude McArthur's Legal Opinions in Kriley
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOUGLAS KRILEY, et al., v.
XTO ENERGY INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00416-CBB (W.D. Pa.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order excluding Mr. McArthur's
legal opinions regarding the elements of Rule 23 and the propriety
of certification.

The Plaintiffs submitted declarations and reports from John
McArthur which offers opinions as to the elements of Rule 23 and
whether Plaintiffs can comply with Rule 23.

Mr. McArthur provided similar opinions in the Salvatora lawsuit and
the Court properly excluded them.

Mr. McArthur's opinions regarding class certification violate the
longstanding rule that experts cannot provide legal opinions. Such
opinions invade the court's province and must be excluded.

XTO Energy is an American energy company and subsidiary of
ExxonMobil.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 10, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v5yTdI at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David A. Borkovic, Esq.
          JONES, GREGG, CREEHAN & GERACE LLP
          20 Stanwix Street, Suite 1100
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 261-6400
          Facsimile: (412) 261-2652
          E-mail: dab@jgcg.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Justin H. Werner, Esq.
          Nicolle R. Snyder Bagnell, Esq.
          Thomas J. Galligan, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          225 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1200
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 288-3131
          Facsimile: (412) 288-3063
          E-mail: jwerner@reedsmith.com
                  nbagnell@reedsmith.com
                  tgalligan@reedsmith.com

                - and –

          Elizabeth L. Tiblets, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          301 Commerce Street, Suite 3000
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 347-5037
          Facsimile: (817) 347-5299
          E-mail: Elizabeth.Tiblets@klgates.com

ZULLAS LC: Lamas Files Suit in D. Utah
--------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zullas L.C., et al.
The case is styled as Allison Lamas, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Zullas L.C. doing business as:
Cafe Zupas, Case No. 2:25-cv-00183-DAO (D. Utah, March 11, 2025).

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

Zullas L.C. doing business as Cafe Zupas -- https://cafezupas.com/
-- create globally-inspired soups, salads, sandwiches, and desserts
from scratch in our kitchens each day.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jared D. Scott, Esq.
          Jacob D Barney, Esq.
          ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
          50 W Broadway, Ste. 600
          Salt Lake City, UT 84101
          Phone: (801) 534-1700
          Fax: (801) 364-7697
          Email: jscott@aklawfirm.com
                 jbarney@aklawfirm.com

[] New Dietary Supplement Class Lawsuits Remain Steady in 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Long of SupplySide Supplement Journal reports that the number
of new dietary supplement lawsuits remained steady in 2024 compared
to the prior year.

-- New food and beverage class action suits soared, however.

-- California and New York continue to be havens for plaintiffs'
lawyers.

Dietary supplement companies faced 58 new class action lawsuits in
2024, roughly on par with the previous year (62) although far below
a record high in 2022, according to an annual report published by
the law firm Perkins Coie.

Over the last three years, the supplement sector has been targeted
with 225 new class action lawsuits, based on Perkins Coie data.

Meanwhile, in the food and beverage space, the number of class
action lawsuits soared to 296 in 2024 from 187 in 2023, 214 in 2022
and a record of 331 in 2021, the law firm divulged in its annual
report, "2024 Year In Review: Food & Consumer Packaged Goods
Litigation." Perkins Coie reported a trend of continued focus "on
'natural' or 'all natural' representations" in the food and
beverage space.

In March, Perkins Coie published its annual report. It covers
myriad legal trends, including food and beverage, environmental,
social and governance (ESG), regulatory developments impacting the
CPG industry, pet food, supplements, personal care products, and
Proposition 65.  

The year 2024 "was notable for the wide variety of . . .  claims at
issue -- natural, protein content, multi-function ingredients,
packaging fill and sustainability claims," the law firm stated in
the annual report, the ninth year it was published. "The
combination of the pace and breadth of theories suggests that these
current trends will not abate soon."

Dietary supplement lawsuits
  
California (39 complaints) continued to be the most active state
for dietary supplement class action suits, followed by New York
(10), Illinois (8) and another jurisdiction (1), Perkins Coie
divulged. California and New York also led dietary supplement
filings in previous years.  

Nearly half (45%) of the dietary supplement lawsuits in 2024 were
tied to so-called false fact claims, such as claims pertaining to
statements like "clinically proven" or claims contending the
purported benefit of the product is false. Other claims in the
class action lawsuits related to harmful ingredients, health
misrepresentations, efficacy claims and lack of science, among
other issues identified by Perkins Coie.

In 2022, the supplement industry was hit with 105 class action
lawsuits, with over half (61) in California alone. Matt Orr, a
litigator defending CPG retailers and manufacturers, including
dietary supplement firms, said he wasn't sure what was responsible
for the 2022 spike in complaints.

"But with an increasing number of vocal and often antagonistic
consumer advocacy groups utilizing -- often haphazardly --
increasingly sensitive testing procedures for heavy metals,
microplastics, phthalates and other contaminants, we can expect the
number of lawsuits against supplement companies to continue to
increase," Orr, a partner with Amin Wasserman Gurnani LLP, told
SupplySide Supplement Journal.

However, it may take several years before the number of class
action lawsuits against supplement firms reaches the 2022 level, he
added.

The new filings only tell part of the story, according to Thomas
(Tommy) Tobin, counsel at Perkins Coie, who focuses on complex
litigation and regulatory compliance.  

He said the class action lawsuits can go on for several years.
Meanwhile, outside of the courts and prior to facing a lawsuit,
supplement brands and other CPG companies are inundated with demand
letters, which Tobin said are frequently resolved confidentially.

Orr noted "a marked increase in the number of pre-suit demand
letters."

"This could signify that companies are simply settling more of
these matters pre-suit and are less willing to incur the costs of
active litigation," he said.

Food and beverage space  

SupplySide Supplement Journal asked Tobin what's contributed to the
notable increase in the number of class action lawsuits in the food
and beverage space.

"It's hard to pinpoint exactly one area, but we can definitely see
… there's increasing activity in the space," he responded. In
addition to more plaintiffs' lawyers entering the space, Tobin
noted some rulings that have been favorable to plaintiffs.

The Seattle-based lawyer, whose practice focuses on the food,
consumer goods and cannabis industries, cited many "creative
readings of food labels." Plaintiffs' lawyers must convince a judge
that their interpretation of the label is a reasonable one, Tobin
said, because "a major defense here is the 'reasonable consumer'
standard."

That standard was highlighted in a 2024 appeals court decision that
involved whether the labeling of a wheat cracker product was false
and misleading. In Venticinque v. Back to Nature Foods Company LLC,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit "noted that the
product's labeling included the language 'organic whole wheat
flour' on its front panel when the product's predominant flour was
not 'whole wheat,'" Perkins Coie explained in its report.  

The appeals court determined a prior case (Mantikas v. Kellogg Co.)
was controlling.  

"Mantikas emphasized that a reasonable consumer should not be
expected to consult the product's back panel to correct misleading
information on the front label," according to Perkins Coie.
"Following in Mantikas' footsteps, the Second Circuit in
Venticinque court reversed the district court's earlier dismissal
of the matter." [GN]


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***