/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250325.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, March 25, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 60 Headlines ACADEMY SCHOOL: Seeks to Dismiss Doe Class Complaint ACCOLADE INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Transcarent AFFINITY INSURANCE: Class Cert Filing Continued to June 19 ALASKA AIRLINES: Creer Seeks Extension of Fact Discovery Deadline ALCLEAR LLC: Turner Bid to Remand Tossed ALEXANDRE FAMILY: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Animal Cruelty ALLBIRDS INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit AMAZON INC: Class Cert Filing in Baron Extended to Jan. 9, 2026 AMAZON.COM INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Jan. 9, 2026 AMAZON.COM INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Valles Due Oct. 3 AMAZON.COM INC: Parties File Proposed Class Cert Schedule ANGEL QUIROS: Andrews Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice ANGEL QUIROS: Asante's Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice ANGEL QUIROS: Faison's Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice ANGEL QUIROS: Sparadeo Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice APPLE FEDERAL: Agrees to Settle Overdraft Fees Suit for $2.5-Mil. APPLIED THERAPEUTICS: Alexandru Case Consolidated with Ikram Suit ARABIAN OUD USA: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ASHFORD INC: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action for $485,000 BANCORP INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Bill Pay Services BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks Reconsideration of Feb. 27 Class Cert Order BANK OF NEW YORK: Dobbs Sues Over Breach of Contract & Duty BBB-CA INC: Toth Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BEAUTY HEALTH: Continues to Defend Alghazwi Securities Class Suit BEAUTY HEALTH: Continues to Defend Davalos Consumer Class Suit BENEFICIENT COMPANY: Settlement Reached in Consolidated Suit BETTERHELP INC: Betterhelp Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid BEYOND MEAT: District Court Dismisses Securities Class Action Suit BOAR'S HEAD PROVISIONS: Buksbaum Suit Removed to S.D. California BROADCOM INC: Settlement in Securities Suit for Court Approval CGM LLC: Settlement Class in Cain Suit Gets Certification CIVITAS RESOURCES: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims CLEVELAND, OH: Fair Housing Center Fights DOGE Cuts in Class Suit COMEDY PARTNERS: Class Settlement in Kaplan Gets Initial Nod COMERICA BANK: Faces Class Suit Over Direct Express Management CONNECTICUT: Tarasiuk Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice CREDIT BUREAU: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Suit for $850,000 DEERE CREDIT: Settlement Class in Cornelius Wins Certification DIGIMARC CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces Consumer Suit over Sports Bets E.L.F. BEAUTY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set May 5 EIG CLAIMS SERVICES: Clark Sues to Recover Back Wages ENCORE ENERGY: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Settles Wage and Hour Class Suit for $12-Mil. FANNIE MAE: Court Awards $299.4MM in Damages to Stockholders FASTAFF LLC: Must File Class Cert Response in Egan by April 4 FCA US: Seeks to Strike Wall Bid to Amend Class Definition FLEETPRIDE INC: Banuelos Suit Removed to E.D. California FLORIDA CRYSTALS: Faces Class Suit Over Greenwashing Sugar Products FLUENCE ENERGY: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities Violation FOSSIL GROUP: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FOXX DEVELOPMENT: Faces Semensato Securities Suit FURNITURE MART: Customer Sues Over Data Breach, Seeks Class Action GENERAL MOTORS: Transmission Suit to Continue, Court Ruling Says GERBER PRODUCTS: Settles Infant Formula False Ad Class Action Suit GERON CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 12 GERON CORP: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit GIRL SCOUT: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Heavy Metals in Cookies GOOD AMERICAN: Faces TCPA Call Timing Class Action Lawsuit GRETCHEN WHITMER: Cochrane Bid for Class Cert Tossed w/o Prejudice HEWLETT-PACKARD: Caccavale Seeks to Reinstate Class Cert Bid HI-SCHOOL PHARMACY: Class Settlement in Landin Gets Initial Nod HOMEADVISOR INC: Bid for Leave to File Second Class Cert Tossed HONDA MOTORS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Serious Engine Defect IBM: Burgard Collective Action Wins Conditional Certification IBOTTA INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ICF TECHNOLOGY: Mondello Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Reply IDOC: Kucinsky Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class INFOSYS MCCAMISH: Agrees to Settle Cybersecurity Suit for $17.5-MM IQVIA INC: Lyngaas Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class J&I CORDON: Osorio Seeks to Conditionally Certify Collective J.T. THORPE & SON: Settles Overtime Pay Class Suit for $550,000 JACK COOPER: Faces Class Action Suit Over WARN Violation JAIME S. SCHWARTZ: Doe Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach JAMES KOUTOULAS: Bid to Intervene in De Ford Tossed JE PREMIERE INC: Espinal Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website JEREMY BARR: Thurston Plaintiffs' Class Certification Bid Tossed JOHN PAUL: Faces Suit Over Hair Care Products' Made in USA Claims JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Investors Defend Asbestos Laden Talc Class Suit KELSIER VENTURES: Faces Class Action Over Libra Token Scandal KIROMIC BIOPHARMA: Settles S.D.N.Y. Consolidated Shareholder Suit KWH MERCHANDISING: Allen Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages LEHIGH VALLEY: Agrees to Settle Cyberattack Class Suit for $65-Mil. LG ELECTRONICS: Consumers Sue Over Oven Ranges' Defective Knobs LOBLAW COS: Settles Bread Price Fixing Class Action Lawsuit LOGIKA LLC: Parties in Ray Suit Seek to Amend Scheduling Order LONG BEACH CITY: Part-Time Faculty Wins Underpayment Class Suit LOS ANGELES, CA: Verdin Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective Action LOTTERY.COM INC: Court Narrows Claims in Lottery Securities Suit LOUIS VUITTON: Court Affirms Dismissal of Wage Suppression Suit LYFT INC: Dismissed ADA Suit Under Appeal in Second Circuit MARIO'S AIR: Germain Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification MARK FOREMAN: Terry's Bid for Class Certification Tossed MATT BLATT: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Roa MDL 2599: Court Amends Order on Washington Statutory Class MDL 2599: Mercedes-Benz Seeks Reconsideration of Class Cert Order MDL 2724: DPPs' Class Certification Bid Granted in Antitrust Suit MDL 2724: EPP's Bid for Class Cert Partly OK'd in Antitrust Suit MDL 2833: Court Tosses Class Claims in Federal Student Loan Suit MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FL: Faces Suit Over School Bus Camera Program MICHAELS STORES: Class Certification Hearing Moved to June 11 MICHAELS STORES: Wins Partial Summary Judgment Bid vs Vigil MISSION POINT: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to August 8 MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Court Upholds Litigation Privilege in Class Suit MOMENTUM SOLAR: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines MONARCH INVESTMENT: Court Orders Lease Hidden Fees' Repayment MONEY SOURCE: Must File Class Cert Response in Hiller by April 14 MONTGOMERY PUBLIC: Discovery in Parrish-Muncher Due June 16 MV TRANSPORTATION: Jensen Suit Removed to S.D. California MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Epipen Class Suit for $73.5-Mil. NASHVILLE, TN: Seeks to Defer Class Cert Deadlines NCAA: Ray Plaintiffs Win Bid for Class Certification NEW YORK, NY: Agrees to Settle Detainees' Class Suit for $92.5MM NISE GENERAL REALTY: Feltzin Sues Over Discriminative Property NISSAN NORTH: Court Decertifies Unified Class Action Suit NORTHERN TRUST: Can Seal Portions of Class Cert Opposition NORTHSTAR HEALTHCARE: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Welltower NUNA BABY ESSENTIALS: Lema Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania OAKLAND, CA: Agrees to 2023 Data Breach Class Settlement OKLAHOMA: Judge Ends Decade-Old Suit Over Foster Care System OLIN CORPORATION: Court Extends Stay of Davis Suit to Sept. 18 OSBORN CORRECTIONAL: Martinez Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed OUTLOOK THERAPEUTICS: Securities Suit over Drug Licensing Dismissed OVERTON SECURITY: Walter Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Class Settlement in Zimmerman Gets Initial Nod PELOTON INTERACTIVE: District Court Dismisses Securities Class Suit PREMIUM MERCHANT: Bid to Amend Pleadings in Weingard Due April 16 PRIME HYDRATION: Court Narrows Claims in Kennedy, et al. Lawsuit PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid QUAKER OATS: Class Certification in Kessler Gets Initial Nod QUALCOMM INC: 9th Cir. Affirms in Part Dismissal of Key Class Suit RADIUS RECYCLING: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Toyota Tsusho READY CAPITAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 5 REGAL CINEMAS: Moviegoers Sue Over Promotional Text Messages ROSINA FOOD: Court Conditionally Certifies Collective Action RTFKT INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Nike NFT Claims SANTA MONICA, CA: Murcia Class Cert Bid Tossed SCOTT SEMPLE: Henry's Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice SCOTT SEMPLE: Nelson's Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice SCOTT SEMPLE: Newkirk Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice SCOTT SEMPLE: Roger Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice SCOTT SEMPLE: Thomas Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice SCYNEXIS INC: Continues to Defend Feldman Securities Class Suit SECOND CHANCE: Allowed to Amend Answer to Complaint SECURED MARKETING: Heidarpour Bid for Default Judgment Tossed SIG SAUER: Must File Class Cert Response in Glasscock by March 31 SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set May 5 SLICE OF ITALY: Court Extends Time to File Reply SMG FOOD: Class Certification Bid Filing in Ordono Due June 10 SNAP INC: Milito Suit Removed to W.D. Washington STANLEY STEEMER: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $700,000 STITCH FIX: Securities Class Suit Pending in California STOCKSTOTRADE.COM: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SUMMIT PATHOLOGY: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Sept. 30, 2026 SUNSTATE EQUIPMENT: Chavez Suit Removed to E.D. California SUPERB CABLE: Court Conditionally Certifies FLSA Collective TARGET CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Florida TC HEARTLAND: Class Cert Bid Hearing in Tilker Set for Nov. 5 TDBBS LLC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Barkworthies Bully Sticks TEAM HEALTH: Status Conference Continued to April 24 TEKSYSTEMS INC: Recruiter Class Wins Certification in Thomas Suit TFI INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit THEHUFFINGTONPOST.COM: Faces Class Action Over Data Privacy Claims UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Renewed Bid for Class Cert Due July 14 United Parcel: Claims in Yanez-Davison Discrimination Case Narrowed UNITED STATES: Class Action Settlement in Farrell Gets Final Nod UNITED STATES: Court Denies Certification of Black Class Action UNITED STATES: Faces Class Suit for Alleged Self-Obstruction UNITED STATES: Farm Workers Seek Provisional Class Certification UNITED STATES: Lewis Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply UPFIELD US: Wins Summary Judgment v. Reyes UPSTART HOLDINGS: Consolidated Suit over SEC Filing Ongoing VEOLIA NORTH: Agrees to Settle Flint Water Class Suit for $53-MM VISION PATH: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Business Practices WELLS FARGO: Henzel Bid for Redaction, Sealing Denied w/o Prejudice XP INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ********* ACADEMY SCHOOL: Seeks to Dismiss Doe Class Complaint ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Doe, a minor, by and through his next friends, Jack Doe and Jane Doe, v. Academy School District 20, Case No. 1:24-cv-03477-SKC-MDB (D. Colo.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order that the Plaintiffs have not met their burden to establish that the Court has proper jurisdiction over the Complaint and the District requests that the Court dismiss the Plaintiffs' Complaint. This matter involves asserted claims regarding compliance with John Doe's ("J.D.'s") individualized education plan ("IEP") under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"). J.D. is a student with an IDEA disability Academy District 20 is a school district located in El Paso County, Colorado. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qgfHiV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Igor Raykin, Esq. Kaity Tuohy, Esq. 2851 S. Parker Rd., Suite 150 Aurora, CO 80014 Telephone: (720) 748-8888 Facsimile: (720) 748-8894 E-mail: kaity@coloradolawteam.com igor@coloradolawteam.com The Defendant is represented by: John R. Stanek, Esq. ORTEN CAVANAGH HOLMES & HUNT, LLC 111 S. Tejon St., Suite 400 Springs, CO 80903 Telephone: (719) 228-6049 E-mail: jstanek@ochhoalaw.com - and - Tonya J. Thompson, Esq. 1110 Chapel Hills Dr. Colorado Springs, CO 80920 Telephone: (719) 234-1216 E-mail: tonya.thompson@asd20.org ACCOLADE INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Transcarent --------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Accolade, Inc. (NASDAQ: ACCD), relating to the proposed merger with Transcarent. Under the terms of the agreement, Transcarent will acquire Accolade for $7.03 per share in cash. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for March 27, 2025. Click link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/accolade-inc-accd/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- SK Growth Opportunities Corporation (NASDAQ: SKGR), relating to the proposed merger with Webull Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, shares of SK Growth will be converted into shares of Webull Corp. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for March 30, 2025. Click link for more information: https://monteverdelaw.com/case/sk-growth-opportunities-corporation-skgr/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- AeroVironment, Inc. (NASDAQ: AVAV), relating to the proposed merger with BlueHalo LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, AeroVironment shareholders will own approximately 60.5% of the combined company. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for April 1, 2025. Click link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/aerovironment-inc-avav/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. William Penn Bancorporation (NASDAQ: WMPN), relating to its proposed merger with Mid Penn Bancorp, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, shareholders of William Penn will receive 0.4260 shares of Mid Penn common stock for each share of William Penn common stock. Additionally, all options of William Penn will be rolled into Mid Penn equivalent options. The implied transaction value is approximately $13.58 per William Penn share. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for April 2, 2025. Click link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/william-penn-bancorporation-wmpn/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN] AFFINITY INSURANCE: Class Cert Filing Continued to June 19 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISABEL WILLIAMS and JEFFREY PYTEL, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated, v. AFFINITY INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., AIS AFFINITY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., and NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:23-cv-06347-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order continuing class certification briefing schedule as follows: Event Current Date Extended Date Class certification motion and Apr. 3, 2025 June 19, 2025 Plaintiff's class certification expert disclosures due: Class certification opposition, June 12, 2025 Aug. 28, 2025 Defendants' class certification expert disclosures, and Defendants' Daubert motions due: Class certification expert July 24, 2025 Oct. 9, 2025 discovery cut-off: Class certification reply Aug. 7, 2025 Oct. 23, 2025 and Plaintiff's Daubert motions due: On July 30, 2024, the Court issued an order setting deadlines for briefing on class certification Affinity Insurance specializes in developing, marketing and administering customized insurance programs. A copy of the Courts' order dated March 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1tdghG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen M. Raab, Esq. Patrick J. Branson, Esq. Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Rajiv V. Thairani, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 x109 E-mail: stephen@gutridesafier.com patrick@gutridesafier.com seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com rajiv@gutridesafier.com The Defendants are represented by: Aneca E. Lasley, Esq. ICE MILLER LLP 250 West Street Suite 700 Columbus, OH 43215-7509 Telephone: (614) 462-1085 Facsimile: (614) 232-6899 E-mail: aneca.lasley@icemiller.com - and - Sonia Martin, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1300 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 882-5000 Facsimile: (415) 882-0300 E-mail: sonia.martin@dentons.com - and - Jeffrey A. Lipps, Esq. Michael H. Beekhuizen, Esq. CARPENTER LIPPS LLP 280 Plaza, Suite 1300 280 North High Street Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 365 4100 Facsimile: (614) 365-9145 E-mail: lipps@carpenterlipps.com beekhuizen@carpenterlipps.com ALASKA AIRLINES: Creer Seeks Extension of Fact Discovery Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE CREER, an individual, behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. ALASKA AIRLINES, INC., an Alaska corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-03780-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the fact discovery cut-off, expert disclosure deadline, rebuttal expert disclosure deadline, expert discovery cut-off, and Plaintiff's deadline to file her motion for class certification by 90 days. While the Plaintiff's counsel had intended to engage in the discovery earlier, she experienced a medical condition that caused a delay to do so. Unfortunately, the Plaintiff's counsel's ongoing medical treatment interfered with the discovery process as she had originally planned. Furthermore, the Parties will not be prejudiced should the briefing on the motion for class certification be continued. Due to the Plaintiff's counsel’s unfortunate medical experience, Plaintiff has experienced a delay in the discovery process. Given such, more time is needed for gathering the time and pay records for the putative class, or even a sample, by which the Plaintiff can conduct data analysis and derive necessary metrics for class certification. The Plaintiff Michelle, formerly employed as a Lounge Hospitality Host, alleges that the Defendant committed various wage and hour violations against herself and other, similarly situated hourly, non-exempt employees, including in positions related to providing air transport and customer services at Defendant’s locations and facilities throughout California. Alaska Airlines provides air transportation services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SBl90x at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emil Davtyan, Esq. David Yeremian, Esq. Natalie Haritoonian, Esq. Rose Sorial, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N Brand Blvd., Ste. 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 962-6465 Facsimile: (818) 962-6469 E-mail: emil@d.law d.yeremian@d.law n.haritoonian@d.law r.sorial@d.law ALCLEAR LLC: Turner Bid to Remand Tossed ---------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYONNA TURNER, v. ALCLEAR, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00530-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Troy Nunley entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion to remand. The parties are ordered to file a joint status report with proposed dates for filing a motion for class certification within 30 days of the date of this Order. The Court finds the parties do not provide sufficient authority regarding whether attorneys’ fees can be calculated based on a waiting time penalties claim alone. Nevertheless, Defendant has already established by a preponderance of the evidence that the waiting time penalties claim equals an amount in controversy of $5,100,480. Accordingly, even without calculations for attorneys' fees, Defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence the amount in controversy in this case exceeds $5 million as required by CAFA. The instant action arises out of the Defendant's alleged wage and hour violations. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt employee with the title of "Sales Ambassador" out of the Sacramento office from March 27, 2023, to Oct. 12, 2023. Alclear is a technology company that provides a biometric secure identity platform that stores individuals' personal information. A copy of the Court's order dated March 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mPfjhG at no extra charge.[CC] ALEXANDRE FAMILY: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Animal Cruelty --------------------------------------------------------- John Millspaugh of Farm Forward, reports that the fraud, corruption, and systemic animal abuses of Alexandre Family Farm revealed by Farm Forward have resulted in the filing of a consumer class action lawsuit against the mega-dairy. Humane Farm Animal Care, the group behind the "Certified Humane" label, has also been sued as part of the action. This civil case follows a separate case enforcing California criminal statutes that prohibit animal cruelty, filed against Alexandre in late 2024, which indicts the dairy for serious and pervasive animal abuse. The new civil case alleges that Alexandre and Certified Humane falsely represented Alexandre products as "humane" while Alexandre engaged in shocking and widespread acts of animal cruelty. For example, Farm Forward's investigation found that Alexandre staff poured salt into the eyes of hundreds of cows, sawed off the horns of more than 800 cows through tissue laced with nerves without any pain management, cut off a cow's teat with an unsanitized pocketknife, dragged a cow who was unable to walk across concrete, for years provided no routine veterinary or hoof care management, and transported sick, injured, and lame cows to auction rather than treating or euthanizing them. If the court finds that Alexandre and/or Certified Humane engaged in false, fraudulent, misleading, unfair, deceptive, and/or unlawful conduct in their representations about the humane status of Alexandre products, the suit could result in Alexandre having to pay affected consumers more than $5,000,000. This lawsuit puts producers everywhere on notice that consumers will hold them accountable for humane-washing—false promises of animal welfare. In addition to holding Alexandre accountable, the lawsuit builds on questions our investigative report raised "about whether the Certified Humane program adequately or effectively audits businesses approved to use their label". The suit alleges that, based on Certified Humane's own representations, Certified Humane was aware of the conditions at Alexandre in the years leading up to our report, yet took no action to remove Alexandre from its certification program or prevent Alexandre from using the Certified Humane logo on Alexandre's products or website. Consumers in the class action suit will be represented by Richman Law & Policy (RLP), an experienced litigation firm that focuses on consumer protection and the domestic food supply. RLP has represented and/or co-counseled with groups including Socially Responsible Agriculture Project, Global Witness, GC Resolve, and Food and Water Watch. RLP served as lead counsel in Jones v. Monsanto (W.D. Mo.), which resulted in a $39.55 million fund for consumers, along with agreed-upon changes to Roundup weedkiller products labels. RLP was co-lead counsel in Goldemberg v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.), which resulted in a $7 million fund for consumers and agreed-upon changes to the marketing of Aveeno personal care products. Lawsuit includes new findings of Alexandre's animal abuses and Certified Humane's complicity While primarily relying on the evidence uncovered by Farm Forward, the lawsuit also reveals new findings of an independent investigator, previously unknown to Farm Forward, who visited Alexandre during the period covered by our investigation. The investigator found calves in barred hutches who were covered in feces, urine, and mud, many of them standing in pools of waste rising above the calves' hooves, the slurry completely covering the only area where the calves could lie down. In clear violation of Certified Humane standards, calves in these hutches could not set one foot outside, had no access to an exercise area, and were left in hutches for a full month longer than the eight week maximum allowed by Certified Humane standards. One calf had an ear tag that appeared to show a birth date four months prior to the investigator's visit, suggesting that the calf had been hutched for two months beyond Certified Humane's eight week age limit. The investigator, who has observed many calf hutches on many farms, describes the hutches as the least sanitary the investigator had ever seen. Certified Humane is incriminated by these conditions as much as Alexandre. Certified Humane assures customers that animal products bearing the Certified Humane Raised & Handled logo "come from operations that meet precise, objective standards for farm animal treatment." Yet Certified Humane took no action to prevent Alexandre from using the Certified Humane logo on Alexandre's products or website, despite Certified Humane's standards requiring that the calves must be: -- kept clean -- isolated in individual hutches no later than eight weeks of age -- provided access "at all times" to an area for laying down that is bedded, comfortable, dry, and sloped to provide drainage -- provided an outdoor exercise area when weather conditions permit able to lie down and rest "without hindrance" A turning point for humanewashing Together, the Farm Forward investigation, the Atlantic article, and now this class action lawsuit are a turning point in holding producers accountable for humanewashing -- the common practice of marketing animal products with deceptive packaging, labels, and certifications to promote the illusion of animal well-being, while concealing the extent of animals' abuse, neglect, illness, and suffering. Animal agriculture's worst animal abuses cannot be prevented by simply buying the animal products that farms and certifications themselves dishonestly claim are better. Ultimately, we need federal consumer protection laws that meaningfully define and enforce terms like "humane" and "sustainable" on products. Until we can secure those common-sense regulations, we must use the legal system to hold companies and certifications accountable for humanewashing. Since this case could begin a new chapter for both consumer protection and animal welfare, consumers, law firms, and meat, dairy, and egg companies across the country will watch closely how it unfolds. [GN] ALLBIRDS INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Allbirds Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On April 13, 2023, and on May 16, 2023, the Company and certain of its executive officers and directors were named as defendants in two substantially similar securities class action lawsuits, captioned Shnayder v. Allbirds, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-cv-01811-AMO and Delgado v. Allbirds, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-cv-02372-AMO, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. These lawsuits allege that it violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act by making materially false and/or misleading statements about its business, operations and prospects. The plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount. On July 25, 2023, the court entered an order consolidating the two cases, appointing lead plaintiffs, and approving lead plaintiffs' selection of lead counsel. On September 15, 2023, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint against the same group of defendants and asserting the same claims. On November 3, 2023, it filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint and the court granted the motion on May 10, 2024, but provided plaintiffs with leave to amend their complaint. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in July 2024 and it filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on September 5, 2024. Full briefing on the motion was completed on December 4, 2024 and a hearing on the motion is set for May 29, 2025. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. Allbirds, Inc., together with its wholly owned subsidiaries, is a global lifestyle brand that innovates with naturally-derived materials to make better footwear and apparel products in a better way, while treading lighter on our planet. The majority of its revenue is from sales directly to consumers via its digital and store channels. AMAZON INC: Class Cert Filing in Baron Extended to Jan. 9, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Baron et al., v. Amazon Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00446 (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Ricardo Martinez entered an order extend discovery and class- certification briefing schedule: Event Current Date Proposed Date Close of Fact Discovery: April 25, 2025 July 24, 2025 Close of Expert Discovery: July 11, 2025 Oct. 13, 2025 Close of Rebuttal Expert Aug. 25, 2025 Nov. 25, 2025 Discovery: Deadline for Motion for Class Oct. 9, 2025 Jan. 9, 2026 Certification: Deadline for Amazon's Nov. 24, 2025 Feb. 24, 2026 Opposition to Class Certification Motion: Deadline for Plaintiffs' Reply Dec. 15, 2025 Mar. 16, 2026 Brief in Support of Motion for Class Certification Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, and online advertising. A copy of the Court's order dated March 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gQxK5F at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carlos F. Ramirez, Esq. Michael Robert Reese, Esq. George V. Granade, II, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, Suite 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643‐0500 E-mail: cramirez@reesellp.com mreese@reesellp.com ggranade@reesellp.com - and - Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 303‐0552 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com - and - Rebecca Solomon, Esq. Kim D. Stephens, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682‐5600 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com rsolomon@tousley.com The Defendant is represented by: Charles C. Sipos, Esq. Mallory Gitt Webster, Esq. Thomas J. Tobin, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Telephone: (206) 359-8000 Facsimile: (206) 359-9000 E-mail: CSipos@perkinscoie.com MWebster@perkinscoie.com TTobin@perkinscoie.com AMAZON.COM INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Jan. 9, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re Amazon Prime Video Litigation, Case No. 2:22-cv-00401 (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Ricardo Martinez entered an order extend discovery and class- certification briefing schedule: Event Current Date Proposed Date Close of Fact Discovery: April 25, 2025 July 24, 2025 Close of Expert Discovery: July 11, 2025 Oct. 13, 2025 Close of Rebuttal Expert Aug. 25, 2025 Nov. 25, 2025 Discovery: Deadline for Motion for Class Oct. 9, 2025 Jan. 9, 2026 Certification: Deadline for Amazon's Nov. 24, 2025 Feb. 24, 2026 Opposition to Class Certification Motion: Deadline for Plaintiffs' Reply Dec. 15, 2025 Mar. 16, 2026 Brief in Support of Motion for Class Certification Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, and online advertising. A copy of the Court's order dated March 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bw3NWw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carlos F. Ramirez, Esq. Michael Robert Reese, Esq. George V. Granade, II, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, Suite 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643‐0500 E-mail: cramirez@reesellp.com mreese@reesellp.com ggranade@reesellp.com - and - Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 303‐0552 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com - and - Rebecca Solomon, Esq. Kim D. Stephens, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682‐5600 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com rsolomon@tousley.com The Defendant is represented by: Charles C. Sipos, Esq. Mallory Gitt Webster, Esq. Thomas J. Tobin, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Telephone: (206) 359-8000 Facsimile: (206) 359-9000 E-mail: CSipos@perkinscoie.com MWebster@perkinscoie.com TTobin@perkinscoie.com AMAZON.COM INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Valles Due Oct. 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISABELLA VALLES; EBONY WARE; DANIELA URIBE; JINAH CHUNG; CASEY MILES; KRYSTAL LARREA; JACQUELYN PEREZ; MARBLEANE BOND; RUBY HORTA; EMILY PARKER; BRANDI NEVEL; XIOMARA CARLOS; DINA ALI; JENISEA HARO; RAYNA CARR; SONIA DUARTE; KAREN WILLIAMS; MONICA STEVENS; JULIANA IBANEZ TRUJILLO; KAYLEE MICHELLE; ARIELA PETRUESCU; HIENNESSEYY LE; AMANDA SEDA; ARIELLE WHITE; and ALINAA LOPEZ, CHELSEA GARLAND, and VICTORIA TULSIDAS, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation; AMAZON.COM LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-06233-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order setting class-certification schedule as follows: Event Date Close of Fact Discovery: July 31, 2025 Affirmative Expert Reports: Aug. 22, 2025 Rebuttal Expert Reports: Sept. 5, 2025 Close of Expert Discovery: Sept. 30, 2025 Deadline for Motion for Class Certification: Oct. 3, 2025 Deadline for Opposition to Class Oct. 23, 2025 Certification: Deadline for Reply ISO Class Certification: Oct. 30, 2025 Class Certification Hearing: Nov. 13, 2025 Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Court's order dated March 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pt4rJb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher R. Rodriguez, Esq. Andrew D. Bluth, Esq. John R. Ternieden, Esq. SINGLETON SCHREIBER, LLP 591 Camino de la Reina, Suite 1025 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 771-3473 Facsimile: (619) 255-1515 - and - James E. Hayes, Esq. Jillian F. Hayes, Esq. John R. Ternieden, Esq. HAYES LAW, APC 3940 Hortensia Street, Suite 250 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (858) 737-3311 The Defendants are represented by: Julie L. Hussey, Esq. Jacob L. Speckhard, Esq. Mallory Gitt Webster, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 11452 El Camino Real, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130-2080 Telephone: (858) 720-5700 Facsimile: (858) 720-5799 E-mail: JHussey@perkinscoie.com JSpeckhard@perkinscoie.com MWebster@perkinscoie.com AMAZON.COM INC: Parties File Proposed Class Cert Schedule --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISABELLA VALLES; EBONY WARE; DANIELA URIBE; JINAH CHUNG; CASEY MILES; KRYSTAL LARREA; JACQUELYN PEREZ; MARBLEANE BOND; RUBY HORTA; EMILY PARKER; BRANDI NEVEL; XIOMARA CARLOS; DINA ALI; JENISEA HARO; RAYNA CARR; SONIA DUARTE; KAREN WILLIAMS; MONICA STEVENS; JULIANA IBANEZ TRUJILLO; KAYLEE MICHELLE; ARIELA PETRUESCU; HIENNESSEYY LE; AMANDA SEDA; ARIELLE WHITE; and ALINAA LOPEZ, CHELSEA GARLAND, and VICTORIA TULSIDAS, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation; AMAZON.COM LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-06233-VC (N.D. Cal.), the parties submitted joint filing regarding proposed class-certification schedule. The Court directed the Parties to meet and confer and submit a class-certification schedule. Counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for Defendants Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com Services LLC met and conferred on a schedule but were unable to reach agreement, necessitating the submission of separate proposed schedules for the Court's consideration. Those proposals are detailed below. Amazon's Proposed Class-Certification Schedule Event Date Close of Fact Discovery: June 16, 2025 Affirmative Expert Reports: July 9, 2025 Rebuttal Expert Reports: Aug. 1, 2025 Close of Expert Discovery: Sept. 5, 2025 Deadline for Motion for Class Sept. 9, 2025 Certification: Deadline for Opposition to Class Oct. 16, 2025 Certification: Deadline for Reply ISO Class Oct. 30, 2025 Certification: Class Certification Hearing: Nov. 13, 2025 The schedule that Amazon proposes would balance ensuring sufficient time for completion of fact and expert discovery with concluding briefing on class certification reasonably before the hearing date set by the Court. Plaintiffs' Proposed Class-Certification Schedule Event Date Close of Fact Discovery: July 31, 2025 Affirmative Expert Reports: Aug. 22, 2025 Rebuttal Expert Reports: Sept. 5, 2025 Close of Expert Discovery: Sept. 30, 2025 Deadline for Motion for Class Certification: Oct. 3, 2025 Deadline for Opposition to Class Certification: Oct. 23, 2025 Deadline for Reply ISO Class Certification: Oct. 30, 2025 Class Certification Hearing: Nov. 13, 2025 Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h6HMer at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher R. Rodriguez, Esq. Andrew D. Bluth, Esq. John R. Ternieden, Esq. SINGLETON SCHREIBER, LLP 591 Camino de la Reina, Suite 1025 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 771-3473 Facsimile: (619) 255-1515 - and - James E. Hayes, Esq. Jillian F. Hayes, Esq. John R. Ternieden, Esq. HAYES LAW, APC 3940 Hortensia Street, Suite 250 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (858) 737-3311 The Defendant is represented by: Julie L. Hussey, Esq. Jacob L. Speckhard, Esq. Mallory Gitt Webster, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 11452 El Camino Real, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130-2080 Telephone: (858) 720-5700 Facsimile: (858) 720-5799 E-mail: JHussey@perkinscoie.com JSpeckhard@perkinscoie.com MWebster@perkinscoie.com ANGEL QUIROS: Andrews Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Andrews v. Angel Quiros, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00424 (D. Conn., Filed March 22, 2024), the Hon. Judge Stefan R. Underhill entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel. Accordingly, 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, the Plaintiff may file a second motion to appoint counsel, the Court says. The nature of suit prisoner civil rights.[CC] ANGEL QUIROS: Asante's Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Asante v. Angel Quiros, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00501 (D. Conn., Filed March 22, 2024), the Hon. Judge Stefan R. Underhill entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel. Accordingly, 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, the Plaintiff may file a second motion to appoint counsel, the Court says. The nature of suit prisoner civil rights.[CC] ANGEL QUIROS: Faison's Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Faison v. Angel Quiros, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00741 (D. Conn., Filed April 22, 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.[CC] ANGEL QUIROS: Sparadeo Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sparadeo v. Angel Quiros et al., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00485 (D. Conn., Filed March 28, 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.[CC] APPLE FEDERAL: Agrees to Settle Overdraft Fees Suit for $2.5-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Apple Federal Credit Union has agreed to a $2.5 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it charged unfair overdraft fees on ATM withdrawals and transfers and debit card payments. The settlement benefits individuals who have or had a checking account with Apple Federal Credit Union and were charged an overdraft fee between Jan. 7, 2021, and March 31, 2024. According to the class action lawsuit, Apple Federal Credit Union charged overdraft fees on transactions that were "authorized positive but settled negative." The credit union allegedly charged these fees despite promising not to do so in its account agreements. Apple Federal Credit Union is a financial institution based in Virginia that serves more than 200,000 members. Apple Federal Credit Union has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to the $2.5 million settlement to resolve the overdraft fees class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Apple Federal Credit Union settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the amount they were charged in overdraft fees. Class members who were charged $100 or less in fees will receive a proportional share of the net settlement fund, while those who were charged more than $100 in fees will receive a proportional share, up to a maximum payment of $100. The deadline for exclusion and objection is April 20, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Apple Federal Credit Union overdraft fees settlement is scheduled for June 17, 2025. No claim form is required to benefit from the settlement. Class members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive settlement benefits. Who's Eligible Individuals who have or had a checking account with Apple Federal Credit Union and were charged an overdraft fee between Jan. 7, 2021, and March 31, 2024. Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form Deadline There is no claim filing deadline. Class members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive settlement benefits. Case Name Virginia is for Movers LLC, et al. v. Apple Federal Credit Union, Case No. 1:23-cv-00576, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division Final Hearing 06/17/2025 Settlement Website MoversFeeSettlement.com Claims Administrator Virginia is for Movers v. Apple Federal Credit Union Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 301130 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1130 admin@MoversFeeSettlement.com (833) 419-4790 Class Counsel Lynn A. Troops Vess A. Miller Lisa M. LaFornara COHEN & MALAD LLP J. Gerard Stranch IV STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC Devon J. Munro MUNRO BYRD P.C. Defense Counsel Stuart M. Richter KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP Bryan J. Healy Clair E. Wischusen GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP [GN] APPLIED THERAPEUTICS: Alexandru Case Consolidated with Ikram Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Adrian Alexandru, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Applied Therapeutics, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-09715 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Denise Cote entered a case management order as follows: -- Appointing Martin Dietrich as Lead Plaintiff; -- Appointing Wolf Popper LLP as Lead Counsel for the Plaintiff; and -- Consolidating Ikram suit with Alexandru Suit. Applied Therapeutics is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MNgBBF at no extra charge.[CC] ARABIAN OUD USA: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Cedric Bishop, for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. ARABIAN OUD USA FRANCHISOR, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02117 (S.D.N.Y., March 13, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://arabianoud.com/en, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. The Defendant offers the commercial website, https://arabianoud.com/en, to the public.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal michael@gottlieb.legal ASHFORD INC: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action for $485,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Claim Depot reports that if you received a notification from Ashford Inc. stating that your personal information might have been compromised due to a data incident, you may qualify to submit a claim for up to $2,500 from a class action settlement. Ashford Inc. has agreed to pay $485,000 to settle a class action lawsuit for alleged negligence due to an incident where unauthorized access to Ashford's data environment took place around September 20, 2023, potentially exposing personal information of affected individuals. Who qualifies for a data breach settlement payment? All individuals in the United States who were notified their personal information (PII) was potentially compromised as a result of the 2023 Ashford Inc data breach. How much is the class action payout? Class members can claim one or more of the following: -- Documented Out-of-Pocket Losses: You can submit for reimbursement of up to $2,500 for documented expenses and financial losses directly related to the data incident that occurred between September 20, 2023, and the claim submission deadline. -- Pro Rata Cash Payment: In addition to documented losses, class members may claim a pro rata cash payment. The payment amount will be determined by the number of valid claims filed. -- Credit Monitoring Services: You can also claim as much as three years of single-bureau credit monitoring, including fraud insurance coverage of up to $1 million. How to claim class action settlement payment To receive a payout, you must submit a claim form by the deadline of June 11, 2025. You can file a claim online or download and print the PDF claim form, complete it, and mail it to the settlement administrator. Settlement Administrator's mailing address: Mooney v. Ashford, Inc. c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC, P.O. Box 225391, New York, NY 10150-5391 Required information and proof -- Class Member ID provided on mailed notice required to submit a claim. -- Out-of-Pocket Losses claims require supporting documentation which includes: -- Professional fees such as attorney fees, accountant fees, or credit repair fees. -- Costs associated with freezing or unfreezing credit or credit monitoring. -- Police report or letter from bank identifying fraudulent financial activity. -- Bank or credit card statements showing unreimbursed monetary losses due to fraud or identity theft. Claim payout options -- Digital payment available if claim is submitted online. -- Paper checks mailed to the address provided. $485,000 Data breach settlement fund The settlement fund of $485,000 includes: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $161,666.67 -- Attorneys' out-of-pocket litigation expenses: To be determined -- Service awards to the two class Plaintiffs: $2,500 each -- Credit monitoring services: Determined by number of claims submitted Important dates -- Deadline to File a Claim: June 11, 2025 -- Opt-Out Deadline: May 12, 2025 -- Final Approval Hearing: August 27, 2025 When is the class action settlement payout date? The final hearing will take place on August 27, 2025. Once the court grants approval to the settlement, claims will be processed and payments will be issued approximately 90 days after the approval date. Why did Ashford Inc. agree to this data breach settlement? Ashford Inc. denies any wrongdoing or liability related to the 2023 data incident. However, the company agreed to settle the class action lawsuit to avoid the uncertainty and expense of continued litigation. [GN] BANCORP INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Linden v. The Bancorp, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-cv-326, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired The Bancorp, Inc. ("TBBK" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TBBK) securities between January 25, 2024 and March 4, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. What Happened? On March 21, 2024, at approximately 9:45 a.m. EST, Culper Research issued a report, alleging that the Company had underrepresented significant risks of default and/or loss on certain real estate bridge loans ("REBLs"). The report alleged the Company's loan book is "rife with unsophisticated syndicated borrowers" who were "coaxed by promises of generational wealth through passive income" with "get rich quick" promises. The report alleged that the Company's REBL loan portfolio is filled with apartments which are "quite literally, crumbling," with high vacancies and multiple condemnations. The report stated the Company "blindly reassures investors that its book contains 'no substantial risk of default or loss,'" but, in reality, the Company's "REBL portfolio faces meaningful risks and will result in meaningful losses." The report concluded that the Company's reserve of only "$4.7 million in REBL loan allowances, representing a mere 0.24% of the total REBL book" is "short by an order of magnitude or more." On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.63, or 10.15%, to close at $32.12 per share on March 21, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume. Then, on October 24, 2024, after the market closed, the Company announced its third quarter 2024 financial results in a press release for the period ended September 30, 2024, reporting $51.5 million in net income. The Company attributed the results in part, to "a new CECL [current expected credit losses methodology] factor" to the Company's analysis of REBL loans classified as either special mention or substandard "which increased the provision for credit losses and resulted in an after-tax reduction in net income of $1.5 million." The Company further explained its results also reflected "prior period interest income reversals on real estate bridge loans transferred to nonaccrual or modified" which "resulted in an after-tax reduction in net income of $1.2 million." On this news, the Company's share price fell $7.95, or 14.47%, to close at $47.01 per share on October 25, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume. Finally, on March 4, 2025, after the market closed, Bancorp disclosed that its "financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2022 through 2024 as shown in the Annual Report should no longer be relied upon." The Company explained that its auditors for those years "did not provide approval to include [the] audit opinion . . . or [the] consent to the incorporation by reference of their audit report in certain registration statements." The Company further revealed it is "working expeditiously to perform and complete additional closing procedures related to accounting for consumer fintech loans in the allowance for credit losses" in order to file an amended annual report. The Company also revealed it "is evaluating the impact of this non-reliance on its conclusions regarding disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting." As a result of the foregoing, the Company stated it would be unable to file timely its fiscal year 2024 annual report. On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.34, or 4.38%, to close at $51.25 per share on March 5, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. What Is The Lawsuit About? The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Bancorp had underrepresented the significant risk of default or loss on its REBL loan portfolio; (2) that the Company's current expected credit loss methodology was insufficient to account for the provision and/or allowance of credit losses; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company was reasonably likely to increase its provision for credit losses; (4) that there were material weakness in its internal control over financial reporting; (5) that its financial statements had not been approved by its independent auditor; (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements could not be relied upon; and (7) 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. If you purchased or otherwise acquired TBBK securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. Contact Us To Participate or Learn More: If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact us: Charles Linehan, Esq. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, California 90067 Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Toll-Free: (888) 773-9224 Visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Charles Linehan Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Toll-Free: (888) 773-9224 Visit our website at: www.glancylaw.com. [GN] BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Bill Pay Services --------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports a Pennsylvania man claims in a proposed class action lawsuit that Bank of America failed to disclose that his enrollment in its Bill Pay service would be canceled if he did not maintain an account with the bank. According to the 15-page lawsuit, the defendant never informed the plaintiff that he was required to have an active Bank of America credit card, checking or savings account in order to remain enrolled in the automatic payment program. The case contends that Bank of America's undisclosed eligibility requirement has caused consumers to unknowingly miss recurring payments and suffer late fees, damaged credit scores, loan delinquency, charge-offs, reduced access to credit opportunities and more. The plaintiff says he signed up for Bill Pay after obtaining a car loan from Bank of America in January 2022. Per the suit, the man authorized Bank of America to automatically debit his Fidelity Investments account every month until the loan was paid off. In June 2022, however, Bank of America sent the plaintiff two emails stating that his enrollment in Bill Pay had been terminated due to "changes in the status of [the plaintiff's] account," the lawsuit relays. A December 2024 letter from the defendant's counsel revealed that the plaintiff's enrollment was canceled because he closed his Bank of America checking account that month, the filing shares. The plaintiff did not make alternative arrangements to pay his car loan because he did not notice the June 2022 emails, both of which were sent after 10 p.m., the case says. Bank of America also continued to send the consumer monthly statements misrepresenting that he was making progress paying off his loan and had a past due amount of $0.00, the complaint alleges. "Because Plaintiff had no reason to know [Bank of America] could or would cancel his enrollment in Bill Pay, and because of the misrepresentations Defendant made in its account statements from August 2022 through March 2024, Plaintiff did not discover Defendant's failure to debit his monthly car payments from his Fidelity account from July 2022 through March 2024," the Bank of America lawsuit states. The filing claims that Bank of America's failure to debit the plaintiff's monthly car payments caused his credit score to drop almost 100 points and his credit limit to be reduced from $20,000 to $1,500. The man also says he has paid unwarranted late fees to Bank of America, been harassed by debt collectors and had his credit card closed by another bank because of his deteriorated credit score. The lawsuit looks to represent all Pennsylvania residents whose enrollment in Bill Pay was canceled by Bank of America because they did not maintain an active Bank of America consumer checking, savings or credit card account. [GN] BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks Reconsideration of Feb. 27 Class Cert Order ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTEN SCHERTZER, MEAGAN HICKS, and BRITTANY COVELL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., CARDTRONICS, INC., FCTI, INC., CASH DEPOT, LTD., N.A., and DOES 1–50, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-00264-DMS-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Defendants, on April 25, 2025, will move the Court for reconsideration of the order entered on Feb. 27, 2025, granting Plaintiff Brittany Covell's renewed motion for class certification. Bank of America is a major US financial institution, operating as a national banking association. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ynvjb2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Amanda L. Groves, Esq. Shawn R. Obi, Esq. Daniel M. Aronsohn, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543 Telephone: (213) 615-1700 Facsimile: (213) 615-1750 E-mail: agroves@winston.com sobi@winston.com daronsohn@winston.com BANK OF NEW YORK: Dobbs Sues Over Breach of Contract & Duty ----------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Dobbs, Charles Flowers and Barry Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON and THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-02114 (S.D.N.Y., March 13, 2025), is brought seeking remedies for themselves and the proposed class of investors in the Barclays Note Offerings for Defendants' misconduct, gross negligence, breach of contract, and breach of its duty of care. Consistent with the typical industry practices, as an indenture trustee, BNY Mellon was a key participant in the Barclays Note Offerings at issue here: it was the gatekeeper charged with reviewing the Note Offerings, authenticating the notes at issue, and otherwise taking certain critical steps to ensure that they were properly issued and released into the financial markets for sale to investors such as Plaintiffs. BNY Mellon was grossly negligent, acted in bad faith, violated its contractual duties under the Indenture, and otherwise failed in its duties as Indenture Trustee. The Barclays note investors directly suffered the consequences of its failure. BNY Mellon's gross negligence, bad faith, and failure to adequately, if at all, discharge its duties allowed for the issuance and sale of illegal note securities by Barclays significantly beyond the limits permitted under the registration statements filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC" or the "Commission") for those securities offerings. This misconduct led to approximately $17.7 billion in unregistered Barclay note securities being sold into the marketplace alongside billions of dollars of other, lawfully offered but indistinguishable Barclays notes, to Plaintiffs and other investors. Given that the lawfully issued Barclays notes were indistinguishable from the unlawfully issued ones and all notes were contemporaneously sold to public investors in the US financial markets, those investors could not determine whether the particular notes they had purchased were lawful or illegal, and the entire pool of notes became tainted. Once the unlawful note sales were reported to the SEC and the Commission took action against Barclays, the market for the notes collapsed, the value of the notes dropped, and the Barclays Noteholders, including Plaintiffs, suffered substantial financial losses, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased VXX ETNs, which are part of the Barclays notes at issue in this case, on the Chicago Board Options Exchange ("CBOE"). The Bank of New York Mellon, formerly known as The Bank of New York, is a New York state-chartered banking corporation, headquartered in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Radha Nagamani Raghavan, Esq. Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. Andrew D. Abramowitz, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 875-3000 Email: rraghavan@bm.net Email: mdellangelo@bm.net aabramowitz@bm.net - and - Alan L. Rosca, Esq. Jonathan A. Korte, Esq. ROSCA SCARLATO LLC 2000 Auburn Dr. Suite 200 Beachwood, OH 44122 Phone: (216) 946-7070 Email: arosca@rscounsel.law jkorte@rscounsel.law - and - Paul J. Scarlato, Esq. ROSCA SCARLATO LLC Four Tower Bridge, 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400 W. Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (216) 946-7070 Email: pscarlato@rscounsel.law BBB-CA INC: Toth Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BBB-CA, INC. The case is styled as Joseph Toth, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. BBB-CA, INC., Case No. 25STCV07310 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 13, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction). BBB -- https://www.bbb.org/us/ca -- helps consumers and businesses in the United States and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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: dlavi@ebralavi.com BEAUTY HEALTH: Continues to Defend Alghazwi Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Beauty Health Co. 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 Alghazwi securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On November 16, 2023, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company, its then-current President and Chief Executive Officer, Andrew Stanleick, its former Chief Financial Officer, Liyuan Woo, and its current Chief Financial Officer, Michael Monahan. The complaint, styled Abduladhim A. Alghazwi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. The Beauty Health Company, Andrew Stanleick, Liyuan Woo, and Michael Monahan, Case No. 2:23-cv-09733 (C.D. Ca.) (the "Securities Class Action"), asserts claims for violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all defendants (First Claim), and violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants (Second Claim). The complaint alleges that, between May 10, 2022 and November 13, 2023, defendants materially misled the investing public by publicly issuing false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions relating to Hydrafacial's business, operations, and prospects, specifically with respect to the performance of and demand for the Syndeo 1.0 and 2.0 devices. The relief sought in the complaint includes a request for compensatory damages suffered by the plaintiff and other members of the putative class for damages allegedly sustained as a result of the alleged securities violations. The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Securities Class Action have no merit and intends to vigorously defend them. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with these claims, and, accordingly, it has not accrued any liability associated with the Securities Class Action. On January 16, 2024, putative class members Jeff and Kevin Brown (the "Browns"), Priscilla and Martjn Dijkgraaf (the "Dijkgraafs"), and Joseph Jou filed three competing motions for appointment as lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), 17 U.S.C. 78u-4(a)(3). On January 31, 2024, Joseph Jou filed a notice of non-opposition to the Browns' and Dijkgraafs' motions for appointment as lead plaintiff. On May 2, 2024, the court granted the Dijkgraafs' motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approved the Dijkgraafs' counsel, Hagens Berman, as lead counsel. On July 1, 2024, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint asserting the same causes of action as the original complaint. The Securities Class Action case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett. On September 30, 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint in its entirety. Plaintiffs filed their opposition brief on November 22, 2024, and the Company filed its reply brief on December 23, 2024. A hearing on the Defendants' motion to dismiss was scheduled for January 15, 2025. On January 10, 2025, the court granted the parties' joint stipulation to adjourn the January 15, 2025 hearing. On January 17, 2025, the court granted the parties' joint stipulation to withdraw briefing on Defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice to refiling and to briefly stay proceedings so that the parties can complete a private mediation that is scheduled to occur on March 27, 2025. Headquartered in Long Beach, CA, Beauty Health is a health and beauty company. Its flagship brand is Hydrafacial through which the company provides goods and services related to hydradermabrasion, a dermatological procedure involving a mechanical exfoliation and infusion of facial serums.[BN] BEAUTY HEALTH: Continues to Defend Davalos Consumer Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Beauty Health Co. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Davalos consumer class class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On October 24, 2024, Jason Davalos ("Jason Davalos"), Sonia Davalos ("Sonia Davalos", and collectively with Jason Davalos, the "Davaloses”), and Sol Tan Tanning & Spa LLC ("Sol Tan", and collectively with the Davaloses, the "Class Action Plaintiffs"), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint against Hydrafacial LLC d/b/a The Hydrafacial Company and The Beauty Health Company (collectively, the "Class Action Defendants") for alleged violations of New York consumer fraud statutes, breach of contract, and common law breach of implied warranties (the "Consumer Class Action"). The case is captioned Jason Davalos, Sonia Davalos, Sol Tan Tanning & Spa LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Hydrafacial LLC dba The Hydrafacial Company, and The Beauty Health Company, Case No. 24-cv-8073 (S.D.N.Y.) (Caproni, J.) The complaint alleges that all three versions of the Syndeo machine (Syndeo 1.0, Syndeo 2.0, and Syndeo 3.0) were defective and did not perform in the manner in which it had been represented by Class Action Defendants. Class Action Plaintiffs claim that Class Action Defendants made various misrepresentations in its marketing and sales of the Syndeo machines and, rather than provide a refund to customers for the defective machines, replaced them with another Syndeo machine that exhibited the same defects. Class Action Plaintiffs purport to bring claims on behalf of themselves, and all other similarly situated purchasers within the United States, of Class Action Defendants' Syndeo machines. The complaint asserts five causes of action: (1) violations of N.Y. G.B.L., 349, the state consumer production statute; (2) violations of N.Y. G.B.L., 350, the state's false advertising statute; (3) breach of contract; (4) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; and (5) breach of the implied warranty of fitness. The relief sought in the complaint includes monetary damages allegedly suffered by Class Action Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class as a result of Class Action Defendants' alleged violations and breaches, including a trebling of any money damages award for alleged violations of N.Y. G.B.L., 349 and 350. On December 30, 2024, the Class Action Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consumer Class Action complaint in its entirety. On January 3, 2025, the Class Action Defendants filed a motion to stay discovery during the pendency of their motion to dismiss. On January 8, 2025, the Davaloses voluntarily dismissed their claims against the Class Action Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), leaving Plaintiff Sol Tan as the sole remaining Consumer Class Action Plaintiff. Plaintiff Sol Tan filed their opposition brief on January 9, 2025, and the Class Action Defendants filed their reply brief on January 13, 2025. On January 16, 2025, the court granted the parties' joint stipulation to adjourn the January 17, 2025 initial pretrial conference and stay the action pending the parties' completion of a private mediation. As part of its order, the court also (1) adjourned Plaintiff Sol Tan's deadline to respond to the Class Action Defendants' motion to dismiss sine die pending the outcome of mediation; (2) denied as moot the Class Action Defendants' motion to stay discovery in light of the parties' agreement to stay discovery pending the outcome of mediation; and (3) directed the parties to (a) file a joint letter on or before February 7, 2025, indicating the date (not later than May 8, 2025) on which the mediation is scheduled to occur; and (b) within seven days after the mediation, either (i) file a joint letter indicating that settlement was reached; or (ii) file a revised proposed case management plan and a revised joint letter required by the court's Notice of Initial Pretrial Conference. On February 7, 2025, the parties filed a joint letter notifying the court that they had agreed to mediate before Greg Danilow of Phillips ADR Enterprises on April 29, 2025. The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Consumer Class Action have no merit and Class Action Defendants intend to vigorously defend them. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with these claims, and, accordingly, it has not accrued any liability associated with the Consumer Class Action. Headquartered in Long Beach, CA, Beauty Health is a health and beauty company. Its flagship brand is Hydrafacial through which the company provides goods and services related to hydradermabrasion, a dermatological procedure involving a mechanical exfoliation and infusion of facial serums.[BN] BENEFICIENT COMPANY: Settlement Reached in Consolidated Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Beneficient Company Group, L.P. (BCG) disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in February 14, 2025, that on December 26, 2024, parties in "In re GWG Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation" filed a motion informing the court that they had reached an agreement in principle to settle the claims on a class-wide basis. The lead plaintiff has not yet filed a motion for preliminary approval. The settlement in principle does not require any payment by the company or its affiliates and officers and directors, and it would resolve both the Adversary Proceedings and a securities class action. On February 18, 2022, Shirin Bayati and Mojan Kamalvand, on behalf of themselves and of all others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for Northern District of Texas against GWG Holdings Inc., its former President and Chief Executive Officer, Murray Holland, its former Chief Financial Officer, Timothy Evans, and certain past and present members of the board of directors and BCG (Roy Bailey, Peter T. Cangany, Jr., David Chavenson, Brad K. Heppner, Thomas O. Hicks, Dennis P. Lockhart, Bruce W. Schnitzer, and David H. de Weese). On May 3, 2023, Thomas Horton and Frank Moore, in their capacities as the Lead Plaintiffs in said action, filed a motion to lift the automatic stay in the Chapter 11 Cases in order to file a motion in the Northern District of Texas seeking to consolidate this into another action under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. On September 12, 2023, the court entered an order consolidating the case into "In re GWG Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation." The court lifted the bankruptcy stay and ordered the Lead Plaintiffs to file a new consolidated complaint within 20 days. On October 2, 2023, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint against BCG, Brad K. Heppner, Peter T. Cangany, Jr., Thomas O. Hicks, Dennis P. Lockhart, Bruce W. Schnitzer, Murray T. Holland, Timothy L. Evans, David H. de Weese, Roy W. Bailey, David F. Chavenson, and Whitley Penn LLP, alleging Securities Act violations arising out of the Offering. The complaint alleges that the individual defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act, and further alleges that the Company violated Section 15 of the Securities Act. The Company, Brad K. Heppner, Peter T. Cangany, Jr., Thomas O. Hicks, Dennis P. Lockhart, and Bruce W. Schnitzer filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 7, 2023. On January 4, 2024, defendants Murray Holland, Tim Evans, Roy Bailey, Whitley Penn, David Chavenson and David H. de Weese filed motions to dismiss. The Lead Plaintiffs' responded to the various motions to dismiss on February 20, 2024, and the defendants (other than Whitley Penn) filed replies in support of the motions to dismiss on March 21, 2024. On October 24, 2024, the court granted defendants' motions to dismiss and dismissed the claims without prejudice. The Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 14, 2024. Beneficient, a Nevada corporation, is a technology-enabled financial services holding company. GWG Holdings Inc.'s assets to the GWG Wind Down Trust and the Litigation Trust historically owned a substantial percentage of the Beneficient. BETTERHELP INC: Betterhelp Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.M. v. BetterHelp, Inc. (RE BETTERHELP, INC. DATA DISCLOSURE CASES), Case No. 3:23-cv-01033-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- enlarging the time for the Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification from April 3, 2025, to July 2, 2025, and -- enlarging moving the remaining deadlines relevant to class certification by an additional 90 days. On March 11, 2025, following the Defendant's large production of documents on March 8, 2025, the Plaintiffs again asked Defendant if it would be willing to agree to the extension sought in the instant motion, but the Defendant refused. BetterHelp is a mental health platform that provides direct online counseling and therapy services via web or phone text communication. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kboP5c at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary. M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com gabramson@milberg.com ahoneycutt@milberg.com rnelson@milberg.com - and - Christina Tusan, Esq. TUSAN LAW, PC 680 E. Colorado Blvd. #180 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 418-8203 Facsimile: (626) 619-8253 E-mail: ctusan@ctusanlaw.com - and - Maureen M. Brady, Esq. MCSHANE AND BRADY LLC 4006 Central Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 888-8010 E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com - and - Alan M. Mansfield, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS LLP 1 Sansome Street, 35th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 / 16870 West Bernardo Drive, Ste 400, San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (619) 308-5034 Facsimile: (888) 341-5048 E-mail: amansfield@whatleykallas.com BEYOND MEAT: District Court Dismisses Securities Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ A&O Shearman, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on February 26, 2025, Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action against a producer of plant-based meat substitutes (the "Company") and one of its officers (together, the "defendants"). Saskatchewan Healthcare Emps.' Pension Plan v. Beyond Meat, Inc. et al., No. CV 23-03602-MWF (C.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2025). We previously covered the Court's decision dismissing plaintiffs' initial complaint without prejudice. In their amended complaint, plaintiffs asserted claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5 based on alleged misrepresentations regarding the Company's ability to scale production to meet partner demands. The Court held that plaintiffs failed to plead any actionable misstatements or omissions and dismissed the action with prejudice. The Company produces "meat directly from plants" by replicating the look, taste, and texture of animal meat using only vegan, nongenetically modified ingredients. Plaintiffs claimed that the Company's statements in several earnings calls and press releases regarding scaling, production, and partnerships were misleading. Regarding scaling and production, for example, the Company's officer stated that large partnerships were "prime examples of what we've been scaling and preparing for" and that the Company was "continuing to optimize commercial production" to prepare for partnerships. Regarding partnerships, for example, the officer stated that the Company was "working toward more permanent menu placement with all of our . . . partners" and that the Company had "done well with continuing to maintain relationships with our [partners]." Plaintiffs alleged that these statements misleadingly reassured investors that the Company was reducing production costs and improving manufacturing when production inefficiencies were allegedly adversely impacting new product sales and margins. The Court first held that plaintiffs "failed to sufficiently allege that the challenged statements" regarding scaling and production "were false or misleading when made." Plaintiffs argued that defendants' statements "concerning [the Company]'s investments misleadingly reassured Plaintiffs that the investments were reducing production costs and improving manufacturing, but in actuality, 'undisclosed production inefficiencies were adversely impacting new product sales and margins.'" But the Court noted that plaintiffs' allegations of undisclosed production inefficiencies consisted of vague, generalized statements about alleged production problems and critiques of the CEO's management style drawn from newspaper articles. The Court held that the time period for these allegations was "undefined." As such, plaintiffs failed to state with particularity "facts giving rise to a reasonable inference that the challenged statements were false or misleading when made." The Court next addressed the statements plaintiffs challenged regarding the Company's partnerships. Plaintiffs argued that the defendants' statements "were misleading when made because Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that the Company's efforts 'were already doomed'" to fail. The Court noted that these challenged statements were not false or misleading for similar reasons as the scaling and production statements the Court previously assessed and observed that, in fact, "Defendants provide[d] evidence that the Company saw success with some of its major partners." The Court also addressed two additional statements that plaintiffs challenged, finding each to be non-actionable. One of the statements was, "we believe we are steadily executing against our vision of being tomorrow's global protein company." The Court determined this statement was non-actionable corporate puffery, articulating an opinion "about a forward-looking vision or goal of the Company." The other statement -- "we do not expect these higher costs to persist indefinitely" -- was a non-actionable forward-looking statement about the Company's performance that fell within the PSLRA's safe harbor. Because plaintiffs failed to allege actionable misrepresentations or omissions, the Court found that plaintiffs could not allege that the defendants "had knowledge of falsity or acted with deliberate recklessness as to any of the challenged statements." And because plaintiffs failed to plead actionable misstatements or omissions, the Court observed that it did not need to address loss causation. Finding that granting leave to amend a second time would be futile, the Court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. [GN] BOAR'S HEAD PROVISIONS: Buksbaum Suit Removed to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sharyn Buksbaum, Janine Sabella, Deborah Thayer, Diesha Hodges, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Boar's Head Provisions Co., Inc., Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CU007988C was removed from the Superior Court of California, San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on March 13, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00597-RSH-BLM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Product Liability. Boar's Head Provision Co., Inc. -- https://boarshead.com/ -- is a supplier of delicatessen meats, cheeses and condiments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chumahan Benjamin Bowen, Esq. ARBOGAST & BERNS 6303 Owensmouth Avenue, 10th Floor Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (310) 775-5169 Fax: (818) 936-0232 Email: cbowen@law111.com - and - Jennifer M. Leinbach, Esq. Reuben Aguirre, Esq. Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Jonathan C. Sandler, Esq. BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 500-4600 Email: jsandler@bhfs.com BROADCOM INC: Settlement in Securities Suit for Court Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- Broadcom Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2025, that the securities class suit settlement is subject to the approval of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On March 31, 2020, a securities class action lawsuit was filed against VMware and certain former officers of VMware in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the "California Court"). On September 18, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging that VMware’s statements about backlog and the related internal controls during the period from August 2018 through February 2020 were materially misleading. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted with leave to amend on September 10, 2021. On October 8, 2021, the plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Consolidated Complaint based on the same alleged disclosure deficiencies. The defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint was filed on November 5, 2021. On April 2, 2023, the California Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss finding that the plaintiffs had adequately stated claims under Sections 10 and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The parties have agreed to settlement terms pending approval by the California Court. Broadcom Inc. designs, develops, and supplies a range of semiconductor devices with a focus on complex digital and mixed signal complementary metal oxide semiconductor based devices and analog III-V based products worldwide. The company operates through four segments: Wired Infrastructure, Wireless Communications, Enterprise Storage, and Industrial & Other. Broadcom Inc. is based in San Jose, California. CGM LLC: Settlement Class in Cain Suit Gets Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINA CAIN, DARRON DANNA, STEPHANIE YOUNGBLOOD, JOSHUA WOLF, KIM WHITE, BRANDON GUERRA, and CHARLES WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated, v. CGM, L.L.C. d/b/a CGM, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-02604-SEG (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Sarah Geraghty entered an order as follows: (1) The Court certifies the Settlement Class pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(3), and 23(e). (2) The Court confirms the appointment of Cohen & Malad, LLP and Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane Conway & Wise, LLP as Class Counsel. (3) The Court grants final approval to the appointment of the Plaintiffs Christina Cain, Darron Danna, Stephanie Youngblood, Joshua Wolf, Kim White, Brandon Guerra, and Charles Williams, as the Class Representatives. (4) The Court confirms that class notice satisfied the requirements of due process, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and all other legal requirements. (5) The Court grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2). (6) The Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and expenses, and awards attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $500,000. (7) The Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion for class Representatives' service awards, and awards $2,500 to the Plaintiff Christina Cain, $1,500 to the Plaintiff Darron Danna, $1,500 to the Plaintiff Stephanie Youngblood, $1,500 to the Plaintiff Joshua Wolf, $1,500 to the Plaintiff Kim White, $1,500 to the Plaintiff Brandon Guerra, and $1,500 to the Plaintiff Charles Williams. The case is a data breach class action. The complaint alleges that between Dec. 15, 2022, and Dec. 28, 2022, the Defendant CGM experienced a cyberattack, in which unauthorized third parties accessed files on CGM's network systems. The personal data allegedly compromised in this breach included CGM's customers' names, Social Security numbers, and driver's license or state ID numbers. The Court's preliminary approval order provisionally certified the following settlement class (the "Settlement Class"): "All persons who were notified that their personal data may have been impacted as a result of CGM's Data Incident that occurred from Dec. 15, 2022, to Dec. 28, 2022." CGM was founded in 1994. The company's line of business includes the manufacturing of gaskets, packing, and sealing devices. A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rPY1IC at no extra charge.[CC] CIVITAS RESOURCES: 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 Civitas Resources, Inc. (NYSE: CIVI) resulting from allegations that Civitas Resources may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Civitas Resources 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=36337 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 24, 2025, after market hours, Investing.com published an article entitled "Civitas Resources earnings missed by $0.16, revenue fell short of estimates." The article further stated that "[r]evenue for the quarter came in at $1.29B versus the consensus estimate of $1.3B." Further, after market hours on February 24, 2025, the Civitas filed a current report with the SEC on Form 8-K. In this current report, Civitas announced that it had terminated the employment of its chief operating officer, and its chief transformation officer, effective immediately. On this news, the price of Civitas Resources stock fell 18% on February 25, 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. Contact Information: 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] CLEVELAND, OH: Fair Housing Center Fights DOGE Cuts in Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivera Perkins, writing for Signal Cleveland, reports that The Fair Housing Center for Rights & Research in Cleveland is part of a class action lawsuit filed Thursday, March 13, against Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development asserting that DOGE had no power to cancel federal grants made to fair housing agencies. The suit argues that the recently created Department of Government Efficiency didn't have authority to tell HUD to halt more than $30 million in grants that were authorized by Congress for fair housing programs. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts DOGE canceled two grants to Cleveland's Fair Housing Center that totaled $225,000 and made up about 15% of its annual budget, according to Carrie Pleasants, the center's executive director. HUD had distributed about half of the money to the nonprofit before terminating its contract. She said the grants were set to pay for radio, television and billboard ads to run in Northeast Ohio to inform people of rights that protect them from discrimination when they buy or rent homes. The grants would have also paid for training for landlords, informing them how to properly follow fair housing laws. Each year, the Fair Housing Center provides training to 2,500 people, including landlords, property managers and real estate professionals. DOGE cuts threaten fair housing work across the country After learning about the cuts last month, the Fair Housing Center had to cancel radio and television ads and training programs. More than 60 fair housing organizations nationally had their funding cut. Some are threatened with closing or have laid off staff. The grants are a primary source of funding for fair housing organizations in 33 states, according to the lawsuit. The other parties in the lawsuit are the Massachusetts Fair Housing Center, the Intermountain Fair Housing Council in Boise, Idaho, and the Fair Housing Council of South Texas in San Antonio. "The termination of this funding is not only a disservice to our agency and our clients but also to housing professionals who rely on our services to stay up to date on their fair housing responsibilities." -- Tanesha Seaborn, Director of Education & Outreach at the Fair Housing Center for Rights & Research As a class action lawsuit, the four fair housing agencies are suing on behalf of a larger group, or the class, and asking that the court order HUD to restore the funding. This means the suit's outcome would affect the more than 60 nonprofit housing agencies that had their grants cut in this way. The group also asked the court for an emergency order to "stem the tide of harm" from the decision. DOGE is an agency authorized by President Donald Trump based on an idea by billionaire Elon Musk, its chief advocate. Proponents of the agency's work say the goal is to drastically reduce the size of the federal government by going after "waste, fraud and abuse." None of these were given as the reason for discontinuing the grants. Lawsuit argues reason for cuts didn't make 'any sense' The nonprofit fair housing agencies got form letters on Feb. 27 from HUD explaining that their Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) grants were being terminated at the direction of DOGE because the funding "no longer effectuate the program goals or agency priorities." The lawsuit argues that reasoning doesn't make "any sense" because Congress has clearly stated the purpose of the grants. The grants enhance the enforcement of the Federal Housing Administration by enabling fair housing groups to help "identify and remedy" forms of housing discrimination, according to the lawsuit. The duties of fair housing agencies include handling complaints based on laws banning housing discrimination and offering training to landlords to follow these laws. The grants that were cut were described in the lawsuit as the "lifeblood" of the fair housing groups. In communities across the country, the programs help people and families avoid homelessness, stave off evictions, find safe places to live, ensure that their homes are accessible, and seek redress for discrimination. Fair Housing Center head 'heartbroken' after receiving letter Pleasants remembers an app on her cellphone alerting her at 8:30 p.m. on Feb. 27 that she had received an email. It was the HUD letter. "I was heartbroken for what this might mean for our agency and for our constituents," she said. "It's just another way that DOGE creates chaos and confusion. It's stopping things midstream for us without any explanation." One of the grants the Fair Housing Center received was for $100,000 and the other was for $125,000. She said contracts had already been signed with vendors. Most have been understanding about the money, at least temporarily, being placed on hold, Pleasants said. The grants included funding a collaborative effort with the Fair Housing Center, the Fair Housing Resource Center in Painesville and the Fair Housing Contact Service in Akron for billboard ads, she said. (The Painesville nonprofit said it would have to close this fall after key grants were terminated.) The billboards are scheduled to be installed soon. The radio and TV public service announcements that the Fair Housing Center was going to do on its own won't move forward unless funding is restored. All three ads aimed to inform residents of their rights under federal fair housing laws designed to protect people from discrimination when buying or renting. The laws ban discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, sex, familial status and disability. In Ohio, military status and ancestry are also protected In addition, the center planned to use the grant to help landlords and others to properly follow fair housing laws. The training deals with overt discrimination. It also deals with subtle forms intended to dissuade renters or homebuyers. "Housing providers can't say things like, 'No kids allowed,'" Pleasants said. "They also can't say things like, "These bedrooms are too small for your family." She said in her 25 years she has never experienced having funding cut off midstream. "It sets a dangerous precedent, leaving countless individuals without the support they need to overcome housing inequality," she said in the release. "All of Ohio will bear the brunt of this detrimental decision." [GN] COMEDY PARTNERS: Class Settlement in Kaplan Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL KAPLAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COMEDY PARTNERS, Case No. 22-CV-9355 (VSB) (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vernon Broderick entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement: The counsel for all parties shall appear for a telephonic conference in this matter on April 4, 2025 at 2:00pm. The dial-in number is 1-855-244-8681 and the access code is 2309 3085 835. There is no attendee ID. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to pay royalties for SiriusXM's distribution of their works that are owed under the Recording Contracts. The Settlement Agreement includes a single Settlement Class, defined as: "All persons and entities, their agents, successors in interest, affiliates, assigns, heirs, executors, trustees, and administrators who are or were parties to Recording Contracts with Comedy Partners whose works have been distributed by digital audio transmission via SiriusXM Radio pursuant to such Recording Contracts between May 19, 2013, up to and including Dec. 31, 2022 [(the “Class Period”)]." Upon the Court's final settlement approval, the Agreement provides that Defendants will pay a total of $11,000,000 into a settlement fund, which covers "(1) the Class Settlement Payments, (2) any amounts needed to satisfy (a) any award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, (b) any Incentive Award, and (c) all Notice and Administration Costs." Comedy Partners operates a television channel. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yu4FBT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Sweet, Esq. NYE, STIRLING, HALE, MILLER & SWEET, LLP Pittsburg, PA - and - Scott Adam Kamber, Esq. KAMBERLAW, LLC Denver, CO - and - Adrian John Buonanoce, Esq. Bobby Pouya, Esq. Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP Sherman Oaks, CA - and - Melissa Eubanks, Esq. VGC, LLP Beverly Hills, CA - and - Douglas L Johnson, Esq. Neville Lawrence Johnson, Esq. JOHNSON & JOHNSON LLP Beverly Hills, CA The Defendant is represented by: Kenneth L. Steinthal, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP San Francisco, CA COMERICA BANK: Faces Class Suit Over Direct Express Management -------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges Comerica Bank has wrongfully retained millions in interest and investment income meant for Direct Express Program participants. The 29-page complaint explains that in 2008, Comerica entered into a contract with the Department of the Treasury's Bureau of the Fiscal Service to serve as the exclusive administrator for Direct Express, a federal program that allows federal benefits recipients to receive their funds on a prepaid debit card. Since 2008, the defendant has earned an estimated $100 million each year in interest and other investment income on federal benefits deposited by the government and held at Comerica Bank for Direct Express-enrolled beneficiaries, the complaint claims. However, rather than distribute earnings that rightfully belong to participants, Comerica has kept these funds for itself, the suit contends. The case asserts that under Michigan law, which governs the relationship between Comerica and Direct Express program participants, any interest or investment income generated from the principal balance of funds held at a bank belongs to the owner of those funds. Comerica's terms of use also unequivocally state that Direct Express beneficiaries are the owners of the funds in their accounts, the filing notes. "By retaining the interest and other investment earnings generated from Beneficiaries' federal benefits funds, all of which rightfully belong to the Beneficiaries, Comerica breached its contract with (and fiduciary duty owed to) Plaintiffs and members of the putative Class, converted their property, and unjustly enriched itself, all in violation of Michigan common law," the complaint alleges. According to the Comerica lawsuit, the defendant has maximized its corporate profits at the expense of some of society's most vulnerable members. Direct Express Debit Mastercard holders include, but aren't limited to, older adults receiving Social Security benefits, individuals with disabilities receiving Social Security disability insurance payments, coal workers eligible for compensation related to black lung disease, and veterans receiving veterans' benefits, among others, the suit says. The lawsuit looks to represent all United States residents who, within the past six years, received federal benefits funds from the government that were held by Comerica pursuant to the Direct Express program. [GN] CONNECTICUT: Tarasiuk Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tarasiuk v. Connecticut Department of Corrections, Case No. 3:24-cv-00450 (D. Conn., Filed March 25, 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.[CC] CREDIT BUREAU: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Suit for $850,000 ------------------------------------------------------------ If you received an artificial or prerecorded voice call from Credit Bureau Services Association (CBSA) on your cellular phone between December 2, 2019, and February 11, 2025, you may be eligible to submit a claim for between $35 and $85 from a class action settlement. Credit Bureau Services Association has agreed to pay $850,000 to settle a class action lawsuit for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The lawsuit, titled Daugherty v. Credit Bureau Services Association, claims that CBSA placed artificial or prerecorded voice calls to consumers' cellular phones without obtaining prior express consent. Who can is eligible for a TCPA payout? -- Individuals in the United States who received at least one artificial or prerecorded voice call on their cellular phone from Credit Bureau Services Association. -- The calls you received occurred between December 2, 2019, and February 11, 2025. -- You did not provide CBSA prior express consent to receive these calls. How much is the class action settlement payment? Class members with valid claims will receive a pro rata cash payment estimated to be between $35 and $85. The payment amount will be determined by the number of claims submitted and approved. How to claim a TCPA settlement payout To receive a class action rebate, you must submit a claim form by the deadline of April 28, 2025. Class members can file a claim online, or you may download and print the PDF claim form to mail to the settlement administrator. Settlement Administrator's mailing address: Daugherty v. Credit Bureau Services Association Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 301172, Los Angeles, CA 90030-1172 Required information -- Claim ID and PIN from official notice, if available -- Phone number that received a call from Credit Bureau Services Association Claim payment options Paper checks will be mailed to approved claimants to the address provided. $850,000 TCPA class action settlement fund breakdown The settlement fund of $850,000 will cover various costs: -- Settlement administration costs: Up to $140,500 -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $283,333 -- Attorneys' litigation expenses: Up to $15,000 -- Service award to class representative: Up to $7,500 -- Payments to approved claimants: Remaining settlement balance after deductions Important dates -- Fairness Hearing: June 6, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. -- Deadline to File a Claim: April 28, 2025 -- Deadline to Exclude Yourself: April 28, 2025 When is the TCPA settlement payout date? The final hearing is scheduled for June 6, 2025. Checks will be issued to class members with valid claims approximately 60 days after the date the court grants approval. Why is there a Credit Bureau Services Association class action settlement? The lawsuit was filed because CBSA allegedly violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by placing artificial or prerecorded voice calls to consumers' cellular phones without obtaining prior express consent. CBSA denies wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the ongoing litigation costs and the possibility of a trial. [GN] DEERE CREDIT: Settlement Class in Cornelius Wins Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELVIN CORNELIUS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. DEERE CREDIT SERVICES, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00025-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge R. Stan Baker entered a final approval order and judgment: The Court awards one-third of the Settlement Fund for Attorneys' Fees ($500,000.00) and the reimbursement of $7,255.82 in litigation costs and expenses to Settlement Class Counsel. The Court finds these awards to be fair and reasonable in light of the nature of this case, Settlement Class Counsel’s experience and efforts in prosecuting this Action, and the benefits obtained for the Settlement Class. The Plaintiff will receive $5,000 in exchange for providing general release in favor of DCSI. This general release payment is fair and reasonable in light of the rights Plaintiff gave up as a result of the release he provided to DCSI. The Settlement Class is certified as "all persons throughout the United States (1) to whom Deere Credit Services, Inc. placed a call, (2) directed to a number assigned to a cellular telephone service, but not assigned to a Deere Credit Services, Inc. customer or accountholder, (3) in connection with which Deere Credit Services, Inc. used an artificial or prerecorded voice, (4) from Feb. 2, 2020 through June 25, 2024." Accordingly, the Court grants the pending motions, (docs. 30, 33), dismisses this action with prejudice, and directs the Clerk of Court to close this case. Deere Credit Services, Inc., now known as John Deere Financial, is a finance company owned and operated by John Deere, providing financial services to agricultural and construction customers, including equipment financing for John Deere products. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sX7Szn at no extra charge.[CC] DIGIMARC CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Mayer v. Digimarc Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01963, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Digimarc Corporation ("Digimarc" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: DMRC) securities between May 2, 2024 and February 26, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have until 60 days from this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. What Happened? On February 26, 2025, after the market closed, Digimarc released its fourth quarter and full year 2024 financial results, revealing the Company's quarterly subscription revenue decreased 10% to $5.0 million (compared to $5.6 million in the previous year) and annual recurring revenue had decreased to $20.0 million (compared to $22.23 million in the previous year). These declines "primarily reflect[ed] a $5.8 million decrease in ARR due to the expiration of a commercial contract in June 2024." On this news, Digimarc's stock price fell $11.65, or 43.1%, to close at $15.39 per share on February 27, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. What Is The Lawsuit About? The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that a large commercial partner would not renew a large contract on the same terms; (2) that, as a result, Digimarc would renegotiate the large commercial contract; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's subscription revenue and annual recurring revenue would be adversely affected; (4) 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. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Digimarc securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. Contact Us To Participate or Learn More: If you purchased Digimarc securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact us at: Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 Email: info@frankcruzlaw.com Visit our website at: www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN] DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces Consumer Suit over Sports Bets ---------------------------------------------------- Draftkings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2025, that on June 10, 2024, Plaintiff Matthew McAfee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a purported class action lawsuit against DraftKings in the Hamilton County Superior Court, State of Indiana. Among other things, plaintiff alleges that those customers who had winning bets placed and accepted on the October 24, 2023 Lakers versus Nuggets basketball game that were subsequently canceled by DraftKings for obvious error were not timely canceled and should have been paid. Plaintiff brings claims for (1) Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act – Incurable Deceptive Act, (2) Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act – Uncured Deceptive Act and (3) breach of contract. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, actual and statutory damages, treble and exemplary damages, interest, and attorney fees and costs. On July 12, 2024, DraftKings removed the matter to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. On August 14, 2024, DraftKings filed a motion to dismiss. On February 7, 2025, the court granted DraftKings' motion to dismiss as to plaintiff's Deceptive Consumer Sales Act claims and denied DraftKings' motion to dismiss as to plaintiff's breach of contract claim. The court also held that DraftKings may amend its response to Plaintiff’s motion for class certification up until February 24, 2025. On February 12, 2025, McAfee filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. On November 20, 2024, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. On December 16, 2024, DraftKings filed its opposition, and on December 24, 2024, plaintiff filed his reply. The class certification motion remains pending. Draftkings Inc. is a digital sports entertainment and gaming company that provides users with online sports betting, online casino and daily fantasy sports product offerings, as well as retail sportsbook, media and other consumer product offerings. E.L.F. BEAUTY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set May 5 --------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, a nationally recognized law firm, notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against e.l.f. Beauty, Inc. ("Elf" or "the Company") (NYSE: ELF) and certain of its officers. Class Definition This lawsuit seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Elf securities between November 1, 2023 and November 19, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: bgandg.com/ELF. Case Details The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) contrary to its representations to investors, the Company was experiencing rising inventory levels as a consequence of flagging sales; (2) Elf falsely attributed the rising inventory levels to, among other things, changes in its sourcing practices; (3) to maintain investor confidence, Elf reported inflated revenue, profits, and inventory over several quarters; (4) accordingly. the Company's business and/or financial prospects were overstated; (5) all of the foregoing, once revealed, would likely have a material negative impact on the Company; and (vi) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. What's Next? A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, you can visit the firm's site: bgandg.com/ELF or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Client Relations Manager, Nathan Miller, of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 332-239-2660. If you suffered a loss in Elf you have until May 5, 2025, to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. There is No Cost to You We represent investors in class actions on a contingency fee basis. That means we will ask the court to reimburse us for out-of-pocket expenses and attorneys' fees, usually a percentage of the total recovery, only if we are successful. Why Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a nationally recognized firm that represents investors in securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits. Our firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors nationwide. Contacts: Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Nathan Miller, Esq. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Telephone: (332) 239-2660 E-mail: info@bgandg.com [GN] EIG CLAIMS SERVICES: Clark Sues to Recover Back Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Monica G. Clark, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EIG CLAIMS SERVICES, INC. and JASON EVANS, Case No. 4:25-cv-01195 (S.D. Tex., March 13, 2025), is brought to recover back wages, including overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and for breach of contract. During Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, she regularly worked in excess of forty hours per week. The Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff worked in excess of forty hours per week. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff for the hours she worked in excess of forty per week "at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which she was employed." Instead, Defendants paid Plaintiff a flat sum for each day's work regardless of the number of hours he worked in a workweek. In other words, Defendants paid Plaintiff for her overtime at a rate less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which she was employed in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an Insurance Adjuster for insurance claims from November 2024 through January 2025. EIG Claims Services, Inc. is a Texas corporation that is doing business in Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 1110 Houston, TX 77002-1063 Phone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 Email: melissa@mooreandassociates.net curt@mooreandassociates.net ENCORE ENERGY: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, captioned Zhongjian v. enCore Energy Corp., et al., Case No. 25-cv-1234, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired enCore Energy Corp. ("enCore" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EU) securities between March 28, 2024 and March 2, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. What Happened? On March 3, 2025, enCore announced its fiscal 2024 financial results, revealing a net loss of $61.3 million (more than double its net loss of $25.6 million in the prior fiscal year). The Company explained "the inability to capitalize certain exploratory and development costs under U.S. GAAP which would have been capitalized under IFRS [International Financial Reporting Standards]" impacted the Company's results. Further, the Company revealed that it had "identified in 2024" a "material weakness" in the Company's internal controls over financial reporting, "primarily due to an ineffective control environment that resulted in ineffective risk assessment, information and communications and monitoring activities." Also on March 2, 2025, the Company also revealed that it had appointed a new acting Chief Executive Officer "effective immediately" and that Paul Goranson "is no longer serving as enCore's Chief Executive Officer or as a member of the board of directors." On this news, enCore's stock price fell $1.17, or 46.4%, to close at $1.35 per share on March 3, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. What Is The Lawsuit About? The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that enCore lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting; (2) that enCore could not capitalize certain exploratory and development costs under GAAP; (3) that, as a result, its net losses had substantially increased; and (4) 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. If you purchased or otherwise acquired enCore securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. Contact Us To Participate or Learn More: If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact us: Charles Linehan, Esq. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, California 90067 Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Toll-Free: (888) 773-9224 Visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contact: Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Charles Linehan Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Toll-Free: (888) 773-9224[GN] EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Settles Wage and Hour Class Suit for $12-Mil. --------------------------------------------------------------- William C. Gendron of Claim Depot, reports that if you were employed as a personal trainer by Equinox Holdings, Inc. ("Equinox") in New York at any time between March 25, 2014, and July 31, 2024, you may qualify to claim a cash payment from a $12 million class action settlement. Equinox has agreed to pay to settle a class action lawsuit alleging violations of wage and hour laws, including improper overtime compensation, inadequate wage statements, and unlawful biweekly pay practices. Who is eligible for a settlement payment? You qualify to participate in this settlement if you meet the following criteria: -- You were employed by Equinox Holdings, Inc. as a personal trainer in the state of New York. -- Your employment took place at any point between March 25, 2014, and July 31, 2024. There are two categories of class members in this settlement: -- Opt-In Plaintiffs: Individuals who previously submitted a consent form to join this lawsuit. If you are an Opt-In Plaintiff, you do not need to submit a new claim form. -- Other Class Members: Individuals who either did not previously submit a consent form or who withdrew or were dismissed without prejudice. These current or former employees must submit a claim form to receive compensation. How much is the class action payout? Payment amounts will be determined by a points system. The dollar value of each point will be determined by the number of valid class members participating in the settlement. The points system works as follows: -- Each eligible week worked earns one point. -- Each personal training session above 24 sessions per week earns an additional half point. -- No class member will receive less than $25. How to claim a class action settlement payment If you are not currently an Opt-In Plaintiff, you must submit a claim form by May 28, 2025. Class members can file a claim online through the settlement website. Or the claim form included with your mailed noticed can be filled out and submitted by email at info@EQXOTLawsuit.com, fax at (714) 917-7455, or by mail. Settlement Administrator's mailing address: Katz, et al. v. Equinox Holdings, Inc., c/o Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 26170, Santa Ana, CA 92799. If you are uncertain whether you are an Opt-In Plaintiff, contact Class Counsel at (516) 203-7180 or the Claims Administrator at (866) 675-2646. Required information Unique ID and PIN from notice required to submit online claim. Payout information -- Settlement payments will be issued in the form of a check mailed to the address provided. -- The settlement will be distributed in four installments: -- Installment one: Approximately 52 days after the court grants final approval to the settlement. -- Installment two: On or around January 29, 2026. -- Installment three: On or around January 29, 2027. -- Installment four: On or around January 29, 2028. $12 Million overtime lawsuit settlement fund The settlement fund of $12,000,000 will cover various expenses and payments: -- Settlement administration costs: Estimated up to $100,000 -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $4,000,000 -- Attorneys' expenses: Up to $100,000 -- Service awards: Two named plaintiffs will receive $15,000 each; 30 Opt-In Plaintiffs who participated in depositions will receive $1,000 each -- Payments to valid class members: Remaining Net Settlement Fund (after the above deductions) Important dates -- Fairness Hearing: June 4, 2025 -- Deadline to File a Claim: May 28, 2025 When is the Equinox overtime settlement payout date? The final hearing is scheduled to take place on June 4, 2025. The first installment payment to approved class members will be distributed approximately 52 days after the judge grants final approval to the settlement. Why is Equinox settling this lawsuit? The lawsuit alleged that Equinox violated federal and New York state labor laws by failing to properly compensate personal trainers for overtime, providing inadequate wage statements, and paying employees on a biweekly basis. Equinox denies these allegations but has agreed to settle to avoid the uncertainties and costs of continued litigation. [GN] FANNIE MAE: Court Awards $299.4MM in Damages to Stockholders ------------------------------------------------------------ Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae/FHFA) disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2025, that Fannie Mae is a defendant in two cases filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, including a consolidated class action "In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations" and "Fairholme Funds v. FHFA." The cases were consolidated for trial, and on August 14, 2023, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs and awarded damages of $299.4 million to Fannie Mae preferred stockholders. On March 20, 2024, the court entered final judgment and set the amount of prejudgment interest owed by Fannie Mae at $199.7 million. On April 17, 2024, the defendants filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, which has been fully briefed and remains pending. The parties will have 30 days to appeal following the court’s decision on the motion. Fannie Mae is a leading source of financing for mortgages in the United States. Organized as a government-sponsored enterprise, Fannie Mae is a shareholder-owned corporation chartered by Congress to provide liquidity and stability to the residential mortgage market and to promote access to mortgage credit. FASTAFF LLC: Must File Class Cert Response in Egan by April 4 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THERESA EGAN, et al., 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 Hon. Judge Cyrus Chung entered an order granting the Defendants' unopposed motion for extension of time to respond to the Plaintiffs' motions for class certification. Accordingly, the Defendants shall respond to the motions for class certification, on or before April 4, 2025. The plaintiffs' reply briefs shall be filed on or before April 25, 2025. Fastaff offers staffing services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rzyzOO at no extra charge.[CC] FCA US: Seeks to Strike Wall Bid to Amend Class Definition ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DERYL WALL, DAVID GOLDSMITH, and MICHAEL V. NATHAN, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 5:16-cv-01341-TJH-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Defendant, on April 14, 2025, will move the Court for an order (i) striking the Plaintiffs' "Motion to Alter or Amend the Class Definition Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C), Certify the California Class Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), and Appoint Class Representatives and Class Counsel"; and (ii) sanctioning Plaintiffs and their counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1927, the Court's inherent authority, and Local Rule 83-7. The issues class includes Plaintiffs in twenty-one states, including the California Plaintiffs. It covers all persons who bought or leased a class vehicle before or after the Auto Park recall in April 22, 2016: "All persons or entities who currently own or lease a class vehicle, which means a 2012-2014 Dodge Charger, 2012-2014 Chrysler 300, or 2014-2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee equipped with the monostable shifter, where the vehicle was purchased in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Washington, or Wyoming." FCA US designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3MonLH at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Gregory P. Gilmer, Esq. Fred Fresard, Esq. Ian K. Edwards, Esq. KLEIN THOMAS LEE & FRESARD 1920 Main St., Suite 230 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 676-4570 E-mail: Greg.Gilmer@kleinthomaslaw.com Fred.Fresard@kleinthomaslaw.com Ian.Edwards@kleinthomaslaw.com FLEETPRIDE INC: Banuelos Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Mario Banuelos, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. FLEETPRIDE, INC., an Alabama corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CU0049 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Kings, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on March 13, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-at-00204. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserted 9 purported causes of action for: Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; Unpaid Rest Period Premiums; Unpaid Minimum Wages; Final Wages Not Timely Paid; Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses; Violation of California Business & Professions Code and Violation of Labor Codes.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Sabrina A. Beldner, Esq. David Szwarcsztejn, Esq. Charles J. Urena, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501 Phone: 310.315.8200 Facsimile: 310.315.8210 Email: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com dszwarcsztejn@mcguirewoods.com curena@mcguirewoods.com FLORIDA CRYSTALS: Faces Class Suit Over Greenwashing Sugar Products ------------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims Florida Crystals sugar products are misleadingly marketed as eco-friendly, given that the brand's pre-harvest sugarcane burning practices harm the environment and the health of nearby residents. The 57-page complaint accuses the sugar giant and parent company Fanjul Corporation of deceiving environmentally conscious consumers by "greenwashing" their lines of Florida Crystals Regenerative Organic Certified Sugars and Florida Crystals Specialty Raw Cane Sugars. Specifically, the case takes issue with Florida Crystals products' green-dominated packaging with front-label claims representing the sugar as derived from "Farming to Help Save the Planet" and farms that "help fight climate change & build healthy soils." In reality, the lawsuit alleges, the defendants affirmatively choose to burn the extra leaves off sugarcane stalks before harvest -- a "notoriously dirty" practice that contributes to climate change -- even though greener slashing methods are readily available. According to the filing, Florida Crystals' pre-harvest burns produce "towering ash plumes" and release substantial volumes of toxic air pollutants, including greenhouse gases that trap heat in the atmosphere and warm the planet. The complaint claims these burns occur daily during harvesting season in Florida's main sugar-producing region known as the Glades, exposing surrounding communities to hazardous emissions. Studies show that Glades residents, who are disproportionately poor and people of color, experience elevated rates of smoke-related conditions such as chronic asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cancer, the Florida Crystals lawsuit contends. "Recognizing the threats these emissions pose to air quality, the environment, and human health, governments around the world have aggressively restricted or banned sugar preharvest burning to reduce emissions of methane and other powerful greenhouse gases and other air pollutants," the suit explains. Florida Crystals and its billionaire Fanjul family owners have invested heavily in statehouse political lobbying to protect their pre-harvest burning approach, the complaint shares. An exception exists for wealthy communities in eastern Palm Beach County, which, in 1991, convinced the state government to ban cane burning when the winds blow their direction, the suit says. Notably, this area is "headquarters of both Defendants and the hub of the Fanjul family empire," the filing points out. "No such restriction protects the largely black and brown communities of the Glades," the case scathes. The lawsuit goes on to claim that, contrary to Florida Crystals' label claims, burning sugarcane before harvest harms rather than promotes soil health. Runoff from the Big Sugar companies' pollution also contributes to dead zones in adjacent waterways, among other disruptions to South Florida water systems, the case alleges. "While Defendants may presently have the 'right' to continue choosing to burn, rather than slash, what they may not do under false advertising laws is continue to do so, unnecessarily poisoning people and the planet, while falsely portraying themselves as responsible stewards of the planet and the environment prominently on the front label of their products," the complaint contends. The suit argues that Florida Crystals' alleged greenwashing campaign has tricked consumers into buying, or paying more for, sugar products they thought helped save the planet, fight climate change and build healthy soils. The filing cites violations of the Federal Trade Commission's Green Guides and several state laws. The lawsuit looks to represent all United States residents who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased for purposes other than resale one of the following Florida Crystals products containing one or more of the challenged label representations: -- Florida Crystals Regenerative Organic Raw Cane Sugar; -- Florida Crystals Regenerative Organic Light Brown Sugar; -- Florida Crystals Regenerative Organic Powdered Sugar; -- Florida Crystals Organic Cane Sugar; -- Florida Crystals Turbinado Cane Sugar; -- Florida Crystals Raw Cane Sugar; and -- Baker's Collection of Regenerative Organic Sugars. [GN] FLUENCE ENERGY: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces that a lawsuit has been filed against Fluence Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ: FLNC) and certain of the Company's senior executives for potential violations of the federal securities laws. If you invested in Fluence Energy, you are encouraged to obtain additional information by visiting https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/fluence-energy-inc. Investors have until May 12, 2025, to ask the Court to be appointed to lead the case. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors who purchased Fluence Energy common stock. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and is captioned Abramov v. Fluence Energy, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-00444. Why was Fluence Energy Sued for Securities Fraud? Fluence Energy offers energy storage products and solutions, delivery services, recurring operational and maintenance services, and digital applications and solutions for energy storage and other power assets. As alleged, Fluence Energy misrepresented the strength of its competitive position, sales pipeline, and backlog of orders. In reality, Fluence Energy concealed declines in its sales and earnings growth by engaging in aggressive revenue pull-forwards and selectively applied earnings adjustments. The Stock Declines as the Truth is Revealed On February 22, 2024, Blue Orca Capital issued a report revealing that Siemens Energy-an affiliate of one of the company's founders and largest sources of revenue-filed a lawsuit accusing Fluence Energy of misrepresentations, breach of contract, and fraud. The Blue Orca report also revealed that much of Fluence Energy's sales and earnings growth was the result of aggressive revenue pull-forwards and selectively applied earnings adjustments. Then, on February 10, 2025, Fluence Energy issued a press release announcing its financial results for Q1 2025. Fluence Energy reported a net loss of $57 million, or $0.32 per share, with revenues falling 49% year-over-year, and lowered its revenue guidance for the remainder of the year. According to Fluence Energy, "[w]e have experienced customer-driven delays in signing certain contracts that, coupled with competitive pressures, result in the need to lower our fiscal year 2025 outlook." This news caused the price of Fluence Energy stock to decline 46%, to close at $7.00 per share on February 11, 2025. Click here if you suffered losses: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/fluence-energy-inc. What Can You Do? If you invested in Fluence Energy you may have legal options and are encouraged to submit your information to the firm. All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any potential fees and expenses. Submit your information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/fluence-energy-inc Or contact: Ross Shikowitz ross@bfalaw.com (212) 789-3619 Why Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP? Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP is a leading international law firm representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder litigation. It was named among the Top 5 plaintiff law firms by ISS SCAS in 2023 and its attorneys have been named Titans of the Plaintiffs' Bar by Law360 and SuperLawyers by Thompson Reuters. Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million in value from Tesla, Inc.'s Board of Directors, as well as $420 million from Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. For more information about BFA and its attorneys, please visit https://www.bfalaw.com. https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/fluence-energy-inc [GN] FOSSIL GROUP: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fossil Group, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-00932-LMP-DTS (D. Minn., March 13, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.fossil.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 watches and leather goods for sale including, but not limited to handbags, wallets, jewelry, belts, 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 FOXX DEVELOPMENT: Faces Semensato Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------- Foxx Development Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2025, that on November 22, 2024, a plaintiff filed "Semensato v. Foxx Development Holdings Inc., et al.," No. 2024-1200 (Del. Ch. Ct.), a class action lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court against the company and "Joy" Yi Hua, Haitao Cui, "Jeff" Feng Jiang, "Eva" Yiqing Miao and Edmund R. Miller. The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief under provisions of the Delaware General Corporation Law relating to a waiver of the corporate opportunity doctrine that is contained in the company's Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation. The plaintiff seeks a declaration that the waiver provision is invalid, an injunction against the company and the individual defendants to prevent them from attempting to enforce the waiver, attorneys' fees, and the costs and disbursements of this action. Foxx Development Holdings Inc. is primarily engaged in the sales of electronic products and debt financing in the form of convertible notes, loans from bank, third parties, related parties, and cash generated from operations have been utilized to finance the working capital. FURNITURE MART: Customer Sues Over Data Breach, Seeks Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jonathan Ellis, writing for The Dakota Scout reports that a Sioux Falls woman who alleges her private personal information was compromised by a data breach of Furniture Mart's computer system is suing the company for failing to adequately safeguard her information. Christine Logan was one of more than 9,700 Furniture Mart customers whose information was hacked, per a company report. Logan is seeking class-action status on behalf of other customers who had their information compromised. The Midwestern furniture giant reported to the Main Attorney General's Office that it discovered suspicious activity in its system on Nov. 3, 2024, and the company launched an investigation. On Dec. 2, the investigation revealed that an "unknown actor" had viewed and copied customer records. [GN] GENERAL MOTORS: Transmission Suit to Continue, Court Ruling Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mitch Talley, writing for Corvette Blogger reports that the saga of the "bucking transmissions" will continue for General Motors after a senior U.S. district judge recently failed to dismiss a lawsuit. Judge David M. Lawson made the ruling in the Cole Ulrich, et al. v. General Motors LLC suit -- a companion lawsuit to Speerly v. General Motors, a class action suit that includes only certain states and is currently in an appeals court. Both suits concern certain 2015-19 GM vehicles, including some C7 Corvettes, with Hydra-Matic 8L90 and 8L45 transmissions. The plaintiffs allege that the transmissions have two defects -- automatic transmission fluid that lacks "robustness to moisture" that leads to "shudder" problems and "an insufficient valve body architecture" that can purge trapped air, leading to "harsh shifts." The original lawsuit claims that GM's own documents prove it considered retrofit packages to fix the transmission issue, but rejected them because of the cost -- $1,550 for valve body replacement and $4,450 for a new transmission in each vehicle. While no injuries or deaths have been connected to the problem that causes the transmissions to "slip, buck, kick, jerk, and harshly engage," the lawsuit does include reports of "numerous dangerous incidents where drivers lost control of class vehicles and struck or nearly collided with other cars, objects, or pedestrians, or had harrowing near-miss incidents with oncoming or overtaking traffic due to abrupt, unpredictable, and uncontrollable acceleration or deceleration caused by the transmissions' failure to engage or maintain appropriate drive gear settings." Judge Lawson ruled there are adequate facts to suggest the vehicles were "not fit for the ordinary purpose of providing reasonably safe transportation" because of the specific transmissions and turned down the dismissal of the Ulrich lawsuit. The lawsuit includes these General Motors vehicles equipped with Hydra-Matic 8L90 and 8L45 transmissions. -- 2015-2019 Chevrolet Silverado -- 2017-2019 Chevrolet Colorado -- 2015-2019 Chevrolet Corvette -- 2016-2019 Chevrolet Camaro -- 2015-2019 Cadillac Escalade and Escalade ESV -- 2016-2019 Cadillac ATS -- 2016-2019 Cadillac ATS-V -- 2016-2019 Cadillac CTS -- 2016-2019 Cadillac CT6 -- 2016-2019 Cadillac CTS-V -- 2015-2019 GMC Sierra -- 2015-2019 GMC Yukon, Yukon XL, Yukon Denali XL -- 2017-2019 GMC Canyon According to the judge, the class action lawsuit includes reports of: "[N]umerous dangerous incidents where drivers lost control of class vehicles and struck or nearly collided with other cars, objects, or pedestrians, or had harrowing near-miss incidents with oncoming or overtaking traffic due to abrupt, unpredictable, and uncontrollable acceleration or deceleration caused by the transmissions' failure to engage or maintain appropriate drive gear settings." The plaintiffs are represented by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Gordon & Partners, P.A., Berger Montague PC, Capstone Law APC, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., and Pitt McGehee Palmer Bonanni & Rivers PC. [GN] GERBER PRODUCTS: Settles Infant Formula False Ad Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a settlement has been reached that, if approved by the court, will resolve two proposed class action lawsuits over Gerber Products Company's alleged misrepresentations that its Good Start Gentle infant formula was FDA-endorsed and could reduce the risk of a baby developing allergies. The proposed class action settlement aims to cover all consumers who purchased Gerber's Good Start Gentle infant formula in New York or Florida between October 10, 2011 and April 23, 2016 for purposes other than resale. This does not include those who received formula via the government WIC program, the settlement agreement notes. If the deal is approved, class members who submit a timely, valid claim form may be eligible to receive a Gerber settlement cash payout, the agreement shares. Per court documents, class members in Florida who do not provide proof of purchase may receive $3 per unit purchased, up to a maximum of five products. Florida consumers with proof of purchase can claim up to 20 units, or a $60 total recovery, the agreement says. According to the settlement agreement, class members in New York without proof of purchase may be eligible to receive $4 per unit claimed, capped at five items, while residents who provide proof of purchase may claim up to 20 units, for an $80 total payment. The agreement adds that class members may file a claim for a combination of purchased products with and without proof for up to a total of five products. Court documents state that consumers will be able to submit a claim form by mail, via email or online through the official settlement website once it is established. Nearly a decade after the initial lawsuit was filed against Gerber, the plaintiffs submitted an unopposed motion and attendant memo detailing the terms of the settlement on March 5, 2025. It is now up to the court to decide whether to grant preliminary approval to the Good Start Gentle settlement terms. The plaintiffs' memo shares that notice of the Gerber settlement will be issued to eligible class members within 30 days following preliminary approval of the deal. [GN] GERON CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 12 ---------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or acquirers of Geron Corporation (NASDAQ: GERN) securities between February 28, 2024 and February 25, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), have until May 12, 2025 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Geron class action lawsuit. Captioned Dabestani v. Geron Corporation, No. 25-cv-02507 (N.D. Cal.), the Geron class action lawsuit charges Geron and certain of Geron's top current and former executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. A subsequently filed complaint is captioned Potvin v. Geron Corporation, No. 25-cv-02563 (N.D. Cal.). If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Geron class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-geron-corporation-class-action-lawsuit-gern.html You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at info@rgrdlaw.com. CASE ALLEGATIONS: Geron is a commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the development of therapeutic products for oncology. According to the complaint, Geron's primary product is a telomerase inhibitor, imetelstat, which Geron sells under the brand name Rytelo. The Geron class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) defendants created the false impression that they possessed reliable information pertaining to Geron's projected revenue outlook and anticipated growth while also minimizing risk from seasonality and macroeconomic fluctuations; (ii) in truth, Geron's optimistic reports of Rytelo's launch success and potential growth fell short of reality as the impacts of seasonality, existing competition, and the burden of continued monitoring played a much more significant role in patient starts than defendants had implied; and (iii) Rytelo lacked the necessary awareness to penetrate the market, resulting in an inability for Geron to capitalize on the purportedly significant unmet need for the drug, particularly among first-line patients and those outside the academic setting. The Geron class action lawsuit further alleges that on February 26, 2025, Geron announced its financial results for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2024, disclosing that Rytelo's growth had flattened over the preceding months, attributing the diminished growth on seasonality, competition, lack of awareness for Rytelo, and the burden of the monitoring requirement necessary for the drug treatment. On this news, Geron's stock price declined more than 32%, the complaint alleges. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired Geron securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Geron class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Geron class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Geron class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Geron class action lawsuit. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder litigation. Our Firm has been ranked #1 in the ISS Securities Class Action Services rankings for four out of the last five years for securing the most monetary relief for investors. In 2024, we recovered over $2.5 billion for investors in securities-related class action cases -- more than the next five law firms combined, according to ISS. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contacts J.C. Sanchez, Esq. Jennifer N. Caringal, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 (800) 449-4900 info@rgrdlaw.com [GN] GERON CORP: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Geron Corporation ("Geron" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GERN). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants disseminated materially false and misleading statements and/or concealed material adverse facts concerning Rytelo's (imetelstat) potential. If you bought shares of Geron between June 7, 2024 and February 25, 2025, and you suffered a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/geron/ to learn more. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is May 12, 2025. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] GIRL SCOUT: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Heavy Metals in Cookies ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges certain Girl Scout Cookies are contaminated with "extremely problematic" levels of the pesticide glyphosate and harmful heavy metals. The 35-page lawsuit was filed in the wake of a December 2024 report published by GMOScience, which detailed test results on 13 varieties of Girl Scout Cookies sourced from California, Iowa and Louisiana. According to the report, 100 percent of the samples tested positive for glyphosate -- a herbicide associated with adverse health effects such as cancer, neurological disorders, endocrine disruption, reproductive problems and gut issues. In addition, the study, commissioned by GMOScience, Moms Across America and other consumer groups, found toxic heavy metals—including aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, lead, or mercury—in every sample tested, with 88 percent of the samples containing all five of the dangerous substances, the case relays. The complaint, filed against Girl Scouts of the USA and its baking partners Ferrero and ABC Bakers, alleges the ubiquitous cookies contain contaminates at levels that far exceed certain limits set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other health authorities. Rather than recall the products and improve food processing practices, the defendants have continued to market Girl Scout Cookies as safe for consumption and made with high-quality ingredients, the class action suit says. In fact, Girl Scouts has gone so far as to explicitly deny the results of GMOScience's testing, stating in a February 2025 blog post that the treats "are safe to consume and are manufactured in accordance with all food safety regulations," the suit shares. "With colorful designs, fun product names and the fact that Girl Scout Cookies are literally sold by children themselves, Girl Scouts know that its target demographic for consumption is children," the Girl Scout Cookie lawsuit asserts. "Parents who buy the Products are under the impression that Girl Scouts, a non-profit organization which is supposed to uphold and teach business ethics to children, would only sell Girl Scout Cookies to be consumed by children if it knew that the Products were safe for consumption." The class action suit contends that consumers would have been unwilling to purchase Girl Scout Cookies, or would have paid less for them, had they known the products contain, or risk containing, significant amounts of harmful substances. Scout's honor? Defendants overlook consumer safety, lawsuit says The complaint claims the potential contamination of Girl Scout Cookies stems from the defendants' failure to monitor and eliminate toxins that find their way into the food supply. The GMOScience report says that glyphosate and heavy metals, though not listed as ingredients on Girl Scout Cookie packaging, may be inadvertently added to the products through unsafe farming practices or during processing. Indeed, the case alleges producers of ultra-processed foods like Girl Scout Cookies often skirt FDA-mandated food safety practices and use a substantial amount of chemicals to maximize production rates. At the earliest stages of production, raw ingredients can become contaminated with metals like lead, arsenic, cadmium and mercury from polluted water, air and soil, the lawsuit explains. Cancer-causing pesticides and herbicides are often sprayed on crops, and hazardous chemicals may be used to sanitize and package foods, the filing says. Per the case, Congress stated in a 2021 report that it is entirely possible for processors to appropriately source raw materials to avoid elevated levels of lead and other toxins in sugar-based and chocolate-covered products. "Girl Scouts, however, chooses not to weed out the presence of the Toxins even when faced with the testing presented to them by GMOScience in December of 2024," the complaint contends. According to GMOScience, the tested Girl Scout Cookies contained glyphosate at levels that were, on average, "334 times higher than what Dr. Don Huber, Professor Emeritus of Purdue, states is harmful and must be avoided." Thin Mints showed the highest levels of glyphosate, and Peanut Butter Patties contained the highest levels of heavy metals, the report states. "As discussed, these Toxins are highly dangerous, especially to children," the suit contends. The 2021 Congressional report notes that exposure to toxic heavy metals can cause "irreversible damage to brain development" for children, including permanent decreases in IQ and increased risk of future criminal and antisocial behavior. Who's covered by the Girl Scout Cookies lawsuit? The Girl Scout Cookies class action lawsuit looks to represent all United States residents who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, bought Girl Scout Cookies, including, but not limited to, the following varieties: -- Toast-Yay; -- Lemonades; -- Peanut Butter Patties; -- Caramel Delites; -- Peanut Butter Sandwich; -- Adventurefuls; -- Adventurefuls (Indulgent Brownie); -- Thin Mints; -- Trefoils; -- S'mores; -- Lemon-Ups; -- Toffeetastic (Gluten Free); -- Do-si-dos; -- Samoas; and -- Tagalongs. How do I join the Girl Scout Cookies class action lawsuit? In general, there's nothing you need to do to join, be added to, or make sure you're included in the Girl Scout Cookies lawsuit. If the case proceeds and eventually resolves with a class action settlement, the people who are covered by the case, who are called "class members," would be notified of the deal and given instructions on how to claim their share. Keep in mind that class action suits can take time to resolve, sometimes months or years, and there is no guarantee as to their success. If you bought Girl Scout Cookies or just want to stay in the loop with class action lawsuit and settlement news, sign up for ClassAction.org's free weekly newsletter. [GN] GOOD AMERICAN: Faces TCPA Call Timing Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Tammana Malik of Troutman Amin, LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that when Kim Kardashian said, "Get up and work", the TCPA plaintiff's bar took that seriously. And another Kardashian sibling may be facing the consequences. We at TCPAWorld were the first to report on the growing trend of lawsuits filed under the TCPA's Call Timing provisions, which prohibit the initiation of telephone solicitations to residential telephone subscribers before 8 am and after 9 pm in the subscriber's time zone. Call it a self-fulfilling prophecy or just intuition honed by decades of combined experience, but these lawsuits show no signs of slowing down. In Melissa Gillum v. Good American, LLC. (Mar. 11, 2025, C.D. Ca), Plaintiff alleges that Khloe Kardashian's clothing brand Good American sent the following text messages to her residential telephone number at 07:15 AM and 06:30 AM military time: Of course, Plaintiff alleges she never authorized Good American to send her telephone solicitations before 8 am or after 9 pm. Plaintiff also seeks to represent the following class: All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through the date of class certification (1) Defendant, or anyone on Defendant's behalf, (2) placed more than one marketing text message within any 12-month period; (3) where such marketing text messages were initiated before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (local time at the called party's location). The consensus here on TCPAWorld is that calls or text messages made with prior express consent are not "telephone solicitations" and likely not subject to Call Time restrictions. We'll have to see how these play out but stay tuned for the latest updates! [GN] GRETCHEN WHITMER: Cochrane Bid for Class Cert Tossed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADLEY EDWARD COCHRANE, et al., v. GRETCHEN WHITMER, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-10648-SFC-CI (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Sean Cox entered an order denying motion for class certification without prejudice. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs filed this action, under seal, on March 15, 2024. On May 14, 2024, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal and ordered that the civil action shall no longer be sealed. The Court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims in this case. On March 15, 2024, along with their Complaint, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification. Due to some issues regarding service, this Court recently ordered the U.S. Marshal to serve the Defendants in this case and this Court has not yet held the Scheduling Conference in this case. A copy of the Court's order dated March 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oUChRZ at no extra charge.[CC] HEWLETT-PACKARD: Caccavale Seeks to Reinstate Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Caccavale et al., v. Hewlett-Packard Company et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00974-NJC-ST (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order that: (1) a pre-motion conference with respect to moving to lift the stay the Court entered on the Hewlett Packard portion of the litigation on June 18, 2024; (2) the Plaintiffs' fully briefed motion for class certification and the HP Defendants' fully briefed motion for summary judgment be reinstated; and (3) that pursuant to In re Best Payphones, Inc., 450 F. App'x 8, 15 (2d Cir. 2011) the Court construe the instant letter, any letter in opposition, and any oral argument at a pre- motion conference as the Plaintiffs' motion. Hewlett-Packard was an American multinational information technology company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kdl7Y3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul Pagano, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PAUL A. PAGANO, P.C. 100 Duffy Ave Ste 510 Hicksville, NY, 11801-3636 Telephone: (917)589-1479 E-mail: Paul@LawOfficePaulPagano.com HI-SCHOOL PHARMACY: Class Settlement in Landin Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAYNA MARIE LANDIN, v. HI-SCHOOL PHARMACY SERVICES, LLC, and HI-SCHOOL PHARMACY, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-05115-TMC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Tiffany Cartwright entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Court agrees that class certification is appropriate because common questions (such as what duties Hi-School owed to the Class to protect their PII, and whether its alleged violations breached those duties) predominate, and a class action is superior to other methods of adjudication for thousands of small-value claims. And at this stage, there is no evidence of collusion or bad faith by counsel or the parties. Accordingly, the proposed settlement is presumptively fair. Landin filed this putative class action lawsuit against the Defendants for allegedly failing to protect current and former customers' personal identifiable information ("PII") arising out of a data breach of its computer network. The Settlement Agreement defines the Settlement Class as: "All U.S. residents whose Personal Information was compromised in the Data Incident disclosed by the Defendant, on or Dec. 5, 2023." The Settlement Agreement provides that Hi-School will pay a gross amount of $600,000 into a non-reversionary Settlement Fund to be used for payments to class members as well as costs of administration and permitted attorney’s fees, costs, and service awards. Hi-School is a pharmaceutical company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4RyJ38 at no extra charge.[CC] HOMEADVISOR INC: Bid for Leave to File Second Class Cert Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Airquip, Inc. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc et al. (re HOMEADVISOR, INC. LITIGATION), Case No. 1:16-cv-01849-PAB-KAS (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Philip Brimmer entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second class certification motion. Finally, the plaintiffs point to no new evidence, new legal authority, or changed circumstances that prevented them from seeking to certify the Proposed State Deceptive Practices Classes in their first motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs instead argue that "the Court has never ruled that Plaintiffs are incapable of meeting their burden of establishing predominance for any of the nine state Deceptive Practices Classes." The Plaintiffs made "an all or nothing bet on seeking class certification on the broader class" and the Court will not permit them to take another bite at the apple because the plaintiffs' tactical decisions failed. Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that this case can be managed through plaintiffs' proposed class claims. The Plaintiffs brought this class action suit on behalf of themselves and proposed classes of similarly situated home service professionals ("SPs") against the defendants. The Plaintiffs allege that HomeAdvisor misrepresents the quality of the leads it sells to SPs. On Jan. 10, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court certified a Nationwide Misappropriation Class and three State Misappropriation Classes but denied the plaintiffs' request to certify a Nationwide Deceptive Practices Class and nine State Deceptive Practices Classes for the states of California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio. HomeAdvisor is an online marketplace that helps connect SPs with homeowners in need of home improvement services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GmQQUb at no extra charge.[CC] HONDA MOTORS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Serious Engine Defect ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sepehr Daghighian, a partner with CCA, reports that Honda is facing a class action lawsuit alleging that some of its vehicles contain a serious engine defect that could lead to premature failure, unexpected stalling, or excessive oil consumption. The lawsuit claims that Honda was aware of the issue but failed to properly notify consumers or provide adequate repairs. Background of the Lawsuit The class action lawsuit alleges that certain Honda models have engine defects related to oil dilution, fuel system malfunctions, or timing chain failures. Plaintiffs claim that these issues can lead to engine failure, loss of power, and increased safety risks for drivers and passengers. Many Honda owners have reported that their vehicles experience rough idling, misfires, excessive oil consumption, or sudden stalls while driving. The lawsuit accuses Honda of failing to take responsibility for the defect, even though it has issued technical service bulletins (TSBs) addressing similar issues in the past. Which Vehicles Are Affected? The lawsuit claims that several Honda models may be affected by the alleged engine defects, including: -- Honda Accord (2016–2022) -- Honda Civic (2016–2022) -- Honda CR-V (2016–2022) Although Honda has not issued a widespread recall, many consumers argue that the automaker should take stronger action to address the problem. What This Means for Honda Owners If the class action lawsuit moves forward, affected Honda owners may be eligible for compensation related to repair costs, vehicle devaluation, or other damages. However, class action settlements often provide limited compensation, meaning some consumers may benefit more from filing individual claims. How Honda Owners Can Take Back Control While this class action lawsuit has been initiated, thousands of Honda owners are likely affected by the same alleged engine defect, with many expressing dissatisfaction over Honda's response. These types of issues often lead to escalated legal action, highlighting the importance of protecting consumer rights. If you struggle with vehicle troubles and feel cornered against big vehicle brands, remember it is always better to have experts with you. With extensive experience and successful cases at hand, The Lemon Firm is your best bet. With dedicated team members always at your disposal, the package becomes too good to be true. So, if your car is giving you a headache, don't hesitate to reach out! [GN] IBM: Burgard Collective Action Wins Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERYL BURGARD, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Case No. 7:24-cv-02885-PMH (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Philip Halpern entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify a collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The conditionally certified collective is defined as: "all current and former Executive Assistants of IBM in the State of New York who have worked more than 40 hours per week, including on the clock work and off the clock work within three years of the date notice is transmitted." The Plaintiff's request for equitable tolling is denied. The Defendant, to the extent that it has not already done so in discovery, shall promptly provide the Plaintiff with a computer-readable file of the names, last known addresses, mobile telephone numbers, email addresses, and dates of employment of all Executive Assistants employed by the Defendants in the State of New York for a period of three years before the filing of the Complaint. The Defendant's motion to seal is granted. The parties are directed to confer regarding the content of the notice and consent form. The Court concludes that the Plaintiff has satisfied her "modest" burden of showing that "similarly situated" individuals exist—namely, other Executive Assistants working for IBM in New York—and that they were "victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law"-specifically, the Defendant knowingly failed to pay its New York Executive Assistants overtime wages. The Plaintiff alleges that IBM maintained a policy of not paying Executive Assistants, herself included, for off-the-clock overtime work. The Plaintiff was employed by IBM from 1986 to February 2023 as an Executive Assistant. IBM is an industrial research organization. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VCB2XH at no extra charge.[CC] 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. Contact Information: 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: Mondello Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Reply ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER MONDELLO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ICF TECHNOLOGY, INC., ACCRETIVE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC., Case No. 8:24-CV-01037 (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting unopposed motion for leave to file a reply in further support of her motion for class certification. The Plaintiff requests leave to address the following, including but not limited to: (1) Defendants' legal and factual arguments that Plaintiff has not met her burden under Rule 23; and (2) the eight (8) declarations filed by Defendants in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion. The Plaintiff requests seven pages for her reply brief. Accordingly, for these reasons, the Plaintiff requests that this Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion and allow Plaintiff to file a seven-page reply brief on or before March 21, 2025. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5OIRFO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephanie A. Casey Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A. 255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 476-7400 Facsimile: (305) 476-7444 E-mail: scasey@colson.com - and - Charles J. Kocher, Esq.,* Tyler J. Burrell, Esq.,* Gaetano J. DiPersia, Esq.,* 50 Lake Center Drive, Suite 400 Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone: (856) 985-9800 E-mail: cjk@njlegal.com tjb@njlegal.com gjd@njlegal.com IDOC: Kucinsky Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Charles Kucinsky v. IDOC et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00342-RJD (S.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for Rule 23 class certification. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LQ0BOG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff appears pro se. INFOSYS MCCAMISH: Agrees to Settle Cybersecurity Suit for $17.5-MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Koustav Das, writing for India Today, reports that Infosys has agreed to pay $17.5 million to settle six class action lawsuits in the United States related to a cyber incident involving its subsidiary, Infosys McCamish Systems (McCamish). The lawsuits were filed after a cybersecurity issue in November 2023 caused disruptions in some of McCamish's applications and systems. "In continuation to our statement dated November 3, 2023, and subsequent updates provided in our financial statements in respect of six class action lawsuits that were filed in the United States, we would like to update that Infosys has reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs of these lawsuits pending against Infosys McCamish Systems LLC ('McCamish') and a few McCamish's customers," Infosys said in a stock exchange filing. The company stated that the proposed agreement would settle all pending class action lawsuits and resolve all allegations made in this matter. "On March 13, 2025, McCamish and the plaintiffs engaged in mediation, resulting in an agreement in principle, which sets forth the terms of a proposed settlement of class action lawsuits against McCamish, as well as class action lawsuits that have been filed against McCamish's customers," Infosys added. Under the proposed settlement terms, McCamish has agreed to pay $17.5 million into a fund to settle these matters. "The proposed terms are subject to confirmation and due diligence by the plaintiffs, finalization of the terms of the settlement agreement, as well as preliminary and final court approval. Once approved, the settlement will resolve all allegations made in the class action lawsuits without admission of any liability," Infosys stated. The cyber incident was first disclosed by Infosys in a stock exchange filing in November 2023. The company said it was working with a cybersecurity products provider to resolve the issue and had launched an independent investigation to assess the impact. Infosys said that data protection and cybersecurity remain priorities for the company. However, it may be noted that the settlement is still subject to further legal processes, including preliminary and final court approval. [GN] IQVIA INC: Lyngaas Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN J. LYNGAAS, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, v. IQVIA, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-02370-NIQA (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) consisting of: "All persons sent one or more invitations by fax during the period from September 2016 to September 2018 offering from $15 to $150 to participate in Impact Network's "National Healthcare Census," as reflected by a "SENT" (not a "FAIL") disposition code on one of the 30 Odyssey Job Reports bates numbered IQV_00000310.xls, IQV_0000031 2.xls, IQV_00000314.xls, IQV_00000316.xls, IQV_00000320.xls, IQV_00 000322.xls, IQV_00000324.xlsx, IQV_00000326.xls, IQV_00000328.xls, IQV_00000330.xls, IQV_00000332.xls, IQV_00000334.xls, IQV_0000033 6.xls, IQV_00000338.xls, IQV_00000340.xls, IQV_00000344.xls, IQV_00 000346.xls, IQV_00000348.xls, IQV_00000350.xlsx, IQV_00000352.xls, IQV_00000354.xls, IQV_00000356.xls, IQV_00000358.xls, IQV_0000035 9.xls, IQV_00000360.xls, IQV_00000361.xls, IQV_00000362.xls, IQV_00 000363.xls, IQV_00000364.xlsx, and IQV_00000365.xlsx, but excluding all persons whose fax number appears in Defendant's list of participating healthcare providers produced as IQV_00000473.xls." Previously, the Court denied the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, because Plaintiff failed to show the proposed class was ascertainable through a reliable and administratively feasible mechanism. The Court expressed concerns about the reliability of the Odyssey Job Reports as evidence of successful fax transmissions and the need to avoid individualized inquiries into consent in denying certification based on the ascertainability issue. QVIA provides healthcare research services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0Upi4f at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard Shenkan, Esq. SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC New Castle, PA 16107 Telephone: (412) 716-5800 E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com - and - Lawrence F. Stengel, Esq. SAXTON & STUMP, LLC 280 Granite Run Dr., Ste. 300 Lancaster, PA 17601 Telephone: (717) 556-1080 E-mail: lfs@saxtonstump.com - and - Phillip A. Bock, Esq. David M. Oppenheim, Esq. Barry J. Blonien, Esq. BOCK HATCH & OPPENHEIM, LLC 203 N. La Salle St. Ste. 2100 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 658-5501 E-mail: service@classlawyers.com J&I CORDON: Osorio Seeks to Conditionally Certify Collective ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN DARIO OSORIO MONSALVE, on their own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. J&I CORDON ELECTRIC, LLC, and OSCAR CORDON, Individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-01135-LMM (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to conditionally certify collective action and facilitate notice to potential class member. The Plaintiff Osorio request the Court issue an Order: (i) Conditionally certifying the class of: "all current and former Electricians who worked at any location of Defendants: (ii) directing Defendants to produce to undersigned counsel within 14 days of the Order granting this Motion a list containing the names, the last known addresses, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses of putative class members who worked for the Defendants from three years prior to the Order granting this Motion to the present; (iii) authorizing undersigned counsel to send a notice and consent, in the form attached hereto as Exhibits A-D, to all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the Defendants' counsel by first-class mail and e-mail and also requiring Defendants to post a hard copy of the notice in English and Spanish in all common areas located within all of Defendants' locations; (iv) authorizing undersigned counsel to send a reminder notice, in the form attached as Exhibits E&F, to all putative class members who have not responded to the initial notice thirty (30) days after the initial notices are mailed; (v) providing all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the Defendants counsel with 60 days from the date the notices are initially mailed to file a Consent to Become Opt-In Plaintiff Osorio, in the form attached hereto as Exhibits C&D; and (vi) any other relief that is just and appropriate. The Plaintiff alleges that he and other employees who have worked or currently work as Electricians for the Defendants have been deprived of proper overtime wages by virtue of the Defendants' unlawful unwillingness to pay appropriate overtime. Cordon is a full service electrical contracting Company based in Lawrenceville, Georgia. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BrwVhu at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Stephens, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4200 Atlanta, GA 30343-1007 Telephone: (404) 965-1682 E-mail: jstephens@forthepeople.com J.T. THORPE & SON: Settles Overtime Pay Class Suit for $550,000 --------------------------------------------------------------- Claim Depot reports that if you were employed as a non-exempt employee by J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc. and/or Kevin Howard at the Shell Cracker Plant in Monaca, Pennsylvania, during any workweek between February 24, 2020, and July 3, 2022, you may qualify to submit a claim for compensation from a class action settlement. J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc. and Kevin Howard have agreed to pay $550,000 to settle a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA). The lawsuit claims that the defendants failed to pay proper overtime wages for pre-shift and post-shift work activities. Who is eligible to receive a settlement payment? Class members meet the following criteria: -- You were employed as a non-exempt employee by J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc. and/or Kevin Howard at the Shell Cracker Plant in Monaca, Pennsylvania. -- Your employment consisted of at least one workweek between February 24, 2020, and July 3, 2022. How much is the class action payout? If approved, the net settlement fund available for distribution to class members who submit a valid claim is $307,604.60. -- Individual payments will be calculated based on the total number of hours worked at the Shell Cracker Plant during the class period. -- For every 40 hours worked, approved claimants will receive approximately $21.20. -- Settlement payments will be treated as wages with applicable taxes and withholdings deducted, and W-2 received from the IRS. How to claim an overtime class action settlement payment To receive a payout, you must complete and submit the claim form that was mailed to you with the settlement notice. This is the only way to receive a payment. The completed claim form must be mailed to the settlement administrator and postmarked no later than June 9, 2025. Settlement Administrator's mailing address: J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc. Class Action Settlement, c/o Settlement Administrator, PO Box 23680, Jacksonville, FL 32241-3489. Is proof required to submit a claim? Claimants do not need to provide supporting documentation. Payout options Paper check mailed to the address provided. Class members can update their address information on the settlement website using the Notice ID and Pin provided on their notice. $550,000 settlement fund The settlement fund of $550,000 will include: -- Settlement administration costs: $19,804 -- Attorneys' fees: $183,333 -- Attorneys' expenses: $31,758.40 -- Service award to class representative: $7,500 -- Payments to class members with valid claims: $307,604.60 Important dates -- Fairness Hearing: June 18, 2025 -- Deadline to File a Claim: June 9, 2025 When is the J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc. class action settlement payout date? The court will hold a fairness hearing on June 18, 2025. The court must grant the settlement final approval. Once this occurs, payments will be issued to approved claimants. Why was this class action lawsuit filed? The lawsuit was initiated by Johnathan Seiler, who alleged that J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc. and Kevin Howard violated the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act by failing to pay proper overtime wages for pre-shift and post-shift work activities. The defendants deny these allegations, however both parties agreed to settle the class action to avoid the expense of prolonged litigation. [GN] JACK COOPER: Faces Class Action Suit Over WARN Violation -------------------------------------------------------- Heidi Schmidt of KCTV 5 reports that Jack Cooper Transport, a business with locations in multiple states, including Kansas and Missouri, could soon face a class action lawsuit involving thousands of former employees. The company laid off thousands of employees after it lost a hauling contract with Ford Motor Co. on Jan. 2. The company since lost a contract with General Motors. A lawsuit filed by a terminated employees claims Jack Cooper violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act. The lawsuit was filed in the Western District of Missouri last month by a former employee named John O'Hare. Among other things, it asks a judge to certify it as a Class Action lawsuit. The full lawsuit follows. The lawsuit claims O'Hare learned of his termination on Feb. 8, the same day he lost his job. The suit goes on to claim that Jack Cooper was required by the WARN Act to give each employee 60-days written notice that they would be terminated. Jack Cooper failed to give proper notice to thousands of employees, according to the lawsuit. The company also terminated at least one-third of its workforce. The plaintiff also argues Jack Cooper failed to notify state and local leaders of its plans, which is also required by the WARN Act. The WARN Act also allows an impacted employee to file a civil lawsuit against a company believed to have violated the act. In addition to asking for the class action certification, the lawsuit also seeks: -- Back pay for terminated Jack Cooper employees -- Payment for medical expenses for terminated employees -- Coverage of litigation costs, expenses, and attorney's fees -- Discretionary costs -- Civil penalties -- Other payment and penalties the court may see fit Records show Jack Cooper did issue a WARN Act notice on Jan. 6. It was for more than 400 employees at its location in Liberty. The lawsuit shows layoffs happened less than a month later on Feb. 2. The notice did not provide the 60-days required by the WARN Act. The WARN Act does include three exceptions for situations involving unforeseen circumstances, failing companies, and other conditions. KCTV5 asked Jack Cooper for comment on the lawsuit. It will be added to this article if the company responds. [GN] JAIME S. SCHWARTZ: Doe Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ Jane Doe, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. JAIME S. SCHWARTZ MD PC and TOTAL LIPEDEMA CARE, Case No. 2:25-cv-02263 (C.D. Cal., March 13, 2025), is brought arising from a recent cyberattack resulting in a data breach of sensitive information in the possession and custody and/or control of Defendants (the "Data Breach"). The Data Breach, which impacted both Defendants, was discovered by Schwartz MD on June 27, 2024. Following an internal investigation, Defendants learned the Data Breach resulted in unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, and theft of current and former patients' highly personal information, including first name, last name, address, date of birth ("personally identifying information" or "PII"), medical information, prescription medications, patient images, and health insurance information ("protected health information" or "PHI"). Plaintiff refers to both PII and PHI collectively as "Sensitive Information." Due to intentionally obfuscating language, it is unclear when the Breach actually took place and how long cybercriminals had unfettered access to Plaintiff's and the Class's most sensitive information. The Defendants took at least seven months before informing Class Members even though Plaintiff and thousands of Class Members had their most sensitive personal information accessed, exfiltrated, and stolen, causing them to suffer ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of the benefit of their bargain and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack. The Defendants' failure to timely detect and report the Data Breach made their patients vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their Sensitive Information. The Defendants knew or should have known that each victim of the Data Breach deserved prompt and efficient notice of the Data Breach and assistance in mitigating the effects of PII and PHI misuse. In failing to adequately protect Plaintiff's and the Class's Sensitive Information, failing to adequately notify them about the breach, and by obfuscating the nature of the breach, Defendants violated state and federal law and harmed an unknown number of their current and former patients, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former Schwartz MD patient and a data breach victim. Schwartz MD is a Beverly Hills, California plastic surgery company that boasts substantial accolades as a world-renowned plastic surgeon.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew G. Gunem, Esq, STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: agunem@straussborrelli.com JAMES KOUTOULAS: Bid to Intervene in De Ford Tossed --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as De Ford v. James Koutoulas, et al., Case No. 6:22-cv-00652 (M.D. Fla., Filed April 1, 2022), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order denying without prejudice motion to Intervene in Response to Class Certification Under Rule 24(a). The motion fails to include a legal memorandum as defined by Local Rule 1.01(d)(10) and required by Local Rule 3.01(a). Moreover, the motion fails to comply with Local Rule 3.01(g)'s conferral requirement, the Court says. The nature of suit states torts -- diversity-fraud.[CC] JE PREMIERE INC: Espinal Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Frangie Espinal, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. JE PREMIERE, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-02115 (S.D.N.Y., March 10, 2025), is brought this civil rights action against the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://patrolgrooming.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen reading software to read website content using her computer. JE PREMIERE, INC., operates the Patrol Grooming online retail store, as well as the Patrol Grooming interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal JEREMY BARR: Thurston Plaintiffs' Class Certification Bid Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN EDWARD THURSTON AND WENDALL HALL, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals, v. JEREMY BARR, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01070-JLB-NPM (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge John Badalamenti entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied. 2. This case is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 3. The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions and deadlines, close this case, and enter judgment accordingly. The Plaintiffs John Edward Thurston and Wendall Hall, civilly-committed residents of the Florida Civil Commitment Center (FCCC), have filed a civil rights complaint in which they generally assert that the FCCC does not pay minimum wage to residents who work at the facility. A copy of the Court's order dated March 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gEuqbQ at no extra charge.[CC] JOHN PAUL: Faces Suit Over Hair Care Products' Made in USA Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit accuses the maker of Paul Mitchell Tea Tree products of falsely advertising that its hair care items are made in the United States. According to the 46-page lawsuit, each product manufactured and sold by defendant John Paul Mitchell Systems (JPMS) under its proprietary brands features a prominent claim that it is "Made in the USA." Although the representation is clearly displayed on the packaging and in online advertising and product descriptions, the items, in fact, contain numerous ingredients and components that are sourced from outside the U.S., the class action suit alleges. The case takes issue with each hair care product that bears the challenged claim or a synonymous statement -- in particular, JPMS' Tea Tree Lavender Mint Moisturizing Shampoo, Tea Tree Lavender Mint Moisturizing Conditioner, Tea Tree Special Shampoo, Tea Tree Special Invigorating Conditioner, Tea Tree Lemon Sage Thickening Shampoo, Tea Tree Lemon Sage Thickening Conditioner and Tea Tree Grooming Pomade. As the complaint tells it, these products all contain tea tree oil, a key ingredient not sourced from the U.S. "Nevertheless, each and every container of [JPMS'] tea tree products claims to be 'Made in the USA' without any qualification," the filing charges. In addition, many JPMS hair care products, including the Tea Tree Special Shampoo, are made with foreign-sourced jojoba despite being labeled and sold as U.S.-made items, the suit asserts. Moreover, certain MITCH men's hair care products contain shea butter and agave, among other ingredients, that are also brought in from outside the U.S., the JPMS lawsuit contends. The case alleges the cosmetic company has failed to properly disclose the presence of foreign-sourced ingredients in violation of clearly defined federal and state regulations governing the use of "Made in the USA" claims. "Given its expansive resources and operational sophistication, it is difficult to understand why [JPMS] so clearly violated the well-established laws, rules, and regulations surrounding the use of 'Made in the USA' or any derivative thereof, other than to deceive consumers and for its own personal financial gain," the complaint states. Per the filing, consumers generally perceive products of U.S. origin to be of higher quality than comparable foreign-made items. As a result of JPMS' deceptive marketing, consumers have paid a premium price for hair care products they were led to believe were U.S.-made, the filing contends. The suit argues that had consumers known the JPMS items allegedly contained a significant amount of ingredients sourced from outside the country, they would not have purchased the hair care products. The lawsuit looks to represent all Illinois or California residents who, within the past four years, purchased one or more of JPMS' products labeled "Made in the USA" or any derivative thereof on the packaging or product description that were made with or contained ingredients or components not grown or manufactured in the U.S. [GN] JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Investors Defend Asbestos Laden Talc Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jackson Healy, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that in appeals court on Tuesday, March 11, pharmaceutical magnate Johnson & Johnson challenged investors who say the company concealed asbestos contamination in its baby powder and other talc products, fraudulently inflating its products' value. New Jersey federal Judge Zahid Quraishi certified the class in December 2023, finding that the class period concluded when Reuters published a Dec. 14, 2018, expose examining internal J&J documents showing the company knowingly hid instances of asbestos contamination in its products. That expose, along with five prior partial corrective disclosures, directly correlated with ensuing declines in J&J stock valuation, Quraishi ruled. Thus, Quraishi wrote, J&J's purported falsehoods created a price impact on the investors' assets, allowing the class action to proceed. J&J, which denies asbestos contamination in its talc products, promptly appealed. As a three-judge Third Circuit panel heard J&J's appeal on Tuesday, March 11, practically the entire hearing revolved around one key question -- what qualifies as new information? Representing J&J, attorney Rob Hochman argued that the Reuters article failed to present any new information and therefore could not be considered the case's final corrective disclosure. Instead, Hochman posited that a Bloomberg article uncovered evidence indicating purported asbestos contamination of J&J talc and the company's purported decades-long cover-up over one year earlier. "Plaintiffs pled that originally," Hochman told the panel, suggesting the investors declined to use the Bloomberg article as a corrective disclosure because the 2018 Reuters article created a more significant market disruption, from which they could more strongly assert a price impact on their assets. Hochman continued, relying on the efficient market hypothesis -- the idea that asset prices reflect all available information -- to suggest that even if a price impact did exist, the investors' descriptions of their proposed partial corrective disclosures might render their class period so small that many of the litigants would fail to qualify. "You have to take the good with the bad," Hochman said. "They have all sorts of facts where they rely on small sources…they say can move the market because it has false statements. But then when it comes time for them to pay the price of how the efficient market hypothesis absorbs things, they say, 'Oh no, no -- it doesn't have to be really new, and maybe people were evaluating differently.' But opinions, and reporters' opinions like the Reuters opinion, that doesn't count." Circuit Judge L. Felipe Restrepo -- a Joe Biden appointee -- questioned Hochman on whether information could qualify as a corrective disclosure if it remains "unintelligible or opaque to the average participant in the market." While Hochman argued any such consideration is irrelevant, Chung suggested otherwise, noting that existing legal precedent specifically defines corrective disclosure as the moment in which a company's falsehood becomes "publicly known." Chung continued, referencing J&J's prior court-ordered document releases in which the company made available tens of thousands of unorganized and unlabeled files containing information indicating the company knew of asbestos contamination in its talc products. Describing these releases as "document dumps," Chung suggested accessing relevant information among filler files might be so difficult that it cannot be considered public knowledge. "That might be publicly available, but that's not what [legal precedent] says," Chung told Hochman. "[Legal precedent] says 'publicly known.'" Hochman countered Chung's notion, suggesting the difficulty of accessing the information is irrelevant so long as the information is ultimately available to the relevant parties. "We assume that people whose job it is to follow the marketplace are doing their jobs," Hochman said. "And if it doesn't take anything to monitor these websites, to monitor the trials -- if that's the job that you have -- we assume you do your job right… The marginal cost of doing that job is zero, and that's why it all counts." Representing the investors' class, attorney Joseph Daley pushed back on the notion that the 2018 Reuters article merely rehashed existing information. "The defendants here insist that Reuters had nothing new, and that's not true," he told the court panel. "We know it's not true." Daley continued, noting that one of J&J's experts at trial conceded that the company's decision to ignore recommendations for more accurate asbestos testing methods was first disclosed by Reuters. Chung cast doubt on this assertion, however, noting that a separate article published over a year earlier than Reuters' used the same source to show that J&J neglected to use more accurate testing. Still, Daley argued, J&J has failed to disprove price impact, providing insufficient evidence to meet its burden. "They have none," Daley said. "There's no citation to a page in the appendix where they come forward and say, 'XYZ shows that we have disproved price impact.'" In lieu of evidence, Daley argued, J&J's arguments amount to little more than "casting some aspersions." "They've made some showing, but they haven't carried their burden of severing that link between their misconduct and then the obvious price impact that happens at the end of the class period," he said. Circuit Judge Patty Shwartz, a Barack Obama appointee, joined the panel. J&J is also awaiting a decision in bankruptcy court that could force a settlement for tens of thousands of mass tort litigants who say the company's baby powder caused them to develop ovarian and other cancers, preventing them or future individuals from seeking justice in court. With over 62,000 plaintiffs currently demanding compensation from J&J's subsidiary J&J Consumer Inc. -- which produced the talc baby powder -- the subsidiary began shielding its assets using a controversial legal tool known as the "Texas Two-Step." Step one of the Two-Step involves registering the subsidiary in Texas before taking advantage of the state's unique "divisive merger" law, which allows a company to split into two entities -- one that assumes all liabilities and one that retains nearly all assets. This prevents all litigants from demanding legal compensation from the asset-laden entity. In step two of the Texas Two-Step, the liability-bearing entity files for bankruptcy -- which freezes all related lawsuits, halting all litigants' attempts to receive compensation in court. Once the legal maneuver is complete, opponents argue, a company can use that red tape to pressure litigants into accepting lesser payments via a settlement. While a federal judge struck down J&J's first two attempts at the Texas Two-Step, the company's latest attempt remains pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. If the company is successful, litigants will be entitled to an approximately $9 billion settlement. [GN] KELSIER VENTURES: Faces Class Action Over Libra Token Scandal ------------------------------------------------------------- Brayden Lindrea of Cointelegraph reports that the Libra token scandal is set to be reviewed by the Supreme Court of New York after a newly filed class-action lawsuit accused its creators of misleading investors and siphoning over $100 million from one-sided liquidity pools. Burwick Law filed the suit on behalf of its clients against Kelsier Ventures, KIP Protocol and Meteora on March 17 for launching the Libra (LIBRA) token in a "deceptive, manipulative and fundamentally unfair" manner. The token was then promoted by Argentine President Javier Milei on X as an economic initiative to stimulate private-sector funding in the country. The law firm slammed the two crypto infrastructure and launchpad firms behind LIBRA -- KIP and Meteora -- claiming that they used a "predatory" one-sided liquidity pool to artificially inflate the memecoin's price, allowing insiders to profit while "everyday buyers bore the losses." Within hours, the insiders "rapidly siphoned approximately $107 million from the liquidity pools," causing a 94% crash in LIBRA's market value, Burwick Law said in a March 17 filing shared on X. President Milei was mentioned in the lawsuit but wasn't named a defendant. Burwick accused the defendants of leveraging Milei's influence to aggressively promote the token, deliberately creating a false sense of legitimacy and misleading investors about its economic potential. Approximately 85% of LIBRA's tokens were withheld at launch and the "predatory infrastructure techniques" allegedly used by the defendants weren't disclosed to investors, Burwick said. "These tactics, combined with omissions about the true liquidity structures, deprived investors of material information." Burwick is seeking compensatory and punitive damages, the disgorgement of "unjustly obtained" profits and injunctive relief to prevent further fraudulent token offerings. Cointelegraph reached out to KIP Protocol and Meteora but didn't receive an immediate response. Data from blockchain research firm Nansen found that of the 15,430 largest Libra wallets it examined, over 86% of those sold at a loss, combining for $251 million in losses. Only 2,101 profitable wallets were able to take home a combined $180 million in profit, Nansen noted in a Feb. 19 report. The venture capital firm behind the LIBRA token, Kelsier Ventures, and its CEO, Hayden Davis, were apparently two of the biggest winners from the token launch. They claim to have netted around $100 million. Davis, who is now facing a potential Interpol red notice following an Argentine lawyer's request, said on Feb. 17 that he didn't directly own the tokens and wouldn't sell them. Meanwhile, Milei has distanced himself from the memecoin, arguing he didn't "promote" the LIBRA token -- as fraud lawsuits filed against him have alleged -- and instead merely "spread the word" about it. Argentina's opposition party called for Milei's impeachment but has had limited success thus far. [GN] KIROMIC BIOPHARMA: Settles S.D.N.Y. Consolidated Shareholder Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kiromic BioPharma, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2025, that the company entered into a term sheet with the plaintiffs in a consolidated class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, to settle in principle. As of December 31, 2024, the company paid the totality of the settlement into an escrow account, of which $448,000 was payable as of December 31, 2023. The term sheet is subject to approval by said court. The company shall make cash consideration payments totaling $2,300,000 into an escrow account. The plaintiffs subsequently sent a letter to the Court on August 7, 2023, informing the court of the settlement in principle and requesting that the court stay all proceedings pending approval of the settlement. On August 5, 2022, a Ronald H. Karp alleged that the company and certain current and former officers and directors of the company for alleged violations of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the purchase of common stock through the company's public offering that closed on July 2, 2021. Kiromic BioPharma, Inc. and subsidiaries is a clinical stage fully integrated biotherapeutics company formed under the Texas Business Organizations Code in December 2012. It is an artificial intelligence driven, end-to-end allogeneic cell therapy company, currently developing multi-indication allogeneic T cell therapies that exploit the natural potency of Gamma Delta T cells to target solid tumors. KWH MERCHANDISING: Allen Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------ Aaron Allen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KWH MERCHANDISING INC. and KIRILL BICHUTSKY, Case No. 0:25-cv-60489-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 13, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA"), as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited text messages. To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging and continues to text message consumers after they have opted out of Defendant's solicitations. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person. The Defendant KWH is a foreign corporation whose principal office is located in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO PA 401 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954.400.4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com LEHIGH VALLEY: Agrees to Settle Cyberattack Class Suit for $65-Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dark Daily reports that Lehigh Valley Health Network (LVHN), one of the largest primary care groups in Pennsylvania, will pay out $65 million to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by the healthcare network's own patients (identified only as "Jane Doe" in court documents) following a ransomware attack early last year in which LVHN refused to pay the ransom. The payout may be the largest settlement for a single cyberattack to date and highlights the need for clinical laboratories and pathology groups to review their cyberattack defenses and incorporate steps to better secure patient protected health information (PHI), with one goal being to minimize the possibility of patients filing a class action lawsuit following a cyberattack. LVHN blamed ransomware group ALPHV (a.k.a., BlackCat) for the attack, Fierce Healthcare reported. The hackers gained access to gigabytes of personal data belonging to 134,000 patients and staff members. According to a news release LVHN issued in June, the private information the thieves obtained included, "names, addresses, phone numbers, medical record numbers, treatment and diagnosis information, including Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes, and health insurance information. For some individuals, the information included email addresses, banking information, Social Security numbers, and driver's license numbers. The information for a limited number of individuals included clinical images of patients during treatment." The case is worth attention because it casts light on what the health system administration did/did not do to prevent the data breach that enabled the hackers to post nude photos of cancer patients undergoing treatment and other patient PHI on the Internet. "When you go to the doctor's office, that's one place where you're anticipating that everyone is working to maintain your privacy, even though you have to open yourself up to be treated," said Patrick Howard, JD (above), partner at Philadelphia-based Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky P.C., who is representing the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit. "It wasn't lost on anyone that that was a very significant breach." Clinical laboratories are particularly vulnerable since as much as 80% of a patient's health record is lab test results and other data. (Photo copyright: Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky P.C.) The class action lawsuit was filed in March 2023 by a "Jane Doe" cancer patient whose data was hacked on behalf of herself and other victims of the cyberattack. The court documents recount how the unidentified plaintiff -- a woman in her 50s -- was "called by the hospital's vice president of compliance on March 6, with news that that naked images of her were now online, before offering -- 'with a chuckle' -- two years of credit monitoring services. The Jane Doe plaintiff responded that she had no idea that the hospital had taken photographs of her while unclothed during her treatment for breast cancer, nor that it was storing them on corporate servers." "The pictures are really difficult to look at," said Patrick Howard, JD, partner at Philadelphia-based Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky P.C. (SMB), who is representing the plaintiffs, in a news release. His legal team hired a cybersecurity expert who located the images the hackers had posted on the Dark Web, enabling them to "establish each person's information that was actually online." The plaintiff's attorney's argued LVHN failed in its responsibility to protect patient information and were in violation of HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996). The class action lawsuit also alleges LVHN routinely took photos of naked cancer patients, sometimes without their knowledge. Some of those photos were published by BlackCat on the Dark Web. "While LVHN is publicly patting itself on the back for standing up to these hackers and refusing to meet their ransom demands, they are consciously and intentionally ignoring the real victims," the lawsuit states. "Rather than act in their patients' best interest, LVHN put its own financial considerations first." The law firm also stated this settlement is "the largest of its kind, on a per-patient basis, in a healthcare data breach ransomware case," The Register reported. Patients affected by the security breach were placed in relief tiers based on the private information that was stolen and leaked. The compensatory breakdown for those patients is: -- $50 to patients whose records were hacked. -- $1,000 to patients who had their information posted online. -- $7,500 to patients whose non-nude photos were posted online. -- $70,000 to $80,000 for patients who had their nude photos posted online. "We struck the right deal," Howard told WHYY News. "The vast majority of that money is going to mostly women whose images were published online, in topless fashion, with both their face exposed and their name in the files." Game Changing Data Breach LVHN originally announced an attack had been detected in February 2023. On March 4, 2023, the ALPHV hackers demanded a ransom in excess of $5 million from LVHN, threatening to distribute the stolen data unless the ransom was paid. LVHN refused to pay the ransom which led to the cybercriminals uploading the stolen data to the Dark Web. "Attacks like this are reprehensible and we are dedicating appropriate resources to respond to this incident," stated Brian Nester, DO, President and CEO, LVHN, in a news release. "The type of data that was exposed, it's a game changer," said Carter Groome, founder and CEO of digital-risk firm First Health Advisory in the SMB news release. "This was so much more of a tangible, direct distress to those people who trusted the organization." "Pictures are part of medical care. That's something that they do to track scarring and all sorts of things. But they are the most delicate and sensitive medical information," Howard told WHYY News. "I think this case will be talked about in healthcare circles for some time in best practices in storing those types of images." Patients had until October 21, 2024, to exclude themselves from or object to the settlement. The deadline to submit a claim form was November 3, 2024, and the final approval hearing was held on November 15, 2024. LVHN agreed to the terms of the settlement, whilst denying any wrongdoing on its part. Individuals in the settlement class who chose to participate in the lawsuit will be sent payment automatically. LVHN has established a website for people seeking information about the cyberattack. As ransomware attacks continue to increase, clinical laboratories and pathology groups should review their cyberattack defenses and determine how to better secure their patients' protected health information. Taking necessary precautions could minimize the possibility of patient data being compromised and prevent another huge class-action lawsuit. [GN] LG ELECTRONICS: Consumers Sue Over Oven Ranges' Defective Knobs --------------------------------------------------------------- Leah S. Poniatowski, J.D., writing for VitalLaw, reports that putative class member filed complaint seeking more action to protect consumers from unintentional activation of knobs. An electric oven range manufacturer's proposed remedy to a recall of 500,000 of its units—to place a warning sticker on the appliance -- fell short of a consumer's expectations, prompting him to file a products liability-based lawsuit against the manufacturer to remedy the risks posed by the knobs (Adams v. LG Electronics USA Inc., No. 2:25-cv-1723 (D.N.J. Mar. 7, 2025)). Alleged facts. The consumer alleged that LG Electronics USA Inc., had sold 22 models of the LG Slide-In Ranges and Freestanding Ranges during 2015 through January 2025 at major retailers and through its website for $1,400 and up to $2,650. The feature at issue are the front-mounted knobs that, according to reports filed with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CSPC), could be unintentionally activated, especially by pets or children. Roughly 86 reports of such incidents had been filed with the CSPC, describing burns, pet deaths, and damages from fire exceeding $340,000. The CSPC announced a recall of around 500,000 ranges on February 6, 2025, and cautioned owners of the ranges should keep pets and children away from the appliance and to not leave any items on the range. LG Electronics proposed to provide consumers a warning sticker for the appliances as its remedy to the issue. The consumer asserted in his complaint that this proposed "fix" was inadequate in light of the hazards presented by the appliance, instead seeking a full refund as "the proper method of recall." Failure to warn. The consumer alleged that the manufacturer had a duty to warn consumers of the risk based on its superior position to know of the defect but took no action when it became aware of the defect. Additionally, the consumer contended that the manufacturer concealed its knowledge of the defect in spite of its obligation to strengthen the warning to consumers. Further, the class members would not have purchased the appliances if they had knowledge of the risks associated with them, and that the manufacturer proximately caused their damages. The consumer's allegation included failure to warn premised on both strict liability and negligence theories of law. Design defect. The consumer alleged that the design of the appliances was defective and unreasonably dangerous vis-a-vis the fire hazard presented by the front-mounted knobs on the appliance. The consumer alleged that the manufacture knew or should have known of the defect but continued to market the range as safe and effective to the public. The consumer contended that there are other ranges that are not fire hazards, thus indicating that there are other safer means of production available to the manufacturer. Further, the product did not perform as an ordinary consumer would expect and the class members seek damages as available by law. The consumer's allegation included design defect premised on both strict liability and negligence theories of law. Negligence. The consumer also alleged that the manufacturer was liable under a negligence theory of law because the manufacturer owed a duty to produce a product safe for its intended use, the dangerous nature of the appliance breached this duty, the consumer and other class members had been injured as a result of this breach, and the injuries were proximately caused by the manufacturer's breach. Finally, the injuries should be compensated in an amount to be determined at trial. Remaining claims. The consumer also alleged claims for breach of implied warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and common law fraud. The consumer also presented his arguments on the certification of a class of consumers of the appliances and requested a trial by jury. The case is No. 2:25-cv-1723. Attorneys: Lisa R. Considine (Siri & Glimstad LLP) for Erick Adams. Companies: LG Electronics USA Inc. [GN] LOBLAW COS: Settles Bread Price Fixing Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Rosa Saba of The Canadian Press, in an article for Yahoo! Finance, reports that Loblaw Cos. Ltd. and its parent company George Weston Ltd. have executed a settlement over a pair of class-action lawsuits related to an alleged industry-wide scheme to fix the price of bread. The $500 million settlement was announced last year. The lawyers involved in the case say the agreement was executed on Jan. 31, though it is still subject to court approval in Ontario and Quebec. Loblaw and George Weston are paying a combined $404 million, with the remaining $96 million accounted for through Loblaw's gift card program announced in 2017. The class-action lawsuits allege the defendants conspired to fix the price of packaged bread in Canada. The lawyers say the settlement also provides access to information that will be used in continuing the cases against the remaining defendants: Canada Bread, Sobeys, Metro, Walmart Canada and Giant Tiger. This includes a wide swath of documents relating to price increases for bread between 2001 and 2016, as well as sales data. Under the co-operation agreement, Loblaw and George Weston also agree to provide the plaintiffs with assistance in understanding the documents and data, will make their lawyers available to the plaintiffs, and will help identify and produce witnesses. "This is significant for us, and it's really going to help us in the ongoing litigation," said Jay Strosberg, managing partner at Strosberg Wingfield Sasso LLP, which represents the plaintiffs in the Ontario lawsuit. Loblaw and George Weston are the only companies that have settled in the class-action lawsuits. They previously admitted their participation in the alleged scheme as part of the Competition Bureau's ongoing investigation, receiving immunity as a result. Canada Bread has pleaded guilty to four counts of price-fixing in the Competition Bureau investigation but, like the other class-action defendants that remain, denies participating in a wide-ranging conspiracy. Metro and Sobeys have accused Loblaw and George Weston of conspiring to implicate them in the alleged scheme. The two companies denied the allegations. The Competition Bureau began investigating alleged bread price-fixing in January 2016. It said at least $1.50 was added to the price of a loaf of bread due to the alleged 14-year conspiracy. Twenty-two per cent of the settlement funds, minus court-approved expenses, will be distributed to eligible class members in Quebec. The rest will go to eligible members outside Quebec. "This resolution not only acknowledges the harm caused, but it also provides the relief Canadian consumers deserve," said Joey Zukran, founder of LPC Avocats, which is leading the Quebec class action, in a press release. Individuals who bought packaged bread in the province between Jan. 1, 2001 and Dec. 31, 2021, are automatically included in either the Quebec class action -- for Quebec residents who bought bread in Quebec -- or the Ontario class action, for everyone else. The deadline to opt out of the Quebec settlement is May 30, while the deadline to opt out of the Ontario settlement is April 25. The deadline to object to or comment on the settlement is May 30. [GN] LOGIKA LLC: Parties in Ray Suit Seek to Amend Scheduling Order -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DYLAN RAY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. LOGIKA, LLC D/B/A FRATELLI RISTORANTE & PIZZERIA AND JOSEPH CUTRONE, Case No. 0:24-cv-03683-CMC (D.S.C.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion to amend scheduling order and extend deadline for the Defendants to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification. Pursuant to Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 6.01, and for good cause shown, the Plaintiff Ray, along with the Defendants Logika, request that the Scheduling Order entered by the Court on August 22, 2024, be amended to extend all remaining deadlines by 90 days and that Defendants response to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification be extended by 30 days. Logika is coaching and consulting firm specializing in helping organizations and individuals become more effective. A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xjSEjq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marybeth Mullaney, Esq. MULLANEY LAW 4900 O'Hear Avenue, Ste 100 & 200 Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (843) 588-5587 E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net - and - Emmanuel J. Ferguson, Sr., Esq. FERGUSON LAW AND MEDIATION, LLC 171 Church Street, Suite 160 Charleston, SC 29401 Telephone: (843) 491- 4890 The Defendants are represented by: Michael D. Malone, Esq. MALONE, THOMPSON, SUMMERS & OTT LLC 339 Heyward Street, Suite 200 Columbia, SC 29201 E-mail: malone@mtsolawfirm.com LONG BEACH CITY: Part-Time Faculty Wins Underpayment Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Sofia Hopkins and Enrique Martinez, writing for LBCC Viking News, report that Long Beach City College lost a class-action lawsuit served by part-time professors over its failure to pay adjuncts a fair and livable wage, a ruling that will hold extensive financial repercussions for the college and change the state of higher education. The recent win causes LBCC to pay part-time faculty for the work they do outside of the classroom, in addition to instructional hours. Judge Stuart M. Rice's verdict opens up the possibility for LBCC to provide back pay to adjunct professors going back to 2019. However, the college's budget will not be able to accommodate back pay for the thousands of hours of work done by adjuncts since 2019. The lawsuit was originally filed by adjunct art professor Karen Roberts, who was then joined by adjunct art professor Seija Rohkea when the lawsuit turned into a class-action. LBCC has been completely aware of the lack of compensation given to part-time faculty. "One of the things that the judge said was that Long Beach City College knew that they were asking us to work outside of our teaching hours," Roberts said. Part-time professors have long felt unsatisfied by their wages. "We are only paid to teach, we are not compensated for office hours, grading or any non-instructional hours…We insist on a living wage for part-timers for all the work that they do, not just instructional work, all of the work," CHI Union President Crystal Huckabee told the Viking in 2023. CHI, which stands for the Certified Hourly Instructors, is the union for part-time employees at LBCC. Full-time faculty receive compensation for work both in and outside of the classroom. "We get paid probably a third of what full-time professors do. When you think about it, part-time faculty make up two-thirds of the faculty on campus. We're held to the same standard, we teach the same students, but all of the prep work and emails? None of that is compensated," Huckabee said. Regardless, these professors continue to work despite performing unpaid labor for the good of their students. "I teach about eight hours every week. When it comes to grading, I could easily spend 10 hours outside of the classroom," LBCC English adjunct instructor, Michelle Draper, said. These hours easily add up semester to semester, and Roberts took notice. The lawsuit turned into a class-action in 2022, meaning any part time professor at LBCC could join Roberts in the fight for fair wages. "The CTA (California Teachers Association) legal team felt that we might be able to bring a class action lawsuit based on proof that we are not exempt from minimum wage laws. If we could prove that we are not exempt from minimum wage laws, that would mean that the district needs to be paying us for the additional work that we do," Roberts said. Rohkea, who holds a full-time position at Fullerton college, used to refer to her teaching position as "fun and free work." "All of that work was being done for free, and it was no longer fun. I started really feeling the exploitation of our labor. So in 2022, when I was asked to hop on board with this class action, I was more than ready," Rohkea said. This was not the first time that adjunct professors have asked for better wages. "I was president of CHI for eight years, every time we'd go into bargaining the district refused to pay us for the work that we do outside of the classroom, " Roberts said. The CHI union contract with LBCC states, "The District shall provide CHI time during College Day of each school year to conduct a general membership meeting and meet with bargaining unit members regarding association business." The bargaining done by the union provided little achievement for the adjuncts. "The district has never allowed us to bargain the hours we are paid. They have not budged on the poverty wages. I am sorry that it took a lawsuit to change it," Huckabee said. Roberts, Rohkea, and other part-time professors were advocated for by attorney Eileen Goldsmith. "How has this been allowed to go on for so long and what can we do about it? The college continues to exploit part-time faculty, they can barely make ends meet. It's a terrible system, we're trying to reform it," Goldsmith said. This lawsuit gives precedent to other community college adjuncts to ask for the same wages. "To set precedence for other adjuncts is the reason we do this. I'm hoping that the California Ed code eventually changes because of this. A disservice on one is a disservice on all," Rohkea said. Currently, there are four other lawsuits in California regarding the same issue, namely one against the Los Angeles Community College District. According to their website, the Los Angeles Community College District is the largest community college district in the nation and consists of nine colleges. "There are approximately 40,000 adjunct faculty teaching in higher education in the state of California alone, so most higher ed uses adjunct faculty," Roberts said. LBCC still has the chance to appeal the decision, which Roberts believes is what will happen. "I would hope not. They're breaking federal labor codes," Huckabee said. Goldsmith believes that it would be difficult for Long Beach City College District to appeal the decision successfully. When asked for a comment, LBCC President Mike Munoz and Carl Kemp, the executive director of public affairs both answered, "We don't speak on pending litigation." LBCC is faced with the decision to either comply with the ruling and burden themselves financially, or to appeal the decision and attempt to continue underpaying their employees. [GN] LOS ANGELES, CA: Verdin Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE VERDIN, et al. v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-08892-AH-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on April 9, 2025, will move the Court for an order conditionally certifying an "Opt-In" Collective Action, Under section 16(B) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for purpose of providing notice to Prospective Collective Action Members. The Plaintiffs are similarly situated to all individuals employed by Defendant City of Los Angeles as a law enforcement officers subject to 29 U.S.C. section 207(k), who were not classified as exempt from the requirement to pay overtime compensation, who received Education Incentive pay, and who were subject to MOU Number 24 at any time between October 15, 2021, and the present date. The action seeks to recover back overtime wages and liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA. The Plaintiffs are seeking to recover overtime wages they were not paid during their employment based on Defendant’s failure to include their fixed "Education Incentive" compensation in their regular rate of pay when calculating overtime compensation. the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees were frequently required to work overtime hours without timely receipt of all their overtime compensation in violation of FLSA Section 207(a)(1). Los Angeles is a sprawling Southern California city and the center of the nation's film and television industry. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oHjvfN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew F. Archbold, Esq. David D. Deason, Esq. DEASON & ARCHBOLD 17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Telephone: (949) 794-9560 E-mail: matthew@yourlaborlawyers.com david@yourlaborlawyers.com LOTTERY.COM INC: Court Narrows Claims in Lottery Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE LOTTERY.COM, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-07111 (JLR) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jennifer L. Rochon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss the Class Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint and Harold M. Hoffman's Second Amended Complaint. The case stems from allegations that the company and its executives misrepresented their financial condition and regulatory compliance following their 2021 merger with Trident Acquisitions Corp. In 2021, Trident Acquisitions Corp., a special-purpose acquisition company, announced a merger with Lottery, an online lottery-sales company. This merger led to two securities-fraud lawsuits that have now been consolidated into one case. The first lawsuit was filed by RTD Bros LLC, Todd Benn, Tom Benn, Tomasz Rzedzian, and Preston Million ("Class Plaintiffs"). They brought a class action against Lottery (formerly Trident) and several individual defendants: Lawrence Anthony "Tony" DiMatteo, Matthew Clemenson, Ryan Dickinson, and Vadim Komissarov. The Class Plaintiffs raised four claims: (i) Violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by Lottery, DiMatteo, Clemenson, and Dickinson; (ii) Section 20(a) liability for DiMatteo, Clemenson, and Dickinson as controlling persons regarding the conduct behind the first claim; (iii) Violations of Section 14(a) and Rule 14a-9 due to misleading proxy statements; and (iv) Section 20(a) liability for DiMatteo, Clemenson, Dickinson, and Komissarov as controlling persons concerning the alleged false and misleading proxy statements. The class period is defined as Oct. 18, 2021, to July 29, 2022. The second lawsuit was filed by attorney Harold M. Hoffman, acting on his own behalf. Hoffman's lawsuit names the same defendants and includes three claims: (i) violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 by Lottery, DiMatteo, Clemenson, and Dickinson; (ii) Section 20(a) liability for the individual defendants as controlling persons regarding the first claim; and (iii) Section 20(a) liability for the individual defendants related to alleged false and misleading statements in the October 18, 2021, proxy statement and prospectus. On Feb. 6, 2024, the Court dismissed both the Class Plaintiffs' and Hoffman's initial complaints without prejudice for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Both parties then filed amended complaints, and the Court is now considering motions to dismiss these revised complaints. The lawsuit highlights the 2021 business combination between Lottery and Trident, a special-purpose acquisition company (SPAC), as the catalyst for the alleged fraud. The Plaintiffs argue that, in an effort to secure the merger and maintain stock value, the Defendants orchestrated a sham financial transaction that made the company appear more profitable than it actually was. The complaint also alleges that the company falsely assured investors it was in full compliance with state lottery laws, while an internal investigation later revealed widespread violations. The Defendants sought to have the case dismissed, arguing that the Plaintiffs failed to establish scienter (fraudulent intent) and relied on speculation rather than concrete evidence. They contended that the financial statements in question were forward-looking projections protected by the "bespeaks caution" doctrine and that there was no strong inference that the executives acted with intent to defraud. In her ruling, Judge Rochon determined that some of the Plaintiffs' claims were sufficiently supported to proceed, while others did not meet the legal threshold for securities fraud. She ruled that: (i) the Class Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claim will proceed against Dickinson and Lottery based on post-merger representations regarding Lottery's financial performance and financial reporting; (ii) the Class Plaintiffs' and Hoffman's Section 20(a) claim premised on Section 10(b) will likewise proceed against Dickinson; (iii) the Class Plaintiffs' Section 14(a) claim shall proceed against the Lottery Defendants with respect to certain legal and regulatory compliance statements in the Proxy; and (iv) the remainder of the Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed, including all claims against Komissarov. The Plaintiffs have leave to amend within 21 days of the Court's Opinion and Order. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motions at Dkts. 160, 163, 166, 169, 172, 176, and 180. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mtay7s6c from PacerMonitor.com. LOUIS VUITTON: Court Affirms Dismissal of Wage Suppression Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Josh Russell, writing for Courthouse News Services, reports that a federal appeals court on Thursday, March 13, affirmed a lower court's dismissal of an antitrust class action brought by luxury retail employees who claimed that "no-hire" clauses in agreements for salespeople working at high-end brand retailers like Saks, Gucci, and Louis Vuitton hindered their wages and restricted professional mobility. "The amended complaint alleges in a purely conclusory fashion that plaintiffs' own suppressed wages and decreased mobility 'spread through the market for Luxury Retail Employees,'" the appeals judges wrote in their unsigned order. "But the amended complaint contains no specific allegations regarding the suppression of compensation or mobility among luxury retail employees 'market-wide,' that is, nationally, among all businesses employing such workers." The ex-employees brought a class action in 2020 claiming Louis Vuitton, Loro Piana, Gucci, Prada, Brunello Cucinelli and Fendi conspired with Saks beginning in 2014, agreeing not to hire applicants who worked at Saks within the previous six months without permission from Saks management. Because of the lack of competition spurred by the conspiracy, the former employees claimed they received lower pay. Chief U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York Margo Brodie dismissed the case in March 2023, finding the four-year statute of limitations for federal antitrust claims had passed and that the employees failed to establish a claim on which relief could be granted. On appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the former employees argued that competition among the luxury brands took a wage-lowering hit, too, thanks to the agreements. "If there had been competition for Saks employees with the brand defendants, that would have caused Saks to raise their pay -- which would have in turn caused the brand defendants to raise their pay," attorney Daniel Walker of the Washington-based firm Berger Montague said at oral arguments before the appeals panel. "Perhaps to prevent employees from moving -- or to prevent Saks from poaching those employees." The Second Circuit nonetheless concluded that the lower court appropriately dismissed the plaintiffs' amended complaint because they failed to "plausibly allege market-wide harm." The three-judge panel wrote the ex-employees failed to provide any "meaningful information" that would quantify the number of employment opportunities foreclosed by the "no-hire" agreements in relation to the number of employment opportunities that remain open, unaffected by the agreements. The panel was composed of Joe Biden-appointed U.S. Circuit Judges Sarah A. L. Merriam and Maria Araujo Kahn, as well as U.S. Circuit Judge Pierre N. Leval, a Bill Clinton appointee. The luxury brands argued the federal district court was right to apply the "rule of regal" legal standard examining both the positive and negative effects of an agreement before determining whether it violates antitrust laws -- in other words, whether a practice's anticompetitive harm is outweighed by its effectiveness in promoting competition. Attorney Mark Andrew Perry of Washington firm Weil, Gotshal & Manges said the collaboration among his clients was a positive outweighing any negative effect of the agreements with Saks. "What did the brand defendants get? They got reduced rates within Saks' doors, and they got access to the Saks' customers, those are vertical considerations," Perry said. "And in exchange, they gave up the ability to recruit Saks employees. That is still part of the same vertical relationship that is in the same market." The U.S. government filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiff employees and agreed that the lower court should have applied the per se rule. "Each of the agreements between Saks and the brand defendants is horizontal," Justice Department attorney Matthew Waring said. "They are concededly competitors for these luxury retail employees, and they are agreeing to a restraint that affects how they will compete for these workers." [GN] LYFT INC: Dismissed ADA Suit Under Appeal in Second Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Lyft, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2025, that in July 2024, the company went to trial in federal court in New York to defend against a class action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and New York law with respect to the company's wheelchair accessible vehicle offerings, seeking injunctive and other relief, in "Lowell v. Lyft, Inc." The district court dismissed the suit and entered judgment in favor of the company. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on October 29, 2024, and the appeal is now pending before the Second Circuit Court of Appeal. On September 30, 2024, the district court ruled that plaintiffs failed to sustain their burden of proof that the modifications they proposed at trial would result in nationwide implementation. Lyft, Inc. operates multimodal transportation networks in the United States and Canada that offer access to a variety of transportation options through its platform and mobile-based applications. MARIO'S AIR: Germain Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HELENA GERMAIN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. MARIO'S AIR CONDITIONING AND HEATING, INC., SEHS HVAC MARIOS LLC, AND WHITWILD MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 8:23-cv-00671-TPB-CPT (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting a motion for class certification pursuant to fed. r. civ. p. 23(b)(3). Mario's offers repair, installation, maintenance, duct cleaning, air quality testing. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tD3ZL5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan L. McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio S., #101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com MARK FOREMAN: Terry's Bid for Class Certification Tossed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAMILIA T. TERRY, et al., v. MARK FOREMAN, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00176-MJN-SKB (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Michael Newman entered an order: (1) Adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge in its entirety; (2) Denying the Plaintiff's motion seeking class certification; (3) Dismissing all of Plaintiff Terry's claims for relief in the amended complaint; (4) Specifying that all claims based on conduct that allegedly occurred prior to June 17, 2022, and all claims set forth in paragraphs 69 through 72 of the amended complaint, are dismissed with prejudice and all other claims are dismissed without prejudice; (5) Granting Interested Party State of Ohio's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; (6) Certifying, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(a)(3), that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith, and finds that the Plaintiff should be denied in forma pauperis status on appeal; and (7) Terminating this case on the Court's docket. A copy of the Court's order dated March 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bB0DzN at no extra charge.[CC] MATT BLATT: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Roa ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCISCO ROA, v. MATT BLATT DEALERSHIPS, ET AL., Case No. 1:25-cv-01502-ALC-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management: All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23), must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. Parties and counsel are cautioned: Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. It is the Court's practice to decide discovery disputes at the Rule 37.2 conference, based on the parties' letters, unless a party requests or the Court requires more formal briefing. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court proceeding (including a telephonic court conference) or to extend a deadline must be made in writing and in compliance with § 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone requests for adjournments or extensions will not be entertained. The Court notes that plaintiff has yet to appear through counsel in this Court, although this case was removed on Feb. 21, 2025. Matt Blatt provides great deals for new and used cars. A copy of the Court's order dated March 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Dpu9h7 at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2599: Court Amends Order on Washington Statutory Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 1:15-md-02599-FAM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Federico Moreno entered an order granting in part the Defendant's motion to alter or amend order as to the Washington Statutory Class. The Court notes that the Order Granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion for Class Certification, filed on Feb. 26, 2025, provided incorrect classification for the Plaintiff Goldberg's claims under the Washington Consumer Protection Act. The Court inadvertently labeled the class as a multistate class as opposed to a single-state class. Accordingly, Mercedes-Benz's Motion is GRANTED IN PART. The Court amends the language of paragraph 6 on pages 38 and 39 of the Order as folows: The Plaintiffs' request to certify a single-state class for the Plaintiff William Goldbergs statutory claim under the Washington Consumer Protection Act pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure23(b)(3)is granted. The Court's analysis on pages 31 and 32 of the Order remains the same, save for the language categorizing this class as a multistate class that includes lowa, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Oregon. In other words, the Court clarifies that predominance is met for the reasons it stated in its Order, but only as to this single-state class under Washington law. The Court defers ruling on the remainder of Mercedes-Benz's motion until it has been fully briefed. A copy of the Court's order dated March 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZXjJnL at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2599: Mercedes-Benz Seeks Reconsideration of Class Cert Order ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHANIE PUHALLA, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC (RE: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation), Case No. 1:15-md-02599-FAM (S.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order to reconsider its Order Granting in Part Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. MBUSA requests that the Court reconsider its Order and (1) not certify any multistate consumer-protection class; (2) not certify any class covering claims under the consumer- protection statutes of Mississippi or Oregon, since no such claims are pleaded or extant here; (3) not certify any multistate fraud class, or any single-state North Carolina consumer-protection class, because North Carolina law (which governs the remaining proposed class representative’s fraud claim) does not permit a class- wide presumption of reliance; (4) not certify any multistate class under North Carolina law because North Carolina's duty to disclose arises only in "arm's length negotiations," which bars the claims for all or substantially all class members— including Bridges, who purchased her car used and is the sole representative for this class—and renders North Carolina law substantially different from any states in the proposed multistate fraud class that would apply a duty to disclose in this case; and (5) not certify any class, because plaintiffs have not made and cannot make the requisite showings under Rule 23. In April 2023, plaintiffs moved to certify two multistate classes and five single-state classes: (1) a multistate fraud class comprising purchasers from Georgia, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, with Paulette Calhoun (Georgia), Daphne Bridges (North Carolina), and Theresa Radican (Rhode Island) as class representatives; (2) a multistate consumer-protection class comprising purchasers from Rhode Island, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Vermont, and West Virginia, with Radican (Rhode Island) as the sole class representative; and (3) single-state classes as follows: (a) Iowa purchasers with claims for common-law fraud or under the Iowa Consumer Frauds Act, with Susan Knapp as class representative; (b) Mississippi purchasers with claims for common-law fraud or breach of implied warranty, with Bettie Taylor as class representative; (c) North Carolina purchasers with claims under the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, with Bridges as class representative; (d) Oregon purchasers with claims for common-law fraud or under the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, with Jack and Nancy Phillips as class representatives; (e) Washington purchasers with claims for common-law fraud or under the Washington Consumer Protection Act, with Goldberg as class representative. In June 2023, the Court issued orders certifying classes as to plaintiffs' claims against FCA, but issued no such order as to MBUSA. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ioB4Gv at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Raoul G. Cantero, Esq. Jaime A. Bianchi, Esq. Sheldon A. Philp, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP 200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4900 Miami, FL 33131-2352 Telephone: (305) 371-2700 Facsimile: (305) 358-5744 E-mail: raoul.cantero@whitecase.com jbianchi@whitecase.com sphilp@whitecase.com - and - Troy M. Yoshino, Esq. Eric J. Knapp, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 101 California Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94111-5891 Telephone: (415) 591-1000 Facsimile: (415) 591-1400 E-mail: TYoshino@winston.com EKnapp@winston.com MDL 2724: DPPs' Class Certification Bid Granted 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 Cynthia Rufe entered an order granting direct purchaser plaintiffs' (DPPs') motion for class certification. In addition, the DPPs are directed to file exhibits to their motion for class certification in accordance with the Court's sealing order. The Court says that on March 7, 2025, upon consideration of the Motion for Class Certification [16-CM-27242: Doc. No. 84; 16-CB-27242: Doc. No. 134], as well as the responses and replies thereto, and after hearings and arguments held on December 18, 2024, the DPPs' motion is granted. A copy of the Court's order dated March 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xE5SXW at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2724: EPP's Bid for Class Cert Partly 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 grants in part End-Payer Plaintiffs' (EPPs') motion for class certification as to the Antitrust and Consumer Protection classes and denies in part as to the Unjust Enrichment class. Accordingly, the Court is satisfied with the EPPs' ability to establish impact and damages through common proof for two of their proposed classes. Joinder or individual suits in these cases, where potentially thousands of individual actions could arise in place of class action, would be untenable and detrimental to judicial economy. Further, although the court in Niaspan found that class certification was not a superior method of adjudication where the class action proceeded under 53 state laws arising from 26 jurisdictions, that court determined that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently demonstrated that variations in state law would be manageable. The Court has determined that EPPs have successfully presented evidence that those variations could be manageably addressed for the Antitrust and Consumer Protection classes. The superiority requirement is thus satisfied. EPPs moved for class certification in the Clobetasol and Clomipramine cases. EPPs sought to certify the following classes of end payer plaintiffs who allege injury arising from the allegedly anticompetitive actions by Defendants: For Clomipramine: -- Antitrust Damages Class "All Third-Party Payers who indirectly purchased, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price for Defendants’ generic Clomipramine products (generic clomipramine hydrochloride 25, 50, or 75 mg capsules) purchased in the Antitrust Damages Jurisdictions at retail or via mail-order, for personal use by their members, enrollees or beneficiaries and not for resale, from Aug. 1, 2013 through Dec. 31, 2018." -- Consumer Protection and Unfair Competition Damages Class "All Third-Party Payers who indirectly purchased, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price for Defendants' generic Clomipramine products (generic clomipramine hydrochloride 25, 50, or 75 mg capsules) purchased in the Consumer Protection Damages Jurisdictions at retail or via mail-order, for personal use by their members, enrollees or beneficiaries and not for resale, from Aug. 1, 2013 through Dec. 31, 2018." -- Unjust Enrichment Class: "All Third-Party Payers who indirectly purchased, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price for Defendants' generic Clomipramine products (generic clomipramine hydrochloride 25, 50, or 75 mg capsules) purchased in the Unjust Enrichment Jurisdictions at retail or via mail-order, for personal use by their members, enrollees or beneficiaries and not for resale, from Aug. 1, 2013 through Dec. 31, 2018." Exclusions Excluded from each of the three Classes are: (a) Defendants, their subsidiaries, and affiliates; (b) all federal governmental entities; (c) all state governmental entities; and (d) Third-Party Payers for purchases made pursuant to any Medicaid plan, whether fee-for-service or Managed Medicaid. For the avoidance of doubt, the Classes do not include: (a) natural person consumers; (b) Pharmacy Benefit Managers [PBM]; or (c) purchases made other than via retail or mail order. The Classes do include: cities, towns, municipalities, or counties with self-funded prescription drug plans. For Clobetasol: -- "Antitrust Damages Class All Third-Party Payers who indirectly purchased, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price for the Defendants' generic Clobetasol products (generic clobetasol propionate cream, emollient cream, ointment, solution and gel) purchased in the Antitrust Damages Jurisdictions at retail or via mail-order, for personal use by their members, enrollees or beneficiaries and not for resale, from Sept. 1, 2014 through Dec. 31, 2018." -- Consumer Protection and Unfair Competition Damages Class "All Third-Party Payers who indirectly purchased, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price for Defendants' generic Clobetasol products (generic clobetasol propionate cream, emollient cream, ointment, solution and gel) purchased in the Consumer Protection Damages Jurisdictions at retail or via mail-order, for personal use by their members, enrollees or beneficiaries and not for resale, from Sept. 1, 2014 through Dec. 31, 2018." -- Unjust Enrichment Class "All Third-Party Payers who indirectly purchased, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price for Defendants' generic Clobetasol products (generic clobetasol propionate cream, emollient cream, ointment, solution and gel) purchased in the Unjust Enrichment Jurisdictions at retail or via mail-order, for personal use by their members, enrollees or beneficiaries and not for resale, from Sept. 1, 2014 through Dec. 31, 2018." Exclusions Excluded from each of the three Classes are: (a) Defendants, their subsidiaries, and affiliates; (b) all federal governmental entities; (c) all state governmental entities; and (d) Third-Party Payers for purchases made pursuant to any Medicaid plan, whether fee-for-service or Managed Medicaid. For the avoidance of doubt, the Classes do not include: (a) natural person consumers; (b) Pharmacy Benefit Managers; or (c) purchases made other than via retail or mail order. The Classes do include: cities, towns, municipalities, or counties with self-funded prescription drug plans. 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=BGgR23 at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2833: Court Tosses Class Claims in Federal Student Loan Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: FEDLOAN STUDENT LOAN: SERVICING LITIGATION, MDL No. 18-2833 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Plaintiffs, a group of thirty-three federal student loan borrowers, filed these putative class actions against the U.S. Department of Education ("DOE") and the Secretary of Education, and one of the Department's contractual student loan servicers, the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency ("PHEAA"), based on alleged administration and servicing errors relating to three federal student borrower benefit programs: (1) the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grant Program ("TEACH Program"), (2) the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program ("PSLF Program"), and (3) the income driven repayment ("IDR") plans. They bring federal claims against the Department under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and bring common law breach of contract claims premised on various contracts governing their federal student loans. Against PHEAA, the Plaintiffs assert various state common law claims and claims for violations of various state consumer protection statutes. Defendants DOE and PHEAA moved to dismiss, asserting that: (i) the Plaintiffs lacked standing, as many had already received full relief; (ii) the claims were moot, as policy changes had addressed loan servicing errors and (iii) no constitutional violations occurred because the plaintiffs had no legal entitlement to further relief. The Plaintiffs sought to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but the Defendants argued that the proposed class did not meet the typicality, predominance, and ascertainability requirements, as each Plaintiff's claims required individualized assessment. Judge Alejandro ruled that the Plaintiffs either lacked standing or their claims were moot, noting that full relief had already been granted to those whose TEACH Grants were converted to loans. She further found that PSLF Plaintiffs had not yet satisfied the program's 120-payment requirement, rendering their claims premature. Judge Alejandro also determined that DOE's policy changes, including the PSLF Waiver and IDR reforms, had resolved the issues raised. Additionally, Judge Alejandro held that individual inquiries would predominate over common claims, making class certification improper. Based on these findings, the court granted the motion to dismiss and struck the class allegations. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/4emzs4rh from PacerMonitor.com. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FL: Faces Suit Over School Bus Camera Program ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sophia Hernandez, writing for NBC6, reports that a class action lawsuit has now been filed against the various entities that make up the school bus camera program on behalf of Miami-Dade drivers. The complaint was filed last week, and the attorneys claim that their client and other Miami-Dade drivers have not been given hearing dates after they tried to fight their citation ticket. Gino Moreno, one of the attorneys representing drivers, says it's not giving drivers their constitutional right to due process. "What we are requesting is that whether you are at fault or not at fault, you are entitled to compensation," Moreno said. The federal complaint is against Miami-Dade County, Miami-Dade County Public Schools, and BusPatrol. The reason the Sheriff's Office was not specifically named was because it formed as an independent state office after the agreement was signed. "There was a resolution that was signed back in the summer between the school board, BusPatrol, and then it was the county, but acting on behalf of the Sheriff's Department. So, when we say the county, it's adding, incorporating the sheriff's department as well," Moreno said. Moreno claimed his client received a $225 ticket in January of this year for passing a stopped school bus, but told NBC6 that when he tried to contest the citation, he was never granted a hearing date. The complaint states that "faced with the potential repercussions of a UTC and a deadline to pay by March 6, 2025, [the driver] reluctantly paid the fine." It's what prompted Moreno and his partners to file a class action lawsuit last Wednesday, March 12, on behalf of all Miami-Dade drivers claiming the camera program "not only deprived citizens of Miami-Dade County of their property without lawful justification but also enriched the defendants at the expense of the public under questionable legal and ethical circumstances." "While the program might have been well-intentioned, I think it's clear they prioritized revenue generation over rights," Moreno said. The lawsuit alleges that 120,000 violation notices were issued since the start of the program. However, the Clerk of Court and Comptroller told NBC6 that since August, there have been 1,404 contestations filed by the Miami-Dade Sheriff's Office in the statewide portal. The Eleventh Judicial Court, which is the entity responsible for the scheduling of hearings, told NBC6 that contested notices of violation began to be received on Jan. 17 of this year. NBC6 is still waiting for answers to questions related to hearing dates for drivers. The complaint, filed by Moreno and his associates, further alleges that the camera program is managed by BusPatrol and that there has been revenue of $19.5 million from civil penalties, with 70% of it going towards BusPatrol and 30% to the school district. BusPatrol told NBC6 that they do receive 70%, but it will soon be reduced to 60%, and the school district will get 40%. The school district shared that they have received $6 million from the program and have used the funds for MDCPS' transportation employee salaries and the maintenance expense of the bus GPS system. According to state law and BusPatrol, the company uses its funds to pay for law enforcement expenses. BusPatrol also told NBC6 that the camera program is not solely managed by their company, as the complaint claimed, but that each partner in the program has a role. BusPatrol shared that they are the ones administering the program, but that Miami-Dade Sheriff's Office determines and approves when to issue a citation. BusPatrol only issues violations approved by and on behalf of the sheriff. According to state law, after the alleged violation takes place, the school district must submit the video to the law enforcement agency. Then, officers have 30 days to review the footage and determine whether or not the citation will be issued. Regarding the complaint, the company told NBC6 in part, "The class action suit is a frivolous and baseless attempt to undermine a critical student safety initiative in Miami. We will continue to follow all state and local laws as we work in partnership with the sheriff's office and school district to improve the safety of school children on buses." MDCPS told NBC6 that they will not be commenting on pending litigation. NBC6 also reached out to the Sheriff's Office and Miami-Dade County regarding the claims made and the complaint. We have not yet received a response. [GN] MICHAELS STORES: Class Certification Hearing Moved to June 11 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NEZ VIZCARRA, individually and on behalf of all others similar situated, V. MICHAELS STORES, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00468-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Noel Wise entered an order that: 1. The hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be re-noticed for June 11, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. 2. The Defendant's deadline to file its opposition shall be Extended to Mar. 24, 2025. 3. The Plaintiff's deadline to file its reply shall be extended to May 12, 2025. Michaels Stores is a privately held retail chain of American arts and crafts store. A copy of the Court's order dated March 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S00qey at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonas B. Jacobsen, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. Grace Bennett, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd. Ste 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 The Defendant is represented by: P. Craig Cardon, Esq. Benjamin O. Aigboboh, Esq. Chloe G. Chung, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Telephone: (213) 620-1780 Facsimile: (213) 620-1398 E-mail: ccardon@sheppardmullin.com baigboboh@sheppardmullin.com MICHAELS STORES: Wins Partial Summary Judgment Bid vs Vigil ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH VIGIL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. MICHAELS STORES PROCUREMENT COMPANY, INC., a Delaware corporation; DAK RESOURCES, INC., a Florida Corporation; and DOES 1 though 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-00163-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Troy Nunley entered an order granting Defendant's motion to deny class certification in part and granting the Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment in its entirety. The Court notes the parties have not followed the procedures and deadlines set forth in its amended pretrial scheduling order. Pursuant to the Order, all discovery relevant to class certification should have been completed within 240 days from the date of the Order, and a motion for class certification should have been filed no later than one hundred eighty days after the close of certification discovery. All other necessary dates and deadlines were to be issued following the Court's ruling on the Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion. Accordingly, it appears the Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment was premature and the Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class certification has passed. Neither party raised concerns regarding the parties' failure to adhere to the Order nor have the parties filed a proposed stipulation to modify the Order. The Court orders the parties to file a joint status report within 30 days of this order indicating whether the Plaintiff will file a motion for class certification and if so, whether the Court should allow the Plaintiff to do so given that the deadline to do so has passed. The Court finds that because Plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition to the Defendant's Motion to Deny Class Certification in Part, the Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that each of the requirements of Rule 23(a) and at least one of the requirements of Rule 23(b) are met. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Deny Class Certification in Part is granted. Here, the Plaintiff fails to address his claim for unpaid overtime and minimum wages in his opposition. Moreover, Plaintiff fails to explain how evidence it identifies in his response to Defendant's separate statement of undisputed facts bears on his claim for unpaid overtime and minimum wages. Thus, the Plaintiff has provided no argument regarding his unpaid overtime and minimum wages claim, and Plaintiff has abandoned this claim. Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Plaintiff first claim for unpaid overtime and minimum wages. On Nov. 28, 2022, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, alleging Defendant and DAK Resources jointly employed him. The Plaintiff also alleges claims under the California Labor Code for unpaid minimum and overtime wages, break violations, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure to reimburse business expenses. Michaels Stores is a procurement company focused on the retail sale of arts, crafts, and hobby supplies. A copy of the Court's order dated March 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4dr2z9 at no extra charge.[CC] MISSION POINT: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to August 8 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA KNOX-WATKINS, et al., v. MISSION POINT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-11241-RJW-CI (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Robert J. White entered an order as follows: -- The deadline to complete phase one discovery is extended to July 18, 2025. -- The deadline to file any class/collective certification motions is extended to Aug. 8, 2025. The parties jointly seek an extension of time for phase one discovery to be completed by July 18, 2025, and for any class/collective certification motions to be filed by August 8, 2025, under the Scheduling Order in this matter, in order to allow time to schedule a mediation and discuss possibly reaching an agreement concerning class and collective action certification. Mission Point is a full-service healthcare services and management company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jK5yXD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Colby Qualls, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 E-mail: cqualls@foresterhaynie.com - and - David Blanchard, Esq. BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC 221 N. Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 929-4313 E-mail: blanchard@bwlawonline.com The Defendant is represented by: William E. Altman, Esq. Stephen R. Gee, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 300 Park Street, Suite 370 Birmingham, MI 48009 Telephone: (248) 540-7041 E-mail: waltman@fisherphillips.com sgee@fisherphillips.com MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Court Upholds Litigation Privilege in Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Angelica Dino, writing for The Lawyer Magazine, reports that the Federal Court dismissed an interlocutory application in a class action against Mitsubishi Motors, ruling that certain documents related to fuel consumption testing data and internal communications were protected by litigation privilege as they were created for the dominant purpose of existing or anticipated legal proceedings. The applicants purchased Mitsubishi Triton Utes between May 1, 2015, and November 25, 2021, and sought the production of certain documents and certified translations, arguing that the vehicles had misleading fuel consumption labels. The respondents opposed the application, asserting legal professional privilege over the documents. The Federal Court ruled that litigation privilege protected the documents because the respondents prepared them for the dominant purpose of actual or anticipated litigation. The applicants submitted affidavits to support their claim for document disclosure, while the respondents presented evidence showing they prepared the documents in response to ongoing and potential litigation. The court applied common law principles, determining that legal professional privilege applies to documents created primarily for use in legal proceedings that are either in progress or reasonably anticipated. The standard requires a "real prospect" of litigation rather than a mere possibility. The respondents claimed they created the documents during another litigation before Australian courts and in anticipation of a potential class action. The evidence showed that a corporate officer at Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) in Japan initiated the creation of these documents after receiving information about the litigation risk. The officer subsequently engaged colleagues to gather and prepare testing data. The applicants argued that the respondents created the documents for standard internal investigations rather than for use in litigation. They also argued that MMC was not a party to the other litigation and could not claim privilege over documents prepared in anticipation of a separate class action. However, the court rejected this position, noting that MMC, as the parent company of Mitsubishi Motors Australia Limited, played a key role in the technical and engineering aspects of the case. After reviewing the documents, the court determined that the respondents created them with a dominant purpose related to existing and anticipated litigation. The evidence established that MMC's legal department might require assistance, prompting the engineering division to compile technical data proactively. The court found such evidence sufficient to support the claim of litigation privilege. The Federal Court ultimately ruled in favour of the respondents, dismissing the application and ordering the applicants to pay the respondents' costs. [GN] MOMENTUM SOLAR: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOUIS v. MOMENTUM SOLAR LLC, Case No. March 11, 2025 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery - class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Founded in 2009 Momentum Solar is a solar power company offering services such as engineering, instillation , and activation of solar powered energy.[CC] MONARCH INVESTMENT: Court Orders Lease Hidden Fees' Repayment ------------------------------------------------------------- ABC 6 News reports that if you lived at the Gates of Rochester, Heritage Manor, or similar properties between 2019 and early 2022, your former landlords probably owe you money. That's the subject of a class action suit that wrapped up in late February -- where an Olmsted County judge concluded that the owners of those properties, Olympik Village, Eden Park, and more, collected fees they had not discussed in lease agreements. And if you rented from Monarch Investment and Management Group (MIMG) before 2022, you can file a claim to get utility money back . . . plus extra. MIMG is a Colorado-based company that owns 15 properties across Minnesota -- including the Gates and Heritage Manor in Rochester, Les Chateaux in Duluth, and the City Limits in Minneapolis. It is one of the largest multifamily apartment owners in Minnesota. And until recently, the class action says, landlords at MIMG properties allegedly used "deceptive and confusing leases to impose excessive fees and deprive tenants of their statutory habitability rights." ABC 6 News reached out to MIMG, the Gates of Rochester, and assorted other Rochester properties, and did not receive a response. Laura Hamersma spent nearly three years in and out of court after being evicted from the Gates of Rochester in 2019. She took MIMG to small claims court after she says they overbilled her post-eviction. But when Hamersma went to a local law office, "they saw, like, all the weird charges and stuff," she said. On top of nearly $300 in utility costs, Hamersa had been billed for $2,700 in what a complaint called "hidden fees." Among the charges: $1,678 for "lease term fees," $100 for a "lot clean out towing charge," and an additional $16 for "utility billing fees" on top of her actual utility bills. Monarch had evicted a lot of people for not paying hidden service, leasing, or utility fees, attorney Drew Glasnovich with Stinson LLP said. Tenants could face 100 dollars or so a month in charges they didn't know to expect -- wrecking their financial plans. "It's not that they didn't pay their full monthly rent -- let's say rent is a thousand a month -- but they'd be evicted for 500 dollars," Glasnovich said. "It wasn't just rent. There was a $25 service fee, or a $50 leasing fee . . . or these weird charges they didn't fully understand when they entered into the lease." Several tenants were charged hundreds of dollars for their own evictions. Another was charged $145 for owing $1,200 in rent, then another $387 in "late fees." A third charge read "Owes $110 in garages for March" -- another $35.48 charge. In the past couple of years, Minnesota passed laws requiring a "cover sheet" of charges within leases. But between 2019 and 2022, it was "very common practice" to hide fees, Glasnovich said. In 2022, Hamersma joined 11 other current and former tenants across the state, who collectively represented everyone who'd rented with MIMG in the previous years. It started out as 11 individuals seeking damages for deceptive leases and unlawful charges. "The lease agreements are excessively long, disorganized, and contain dozens of addenda," one complaint read. "The lease agreements cause widespread confusion among MIMG's tenants as to their rights and responsibilities under the lease. . . " MIMG argued that the tenants had no right to claim damages on behalf of residents in other apartment complexes, especially after most of the representatives' leases had ended. "Plaintiffs' alleged losses, if any, were caused by their own actions or inactions and fault and are therefore not recoverable or must be reduced," one MIMG filing read. The suit ended Feb. 21 ended with negotiations for repayment for anyone in Minnesota who leased with MIMG through the first month of 2022. Hamersma and the other class representatives' patience paid off -- to the tune of $7,000 for each "class representative." Not everyone will get quite that much of a payout. Other previous Monarch tenants can file a claim by September 16th for a flat repayment of $125, plus 115 percent of whatever they paid in sewer and water utilities during their leases before 2022. Those who are eligible for the settlement should have received a letter or email -- but if you didn't (or threw it out), information on how to file a claim is available on the website for HOME Line, a Minnesota tenants' rights nonprofit. Epiq is the court-approved claims administrator. Hamersma said it was a long road -- particularly when Monarch began reworking contracts to fully disclose all the fees landlords could charge. "It seemed to be very dodgy on monarch's part, of . . . fully fulfilling those stipulations of how they wrote the lease," she said. "Each time, they said Okay, we did it, the lawyers reviewed and were like 'Ehhh, this is still tricky wording, it isn't fair to people who are signing your leases to understand what they're paying for.'" Glasnovich said for many tenants, the second part of the settlement is the real victory. Whether or not they file a claim, close to 500 eviction records related to nonpayment will be expunged. And any outstanding bills from before 2022 related to non-rent charges should be wiped out. Again, if you leased with Monarch Investment complexes before February 2022, you have to file a claim to get repaid -- there's no automatic check in the mail. [GN] MONEY SOURCE: Must File Class Cert Response in Hiller by April 14 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Natasha Hiller, v. Money Source Incorporated, Case No. 2:23-cv-00235-JJT (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge John Tuchi entered an order granting the Defendant's motion for extension of time. The Defendant shall have until April 14, 2025, to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Because the Defendant's response window has not yet expired, Rule 6(b)(1)(A) governs. Therefore, the Defendant need only show good cause, not excusable neglect, the lawsuit says. Given the Defendant's repeated emphasis of the "importance of fully developing its response to class certification," the Court is skeptical of the Defendant's assertion that it was unaware that a deposition would be advisable until five months after receiving the Plaintiff's expert report and after the Plaintiff filed her motion for class certification. Nevertheless, because Rule 6(b)(1)'s good-cause standard is to be "construed broadly," the Court will afford Defendant the benefit of the doubt this time, but not again. Money Source offers equipment and truck financing, working capital, small business loans, and general and industrial credit solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zefnlK at no extra charge.[CC] MONTGOMERY PUBLIC: Discovery in Parrish-Muncher Due June 16 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLI PARRISH-MUNCHER, v. MONTGOMERY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00736-ECM-JTA (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Emily Marks entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to continue the trial date and extend deadlines to the following extent: -- The pretrial conference presently Nov. 13, 2025 scheduled for July 10, 2025, is reset to: -- The parties are directed to jointly Nov. 6, 2025 prepare a proposed pretrial order, and the Plaintiff shall ensure that the original of the proposed pretrial order is received by the court on or before: -- Dispositive motions, e.g., motions for July 16, 2025 summary judgment, shall be filed no later than: -- Mandatory Mediation No later than: June 16, 2025 -- All discovery shall be completed June 16, 2025. on or before: MPS is a public school system in Montgomery, Alabama. A copy of the Court's order dated March 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ea0fxp at no extra charge.[CC] MV TRANSPORTATION: Jensen Suit Removed to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Tonya Jensen, an individual, Mylvin Curry, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated and the general public v. MV TRANSPORTATION, INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 25CU006483C 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-00602-CAB-BLM. The Complaint contains nine causes of action, alleging: Violation of Business & Professions Code; Recovery of Unpaid Wages & Penalties in Violation of Labor Code; Violation of Labor (Waiting time Penalties); Failure to Pay Meal and Rest Break Premiums at the Proper Regular Rate of Pay; Failure to Provide & Maintain Accurate Wage Statements Pursuant to Labor Code; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Breaks; Failure to Reimburse Expenses; and Violation of Labor Code (PAGA).[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Gregory G. Iskander, Esq. Michael W. Nelson, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Treat Towers 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Phone: 925.932.2468 Fax: 925.946.9809 Email: giskander@littler.com mwnelson@littler.com MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Epipen Class Suit for $73.5-Mil. --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Mylan has agreed to a $73.5 million settlement to resolve claims that it illegally conspired with Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies to suppress generic EpiPens in order to extend its monopoly. The Mylan Pharmaceuticals settlement benefits entities that purchased EpiPen or generic EpiPen products directly from Mylan or Teva between March 13, 2014, and Feb. 6, 2025. According to plaintiffs in the EpiPen monopoly class action lawsuit, Mylan conspired with Pfizer and Teva to suppress the release of generic EpiPen products. This scheme allegedly allowed the pharmaceutical companies to extend their monopolies and charge higher prices. Mylan Pharmaceuticals is a global generic and specialty pharmaceutical company which merged with Upjohn, a Pfizer division, in 2020 to form Viatris. Mylan hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to the $73.5 million settlement to resolve the EpiPen monopoly class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Mylan Pharmaceuticals settlement, entities can receive a payment based on the number of branded or generic EpiPen products they purchased during the class period. No payment estimates are available at this time. Claimants must include valid documentation to support their claims. The deadline for exclusion and objection is May 29, 2025. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for May 29, 2025. Class members must submit a valid claim form by May 29, 2025. Who's Eligible Entities that purchased EpiPen or generic EpiPen products directly from Mylan or Teva between March 13, 2014, and Feb. 6, 2025. Potential Award TBD Proof of Purchase Invoices, order confirmation, receipts, work orders and other proof of purchase. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 05/29/2025 Case Name KPH Healthcare Services Inc. a/k/a Kinney Drugs Inc., et al. v. Mylan N.V., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02065-DDC-TJJ, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. Final Hearing 05/29/2025 Settlement Website EpiPenDPPSettlement.com Claims Administrator EpiPen Direct Purchaser c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173113 Milwaukee, WI 53217 info@EpiPenDPPSettlement.com (866) 778-6568 Class Counsel Linda P. Nussbaum NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP PC Michael L. Roberts ROBERTS LAW FIRM US PC Defense Counsel Adam K. Levin David M. Foster Carolyn A. DeLone Michael D. Gendall HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP Brian C. Fries James Moloney LATHROP GPM LLP [GN] NASHVILLE, TN: Seeks to Defer Class Cert Deadlines -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as INFINIUM BUILDERS LLC and KE HOLDINGS LLC d/b/a ASCENT CONSTRUCTION, ENRIQUE SELMAN, and JEAN LAFITTE BUILDERS LLC f/k/a JEAN LAFITTE DESIGNS LLC on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, v. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE & DAVIDSON COUNTY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00924 (M.D. Tenn.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting request that all deadlines related to class certification be deferred until after the court has ruled on its motion for summary judgment. Metro moves to defer all class certification motion deadlines until after a ruling on Metro's pending motion for summary judgment. The motion raises the threshold questions of standing, ripeness, and statute of limitations. As for the Plaintiffs' due process claims, the Plaintiffs' lack of a property interest in the Sidewalk Fund is akin to, if not indistinguishable from, lack-of-standing issues which, again, are threshold issues that must be adjudicated before the question of class certification is taken up. In sum, a ruling in Metro's favor on these critical issues would dispose of all of the named Plaintiffs' claims. Thus, resolution of the motion for summary judgment before class-certification issues are briefed is necessary to "protect both the parties and the court from needless and costly further litigation." A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OcBHlv at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: J. Brooks Fox, Esq. Benjamin A. Puckett, Esq. 108 Metropolitan Courthouse Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 862-6341 E-mail: brook.fox@nashville.gov benjamin.puckett@nashville.gov NCAA: Ray Plaintiffs Win Bid for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANNON RAY, KHALA TAYLOR, PETER ROBINSON, KATHERINE SEBBANE, and RUDY BARAJAS, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated association, Case No. 1:23-cv-00425-WBS-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Shubb entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to exclude expert testimony, and granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The certified class consists of: "All persons who, from March 17, 2019, to June 30, 2023, worked for an NCAA Division I sports program other than baseball in the position of "volunteer coach," as designated by NCAA Bylaws." The Plaintiffs Shannon Ray, Khala Taylor, Peter Robinson, Katherine Sebbane, and Rudy Barajas are appointed as class representatives. The law firms Gustafson Gluek, Kirby McInerney, and Fairmark Partners are appointed as co-lead class counsel. The Defendant has failed to establish that Dr. Ashenfelter's "methodology is flawed or that there is a likelihood that he will improperly apply that method to the facts." Accordingly, the defendant's motion to exclude Dr. Ashenfelter's expert report will be denied, the Court says. The class certification requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) are satisfied. The Plaintiffs brought this putative class action alleging that the Volunteer Coach Bylaw violated § 1 of the Sherman Act. NCAA is an association whose members are colleges and universities competing in intercollegiate athletics. A copy of the Court's order dated March 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZtB0T2 at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK, NY: Agrees to Settle Detainees' Class Suit for $92.5MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that New York City agreed to pay $92.5 million to resolve claims it violated the law by detaining individuals beyond their scheduled release date based solely on a detainer issued by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The New York City Department of Correction settlement benefits individuals who were detained by the department beyond their scheduled release date between April 1, 1997, and Dec. 21, 2012, despite all other conditions for their release being satisfied and based solely on a detainer issued by ICE. The settlement includes two subclasses: the Statute of Limitations Group and the Recent Group. The Statute of Limitations Group includes class members who were held beyond their scheduled release date between April 1, 1997, and Jan. 31, 2007. The Recent Group includes class members who were held beyond their scheduled release date between Feb. 1, 2007, and Dec. 21, 2012. According to the New York City ICE class action lawsuit, the New York City Department of Correction allegedly unlawfully detained individuals beyond their scheduled release date based solely on a detainer request issued by ICE. Plaintiffs in the case argue that the Department of Correction only had the authority to hold individuals for the 48 hours specified in ICE documentation but routinely held individuals for significantly longer. The New York City Department of Correction is responsible for the jails, prisons and rehabilitation programs in the city. New York City has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $92.5 million settlement to resolve the claims. Under the terms of the New York City Department of Correction settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the number of days they were over-detained. Exact payment amounts will vary based on the amount of time claimants were over-detained and which subclass they belong to. According to the settlement website, the average payment for the Recent Group will be between $20,000 and $48,000. The average payment for the Statute of Limitations Group will be between $10,000 and $24,000. The deadline for exclusion and objection is May 15, 2025. The final approval hearing for the New York City ICE settlement is scheduled for Oct. 6, 2025. To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by May 15, 2025. Who's Eligible Individuals who were detained by the New York City Department of Correction beyond their scheduled release date between April 1, 1997, and Dec. 21, 2012, despite all other conditions for their release being satisfied and based solely on a detainer issued by ICE. Potential Award $10,000 to $48,000 (estimated) Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 05/15/2025 Case Name Onadia v. City of New York, et al., Case No. 300940/2010, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of Bronx Final Hearing 10/06/2025 Settlement Website NYCICESettlement.com Claims Administrator NYC ICE Settlement c/o Atticus Administration P.O. Box 64053 Saint Paul, MN 55164 NYCICESettlement@atticusadmin.com (800) 479-0810 Class Counsel Matthew D. Brinckerhoff Debra L. Greenberger Vasudha Talla EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF ABADY WARD & MAAZEL LLP Ameer Benno BENNO & ASSOCIATES P.C. Defense Counsel Chlarens Orsland CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK [GN] NISE GENERAL REALTY: Feltzin Sues Over Discriminative Property -------------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence Feltzin, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. NISE GENERAL REALTY CORP. d/b/a RIVERSIDE SHOPPES, Case No. 2:25-cv-14079-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. NISE GENERAL REALTY CORP., 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 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 NISSAN NORTH: Court Decertifies Unified Class Action Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Sepehr Daghighian of California Consumer Attorneys, P.C. reports that a significant class action lawsuit against Nissan North America has encountered a legal hurdle after a U.S. court decertified the case, preventing affected vehicle owners from pursuing claims as a unified group. The lawsuit initially alleged that certain Nissan vehicles contained defective braking systems, which could lead to unexpected loss of braking power and increase the risk of accidents. Background of the Lawsuit The class action lawsuit accused Nissan of equipping certain vehicles with flawed braking components, including the Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) system and brake master cylinders, which allegedly caused inconsistent or unexpected braking behavior. Many Nissan drivers reported that their vehicles would either fail to stop properly or experience sudden braking without warning, posing serious safety concerns. The lawsuit claimed Nissan was aware of these defects but failed to take sufficient action to address them or properly notify consumers. Which Vehicles Were Affected? The lawsuit originally sought to cover a range of Nissan models with the alleged brake defects, including: -- 2019-2021 Nissan Altima -- 2017-2020 Nissan Rogue -- 2017-2021 Nissan Rogue Sport -- 2020-2021 Nissan Kicks Although Nissan has denied any wrongdoing, the automaker has issued multiple technical service bulletins (TSBs) to address customer complaints about braking inconsistencies and failures. What This Means for Nissan Owners With the class action decertified, affected Nissan owners may no longer be able to seek compensation as a group. However, this does not prevent individuals from pursuing legal action independently. In many cases, filing an individual claim can lead to better compensation than participating in a class action settlement, which may only offer limited repairs or reimbursements. How Nissan Owners Can Take Back Control While this class action lawsuit has been initiated, thousands of Nissan owners are likely affected by the same alleged brake defects, with many dissatisfied by Nissan's lack of resolution. These types of issues often lead to escalated legal action, highlighting the importance of protecting consumer rights. If you struggle with vehicle troubles and feel cornered against big vehicle brands, remember it is always better to have experts with you. With extensive experience and successful cases at hand, The Lemon Firm is your best bet. With dedicated team members always at your disposal, the package becomes too good to be true. So, if your car is giving you a headache, don't hesitate to reach out![GN] NORTHERN TRUST: Can Seal Portions of Class Cert Opposition ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHANDLER EMERSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. THE NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00241-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina Thompson entered an order granting the Defendant the Northern Trust's motion to seal portions of its opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and exhibits. The Clerk of Court is directed to maintain the above-identified portions of Northern Trust's Opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification, the identified portions of the Singer Declaration, and Exhibits 1, 4−5, 7, and 10−22 to the Singer Declaration under seal. Northern Trust is a financial institution that conducts business across 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=7z0TGI at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Laurie Edelstein, Esq. Caroline Hirst, Esq. Rachael M. Trummel, Esq. Daniel J. Weiss, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 525 Market Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (628) 267-6800 E-mail: ledelstein@jenner.com chirst@jenner.com rtrummel@jenner.com dweiss@jenner.com NORTHSTAR HEALTHCARE: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Welltower --------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- NorthStar Healthcare Income, Inc. (OTC: NHHS), relating to the proposed merger with Welltower Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, NorthStar Healthcare's stockholders will receive $3.03 per share in cash. Click link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/northstar-healthcare-income-inc-nhhs/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Keen Vision Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: KVAC), relating to its proposed merger with Madera Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Keen Vision common stock will be canceled and converted into the right to receive a number of Madera common stock. Click link for more information: https://monteverdelaw.com/case/keen-vision-acquisition-corp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Altus Power, Inc. (NYSE: AMPS), relating to the proposed merger with TPG. Under the terms of the agreement, Altus Power will be acquired by TPG for $5.00 per share of its Class A common stock in an all-cash transaction. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for April 9, 2025. Click link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/altus-power-inc-amps/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Aerovate Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: AVTE), relating to a proposed merger with Jade Biosciences. Under the terms of the agreement, pre-merger Aerovate stockholders are expected to own approximately 1.6% of the combined company, while pre-merger Jade stockholders are expected to own approximately 98.4% of the combined entity. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for April 16, 2025. Click link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/aerovate-therapeutics-inc-avte/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] NUNA BABY ESSENTIALS: Lema Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nuna Baby Essentials, Inc. The case is styled as Zoila Lema, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nuna Baby Essentials, Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-01305-JFL (E.D. Pa., March 11, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Nuna Baby Essentials, Inc. -- https://nunababy.com/ -- offers premium baby gear innovatively designed with timeless style.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq. KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, PC 30 E. Butler Ave. Ambler, PA 19002 Phone: (267) 468-5374 Email: jginsburg@creditlaw.com OAKLAND, CA: Agrees to 2023 Data Breach Class Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that the city of Oakland, California, has agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it failed to prevent a 2023 data breach that compromised sensitive personal information. The Oakland data breach settlement benefits individuals whose personal information was stored, possessed or controlled by the city of Oakland and who were notified by the city of the data security incident. According to the class action lawsuit, the city of Oakland failed to protect sensitive personal information from a data breach that occurred in February 2023. The breach compromised sensitive personal information, including Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, medical information, city record information and city internal report information. Oakland is a city in the San Francisco Bay Area with a population of about 440,000. The city has not admitted any wrongdoing but has agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Oakland data breach settlement, class members can receive up to $350 for ordinary losses, including up to three hours of lost time at a rate of $25 per hour. Class members can also get up to $10,000 for extraordinary losses, including documented monetary loss or fraud caused by the misuse of their personal information. All class members are eligible to receive three years of three-bureau credit monitoring services. Class members who served as police officers for the city of Oakland and received a written notice of the data security incident are also eligible to receive a cash payment of $175. The deadline for exclusion and objection is April 6, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Oakland data breach settlement is scheduled for June 3, 2025. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by May 6, 2025. Who's Eligible Individuals whose personal information was stored, possessed or controlled by the city of Oakland and who were notified of a data breach in March 2023. Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase Documentation of unreimbursed expenses, such as costs or charges for obtaining credit reports, credit freezes, credit monitoring or identity theft protection services and time spent addressing the data breach. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 05/06/2025 Case Name Hada Gonzalez, et al. v. City of Oakland, Case No. 23CV031786, in the California Superior Court for Alameda County Final Hearing 06/03/2025 Settlement Website OaklandDataBreachSettlement.com Claims Administrator Oakland Data Breach Settlement c/o Claims Administrator P.O. Box 25226 Santa Ana, CA 92799 info@OaklandDataBreachSettlement.com (866) 675-2919 Class Counsel Scott Edward Cole, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE Joseph R. Lucia, Esq. RAINS LUCIA STERN ST. PHALLE & SILVER P.C. Defense Counsel Casie D. Collignon, Esq. Matt Pearson, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP [GN] OKLAHOMA: Judge Ends Decade-Old Suit Over Foster Care System ------------------------------------------------------------ Barbara Hoberock of Oklahoma Voice reports that Oklahoma's foster care system is no longer under federal oversight for the first time in 13 years, officials announced Thursday, March 13. A federal judge ended the case, halting a prolonged and intensive scrutiny of Oklahoma's foster care system designed to improve conditions for children in the state's care. Dubbed the "Pinnacle Plan," the state agreed to meet certain performance measures to resolve a class action suit filed on behalf of children in state custody. "We've made huge investments into our child welfare system and have made the well-being of our state's children a top priority," Gov. Kevin Stitt said in a statement. "The conclusion of the Pinnacle Plan highlights that our state is on the right trajectory." The Oklahoma Department of Human Services had not provided the costs associated with the lawsuit as of publication. In 2012, the state entered into an agreement to settle a federal class action court case, D.G. vs. Yarbrough, which alleged the state was not providing adequate care for foster children. The state agreed to address the abuse and neglect of children in state custody, increase the number of foster homes, reduce the number of children in shelters, address the caseloads for child welfare workers and find more youth permanent placements. Three people, called co-neutrals, were tapped to monitor progress. In March 2023, the state was released from a significant portion of the consent decree, but was required to continue working on seven aspects. "The Court ordered Consent Decree, with the exceptional work of the co-neutrals, successfully transformed Oklahoma's foster care system from a system failing to meet minimum constitutional standards to a nationally recognized performer," said Fred Dorwart, a Tulsa attorney who represented the children in the lawsuit. "(The lawsuit) evidences the effectiveness of litigation as a tool for agency reform and improvement." Senate Pro Tem Lonnie Paxton, R-Tuttle, said all of the money spent on the attorneys and litigation can now be spent on taking care of children. House Speaker Kyle Hilbert, R-Bristow, said just because the Pinnacle Plan was ending doesn't mean the state can take its foot off of the gas. Challenges still remain, he said. The state has reduced the number of children in foster care to 5,800 in March from more than 11,000 in 2014, according to the Oklahoma Department of Human Services. Oklahoma has since entered into an unrelated consent decree to resolve a federal class action lawsuit over mental health competency restoration services for defendants awaiting trial. [GN] OLIN CORPORATION: Court Extends Stay of Davis Suit to Sept. 18 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT DAVIS, ET AL., V. OLIN CORPORATION, ET AL. Case No. 3:22-cv-00374-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Brian Jackson entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion to: -- Extend the administrative stay first entered on Sept. 18, 2024. -- Suspend Plaintiffs' Motion For Class Certification. -- Administratively close case until June 7, 2025. Olin is an American manufacturer of ammunition, chlorine, and sodium hydroxide. A copy of the Court's order dated March 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mLax67 at no extra charge.[CC] OSBORN CORRECTIONAL: Martinez Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martinez v. Osborn Correctional Institution, Case No. 3:24-cv-00592 (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.[CC] OUTLOOK THERAPEUTICS: Securities Suit over Drug Licensing Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------------- Outlook Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2025, that on November 3, 2023, a securities class action lawsuit was filed against the company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On June 25, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended class action complaint in its entirety. On February 6, 2025, the court entered an order granting the motion to dismiss and dismissing the complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend, and providing for the filing of a further amended complaint and briefing on the defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss such further amended complaint in the spring of 2025. The class action complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by us related to the company's Biologics License Application (BLA) during the period from December 29, 2022 through August 29, 2023. The complaint alleges, among other things, that it violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 by failing to disclose that there was an alleged lack of evidence supporting ONS-5010 as a treatment for wet age-related macular degeneration and that the company and/or its manufacturing partner had deficient chemical, manufacturing and control for ONS-5010, which remained unresolved at the time the BLA was re-submitted to the FDA and, as a result, the FDA was unlikely to approve its BLA, and that the company's stock price dropped when such information was disclosed. The plaintiffs in the class action complaint seek damages and interest, and an award of reasonable costs, including attorneys' fees. Outlook is a biopharmaceutical company working to launch the first ophthalmic formulation of the angiogenesis inhibitor "bevacizumab" approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or the FDA, for use in retinal indications. OVERTON SECURITY: Walter Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Overton Security Services, Inc. The case is styled as James Earl Walter, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Overton Sec. Servs., Inc., Does 1 through 100, Case No. 25SMCV01317 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 13, 2025). Overton Security -- https://overtonsecurity.com/ -- provides security services for many of the most well-known companies in the areas we service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Ginzburg, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 23901 Calabasas Rd., Ste. 1084 Calabasas, CA 91302 Phone: (818) 914-3433 Fax: (818) 914-3433 Email: dan@frontierlawcenter.com PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Class Settlement in Zimmerman Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH ZIMMERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., v. PARAMOUNT GLOBAL, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-02409-VSB (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vernon Broderick entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement: The counsel for all parties shall appear for a telephonic conference in this matter on April 4, 2025 at 2:00pm. The dial-in number is 1-855-244-8681 and the access code is 2309 3085 835. There is no attendee ID. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to pay royalties for SiriusXM's distribution of their works that are owed under the Recording Contracts. The Settlement Agreement includes a single Settlement Class, defined as: "All persons and entities, their agents, successors in interest, affiliates, assigns, heirs, executors, trustees, and administrators who are or were parties to Recording Contracts with Comedy Partners whose works have been distributed by digital audio transmission via SiriusXM Radio pursuant to such Recording Contracts between May 19, 2013, up to and including Dec. 31, 2022 [(the “Class Period”)]." Upon the Court's final settlement approval, the Agreement provides that Defendants will pay a total of $11,000,000 into a settlement fund, which covers "(1) the Class Settlement Payments, (2) any amounts needed to satisfy (a) any award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, (b) any Incentive Award, and (c) all Notice and Administration Costs." Paramount is an American multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sz5Vh0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin Sweet, Esq. NYE, STIRLING, HALE, MILLER & SWEET, LLP Pittsburg, PA - and - Scott Adam Kamber, Esq. KAMBERLAW, LLC Denver, CO - and - Adrian John Buonanoce, Esq. Bobby Pouya, Esq. Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP Sherman Oaks, CA - and - Melissa Eubanks, Esq. VGC, LLP Beverly Hills, CA - and - Douglas L Johnson, Esq. Neville Lawrence Johnson, Esq. JOHNSON & JOHNSON LLP Beverly Hills, CA The Defendants are represented by: Kenneth L. Steinthal, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP San Francisco, CA PELOTON INTERACTIVE: District Court Dismisses Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- A&O Shearman, in an article for Lexology, reports that on February 14, 2025, Judge Margo Brodie of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") against an exercise equipment company (the "Company") and certain of its officers and directors (the "Individual Defendants"). Jia Tian, et al. v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., et al., 23-cv-4279-MKB (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2025). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made material misstatements and omissions regarding the safety of the Company's products. The Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend, holding that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege any materially misleading statements or omissions, or scienter. Plaintiffs, shareholders that invested in the Company between May 10, 2022 and May 10, 2023, alleged that defendants made material misstatements and omissions concerning the Company's products. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that defendants "concealed [a] recurring [safety] issue" from customers and regulators while continuing to "laud the quality" of the Company's products, and that the safety issue ultimately led to a product recall. The Court dismissed plaintiffs' securities fraud claims, holding that plaintiffs failed to plead falsity or scienter. With respect to the issue of falsity, the Court held that the Company's risk disclosures explicitly warned investors that the Company's products may be affected by design and manufacturing defects that could adversely affect the Company's business and result in reputational harm, and further held that although defendants had been informed of some safety issues, plaintiffs did not allege that defendants knew, at the time of the alleged misstatements, that customer complaints would lead to a product recall. The Court also held that statements regarding the Company's loss accruals and statements that the recall was "voluntary" were not false or misleading, because the loss accrual statements were forward-looking and accompanied by sufficient cautionary language and because a reasonable investor would have understood that the recall was not mandatory under the relevant regulations. The Court further held that statements regarding the Company's corporate values, product safety, and product quality -- including that the Company's product was the "best" on the market -- were nonactionable statements of corporate puffery. With respect to the issue of scienter, the Court held that plaintiffs did not plausibly allege how defendants' purported knowledge of 35 customer complaints about its products in light of the millions of products sold over multiple years would demonstrate knowledge that any of the challenged statements was false when made. The Court reasoned that even if defendants knew of the complaints, that could not support an inference that the complaints would lead to a recall of the product. Moreover, the Court held that plaintiffs' allegations that defendants were motivated to conceal the product's defect because defendants wanted to avoid another costly recall of the Company's products was insufficient to support scienter because the desire to maintain corporate profitability and avoid regulatory scrutiny is common and, without more, is not indicative fraudulent intent. The Court similarly held that plaintiffs' allegations regarding the Individual Defendants' financial motives did not raise a strong inference of scienter because plaintiffs did not allege that the Individual Defendants sold Company stock during the putative class period, plaintiffs' allegation that one of the Individual Defendants pledged Company stock during the putative class period was insufficient to establish scienter, and plaintiffs did not adequately allege that one of the Individual Defendant's establishment of a 10b5-1 plan during the putative class period was intended to take advantage of an inflated stock price. [GN] PREMIUM MERCHANT: Bid to Amend Pleadings in Weingard Due April 16 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEON WEINGRAD, v. PREMIUM MERCHANT FUNDING ONE, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-06247-JP (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge John Padova entered a Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 16 Pretrial Scheduling Order as follows: 1. Any motion to amend the pleadings or to join or add additional parties shall be filed no later than April 16, 2025. 2. No later than July 18, 2025, the parties shall provide the Court with a joint status report as to their efforts to amicably resolve this action. In that status report, the parties shall also advise the Court as to whether a settlement conference would be helpful. 3. All discovery shall proceed forthwith and continue in such manner as will assure that all requests for and responses to discovery will be served, noticed and completed by Aug. 29, 2025. 4. On or before July 25, 2025, counsel for each party shall serve upon counsel for every other party the information referred to in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) by expert report, deposition, or answer to expert interrogatory. If the evidence is intended solely to contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject matter identified by another party, counsel shall serve the information on counsel for every other party on or before Aug. 8, 2025. 5. Motion for Class Certification shall be filed no later than Sept. 5, 2025. Responses are due no later than Oct. 6, 2025. 6. A final pretrial conference for this matter will be held on Dec. 3, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. in chambers (Room 17613). Premium Merchant provides a broad array solutions for small businesses, including merchant cash advances, business loans, credit repair and more. A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qIakvD at no extra charge.[CC] PRIME HYDRATION: Court Narrows Claims in Kennedy, et al. Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chief Judge Greg N. Stivers of the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint in the case captioned as TURKOISE KENNEDY et al., PLAINTIFFS v. PRIME HYDRATION, LLC et al., DEFENDANTS, Case No. 3:23-cv-00476-GNS (W.D. Ky.). Defendants' motion for leave to file sur-reply in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for leave to file second amended complaint is denied. Plaintiffs Turkoise Kennedy and Jamal Harper allege that Defendants Prime Hydration, LLC, and Congo Brands, LLC conducted a marketing and branding campaign and designed the packaging, flavors, colors, and alleged health benefits, of the energy drink, Prime Energy, to be similar to a non-energy drink, Prime Hydration. This marketing and branding campaign was allegedly designed to appeal to children, who cannot consume large amounts of caffeine without serious health risks or complications. Prime Energy is a zero-sugar, flavored electrolyte energy drink that contains 200 milligrams of caffeine per can, and Prime Hydration is a non-caffeinated sports drink with a similar color scheme and flavor selection. Prime Hydration LLC is a Kentucky company that played a direct role in the branding, marketing, and public relations efforts surrounding Prime Energy, and Congo Brands is the parent company of Prime Hydration LLC and the primary manufacturer, distributor, advertiser, and marketer of Prime Energy drinks. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves, their minor children, and all those similarly situated, sued Defendants, asserting various consumer protection and tort claims under California and Kentucky law. The Court previously dismissed Plaintiffs' claims because they failed to state a claim under the heightened pleading standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), did not plead any allegations as to the individualized conduct of each Defendant, and failed to provide affirmative authority for their public nuisance claims. Plaintiffs have moved for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to cure the deficiencies in their original pleading. Defendants posit that Plaintiffs' amendments still do not pass the dismissal standard set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Specifically, they contend that Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged damages, privity, or that either Defendant is in the business of supplying information, as required for a negligent misrepresentation claim under Kentucky law. Defendants also argue that the proposed amendments are ultimately futile because they have failed to show any misrepresentation or omission on the part of Defendants. All claims asserted shall be permitted to proceed except for the unjust enrichment claim (Count VII), the Court holds. The Court previously noted Counts I-VII of the initial Complaint sound in fraud, requiring a heightened pleading standard under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Each of these counts in the proposed Second Amended Complaint still allege that Defendants made false and misleading statements to portray Prime Energy as healthy and suitable for children while misrepresenting or omitting facts about the drink's content and risks. The Court finds Plaintiffs have met their burden under the heightened standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) by alleging: 1) what the fraudulent statements were, 2) who made them, 3) when and where the statements were made, and 4) why the statements were fraudulent. According to the Court, their proposed amended complaint delineates each of the allegations under one of the four categories of the Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) heightened standard and alleges facially plausible claims as to each Defendant. Counts I, II, and III (California State Law Claims) Plaintiffs' claims under California law invoke elements that sound in fraud. The Court finds Plaintiffs have adequately alleged the fraud elements with the requisite specificity under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Count IV (Kentucky Consumer Protection Act) Defendants argue that Plaintiff must show privity, as required by the KCPA, but Plaintiffs counter that privity exists from the express warranties that Defendants made to them as consumers. Plaintiffs do not include information on where they purchased Prime Energy in their proposed Second Amended Complaint. Nevertheless, they have alleged that Defendants made a general warranty to them when they purchased these products either for themselves or their children, and the products' branding and marketing associated with it made an assertion as to the caffeine content of the beverage. The Court finds Plaintiff have alleged a plausible claim. Counts V and VI (Negligent and Fraudulent Misrepresentation) The Court finds Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent misrepresentation claims under the standards of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) and 12(b)(6) based on their allegations as to each of the Defendants. Kentucky law permits negligent misrepresentation claims associated with the sale of a product. Based on this precedent, Plaintiffs' amendments as to these allegations are not futile, and Plaintiffs' motion is granted on this basis, the Court holds. Count VII (Unjust Enrichment) Defendants contest whether Plaintiffs plausibly received a benefit, as required to state a claim. Plaintiffs' allegations ultimately claim the unjust enrichment came from the sale of Prime Energy through deceptive and misleading marketing and branding practices. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for unjust enrichment, and their motion is denied as to this claim, the Court concludes. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QJFbwY from PacerMonitor.com. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAYRA FRANCO, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and PROGRESSIVE SOUTHEASTERN INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:24-cv-00225 (M.D.N.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting a two-week extension of their deadline to file its opposition to the Plaintiff Mayra Franco's motion for class certification from March 13, 2025 to March 27, 2025. Because Progressive's current deadline to file its class-certification opposition is March 13, to the extent the Court requires briefing on the instant Motion, Progressive asks the Court to order Plaintiff to file an expedited response The requested extension would facilitate that deposition and allow Progressive to submit a thorough record to the Court for its class-certification analysis. On Feb. 20, the Plaintiff filed her motion for class certification. The motion relies extensively on the "Expert Report of Brian Manning." Progressive provides personal, automobile, homeowner, boat, renters, business, life, and health insurance services. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mjBket at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq. Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq. J. Matthew Brigman, Esq. Allison Hill White, Esq. Erin M. Munger, Esq. Julia Barrett Bates, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 Facsimile: (404) 572-5100 E-mail: jcashdan@kslaw.com zmcentyre@kslaw.com mbrigman@kslaw.com awhite@kslaw.com emunger@kslaw.com jbates@kslaw.com - and - Stephen D. Feldman, Esq. Matthew W. Sawchak, Esq. ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A. 434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1600 Raleigh, NC 27601 Telephone: (919) 239-2600 Facsimile: (919) 328-8790 E-mail: msawchak@robinsonbradshaw.com sfeldman@robinsonbradshaw.com QUAKER OATS: Class Certification in Kessler Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMOND KESSLER, et al., v. THE QUAKER OATS COMPANY, Case No. 7:24-cv-00526-KMK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth Karas entered an order granting the Parties' motion for preliminary approval and class certification. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the pending motion. Quaker Oats is an American manufacturer of oatmeal and other food and beverage products. A copy of the Court's order dated March 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RQBrEF at no extra charge.[CC] QUALCOMM INC: 9th Cir. Affirms in Part Dismissal of Key Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, SARAH KEY; ANDREW WESTLEY; TERESE RUSSELL; CARRA ABERNATHY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 23-3354 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court's dismissal and partial summary judgment in favor of Qualcomm. The Plaintiffs brought the case following a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) antitrust lawsuit in 2017 that accused Qualcomm of violating federal and state antitrust laws. In the earlier suit, the FTC alleged that Qualcomm's business practices violated federal and state antitrust law. These practices included (1) Qualcomm's "no license, no chips" policy, under which Qualcomm refused to sell modem chips to cellular manufacturers that did not take licenses to practice Qualcomm's patents, and (2) Qualcomm's alleged exclusive dealing agreements with major device manufacturers Apple and Samsung. In the subsequent consolidated class action, the Plaintiffs attacked the business practices challenged by the FTC: (1) tying chip sales to standard essential patent licenses, (2) refusing to deal with rival chip manufacturers, and (3) exclusive dealing with Apple and Samsung. The district court certified a nationwide class, and Qualcomm appealed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f). After a bench trial in the FTC action, the district court ruled for the FTC and enjoined Qualcomm's challenged practices, but this court reversed in FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., 969 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2020), holding that Qualcomm did not violate the Sherman Act. In the Rule 23(f) appeal, this court vacated the class certification order and remanded with instructions to consider whether any of the Plaintiffs' claims were viable in the wake of FTC v. Qualcomm. On remand, the Plaintiffs proceeded only with their state-law claims under California's Cartwright Act and Unfair Competition Law, or UCL. The district court dismissed their tying claims and granted summary judgment on their claims for exclusive dealing. Affirming in part, the Panel held that the district court did not err by dismissing the Plaintiffs' claim that Qualcomm's "no license, no chips" policy was tying in violation of the Cartwright Act. The Panel concluded that the Cartwright Act did not depart from the Sherman Act to undercut FTC v. Qualcomm's holding that the "no license, no chips" policy did not impose an anticompetitive surcharge on rivals' modem chip sales in violation of the Sherman Act. In addition, the Plaintiffs could not establish an unlawful tying claim in the absence of evidence of some tied market foreclosure or anticompetitive impact in the tied product market. The Panel also affirmed, with one caveat, the district court's rejection of the Plaintiffs' claim that Qualcomm's tying and purported exclusive dealing practices violated the UCL. The Plaintiffs failed to state a claim that Qualcomm's practices were fraudulent under the UCL. Their UCL unfairness claim failed as to a theory of unfair tying. The Panel held that, as to the Plaintiffs' exclusive dealing theory, they could not avail themselves of equitable relief, the only relief afforded by the UCL. The Panel therefore vacated in part the district court's summary judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss the UCL claim, to the extent that it relied on a theory of unfairness and related to Qualcomm's purported exclusive dealing agreements seeking restitution, without prejudice for refiling in state court. As to the district court's summary judgment on the remainder of the Cartwright Act claim, the Panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding a proposed supplemental expert report as a sanction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). The Panel affirmed the district court's summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' claim for exclusive dealing under the Cartwright Act because the Plaintiffs did not raise a genuine dispute about (1) substantial market foreclosure or (2) antitrust injury caused by any agreement between Qualcomm and Apple. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/45p25wr5 from PacerMonitor.com. Adam J. Zapala (argued) -- azapala@cpmlegal.com -- Elizabeth T. Castillo -- ecastillo@cpmlegal.com -- James G. Dallal -- jdallal@cpmlegal.com -- and Joseph W. Cotchett -- jcotchett@cpmlegal.com -- Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Burlingame, California; Kalpana Srinivasan -- ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com -- Marc M. Seltzer -- mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com -- Amanda Bonn -- abonn@susmangodfrey.com -- and Lora Krsulich, Susman Godfrey LLP, Los Angeles, California; Steve Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Seattle, Washington; for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Eugene M. Paige (argued) -- epaige@keker.com -- Robert A. Van Nest -- rvannest@keker.com -- Kristin E. Hucek -- khucek@keker.com -- Daniel B. Twomey, Jasmine K. Virk -- jvirk@keker.com -- and Cody S. Harris -- charris@keker.com -- Keker Van Nest & Peters LLP, San Francisco, California; Geoffrey T. Holtz -- geoffrey.holtz@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, San Francisco, California; Richard S. Taffet -- richard.taffet@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, New York, New York; for Defendant-Appellee. RADIUS RECYCLING: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Toyota Tsusho --------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Radius Recycling, Inc. (NASDAQ: RDUS), relating to the proposed merger with Toyota Tsusho America, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Toyota Tsusho will acquire all shares of Radius, with Radius shareholders receiving $30.00 per share in cash. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] READY CAPITAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 5 ------------------------------------------------------------ A securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Ready Capital Corporation (NYSE: RC) after the company reported dismal financial results and shed light on its true asset quality. The suit, captioned Quinn v. Ready Capital Corporation, et al. No. 1:25-cv-01883 (S.D.N.Y.), seeks to represent investors who purchased shares of Ready Capital between November 7, 2024 and March 2, 2025. Hagens Berman is investigating the alleged claims and urges investors who purchased Ready Capital shares and suffered substantial losses to submit your losses now. The firm also encourages persons with knowledge who may assist the firm's investigation to contact its attorneys. Class Period: Nov. 7, 2024-Mar. 2, 2025 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 5, 2025 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/rc Contact the Firm Now: RC@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 Ready Capital Corporation (RC) Securities Class Action: The litigation is focused on the propriety of Ready Capital's statements about the quality of its commercial real estate ("CRE") loans, its Current Expected Credit Loss ("CECL") reserves and allowances, and its book value. These metrics are important, given the size of Ready Capital's loan portfolio has more than doubled since 2023. In the past, Ready Capital has assured investors that its CRE portfolio has displayed "stabilizing credit metrics" and its decisions with respect to CECL and allowance for credit losses were reasonable when made. The complaint alleges that Ready Capital made false and misleading statements while failing to disclose crucial information to investors. Specifically, the suit alleges that: -- Ready Capital failed to disclose that significant non-performing CRE loans were not likely to be collected; -- The company would be required to fully reserve against these problem loans to "stabilize" its balance sheet; -- This was not accurately reflected in the company's credit loss or valuation allowances; and -- As a result, the company's financial results would be adversely impacted. Investors learned the truth on Mar. 3, 2025, when Ready Capital announced dismal Q4 and FY 2024 financial results, including a quarterly net loss per share of $1.80, an annual net loss of $2.52 per share, a 50% cut to its quarterly dividend, and a 16% book value reduction. Ready Capital blamed the results on having to take "decisive action to stabilize" its "balance sheet going forward by fully reserving for all of our non-performing loans in our CRE portfolio." This included recording a 700% increase in reconciling items compared to the prior-year quarter totaling about $382 million. These included about $277 million in combined CECL and valuation allowances, a whopping 8500% increase from the prior-year quarter. This news drove the price of Ready Capital shares down almost 27% on Mar. 3, 2025. "We are investigating whether Ready Capital may have misled investors about the quality of its underwriting, credit monitoring, and loan portfolio," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman Partner leading the firm's probe. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Ready Capital should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email RC@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation firm focusing on corporate accountability. The firm is home to a robust practice and represents investors as well as whistleblowers, workers, consumers and others in cases achieving real results for those harmed by corporate negligence and other wrongdoings. Hagens Berman's team has secured more than $2.9 billion in this area of law. More about the firm and its successes can be found at hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw. Contact: Reed Kathrein, Esq. Telephone: (844) 916-0895 [GN] REGAL CINEMAS: Moviegoers Sue Over Promotional Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------ Blake Landis of Troutman Amin, LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that Regal Cinemas just found itself in the middle of a legal thriller, and this one is playing out in the Central District of California instead of the big screen. See Hensley v. Regal Cinemas, Inc., No. 8:25-cv-00468 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2025). Here, we have a moviegoer suing the theater giant, claiming they were bombarded with promotional text messages before 8 a.m., breaking the rules set by the TCPA. We are not just talking about a single rogue text. According to the Complaint, Regal allegedly sent off four early morning marketing messages, including two that landed at 7:21 and 7:22 in the morning. Instead of waking up to a quiet morning, Plaintiff was greeted with ads for free popcorn, extra Crown Club credits, and something called Funnel Fangs. Curious enough, I had to look into what these Funnel Fangs are and apparently they are funnel cake fries with red icing . . . which sound pretty good. Nothing like getting a promo for deep-fried snacks before you have even had your first sip of coffee. But here is where things get sticky, like the bottom of a theater floor after a late-night screening. As we know, strict guidelines under the TCPA prohibit businesses from sending telemarketing messages before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. However, allegedly Regal rolled the credits on that rule and kept the marketing show going anyway. This is no small popcorn flick. This is a class action lawsuit, meaning thousands could have been hit with these early morning texts. And the timing could not be worse, no pun intended. TCPA lawsuits are exploding faster than a bag of extra-butter popcorn in a hot microwave. More TCPA class actions were filed in the first ten days of March than in all of March last year! Lawsuits over time-restricted messages keep rolling in, proving that plaintiffs' lawyers are watching compliance missteps like hawks. Companies are learning the hard way that when they ignore TCPA rules, the lawsuits come in faster than a summer blockbuster lineup. [GN] ROSINA FOOD: Court Conditionally Certifies Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACKY DEMOSTHENE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. ROSINA FOOD PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00225-JLS-MJR (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Michael Roemer entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action and court-supervised notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs. The Court finds that plaintiff has made the requisite showing of a factual nexus between the circumstances of her claims and the circumstances of the putative collective. Accordingly, the Court conditionally certifies this case as an FLSA collective action on behalf of plaintiff and others similarly situated. The Plaintiff's request for defendant to provide the requested contact information for potential opt-in plaintiffs is granted. The information must be provided by defendants promptly and in a reasonably useable electronic form. The Court directs that the parties shall meet and confer regarding the contents of the proposed notice and consent form. The parties shall jointly submit a proposed notice and consent form to the Court for approval within 30 days of the entry of the order. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals seeking relief for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by the Defendant. The Plaintiff proposes that notice be sent to the following potential collective: "All current and former hourly production employees of Rosina Food Products, Inc. who were involved in the manufacturing, packaging, or handling of food or food products and who worked 40 or more hours in any workweek from March 15, 2021 to the present." Rosina Food produces and distributes frozen pasta, meatballs, and prepared food products. A copy of the Court's order dated March 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RG3KQt at no extra charge.[CC] RTFKT INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Nike NFT Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential state and federal law claims on behalf of purchasers of Nike-themed non-fungible tokens ("NFTs"), crypto collectibles, or other crypto assets ("The Nike NFTs") issued by RTFKT, Inc. So What: If you purchased Nike NFTs issued by RTFKT, Inc., 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=36711 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 December 2, 2024, RTFKT announced on the platform X, its plan to wind down RTFKT operations, injuring investors holding NFTs promoted by Nike. 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 has 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] SANTA MONICA, CA: Murcia Class Cert Bid Tossed ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REYES CONTRERAS MURCIA, et al., v. CITY OF SANTA MONICA, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-05253-FLA-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, preliminary approval of class action settlement, and related matters. The court finds Plaintiffs fail to establish they and their counsel "will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class," as required by Rule 23(a)(4). Accordingly, the court denies without prejudice the Plaintiffs' request for class certification based on Plaintiffs and their counsel's failure to establish they adequately represent the interests of the class. In full settlement of the claims asserted in this lawsuit, Defendants agree to pay a non-reversionary gross settlement amount of $475,000. The Plaintiffs contend this results in a net settlement amount of $205,000 or $210,000 after anticipated attorney’s fees (not to exceed $235,000), incentive payments of $25,000 to Plaintiffs, and settlement administration costs (not to exceed $25,000) are subtracted from the gross settlement fund. The Plaintiffs' calculations appear to be mathematically incorrect, as subtracting from the gross settlement fund -- by the amounts identified -- would result in a net settlement amount of $190,000—not the amount Plaintiffs contend. On Oct. 20, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), seeking injunctive and monetary relief against the Defendants "for engaging in violations of the Fourth, Fifth[,] and Fourteenth Amendments, by seizing without judicial review vehicles driven by unlicensed drivers, and arbitrarily imposing an unjustified '30 Day Impound Fee' in addition to other burdensome fees." On March 1, 2024, the parties filed a Notice of Conditional Settlement, stating they had agreed upon a tentative and conditional class-based settlement, subject to City Council approval. The settlement class is defined as: "Owners of vehicles impounded by employees of the defendants City of Santa Monica and/or Santa Monica Police Department at any time from July 28, 2020 through Nov. 22, 2022, where such impounds were pursuant to Cal. Veh. Code section 14602.6(a)(1)." Santa Monica is a coastal city west of downtown Los Angeles. A copy of the Court's order dated March 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mnCSHQ at no extra charge.[CC] SCOTT SEMPLE: Henry's Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Henry v. Scott Semple, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00403 (D. Conn., Filed March 20, 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.[CC] SCOTT SEMPLE: Nelson's Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nelson v. Scott Semple, et al, Case No. 3:24-cv-00528 (D. Conn., Filed April 1, 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.[CC] SCOTT SEMPLE: Newkirk Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Newkirk v. Semple, et al, Case No. 3:24-cv-00357 (D. Conn., Filed March 14, 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.[CC] SCOTT SEMPLE: Roger Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rogers, et al., v. Scott Semple, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00534 (D. Conn., Filed April 4, 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.[CC] SCOTT SEMPLE: Thomas Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Thomas v. Scott Semple, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00659 (D. Conn., Filed April 5, 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.[CC] SCYNEXIS INC: Continues to Defend Feldman Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- SCYNEXIS Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Feldman securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On November 7, 2023, a securities class action was filed by Brian Feldman against the Company and certain of its executives in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, alleging that, during the period from March 31, 2023 to September 22, 2023, it made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about its business, operations, and prospects, alleging specifically that it failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the equipment used to manufacture ibrexafungerp was also used to manufacture a non-antibacterial beta-lactam drug substance, presenting a risk of cross-contamination; (2) that it did not have effective internal controls and procedures, as well as adequate internal oversight policies to ensure that its vendor complied with current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP); (3) that, due to the substantial risk of cross-contamination, it was reasonably likely to recall its ibrexafungerp tablets and halt its clinical studies; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, its statements about our business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, fees and costs on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased and/or acquired shares of its common stock between March 31, 2023 to September 22, 2023. It has filed a motion to dismiss. The Company disagree with the allegations and it intends to defend these litigations vigorously. SCYNEXIS, Inc. is a biotechnology company, headquartered in Jersey City, New Jersey, that is developing its proprietary class of enfumafungin-derived antifungal compounds as broad-spectrum, systemic antifungal agents for multiple fungal indications. SECOND CHANCE: Allowed to Amend Answer to Complaint --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Portillo et al., v. Second Chance, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-02660-GLR (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge George Russell, III entered an order: -- granting Second Chance and Foster's motion to amend, and -- denying Plaintiffs' motion to strike. Despite the informal nature of this memorandum, it shall constitute an Order of the Court, and the Clerk is directed to docket it accordingly. In light of this liberal standard, it is appropriate for the Court to grant Second Chance and Foster leave to amend their Answer. Second Chance and Foster move in good faith to cure the issues raised by Plaintiffs in their Motion to Strike. They significantly cut out the language Plaintiffs objected to in their Motion to Strike. The Court finds that Plaintiffs do not clear Rule 12(f)'s high bar and will not strike the language at issue. First, it is not evident to the Court from the face of the Amended Complaint that Plaintiffs do not seek to certify a class or collective on the August 2023 non-payment of wage claims. Those non-payment of wage claims are "repeat[ed] and incorporate[d] by reference" in both the collective and class action allegations. As such, the Court cannot say that the statements at issue are impertinent or immaterial. The Plaintiffs bring this suit for unpaid overtime wages against Defendants Second Chance, Mark Stephen Foster, 300 Painting and Remodeling LLC, and Jose Javier Rivas Mendez. A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NFAnE5 at no extra charge.[CC] SECURED MARKETING: Heidarpour Bid for Default Judgment Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fred Heidarpour, v. Secured Marketing Concepts Corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-00239-KML (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Krissa Lanham entered an order denying the motion for default judgment. It Is further ordered within 10 days of this order the Plaintiff shall file a renewed motion for default judgment seeking judgment only in his favor or, if he no longer wishes to pursue this case, a notice of voluntary dismissal. Heidarpour presently has no idea who the class members are or where they are located. Without such information, Heidarpour cannot provide "notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections." A final flaw in Heidarpour's approach is his belief that he can obtain class certification and judgment at the same time. The Ninth Circuit has established notice to class members "must be sent before a judgment has been granted." Certifying a class and immediately entering judgment defeats that purpose. Heidarpour's request for class certification is denied. According to Heidarpour, those "outbound call records" will "demonstrate the number of individual class members that were called as well as the number of calls made to each member." But this discovery will not give Heidarpour the information he needs to support class certification or the extent of damages. Heidarpour's claim under the TCPA will require evidence that each call reflected in the "outbound call records" was made using an "artificial or prerecorded voice." The call records on their own will not include such evidence. Instead, evidence regarding how the calls were made is possessed only by Pacific One. And as noted above, there is no indication Pacific One would participate in discovery. Third-party discovery would therefore also be futile. The complaint identified a proposed class of all persons in the United States who received unauthorized telemarketing calls from Pacific One. The Plaintiff Fred Heidarpour filed this putative class action in February 2024. The complaint alleged a single claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act against the Defendant. Secured Marketing offers mortgage and insurance products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Bn7Wic at no extra charge.[CC] SIG SAUER: Must File Class Cert Response in Glasscock by March 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Glasscock v. Sig Sauer, Inc., Case No. 6:22-cv-03095 (W.D. Mo., Filed April 18, 2022), the Hon. Judge M. Douglas Harpool entered an order granting unopposed motion for extension of time to file response/reply. -- The Defendant shall respond to Plaintiff's motion for class certification on or before March 31, 2025. -- The Defendant shall also file its expert designations on or before March 31, 2025. The nature of suit states torts -- fraud diversity-product liability. The Defendant manufactures firearms, electro-optics, ammo, airguns, and suppressors.[CC] SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set May 5 -------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of securities of Skyworks Solutions, Inc. (NASDAQ: SWKS) between July 30, 2024 and February 5, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 5, 2025. SO WHAT: If you purchased Skyworks securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Skyworks class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=36328 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 5, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. 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. 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. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, during the Class Period, defendants provided investors with material information concerning Skyworks' expected revenue for the fiscal year 2025. Defendants' statements included, among other things, confidence in Skyworks' ability to expand its mobile business and capitalize on its growth potential by investing in new technologies to diversify its portfolio of offerings. Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Skyworks' client base; notably, that its long-standing relationship with Apple, its largest customer, did not guarantee that Apple would maintain its business relationship with Skyworks for its anticipated iPhone launch. Additionally, defendants oversold Skyworks' position and ability to capitalize on AI in the smartphone upgrade cycle. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Skyworks class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=36328 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: 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] SLICE OF ITALY: Court Extends Time to File Reply ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ray v. Slice of Italy Pizzeria-Rock Hill Inc., et al., Case No. 0:24-cv-03683 (D.S.C., Filed June 25, 2024), the Hon. Judge Cameron Mcgowan Currie entered an order granting motion for extension of time to file response/reply regarding motion to Certify Class. The suit alleges violation to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendant serves authentic Italian Food, also specializing in cakes.[CC] SMG FOOD: Class Certification Bid Filing in Ordono Due June 10 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Ordono, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; v. SMG Food & Beverage, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-05019-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order that: 1. The Plaintiff's deadline to file a Motion for Class Certification is now June 10, 2025. 2. The Defendant's deadline to oppose is July 8, 2025. 3. The Plaintiff's deadline to file his Reply to the Defendant's Opposition is now July 29, 2025. 4. The hearing for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification will be continued until Sept. 4, 2025, subject to change depending on this Court's availability. on Jan. 18, 2024, the Court entered an order establishing a schedule for class certification briefing. SMG was founded in 1999. The Company line of business includes providing management consulting services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1kquSv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Steven M. Kroll, Esq. BENT CARYL & KROLL, LLP 6300 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1415 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (323) 315-0510 Facsimile: (323) 774-6021 SNAP INC: Milito Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as John Milito, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SNAP INC., a foreign profit corporation doing business as SNAPCHAT and SNAPCHAT, INC.; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 25-2-03854-8 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on March 4, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00387. The Complaint asserts a cause of action under RCW 49.58.110 on a class-wide basis on behalf of all individuals who applied for a job opening in the State of Washington with Snap from January 1, 2023 to the present, where the job posting did not disclose a wage scale or salary range.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Alice R. Hoesterey, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 401 Union Street, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101-2668 Phone: +1 206 839 4300 Facsimile: +1 206 839 4301 Email: ahoesterey@orrick.com - and - Erin M. Connell, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2669 Phone: +1 415 773 5700 Email: econnell@orrick.com STANLEY STEEMER: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $700,000 -------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that Stanley Steemer has agreed to pay a $700,000 settlement to resolve a proposed class action lawsuit filed after cybercriminals allegedly hacked into the company's network in 2023 and stole private data. The deal, which was granted preliminary approval by the court in January 2025, covers nearly 68,000 people notified by Stanley Steemer that their personal information was or may have been compromised in the data breach, which the defendant says occurred between February 10 and March 6, 2023. The class action settlement includes two subclasses: affected Stanley Steemer customers and affected Stanley Steemer employees. The court-approved website for the Stanley Steemer data breach settlement can be found at StanleySteemerSettlement.com. According to the initial class action lawsuit, the incident stemmed from Stanley Steemer's "utter failure" to protect its systems, which allegedly led to the exposure of individuals' names, Social Security numbers, financial account details and driver's license numbers. Eligible class members must submit a valid claim form online or by mail by April 28, 2025 to receive Stanley Steemer settlement benefits. You can start the claim-filing process online by heading to this page and entering the unique ID provided in the settlement notice you were mailed. Alternatively, you can download a PDF claim form to print and return by mail to the settlement administrator. Class members who file a timely, valid claim form can be reimbursed up to $10,000 for out-of-pocket losses "fairly traceable" to the Stanely Steemer data breach, the settlement site says. Such losses may include, but are not limited to, costs related to credit monitoring, identity theft protection services or freezing/unfreezing credit reports, or charges from identity theft, fraud or misuse of your personal information. "If you plan to make a claim for Out-of-Pocket Losses, documentation must be provided to support your claim," the site states. "Documents should be clear, readable copies, as anything you submit will not be returned to you." Covered individuals may also file a claim for a pro-rated cash payment. Payments will be capped at $100 for employee subclass members and $50 for customer subclass members. Finally, Stanley Steemer has agreed to remedy the deficiencies in its data security measures that allegedly led to the data breach. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the terms of the Stanley Steemer class action settlement at a hearing on May 27, 2025. Settlement benefits will be issued to eligible class members only if the deal receives final approval and after any appeals are resolved. [GN] STITCH FIX: Securities Class Suit Pending in California ------------------------------------------------------- Stitch Fix Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending February 1, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2025, that the securities class suit is pending before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On August 26, 2022, a class action lawsuit alleging violations of federal securities laws was filed by certain of the Company's stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants the Company and certain of its officers and directors (the "Securities Class Action"). An amended complaint was filed on August 15, 2023. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by the Company and its officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding its Freestyle offering between December 2020 and June 2022. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on November 1, 2023. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was held on April 18, 2024, and the motion to dismiss was granted on July 16, 2024, with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on September 13, 2024, and the Company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, filed on November 8, 2024, is pending before the court. Stitch Fix is an online personal styling service in the United States and United Kingdom that uses recommendation algorithms and data science to personalize clothing items based on size, budget and style. STOCKSTOTRADE.COM: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Cedric Bishop, for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. STOCKSTOTRADE.COM, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-02076 (S.D.N.Y., March 13, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://stockstotrade.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. STOCKSTOTRADE.COM, INC., operates the StocksToTrade online interactive Website and retail store across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal michael@gottlieb.legal SUMMIT PATHOLOGY: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Sept. 30, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN ALEXANDER (individually and on behalf of her Minor Children), DEIDRA DONOHOE, JESSICA KLARIN, JENNIFER ELLIOT, KENNETH SMITH, JORDAN KRISTOFF, WILLIAM RICHARDSON JR., CHRISTIAN CASTLE, EMMANUEL HOLGUIN, AVIANA PUGLIESE individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SUMMIT PATHOLOGY LABORATORIES, INC. d/b/a SUMMIT PATHOLOGY, Case No. 1:24-cv-02939-GPG-CYC (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Fact discovery cut-off: June 1, 2026 -- Class certification motions to Sept. 30, 2026 be filed by: -- Any response to be filed by: Oct. 30, 2026 -- Any reply to be filed by: Nov. 20, 2026 -- disclosure of experts: July 1, 2026 -- Disclosure of rebuttal experts: July 31, 2026 -- Expert depositions to be completed Aug. 31, 2026 by: The Plaintiffs bring their case on behalf of themselves and "All persons whose Private Information was compromised as a result of the Data Breach discovered by Summit Pathology d/b/a Summit Pathology Laboratories, Inc. in April 2024 and for which it provided Notice (the "Class")." Summit Pathology is an independent pathology laboratory, owned by a practice of seventeen board certified pathologists. A copy of the Court's order dated March 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dAvOgQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Danielle L. Perry, Esq. Gary E. Mason, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com dperry@masonllp.com - and - Laura Van Note, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Facsimile: (510) 891-7030 E-mail: lvn@colevannote.com - and - Gary Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael Simpson, Esq. Christoper Seusing, Esq. Sean Patel, Esq. WOOD SMITH HENNING & BERMAN LLP 1805 Shea Center Drive, Suite 200 Highlands Ranch, CO 80129 Telephone: (702) 479-2517 E-mail: msimpson@wshblaw.com csuesing@wshblaw.com spatel@wshblaw.com SUNSTATE EQUIPMENT: Chavez Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jose Chavez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SUNSTATE EQUIPMENT CO., LLC, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV33820 was removed from Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on March 13, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02262. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts seven causes of action: failure to pay wages including overtime wages.; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to pay timely wages; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; and violation of Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Greg S. Labate, Esq. Jason M. Guyser, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993 Phone: 714.513.5100 Facsimile: 714.513.5130 Email: glabate@sheppardmullin.com jguyser@sheppardmullin.com SUPERB CABLE: Court Conditionally Certifies FLSA Collective ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHAD FOREMAN, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. SUPERB CABLE CONNECTIONS, LLC, et al., Case No. 9:24-cv-81410-WM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge William Matthewman entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective and send notice to collective members as follows: 1. Within two weeks of this Order, the Defendants shall produce to the Plaintiff a list containing the name and last known mailing address, personal email address, to the extent known, and telephone number of each member of the FLSA Collective. These FLSA Collective members who join the action by the deadline specified in the Notice are referred to as "Opt-Ins." 2. The Notice and the Consent to Join form shall be sent to all such FLSA Collective members by U.S. mail, email, to the extent personal email addresses are available, and text, at the expense of the Plaintiff's counsel, within 30 calendar days of receipt of the contact information from the Defendants. The forms of Notice and Consent attached to the brief in support of the Plaintiff's motion as Exhibits C and E are approved. 3. The Reminder Notice, attached to the memorandum in support of the Plaintiff's Motion as Exhibit D, shall be sent to all such FLSA Collective members by U.S. mail, email, to the extent personal email addresses are available, and text, at the expense of Plaintiff’s counsel forty-five days after Notice is initially sent to the FLSA Collective members. 4. There shall be a 90 calendar day period following the mailing of the Notice in which FLSA Collective members can complete, sign, and return their Consents to Join in this Action. 5. The Plaintiff's Counsel shall file all completed Consent Forms with the Court. 6. The Plaintiff is designated as the representative of the FLSA Collective members. 7. The Plaintiff's counsel, Morgan & Morgan, P.A., is designated as counsel for the FLSA Collective members. The Plaintiff is seeking to certify the following collective: "All Groundmen and/or Linemen who worked for the Defendants within the last three years through the date of judgment, who were/are paid a day rate." A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sXnL43 at no extra charge.[CC] TARGET CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Florida ----------------------------------------------------------------- Target Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending February 1, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. On January 31, 2025, and February 20, 2025, Target Corporation and members of its Board of Directors were named as defendants in two purported federal securities law class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 relating to certain prior disclosures of Target about risks related to its environmental, social, and governance initiatives (including with respect to diversity, equity, and inclusion) and oversight of those risks. One plaintiff is seeking to represent a class of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Target common stock between August 26, 2022, and November 19, 2024, and the other plaintiff is seeking to represent a class of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Target common stock between March 9, 2022, and August 16, 2023. Both plaintiffs have marked the class actions as related to a previously filed individual federal securities action in which the court denied a motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs seek damages and other relief, including attorneys' fees, based on allegations that the defendants misled investors, including about the risks associated with Target's environmental, social, and governance initiatives (including with respect to diversity, equity, and inclusion) and its 2023 Pride Month merchandise collection, and oversight of those risks. The plaintiffs allege that such conduct affected the value of Target common stock. Target intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits. Target Corporation is an American retail company with its principal place of business located in Minneapolis, MN. [BN] TC HEARTLAND: Class Cert Bid Hearing in Tilker Set for Nov. 5 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD TILKER, SAMUEL GARCIA, and CARL DESOTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TC HEARTLAND, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-04192-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Noël Wise entered an order setting a class certification and Daubert Hearing for Nov. 5, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. TC Heartland provides packaged food products. A copy of the Court's order dated March 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=E252Ew at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bahar Sodaify, Esq. Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq. Benjamin J. Fuchs, Esq. Kiryl Karpiuk, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com bfuchs@clarksonlawfirm.com kkarpiuk@clarksonlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Alexander M. Smith, Esq. Kelly M. Morrison, Esq. Dean N. Panos, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 515 S. Flower Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2054 Telephone: (213) 239-5100 Facsimile: (213) 239-5199 E-mail: asmith@jenner.com kmorrison@jenner.com dpanos@jenner.com TDBBS LLC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Barkworthies Bully Sticks ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges Barkworthies bully sticks are falsely advertised as odor-free. The 20-page case claims that, contrary to front-label claims and online advertisements marketing Barkworthies bully sticks as an odor-free alternative to traditional products, the treats emit an "offensive" smell when chewed by dogs. According to the Barkworthies lawsuit, bully sticks are a type of dehydrated meat dog treat that provide dental care, are good sources of protein and satisfy a dog's need to chew. However, bully sticks are known to produce a strong smell, especially when chewed, the complaint shares. The suit claims Barkworthies has sought to capitalize on growing consumer demand for odor-free bully sticks, representing in its online product description that all varieties of its product are "odor-free for a premium chewing experience." "Unfortunately for consumers seeking odor-free bully sticks, [Barkworthies'] deceptive advertising is evidenced by scores of [consumer] complaints that Defendant's affirmative representations and warranties about the 'odor-free' representations are false," the filing asserts. The lawsuit cites several customer reviews on Amazon.com, two of which say the Barkworthies treats "stink to high heaven" and are "extremely pungent." The plaintiff, a California resident who bought Barkworthies Odor Free Small Dog Bully Sticks from a Petco store, claims that he and other consumers would not have purchased the product had they known it would produce a strong and offensive odor when their dogs chewed on it. The lawsuit looks to represent all United States residents who purchased Barkworthies' Odor Free Dog Bully Sticks and all substantially similar products within the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] TEAM HEALTH: Status Conference Continued to April 24 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA and CITY OF PLAQUEMINE, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. TEAM HEALTH HOLDINGS, INC., AMERITEAM SERVICES, LLC, and HCFS HEALTH CARE FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00111-DCLC-DCP (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Clifton Corker entered an order granting in part and denying in part County's motion to compel. The Court further entered an order that the status conference currently set for March 19, 2025, is continued to April 24, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. EST. The County's request for nationwide claims data is not unduly burdensome. Considering the requested data is relevant to the County's ability to satisfy the Rule 23 requirements and would not unduly burden TeamHealth, the County's motion is granted to the extent it seeks to compel production of nationwide claims data. The County, however, represented that production of the nationwide claims data would obviate the need for the requested contracts. Given the foregoing ruling compelling production of the nationwide claims data, the County's request regarding contracts with payors is denied without prejudice. The requested sampling plan is not relevant to County's damages methodology in this case, and the County's motion is denied to the extent it requests to compel production of the sampling plan. The Plaintiffs assert claims for unjust enrichment and civil violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). Team Health provides emergency department staffing and administrative services through a network of subsidiaries, affiliates, and nominally independent entities and contractors. A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=m4L7Ew at no extra charge.[CC] TEKSYSTEMS INC: Recruiter Class Wins Certification in Thomas Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL THOMAS, et al., v. TEKSYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00460-WSS (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge William Stickman IV entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The following classes are certified pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23: 1. All current and former Recruiters employed by the Defendant in Pennsylvania from April 9, 2018 to the final date of judgment ("Pennsylvania Class"). 2. All current and former Recruiters employed by the Defendant in Washington from Jan. 19, 2019 to the final date of judgment ("Washington Class"). 3. All current and former Recruiters employed by the Defendant in New York from Jan. 19, 2016 to the final date of judgment "New York Class"). 4. All current and former Recruiters employed by the Defendant in Massachusetts from Jan. 19, 2019 to the final date of judgment ("Massachusetts Class"). The Court further entered an order that: -- Michael Thomas and Maria Conyers-Jordan are appointed as representative Plaintiffs for the Pennsylvania Class; -- Ava Dore is appointed as the representative Plaintiff for the Washington Class; -- Rachel Richenberg is appointed as the representative Plaintiff for the New York Class; -- Emily Burke is appointed as the representative Plaintiff for the Massachusetts Class; and -- Werman Salas P.C. and Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. are appointed as counsel for all four classes. TEKsystems provides information technology services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2Whche at no extra charge.[CC] TFI INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Brownbridge v. TFI International Inc., et al., Case No. 25-cv-2159, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired TFI International Inc. ("TFI" or the "Company") (NYSE: TFII) securities between April 26, 2024 and February 19, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have until 60 days from this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. What Happened? On February 19, 2025, after the market closed, TFI announced its fourth quarter and full year 2024 financial results in a press release, revealing quarterly net income of $88.1 million (a nearly 33% decrease year-over-year) and fiscal 2024 net income of $422.5 million (approximately 16% decrease year-over-year). On this news, TFI's stock price fell $26.13, or 20.5%, to close at $101.48 per share on February 20, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. What Is The Lawsuit About? The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company was losing small and medium business customers; (2) that, as a result, the Company's TForce revenue was declining; (3) that TFI was experiencing difficulties managing its costs; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the profitability of its largest business segment was declining; 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. Contact Us to Participate or Learn More: If you purchased TFI securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please click HERE or contact us at: Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 Email: info@frankcruzlaw.com Website: www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN] THEHUFFINGTONPOST.COM: Faces Class Action Over Data Privacy Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Barton Golub filed a class action lawsuit against TheHuffingtonPost.com Inc. Why: Golub claims HuffPost violated California privacy law by collecting user data without consent. Where: The HuffPost class action was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses HuffPost of violating California privacy law by collecting user data without consent. Plaintiff Barton Golub filed the class action complaint against TheHuffingtonPost.com Inc. on Feb. 13 in California federal court, alleging violations of state law. Golub claims HuffPost, a popular news website, violates the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) by collecting users' IP addresses and other device identifier information without their consent. Golub, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of himself and other California residents, claims that HuffPost's use of tracking tools on its website is an invasion of privacy. The lawsuit alleges that HuffPost installs tracking tools known as "pen registers" on users' browsers when they visit the website. These tools reportedly collect users' IP addresses, device fingerprints, and other data without their prior consent or a court order, which Golub argues is a violation of CIPA. The California Invasion of Privacy Act was enacted to protect individuals' privacy rights, and it requires companies to obtain consent or a court order before using devices that collect certain types of information. HuffPost benefits financially from data collection, class action alleges Golub claims HuffPost's use of tracking tools is particularly invasive because the data collected can be used for targeted advertising and data monetization. He argues that HuffPost benefits financially from this data collection, allowing the company to sell user information to advertisers for more precise targeting. The lawsuit seeks to represent a class of California residents who accessed the HuffPost website and had their IP addresses collected by the tracking tools. Golub is seeking statutory damages of $5,000 for each violation of CIPA, as well as an order preventing HuffPost from further violating the privacy rights of California residents. HuffPost is not the only media company facing allegations of violating California's privacy law. A similar class action against Buzzfeed recently accused the company of installing trackers on the internet browsers of its website visitors. What do you think of the allegations made in this HuffPost class action? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiffs are represented by L. Timothy Fisher and Emily A. Horne of Bursor & Fisher PA. The HuffPost class action is Golub v. TheHuffingtonPost.com Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-01514-KAW in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Renewed Bid for Class Cert Due July 14 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LD, ET AL., v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC., ET AL., Case No. 4:20-cv-02254-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order setting the following schedule for discovery and follow-up briefing: event deadline Close of Fact Discovery Limited to issues June 13, 2025 identified in prior order: Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class July 14, 2025 Certification: Defendants' response to renewed motion for Aug. 4, 2025 class certification: Plaintiffs' reply in support of renewed Aug. 25, 2025 motion for class certification: Hearing on renewed motion for class Sept. 9, 2025 at Certification: 2:00 PM United Behavioral provides management services on a contract and fee basis. A copy of the Court's order dated March 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IroCB1 at no extra charge.[CC] United Parcel: Claims in Yanez-Davison Discrimination Case Narrowed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHRISTINA YANEZ-DAVISON, Plaintiff, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-03016-DC-AC (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dena Coggins of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California: (i) grant in part Defendant UPS' motion to dismiss; (ii) granted Defendant Jeff Davies' motion to dismiss; and (iii) denied as moot Defendant UPS' motion to stay discovery. Yanez-Davison filed an employment lawsuit in San Joaquin Superior Court against her former employer, UPS, and her former supervisors, Joseph Dalia and Davies, along with unnamed defendants (Does 1–10). She was a former Sort Supervisor at UPS' Merced Center in California, who alleged that she faced gender discrimination, workplace harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination during her eleven-year employment. Yanez-Davison was hired by UPS in 2011 as a Sort Supervisor at the Merced Center in California, where she worked for 11 years without disciplinary issues. Yanez-Davison, the only female supervisor in her department, faced harassment from multiple male supervisors and union representatives. Her supervisor, Defendant Dalia, harassed her frequently for years, leading her to report the behavior to human resources in 2013. However, UPS allegedly did nothing to address her concerns. In the summer of 2017, Dalia grabbed Yanez-Davison's wrist during an altercation, prompting her to take medical leave. UPS placed Dalia on leave but allowed him to return before Yanez-Davison was set to testify about the incident. Following her return, her car tires were slashed, and she continued to face harassment. Additionally, a center manager falsely accused her of taking company property, visited her home without permission, and harassed her through email after her maternity leave. Yanez-Davison filed an administrative complaint on Oct. 7, 2022, and received a right-to-sue letter from California's Civil Rights Department (CRD). She was also a named plaintiff in a class action, Goins et al. v. United Parcel Serv. Inc., representing female UPS employees. However, on April 20, 2023, the court dismissed her from that case for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Yanez-Davison then initiated this separate lawsuit on Oct. 10, 2023, bringing nine causes of action, eight of which target UPS and Does 1–10: a. Claim 1: hostile work environment in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), California Government Code Section 12900, et seq.; b. Claim 3: assault and battery; c. (claim 4) failure to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in violation of FEHA; d. (claim 5) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA; e. (claim 6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; f. (claim 7) unfair business practice in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.; g. (claim 8) violation of the Equal Pay Act; and h. (claim 9) wrongful termination in violation of public policy. She also brought a sexual harassment claim against all Defendants (Claim 2). On Dec. 27, 2023, UPS filed a notice of removal to federal court and moved to dismiss all claims with prejudice on Jan. 3, 2024. Yanez-Davison opposed the motion on Jan. 17, 2024, and UPS replied on Jan 26, 2024. On April 10, 2024, UPS filed a motion for a protective order to stay discovery while its motion to dismiss was pending, which Yanez-Davison opposed on May 9, 2024. UPS replied on May 13, 2024. Defendant Davies filed a motion to dismiss the sexual harassment claim against him on Sept. 30, 2024. Yanez-Davison opposed the motion on Oct. 24, 2024, and Davies replied on Nov. 4, 2024. The court is currently considering UPS' motion to dismiss and motion to stay discovery, along with Davies' motion to dismiss, with the motions taken under submission pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). Judge Coggins dismissed several of Yanez-Davison's claims without allowing her the opportunity to amend them. These included her hostile work environment claim, which was barred due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and her sexual harassment claims against both UPS and Jeff Davies, which the court found legally insufficient. Her assault and battery claim was also dismissed as it was barred by the statute of limitations. Additionally, the court ruled that her claims for failure to prevent discrimination and harassment and failure to engage in an interactive process could not proceed. However, Judge Coggins allowed Yanez-Davison to amend certain claims, giving her an opportunity to address deficiencies in her allegations. The Plaintiff was granted leave to amend her claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, unfair business practices under California's UCL, violation of the Equal Pay Act, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. In light of these dismissals, Judge Coggins also denied as moot UPS' motion to stay discovery since much of the case had been resolved by her ruling. As ordered by the Court, Yanez-Davison has 21 days from the date of the ruling to file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies in the claims where leave to amend was granted. If she fails to amend, those claims will be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of the Court was directed to update the docket to reflect that Davies has been terminated from the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yub4fjwx from PacerMonitor.com. UNITED STATES: Class Action Settlement in Farrell Gets Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERRILL FARRELL, et al., v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-04013-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Joseph Spero entered an order granting motion for final approval of class action settlement and awarding reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. 1. The Court finds that certification of the following class is appropriate for settlement purposes pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2): "Veterans of the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps who were administratively separated prior to Sept. 20, 2011, and whose most recent Service separation document shows their basis for discharge was sexual orientation, homosexual conduct, homosexual admission, homosexual marriage, similar language, or a policy title or number signifying separation for sexual orientation." 2. The Court finds that the class, which likely contains more than 30,000 members, is so numerous that joinder is impractical, satisfying Rule 23(a)(1). 3. The Court finds that there are questions of law and fact common to the class, satisfying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2). 4. Class Counsel is awarded reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $350,000, which is the amount sought by the Plaintiffs and the amount set forth in the Parties' agreement. Department of Defense provides the military forces needed to deter war, and to protect the security of the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated March 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YAxNfA at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Court Denies Certification of Black Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that a Federal Court judge has dismissed a motion to certify a proposed class action lawsuit that was launched by Black public servants in 2020 who alleged there was systemic racism within the public service. In an "order and reasons" document, Justice Jocelyne Gagne says the case doesn't sufficiently meet the class action requirement that the claims raise common enough issues. Gagne also says the scope of the plaintiffs' claim "simply makes it unfit for a class procedure." Filed in 2020, the class action sought $2.5 billion in damages because of lost salaries and promotion, says the Black Class Action Secretariat, a group created as a result of the lawsuit. Headed by Nicholas Marcus Thompson, the organization is seeking long-term solutions to address systemic racism and discrimination in the public service, including compensation and the appointment of a Black equity commission. Gagne said the court acknowledges the "profoundly sad ongoing history of discrimination suffered by Black Canadians" and that plaintiffs have faced challenges in the public service. However, she said the plaintiffs didn't present an adequate litigation plan and that they failed to present a ground for the court to assert jurisdiction over the case. The document also said that several class actions against individual federal departments and agencies allege racial discrimination, which "overlap significantly with the present action." Proposed class members, the judge said, "would therefore be included in the class definition of these other class proceedings." [GN] UNITED STATES: Faces Class Suit for Alleged Self-Obstruction ------------------------------------------------------------ Ian Stark, writing for UPI, reports that the nonprofit Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates filed a class-action lawsuit Friday, March 14, against the United States Department of Education for allegedly obstructing its own Office for Civil Rights. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by COPAA and led by two parents who are also members of the nonprofit, purporting that the Education Department has "systemically obstructed OCR's investigation and enforcement functions by imposing a general freeze on investigations while directing resources to cases of political interests." According to the case docket, the plaintiffs accused the Trump administration and Education Secretary Linda McMahon of purposefully making it impossible for the OCR to conduct civil rights enforcement, due to "mass firings" and the "the termination of dozens of education-related contracts," which "harm students and their families, who rely on the department to ensure their access to educational opportunities, as required by the federal civil rights laws Congress charges OCR to enforce." The suit also alleges that "the department abruptly froze all OCR investigations, abdicating its responsibility to process and investigate civil rights complaints filed by families nationwide seeking equal access to education," before only releasing that stoppage "on complaints alleging only disability-based discrimination while continuing to bar OCR staff" from working on cases related to race or sex-based discrimination, then "on its own initiative, began targeted investigations into purported discrimination against white and cisgender students," while seeking information to investigate "programs designed to benefit transgender students and students of color." The two people named as leading the suit are Nikki S. Carter, a Black parent of three children and "A.W.," a parent whose child "experienced sexual assault and harassment by a classmate." Carter filed a complaint with OCR in 2022 alleging "discrimination on the basis of race and retaliation for her work as a parent advocate," and purports that "as a result of [the] defendants' obstruction of OCR's complaint investigation and processing functions" OCR stopped investigating and processing her complaint. A.W. filed a complaint with OCR in 2023 and alleges the same complaint as Carter regarding OCR cessation of investigation due to obstruction. COPAA also lodged the same complaint as the named parents. A group of 21 attorneys general, led by New York's Letitia James filed suit Thursday, March 13, against the Trump administration to try and stop the undoing of the Education Department. "This administration may claim to be stopping waste and fraud," said James in a press release, "but it is clear that their only mission is to take away the necessary services, resources, and funding that students and their families need." [GN] UNITED STATES: Farm Workers Seek Provisional Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as UNITED FARM WORKERS, et al., v. KRISTI NOEM, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00246-JLT-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on April 11, 2025, will move the Court to provisionally certify two classes. Individual Plaintiffs request provisional certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2) to seek class-wide preliminary injunctive relief. Additionally, Individual Plaintiffs ask the Court to appoint the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of San Diego and Imperial Counties, and Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP as provisional class counsel under Rule 23(g). Department of Homeland Security is responsible for public security, including counter-terrorism, border security, cybersecurity, immigration, and disaster preparedness. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wCTn0x at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bree Bernwanger, Esq. Michelle (Minju) Y. Cho, Esq. Lauren Davis, Esq. Shilpi Agarwal, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 621-2493 E-mail: bbernwanger@aclunc.org mcho@aclunc.org ldavis@aclunc.org sagarwal@aclunc.org - and - Mayra Joachin, Esq. Eva Bitran, Esq. Oliver Ma, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 1313 West 8th Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 977-5000 E-mail: mjoachin@aclusocal.org ebitran@aclusocal.org oma@aclusocal.org - and - Brisa Velazquez Oatis, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SAN DIEGO & IMPERIAL COUNTIES San Diego, CA 92138-7131 Telephone: (619) 398-4199 E-mail: bvoatis@aclu-sdic.org - and - Ajay S. Krishnan, Esq. Franco Muzzio, Esq. Zainab O. Ramahi, Esq. Julia Greenberg, Esq. KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 E-mail: akrishnan@keker.com fmuzzio@keker.com zramahi@keker.com jgreenberg@keker.com UNITED STATES: Lewis Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES LEWIS, et al., v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02182-RCL (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for a one-week extension to file reply in support of motion for class certification. On March 10, 2025, the Defendants filed a combined motion to dismiss, and opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification after receiving a 30-day extension to do so. According to the local rules, Plaintiffs have one week to file their reply brief in support of their Motion for Class Certification and two weeks to file their opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiffs request a one-week extension to file their reply so that they can file a combined brief that addresses both motions on March 24, 2025 -- the day their opposition to Defendants’ second Motion to Dismiss is due. The Plaintiffs' counsel conferred with Defendants’ counsel who represented that they take "no position" on this motion. United States Commission makes parole release decisions for eligible Federal and District of Columbia prisoners. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZwdqRy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hanna Perry, Esq. Zoe Friedland, Esq. PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 633 3rd St. N.W. Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 824-2524 UPFIELD US: Wins Summary Judgment v. Reyes ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOANNE REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UPFIELD US INC., Case No. 7:22-cv-06722-KMK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth Karas entered an order granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending Motion, enter judgment for the Defendant, and close this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has failed to introduce any evidence sufficient to create an issue of triable fact as to whether Defendant engaged in materially misleading activity and thus, summary judgment is warranted on this independent ground. The Plaintiff brings this putative class action against the Defendant, alleging that the labeling on a variety of Defendant's Country Crock brand plant-based butter spreads is deceptive and misleading. The Defendant is a manufacturer of margarines and vegetable oil spreads. A copy of the Court's order dated March 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KSiFIk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katherine Lalor, Esq. Theodore Hillebrand, Esq. Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Great Neck & Middle Village, NY The Defendant is represented by: Darci F. Madden, Esq. Courtney J. Peterson, Esq. Nora Faris, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP New York, NY & St. Louis, MO UPSTART HOLDINGS: Consolidated Suit over SEC Filing Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- Upstart Holdings, 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 it is facing an ongoing consolidated shareholder class action "In re Upstart Holdings Securities Litigation," 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. On July 26, 2022, a lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, captioned "Crain v. Upstart Holdings, Inc. et al.," Case No. 2:22-cv-02935-ALM-EPD claiming unspecified damages and legal fees. On August 16, 2022, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved lead counsel in the Crain action. 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 brings the same claims as the previous complaint but adds a claim under Section 20A of the Exchange Act. On February 24, 2023, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. Lead plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss on April 25, 2023, and defendants filed a reply in support of their motion on May 25, 2023. No hearing date has been set for that motion. 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 may file 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. VEOLIA NORTH: Agrees to Settle Flint Water Class Suit for $53-MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dani Alexis Ryskamp, J.D., writing for Expert Institute, reports that legal battles over the Flint Water Crisis culminate in a $53M settlement with Veolia, marking a key step in resolving years of litigation and claims. Facts and Issues in the Case The case involves a class of approximately 45,000 members: property owners, businesses, and adult residents of Flint, Michigan. It focuses on events that occurred during the "Flint Water Crisis," which began in 2014 when a change in Flint's water source from Lake Huron to the Flint River resulted in the city's water becoming contaminated with lead, Legionella bacteria, and other substances. In 2016, the Flint Water Litigation class filed suit against Veolia North America, a water engineering company. The class alleged that Veolia failed to identify pipe corrosion. It also claimed Veolia failed to warn government officials about water quality issues, despite having a duty to do so when Veolia agreed to investigate Flint's water. The class alleged that if Veolia had correctly identified corroding pipes and notified officials sooner, the contamination would have ended sooner -- potentially preserving the health of residents and visitors who were exposed to Flint's water. In turn, Veolia North America alleged that responsibility for the Flint Water Crisis rests on the shoulders of state and local government officials. Veolia noted that the crisis began approximately two years before it was asked to consult. The company also stated that its recommendations to the city were ignored and that the city withheld data that might have affected Veolia's conclusions. The Details of the June 2024 Settlement The $25 million settlement was announced less than two weeks before a class issues trial was scheduled. The funds, minus attorney's fees, are to be split among the adult exposure subclass, the business economic loss subclass, and the property damage subclass. The settlement also includes a payment of $1,500 per minor claimant in the class, for a total of no more than $1.5 million. The settlement is expected to resolve claims for the entire Flint Water Litigation class or approximately half the population of the city of Flint, according to a press release from Veolia North America. In the initial approval, U.S. District Judge Judith E. Levy said the $25 million deal was adequate to compensate members of the Flint Water Litigation class. Judge Levy also noted the deal was in the public's interest and certified the settlement class. The judge's own close involvement with the case over the preceding eight years, plus the participation of multiple mediators, made collusion and other issues highly unlikely, in the judge's opinion. Representing the Flint Water Litigation class, attorney Ted Leopold of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC said the agreement was "a very strong resolution of the case based on the totality of circumstances we'd be up against," noting that litigation could stretch on for years -- delaying any sort of resolution for class members. The Latest In February 2025, the Flint Water Crisis litigation reached a pivotal moment with Veolia North America's agreement to pay a $53 million settlement, bringing an end to all remaining lawsuits against the company. This settlement adds to the $26.3 million Veolia had previously paid and follows the landmark $626 million settlement from the state of Michigan and other parties. Veolia has consistently denied responsibility, emphasizing that it was retained as a consultant only after Flint had already begun sourcing water from the Flint River in 2014. Nonetheless, critics argued that the company should have taken greater action to highlight the risks of lead contamination. The $53 million will be distributed among approximately 26,000 individuals, marking a significant step toward resolving long-standing claims. Attorney General Dana Nessel underscored the importance of this resolution, stating, "After years of drawn-out legal battles, this settlement finally closes a chapter for Flint residents." Takeaways for Attorneys Litigation surrounding the Flint Water Crisis has been complex and far-reaching. In July 2023, engineering firm Lockwood, Andrews & Newman announced a confidential settlement of lawsuits brought by Flint residents surrounding the firm's involvement in the crisis in 2014 and 2015. The firm also settled with four plaintiffs in 2022 after a jury failed to reach a verdict in a separate case. The Flint Water Crisis made national news in the mid-2010s, yet journalistic coverage seemed to fizzle out rather than report any definitive resolution. Cases like these demonstrate why: The complex issues and sheer number of parties affected meant that claims related to the crisis went on for years after evidence of lead and other contaminants first appeared in Flint's drinking water. In the initial settlement approval, both Judge Levy and counsel for the plaintiff class noted that litigation has been pending for eight years and that a trial could stretch the case years into the future, with no guaranteed outcome for either side. The settlement allows both the parties in the case to reach a resolution and the public to see a clear endpoint for at least some issues surrounding the Flint Water Crisis. The Flint Water Litigation class was represented by co-lead counsel Ted Leopold and Michael Pitt. Veolia North America was represented by Michael A. Olsen, James M. Campbell, and Alaina Devine. [GN] VISION PATH: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Business Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Sullivan & Associates LLP (MS&A) announced that it is pursuing a class action lawsuit against the makers of Hubble contact lenses, alleging that Hubble engaged in unfair, unlawful and deceptive business practices. Case Details The lawsuit, titled Africa v. Vision Path, Inc., d/b/a Hubble, et al., (case number 23-CV-04570-GW-MRW), is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Plaintiff alleges he and the putative class are entitled to reimbursement of their monthly subscription dues because Hubble knowingly, intentionally and deceptively altered their prescriptions without advising them, then used a knowingly flawed verification system to seek prescriber approval of the altered prescriptions so they could be sold. Each of these actions, Plaintiff alleges, were in violation of both federal and state law. As a result of the alleged wrongdoing, the Plaintiff seeks to recover on behalf of the putative class, among other remedies, the subscription dues that Hubble's customers in California paid each month in exchange for contact lenses that differed from the ones actually prescribed by their eye doctors. Plaintiff seeks to represent all persons who purchased Hubble Classic daily contact lenses in the state of California between April 28, 2019 and the present. However, the Court has not yet ruled on class certification issues. Next Steps for Potential Class Members More information about the lawsuit, including a copy of the operative complaint, is provided at HubbleClassAction.com. Hubble customers in California are encouraged to share their experiences by completing a questionnaire available through that website, and may submit any written inquiries to Attorneys@HubbleClassAction.com. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Source: Michael Sullivan & Associates LLP, 2401 E. El Segundo Blvd., Suite 100, El Segundo, CA 90245 Contacts: Ryan J. Carlson, Esq. Michael Sullivan & Associates LLP Phone: (310) 356-5210 Email: Attorneys@HubbleClassAction.com [GN] WELLS FARGO: Henzel Bid for Redaction, Sealing Denied w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Henzel v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (RE J&J INVESTMENT LITIGATION), Case No. 2:22-cv-00529-GMN-NJK (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Nancy Koppe entered an order that as the parties fail to address the proper legal standard in their briefing, the Plaintiffs' motion for redaction and to seal is denied without prejudice. The Clerk's Office is instructed to maintain the subject documents under seal at this juncture. The parties must file a joint supplement providing the required showing of compelling reasons on a document-by-document basis, as well as on a redaction-by-redaction basis as applicable within each document. Wells Fargo's response does provide more discussion of the issue in arguing for application of the "good cause" standard but its cited legal authority either does not account for the decision in Center for Auto Safety or relies on outdated cases that themselves do not account for Center for Auto Safety. A copy of the Court's order dated March 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LfTMC2 at no extra charge.[CC] XP 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 XP Inc. (NASDAQ: XP) resulting from allegations that XP may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased XP 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=36778 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 March 12, 2024, Grizzly Research issued a report entitled "XP's (Nasdaq: XP) Entire Profits Are Dependent on What Insiders Call a ‘Madoff-Like Ponzi Scheme'". The report stated in part that "XP is a Brazilian Nasdaq-listed fintech company. Our research uncovers that the company is running a massive Ponzi scheme facilitated through certain derivatives sales to retail clients, which are funneled through special funds and misrepresented as proprietary trading profits." On this news, the price of XP stock fell 5.4% on March 12, 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] ********* 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 ***