/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250407.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, April 7, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 69
Headlines
1258 ROYALE GOURMET: Pretrial Management Order in Esquivel Entered
3M COMPANY: Buckner Files Suit in D. South Carolina
3M COMPANY: Krenzel Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Lamott Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Mahon Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: O'Brian Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Pastor Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
ACCESS TELECARE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Sept. 29
ACTINIUM PHARMA: Faces Kohil Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
ALASKA AIRLINES: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Creer Due Sept. 26
ALIBABA GROUP: Court Approves Class Settlement in Ciccarello
ALLIANCE SOLUTIONS: Class Settlement in Christian Gets Initial Nod
ALPINE FUNDING: Class Cert Bid Filing in Bachhuber Due Sept. 12
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Filing in Rittmann Extended to May 16
AMAZON.COM INC: Parties Seek More Time for FLSA Collective Notice
ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Court Certifies Rule 23 Class in Overby
ANTHROPIC PBC: Bartz Seeks OK of Redacted Class Certification Bid
ANTHROPIC PBC: Bartz Seeks to File Class Docs Under Seal
APPLE INC: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Hazlitt Class Suit
APRIA HEALTHCARE: Seeks to Strike Tisdale's Class Allegations
ARGOS USA: Pro Slab Plaintiffs Seek to Seal Class Cert Bid
ARGOS USA: Pro Slab Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
ARIZONA LABOR: Fact Discovery in Bozek Class Suit Due Oct. 10
ASPYR MEDIA: Mickelonis Suit Seeks to Strike Portions of Exhibits
AUTHOR REPUTATION: Class Cert Bid Filing in Simmons Due Nov. 17
AVIS BUDGET: Bid to Dismiss Kaynaroglu Lawsuit Tossed
AXIS HOSPITALITY: Bid for Conditional Cert Filing Due April 22
BOART LONGYEAR: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Alexander Says
BROOKLYN BEDDING: Class Cert. Bid in Phillips Suit Due August 15
CAMPBELL SOUP: Court Narrows Claims in Serrano Suit
CANDID COLOR: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Mayhew Due Oct. 17
CDITH LLC: Barnhill Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA
CHEMOURS CO: Wilcoxen Bid for Conditional Class Cert Partly OK'd
CIGNA CORP: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by July 1
CLEO COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Doe Says
CLIPPER REALTY: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due May 1
COLBEA ENTERPRISES: Darden Bid to Certify Class Moot
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Torres Balks at Unprotected Personal Info
COMPASS GROUP: Bids for Summary Judgment in Jilek Suit Due June 1
COX AUTOMOTIVE: Touch Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
DC STAR: Fails to Pay Security Personnel's OT Wages, Hayes Says
EDDIE BAUER: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Clark Due Nov. 30
EQUITY TRANSPORTATION: Johnson Sues Over Layoffs Without Notice
FARMERS INSURANCE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 26
FLOYD BONNER: JCI Allowed Leave to File Class Cert Reply
FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Smith-Journigan Seeks to Certify Class
FRED MEYER: Filing for Class Cert Bid Modified to Jan. 12, 2026
GEICO GENERAL: Faces Kane Class Action Suit Over Policy Premiums
GIORGIO ARMANI: Parties Must File Joint Scheduling Report
GRETCHEN WHITMER: Plaintiffs' Bid for Judgment Partly OK'd
HARVEY, IL: Property Owners Sue Over Fraudulent Water Bill
HEALTH CAROUSEL: Settlement Deal in Carmen Gets Final OK
HEALTH PRIME: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Knoblich Says
HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Reply to Albert Class Cert Bid Due April 23
HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Reply to Scarbrough Class Cert Bid Due April 23
HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Reply to Tripoli Class Cert Bid Due April 23
HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Seeks More Time to File Opposition Brief
HUMANA INC: Bid to Exclude Verkhovskaya's Testimony Tossed
I.M.A. ESCAPE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Isakov Says
IDAHO: Resource Councils Balks at Law Over Prosecuting Noncitizens
IMPERIAL PARKING: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Alston
INDIANA: Faces L.A. Class Action Suit Over Gender Identity
INNOVATE CORP: Awaits Court OK of Settlement in DTV Derivative Suit
JEROME HARRIS: AME Settlement in Alexander Gets Initial Nod
KRISTI NOEM: Hearing on Supplemental Bids Set for April 10
L'ADRESSE NOMAD: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Isakov Says
LABOR SOURCE: Speight Renewed Bid to Certify Class Tossed
LOANCARE LLC: Settlement in Data Breach Suit Partly Gets Initial OK
LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Cert Bid Hearing in Stewart Set for May 5
LYNDON SOUTHERN: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 21
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: O'Connell Files Suit in Cal. State Court
MD GROUP: Class Schedule Conference in James Reset for April 9
MDL 2873: Faces Sullivan Suit Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
MDL 2873: Warren Sues Over Injuries Sustained From AFFF Products
META PLATFORMS: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to August 8
MICRO ELECTRONICS: Alarcon Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Ohio
MONRO INC: Evans Files Suit in W.D. New York
MONRO INC: Humphries Files Suit in W.D. New York
MONRO INC: Sisson Files Suit in W.D. New York
MONSANTO COMPANY: Burgess Suit Transferred to N.D. California
MONSANTO COMPANY: Chisholm Suit Transferred to N.D. California
MONTAGE RECOVERY: Aispuro Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MRS BPO LLC: Moretto Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
NATIONAL EMERGENCY: Steen Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
NATURE'S PRODUCE: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT: Bartley Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
NETFLIX INC: Scott Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
NEW TASTY BISCUIT: Knight Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Buettner Files Suit in S.D. New York
NEWPORT GROUP: Class Settlement in Alexander Gets Initial Nod
NEWPORT GROUP: Class Settlement in Jackson Gets Initial Nod
NEWPORT GROUP: Settlement in Ewing Suit Gets Initial Nod
NUNA BABY: Faces Moncada Class Suit Over Child Restraint System
O'REILLY AUTO: McMillon Suit Removed to S.D. California
OCEAN PRIME: Gupta Files Suit in S.D. New York
OPTOTRAFFIC LLC: Lavender Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
OTTER PRODUCTS: Button Suit Removed to D. Colorado
OYO HOTELS INC: Lien Files Suit in C.D. California
PENDRY WEST HOLLYWOOD: Raduseviciute Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PENNSYLVANIA STATE EDUCATION: Plassio Files Suit in Pa. Ct.
PENNSYLVANIA STATE EDUCATION: Yurcho Files Suit in Pa. Ct.
PERMIAN RESOURCES: Faces Suit Over Shale Oil Production Conspiracy
PERNOD RICARD USA: Bullock Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
PERRY ELLIS MENSWEAR: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
ROEHL TRANSPORT: Faces Harris Suit Over Deceptive Training Program
SOUNDHOUND AI: Faces Liles Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop
STAKE CENTER: Monroe Bid for Protective Order Partly OK'd
STAKE CENTER: Monroe Bid to Certify Class Partly OK'd
STATE FARM: Wins Summary Judgment v. Belotti
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Amato Bid for Class Cert Denied w/o Prejudice
TASKUS INC: Lozada's Unredacted Exhibits Can be Filed Under Seal
THETRADEDESK INC: Illegally Collects Personal Info, Michie Says
TMX FINANCE: Court Provisionally Certifies Settlement Class
UNITED HEALTH: Class Settlement in MAC Gets Initial Nod
UNITED HEALTH: Mitchell Wins Class Certification Bid
UNITED STATES: Insurers' Lose Bid for Summary Judgment
UNITED STATES: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hampton Alleges
UPSTART HOLDINGS: Crain Plaintiffs Win Class Certification Bid
VOLT MANAGEMENT: Class Cert Bid Filing in Gonzalez Due Nov. 17
WELLS FARGO: Parties Seeks to Extend Class Cert Briefing Schedule
WICKED TACO: Bid to Reconsider Jan. 31, 2025 Order Tossed
*********
1258 ROYALE GOURMET: Pretrial Management Order in Esquivel Entered
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID ESQUIVEL on behalf
of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the class, v. 1258
ROYALE GOURMET DELI AND GROCERY CORP. d/b/a ROYALE GOURMET DELI,
YAHYA ALZINDANI, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 1:25-cv-01534-RA-BCM
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding
general pretrial management as follows:
If defendants have not answered or otherwise responded to the
complaint before April 10, 2025, plaintiff must, on that date,
either file a stipulation granting defendants additional time or
apply for entry of default.
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.
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.
The Plaintiff filed his complaint on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated on Feb. 24, 2025.
The Plaintiff served the defendants on Feb. 27, 2025, making the
defendants' answer(s) due on March 20, 2025. Although that date has
come and gone, the defendants have not appeared or answered the
complaint. To date, the plaintiff has not requested a certificate
of default.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QtNquY at no extra
charge.[CC]
3M COMPANY: Buckner Files Suit in D. South Carolina
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al.
The case is styled as Wade Buckner, and all others similarly
situated v. 3M Company formerly known as: Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; AGC Chemicals Americas Inc.; Amerex
Corporation; Archroma US Inc.; Arkema Inc.; Buckeye Fire Equipment
Company; Carrier Global Corporation; ChemDesign Products Inc.;
Chemguard Inc.; Chemicals Inc; Chemours Company FC LLC; Chubb Fire
LTD.; Clariant Corp; Corteva Inc; Deepwater Chemicals Inc.; Du Pont
De Nemours Inc., formerly known as: DowDuPont Inc.; Dynax
Corporation; EI Du Pont De Nemours and Company; Kidde PLC; Nation
Ford Chemical Company; The Chemours Company; Tyco Fire Products LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; United Technologies
Corporation; UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation Inc. formerly
known as: GE Interlogix Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-01585-RMG (D.S.C.,
March 11, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for
Personal Injury.
3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational
conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety,
healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Constantine Venizelos, Esq.
CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP
737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440
Cleveland, OH 44115
Phone: (216) 849-3326
Email: dean@constantllp.com
3M COMPANY: Krenzel Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Krenzel, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-00962-RMG (D.S.C., Feb. 20,
2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluoro octane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
thyroid disease and high cholesterol as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Hochman, Esq.
THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC
5411 McPherson Rd Ste. 110
Laredo, TX 78041
Phone: (956) 704-5187
Facsimile: (956) 368-1343
3M COMPANY: Lamott Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Lamott, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-01007-RMG (D.S.C., Feb. 21,
2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluoro octane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Hochman, Esq.
THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC
5411 McPherson Rd Ste. 110
Laredo, TX 78041
Phone: (956) 704-5187
Facsimile: (956) 368-1343
3M COMPANY: Mahon Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamieson Mahon, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF
CORP., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA INC., DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE
NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; JOHNSON CONTROLS INC., KIDDE-FENWAL,
INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.;
PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS
LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-00968-RMG
(D.S.C., Feb. 20, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious
medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
Kidney Cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chandler B. Duncan, Esq.
Andrew T. Kagan, Esq.
Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq.
KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC.
295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6
Humacao, PR, 00791
Phone: 939-220-2424
Facsimile: 939-220-2477
3M COMPANY: O'Brian Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Daren O'Brian, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF
CORP., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA INC., DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE
NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; JOHNSON CONTROLS INC., KIDDE-FENWAL,
INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.;
PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS
LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-00973-RMG
(D.S.C., Feb. 20, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious
medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
Thyroid Disease and Thyroid Cancer as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chandler B. Duncan, Esq.
Andrew T. Kagan, Esq.
Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq.
KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC.
295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6
Humacao, PR, 00791
Phone: 939-220-2424
Facsimile: 939-220-2477
3M COMPANY: Pastor Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Pastor, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-00979-RMG (D.S.C., Feb. 20,
2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluoro octane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
thyroid cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Hochman, Esq.
THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC
5411 McPherson Rd Ste. 110
Laredo, TX 78041
Phone: (956) 704-5187
Facsimile: (956) 368-1343
ACCESS TELECARE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Sept. 29
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL ALDANA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ACCESS TELECARE, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-03254-X (N.D. Tex.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline
to move for class certification by six months, to Sept. 29, 2025.
The extension of time is necessary for the Plaintiff to conduct
discovery on facts pertinent to class certification and develop a
sufficient record for the Court to conduct a rigorous analysis of
certification issues as required, and is unopposed. The requested
extension will also preserve judicial economy while the parties
engage in negotiations to resolve this action.
This case arises from a targeted cyberattack of the Defendant's
information technology network systems, which exposed the
Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personally identifiable
information and stored protected health information. The Data
Breach occurred between Nov. 6, 2023, and Jan. 8, 2023, and the
Defendant began notifying the individuals whose Private Information
was compromised on Dec. 23, 2024.
The Plaintiff filed his Complaint initiating this action on Dec.
27, 2024.
Access is a provider of acute telemedicine technology and solutions
to hospitals, health systems, post-acute providers.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 27, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6QGjMw at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bruce Steckler, Esq.
STECKLER, WAYNE, & LOVE
12720 Hillcrest Road
Dallas, TX 75230
Telephone: (972) 387-4040
E-mail: bruce@stecklerlaw.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
ACTINIUM PHARMA: Faces Kohil Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------------------
NITIN KOHIL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. ACTINIUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., SANDESH SETH, AVINASH DESAI,
MADHURI VUSIRIKALA, and SERGIO GIRALT, Case No. 1:25-cv-02553
(S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2025) is a class action on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Actinium
securities between October 31, 2022, and August 2, 2024, inclusive,
pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
Actinium develops targeted radiotherapies, such as Iomab-B, to
treat people who have failed existing oncology therapies. Iomab-B
is an induction-and-conditioning agent used before bone marrow
transplants ("BMT") and has the potential to treat elderly relapsed
or refractory ("R/R") acute myeloid leukemia ("AML") (collectively,
"R/R AML"). Actinium evaluated Iomab-B in the pivotal Phase 3
Sierra trial (the "Sierra Trial"), where the drug met the primary
endpoint of durable Complete Remission ("DCR") with statistical
significance.
The truth began to reach the market on August 5, 2024, when the
Company announced that "the analyses from the Sierra Trial do not
adequately support a BLA filing for Iomab-B and requires an
additional clinical study," and Actinium's stock price suffered
significant declines, harming investors, says the suit.
Throughout the Class Period, the 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, the Defendants failed to disclose that
the Company's data from Sierra Trial was unlikely to satisfy the
FDA's guidelines for the acceptance and approval of the Company's
Iomab-B BLA, the suit asserts.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions,
and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
Actinium is a late-stage biopharmaceutical company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq.
Nicholas S. Bruno, Esq.
Matthew A. Peller, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
E-mail:tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
nbruno@scott-scott.com
mpeller@scott-scott.com
- and -
Brian J. Schall, Esq.
THE SCHALL LAW FIRM
2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 301-3335
Facsimile: (310) 388-0192
E-mail: brian@scott-scott.com
ALASKA AIRLINES: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Creer Due Sept. 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE CREER, v. ALASKA
AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-03780-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge James Donato entered an amended scheduling order:
Event Deadline
Fact discovery cut-off: June 27, 2025
Expert disclosures: July 18, 2025
Rebuttal expert disclosures: Aug. 1, 2025
Expert discovery cut-off: Aug. 15, 2025
Last day to file motion for class Sept. 26, 2025
Certification:
Pretrial conference: May 21, 2026, at
1:30 p.m.
Jury Trial: June 8, 2026, at
9:00 a.m.
Alaska Airlines provides air transportation services.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CxoEND at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALIBABA GROUP: Court Approves Class Settlement in Ciccarello
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ciccarello v. Alibaba
Group Holding Limited et al. (RE: ALIBABA GROUP HOLDING LTD.
SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 1:20-cv-09568-GBD-JW (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge George Daniels entered a judgment approving class
settlement.
Alibaba Group is a Chinese multinational technology company
specializing in e-commerce, retail, internet, and technology.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G3D0jU at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALLIANCE SOLUTIONS: Class Settlement in Christian Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Christian v. Alliance
Solutions Group, LLC (re TalentLaunch Data Breach Litigation), Case
No. 1:24-cv-00456-PAB (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Pamela Barker
entered an order certifying, solely for purposes of effectuating
the proposed Settlement, a Settlement Class defined as:
"all individuals impacted by TalentLaunch's Data Incident,
including all individuals who received notice of the Data
Incident, that occurred in May 2023."
The Class specifically excludes: (i) all Persons who timely
and validly request exclusion from the Class; (ii) the Judge
assigned to evaluate the fairness of this settlement
(including any members of the Court’s staff assigned to
this
case); (iii) Defendant's officers and directors, and (iv)
any other Person found by a court of competent jurisdiction
to be guilty under criminal law of initiating, causing,
aiding or abetting the criminal activity occurrence of the
Data Incident or who pleads nolo contendere to any such
charge. The Settlement Class includes approximately 119,000
people.
James Christian, Steve Buyck, Charles Leland Perry III, David
Barker, and Amanda Lenz is provisionally designated and appointed
as the Class Representatives.
A Final Approval Hearing shall be held at Aug. 12, 2025.
Alliance is an IT and software firm that specializes in software
solutions for the construction and real estate industries.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rWT9rO at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALPINE FUNDING: Class Cert Bid Filing in Bachhuber Due Sept. 12
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN BACHHUBER, v. ALPINE
FUNDING PARTNERS, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00907-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the
Hon. Judge Anita Marie Boor entered a preliminary pretrial
conference order as follows:
1. Amendments to the pleadings: May 20, 2025.
2. Motions for class certification and plaintiff's disclosure
of class certification expert reports/summaries: Sept. 12,
2025.
Opposition to class certification and defendant's disclosure
of class certification expert reports/summaries: Oct. 31,
2025.
Reply briefs: Dec. 19, 2025
3. Deadline for filing Daubert motions for class certification
experts: Dec. 19, 2025
Responses in opposition: Jan. 16, 2026
Reply briefs: Jan. 30, 2026
4. Deadline for filing dispositive motions: June 30, 2026
5. Discovery Cutoff: Nov. 6, 2026
6. Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures and all motions in limine: Nov.
20, 2026
Objections: Dec. 11, 2026
7. First Final Pretrial Conference: Dec. 29, 2026, at 2:30 p.m.
Second Final Pretrial Conference: Jan. 5, 2027, at 2:30 p.m.
8. Trial: Jan. 11, 2027, at 9:00 a.m.
Alpine provides small business funding, business loan alternatives
and working capital.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EAxtMr at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Filing in Rittmann Extended to May 16
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNADEAN RITTMANN et al.,
v. AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., Case No.
2:16-cv-01554-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Coughenour
entered an order extend deadlines related to the issuance of notice
to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective, the class
certification motion, and the renewed motion to compel
arbitration:
1. The date by which FLSA notice shall be issued is extended to
14 days following the Court's ruling on the form of notice,
but no earlier than April 29, 2025.
2. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file their motion for class
certification and for the Defendants to file their renewed
motion to compel arbitration is extended by 30 days, to May
16, 2025.
3. The deadline for the parties to respond to these motions
shall be July 16, 2025.
4. The deadline for the parties to file reply briefs shall be
Aug. 6, 2025.
Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e785Cr at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
Jeremy Abay, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
hlichten@llrlaw.com
jabay@llrlaw.com
- and -
Michael C. Subit, Esq.
FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS LLP
705 Second Avenue, Suite 1200
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 682-6711
E-mail: msubit@frankfreed.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jason C. Schwartz, Esq.
Lucas C. Townsend, Esq.
Dhananjay S. Manthripragada, Esq.
Megan Cooney, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1700 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-4504
Telephone: (202) 955-8500
E-mail: schwartz@gibsondunn.com
ltownsend@gibsondunn.com
dmanthripragada@gibsondunn.com
mcooney@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Andrew DeCarlow, Esq.
Richard G. Rosenblatt, Esq.
James P. Walsh, Jr., Esq.
Sarah Zenewicz, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 3000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 274-0154
E-mail: andrew.decarlow@morganlewis.com
richard.rosenblatt@morganlewis.com
james.walsh@morganlewis.com
sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Parties Seek More Time for FLSA Collective Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNADEAN RITTMANN et al.,
v. AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., Case No.
2:16-cv-01554-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order granting joint stipulation to extend deadlines related to
the issuance of notice to the Fair labor Standards Act (FLSA)
collective, the class certification motion, and the renewed motion
to compel arbitration.
1. The date by which FLSA notice shall be issued is extended to
14 days following the Court's ruling on the form of notice,
but no earlier than April 29, 2025.
2. The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their motion for
class certification and for the Defendants to file their
renewed motion to compel arbitration is extended by 30 days,
to May 16, 2025.
3. The deadline for the parties to respond to these motions
shall be July 16, 2025.
4. The deadline for the parties to file reply briefs shall be
Aug. 6, 2025.
The parties have met and conferred, and agree that a further
extension is required to issue the FLSA notice. The Plaintiffs'
counsel anticipates that it will require 14 days to facilitate the
administration of issuing the notice after the Court approves the
form of the notice.
The parties also agree that further extensions to the briefing
schedule for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the
deadline for Defendants' renewed motion to compel arbitration are
also appropriate.
On Dec. 2, 2024, the Court issued an order granting the Plaintiffs'
motion for conditional certification under the FLSA.
On Dec. 9, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to certify the
Court's conditional certification order for interlocutory appeal
under 28 U.S.C. section 1292(b). The Court denied the motion on
Jan. 29, 2025.
On Feb. 28, 2025, the Court granted the parties' joint stipulation
to extend all deadlines by 30 days.
Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of
products.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 26, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0Ydrsx at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
Jeremy Abay, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
hlichten@llrlaw.com
jabay@llrlaw.com
- and -
Michael C. Subit, Esq.
FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS LLP
705 Second Avenue, Suite 1200
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 682-6711
E-mail: msubit@frankfreed.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jason C. Schwartz, Esq.
Lucas C. Townsend, Esq.
Dhananjay S. Manthripragada, Esq.
Megan Cooney, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1700 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-4504
Telephone: (202) 955-8500
E-mail: schwartz@gibsondunn.com
ltownsend@gibsondunn.com
dmanthripragada@gibsondunn.com
mcooney@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Andrew DeCarlow, Esq.
Richard G. Rosenblatt, Esq.
James P. Walsh, Jr., Esq.
Sarah Zenewicz, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 3000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 274-0154
E-mail: andrew.decarlow@morganlewis.com
richard.rosenblatt@morganlewis.com
james.walsh@morganlewis.com
sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com
ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Court Certifies Rule 23 Class in Overby
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS E. OVERBY, JR.; and
ABBY GEARHART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-00141-AWA-DEM
(E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the motion to
certify, and denying the motion to decertify.
The Court certifies the following Rule 23 Class:
"All individuals who are currently, or were formerly, employed
at Anheuser-Busch's Williamsburg brewery as non-exempt
employees subject to Anheuser-Busch's LTM timekeeping system
at any time from July 1, 2020, through the date of final
disposition of the action."
The Defendant is ordered to provide within 21 days to the
Plaintiffs' counsel an updated listing of the names, last known
mailing addresses, last-known cell phone numbers, email addresses,
and dates of employment of all class members.
The Court further entered an order that Plaintiffs Thomas E.
Overby, Jr., and Abby Gearhart are designated as the class
representatives, and that Zipin, Amster & Greenberg, LLC and Butler
Curwood PLC, attorneys of record for the said named Plaintiffs, are
authorized to serve as counsel for the class in this action.
The Plaintiffs are brewery workers who allege that Anheuser-Busch,
which operates the brewery, has failed to compensate them for
mandatory pre- and post-shift tasks, in violation of the FLSA
(Count I) and state law (Counts II–IV).
Anheuser-Busch is an American brewing company.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=n7yrLH at no extra
charge.[CC]
ANTHROPIC PBC: Bartz Seeks OK of Redacted Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA BARTZ, ANDREA
BARTZ, INC., CHARLES GRAEBER, KIRK WALLACE JOHNSON, and MJ + KJ,
INC., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
ANTHROPIC PBC, Case No. 3:24-cv-05417-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for
redacted class certification.
Anthropic is an AI safety and research company based in San
Francisco.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 27, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7nXNhs at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Geman, Esq.
Jacob S. Miller, Esq.
Danna Z. Elmasry, Esq.
Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq.
Reilly T. Stoler, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN
& BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
E-mail: rgeman@lchb.com
jmiller@lchb.com
delmasry@lchb.com
dhutchinson@lchb.com
rstoler@lchb.com
- and -
Justin A. Nelson, Esq.
Alejandra C. Salinas, Esq.
Collin Fredricks, Esq.
Rohit D. Nath, Esq.
Jordan W. Connors, Esq.
J. Craig Smyser, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
Houston, TX 77002-5096
Telephone: (713) 651-9366
E-mail: jnelson@susmangodfrey.com
asalinas@susmangodfrey.com
cfredricks@susmangodfrey.com
RNath@susmangodfrey.com
jconnors@susmangodfrey.com
csmyser@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Scott J. Sholder, Esq.
CeCe M. Cole, Esq.
COWAN DEBAETS ABRAHAMS
& SHEPPARD LLP
60 Broad Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10010
Telephone: (212) 974-7474
E-mail: sshoulder@cdas.com
ccole@cdas.com
ANTHROPIC PBC: Bartz Seeks to File Class Docs Under Seal
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA BARTZ, ANDREA
BARTZ, INC., CHARLES GRAEBER, KIRK WALLACE JOHNSON, and MJ + KJ,
INC., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
ANTHROPIC PBC, Case No. 3:24-cv-05417-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting administrative
motion to consider whether another party's material should be
sealed.
Under Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5, Plaintiffs bring this
administrative motion to determine whether or not relevant evidence
designated "confidential" by Defendant Anthropic PBC should be
sealed and removed from the public record.
The Plaintiffs are not the proponents of sealing. Rather,
Plaintiffs bring this administrative motion solely because Civil
Local Rule 79-5 and the Protective Order require that any
information designated "Confidential" by an opposing party be filed
provisionally under seal pending the Court's determination of
whether or not the party's confidentiality designation was
appropriate.
Anthropic is an AI safety and research company based in San
Francisco.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 27, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jrWsnK at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rachel Geman, Esq.
Jacob S. Miller, Esq.
Danna Z. Elmasry, Esq.
Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq.
Reilly T. Stoler, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN
& BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
E-mail: rgeman@lchb.com
jmiller@lchb.com
delmasry@lchb.com
dhutchinson@lchb.com
rstoler@lchb.com
- and -
Justin A. Nelson, Esq.
Alejandra C. Salinas, Esq.
Collin Fredricks, Esq.
Rohit D. Nath, Esq.
Jordan W. Connors, Esq.
J. Craig Smyser, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
Houston, TX 77002-5096
Telephone: (713) 651-9366
E-mail: jnelson@susmangodfrey.com
asalinas@susmangodfrey.com
cfredricks@susmangodfrey.com
RNath@susmangodfrey.com
jconnors@susmangodfrey.com
csmyser@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Scott J. Sholder, Esq.
CeCe M. Cole, Esq.
COWAN DEBAETS ABRAHAMS
& SHEPPARD LLP
60 Broad Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10010
Telephone: (212) 974-7474
E-mail: sshoulder@cdas.com
ccole@cdas.com
APPLE INC: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Hazlitt Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hazlitt, et al., v. Apple
Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-00421 (S.D. Ill., Filed May 6, 2020), the
Hon. Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel entered an amended scheduling
order, which contemplates the filing of an amended complaint, a
supplemental class certification motion, and supplemental expert
disclosures, the Court holds in abeyance its rulings on
Plaintiffs'176 Motion for Class Certification and Defendant's193
Motion to Exclude the Expert Opinions of Dr. Aram Sinnreich.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Property
Damage Product Liability.
Apple is a multinational technology company known for its consumer
electronics, software, and services, with core product lines
including the iPhone, iPad, and Mac.[CC]
APRIA HEALTHCARE: Seeks to Strike Tisdale's Class Allegations
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA TISDALE, an
individual; TERRENCE PRATT, an individual, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, v. APRIA HEALTHCARE LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:24-cv-09620-AH-PVC
(C.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order
striking the Plaintiffs' class allegations in the First Amended
Complaint and Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
The Defendant also ask the Court for an Order shortening time on
Defendant's Motion to Strike Class Allegations, and Stay
Proceedings; and an Order staying the proceedings pending a ruling
on Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration; or in the alternative,
an order extending the briefing schedule for the Defendant's
opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
The Plaintiffs filed an untimely Motion to Compel Class
Certification as a regularly-noticed motion on March 24, 2025, 18
days after the Court's March 6, 2025 deadline to bring such motion
and unilaterally set a hearing date for April 23, 2025. The
Plaintiffs falsely represented that Defendant had agreed to this
briefing timeline.
As a result of Plaintiffs' tactics, the Defendant is now forced to
bring a Motion to Strike Class Allegations and Stay Proceedings ex
parte in light of the fact that its opposition to the Motion for
Class Certification is currently due on April 2, 2025.
Additionally, Defendant has a pending Motion to Compel Arbitration
that is set for hearing on April 2, 2025. However, before a ruling
from the Court can be made on the Motion to Compel Arbitration, the
Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification. As there has
been no ruling on the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration, all
discovery and related deadlines, including the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification should be stayed pending a ruling from the
Court on the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration.
Further, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification was
regularly noticed for a hearing on April 23, 2025, despite the
Court requiring extended briefing schedules for class
certification.
On July 3, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an unverified civil Class
Action Complaint against the Defendant in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles.
On Sept. 9, 2024 the Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint
("FAC") adding a ninth cause of action for civil penalties under
the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.
On March 24, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
Certification and set the hearing for April 23, 2025.
Apria is a US provider of home medical equipment delivery and
clinical support.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 26, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pGwmza at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Nathan W. Austin, Esq.
Raja A. Hafed, Esq.
Jennell K. Shannon
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 341-0404
E-mail: nathan.austin@jacksonlewis.com
raja.hafed@jacksonlewis.com
jennell.shannon@jacksonlewis.com
ARGOS USA: Pro Slab Plaintiffs Seek to Seal Class Cert Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PRO SLAB, INC., BREMER
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, INC., and FORREST CONCRETE, LLC, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Argos USA, LLC,
et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-03185-BHH (D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order sealing their motion for class
certification and related exhibits, as well as confidential
information derived therefrom in the Class Motion.
The Defendants do not oppose this motion and have confirmed that
they wish for their information that was marked confidential to be
filed under seal.
Argos produces and distributes cements and aggregates.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 26, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B3hkZ3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Russell Thomas Burke, Esq.
WILLIAMS BURKE LLP
1320 Main Street, Suite 300
Columbia, SC 29201
Telephone: (803) 665-9670
E-mail: Russell@williamsburke.com
- and -
Renae D. Steiner, Esq.
Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
310 Clifton Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55403
Telephone: (612) 338-4605
E-mail: rsteiner@heinsmills.com
vesades@heinsmills.com
- and -
Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq.
Vess A. Miller, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com
vmiller@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
Michael S. Smith, Esq.
Elizabeth F. Quinby, Esq.
Michael D. Hanify, Esq.
PRETI FLAHERTY,
BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP
One City Center, P.O. Box 9546
Portland, ME 04112
Telephone: (207) 791-3000
E-mail: ghansel@preti.com
msmith@preti.com
equinby@preti.com
mhanify@preti.com
ARGOS USA: Pro Slab Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PRO SLAB, INC., BREMER
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, INC., and FORREST CONCRETE, LLC, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. ARGOS USA, LLC,
et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-03185-BHH (D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order certifying the following Plaintiff Class
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3):
"All persons or entities who purchased Ready-Mix Concrete
during the Class Period directly from one of Defendants'
plants during the period of Jan. 1, 2010, through and
including July 31, 2016, but excluding the Defendants, their
co-conspirators, their respective parents, subsidiaries, and
affiliates, and government entities ("Class")."
The Plaintiffs also request that they be appointed as Class
Representatives, that Interim Co-Lead Counsel be appointed Class
Counsel, and that Russell T. Burke of Williams Burke LLP be
appointed as Liaison Class Counsel.
Argos produces and distributes cements and aggregates.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 27, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s16J9J at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Russell T. Burke, Esq.
WILLIAMS BURKE LLP
1320 Main Street, Suite 300
Columbia, SC 29201
Telephone: (803) 665-9670
E-mail: Russell@williamsburke.com
- and -
Renae D. Steiner, Esq.
Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
310 Clifton Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55403
Telephone: (612) 338-4605
E-mail: rsteiner@heinsmills.com
vesades@heinsmills.com
Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq.
Vess A. Miller, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com
vmiller@cohenandmalad.com
Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
Michael S. Smith, Esq.
Elizabeth F. Quinby, Esq.
Michael D. Hanify, Esq.
PRETI FLAHERTY,
BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP
One City Center, P.O. Box 9546
Portland, ME 04112
Telephone: (207) 791-3000
E-mail: ghansel@preti.com
msmith@preti.com
equinby@preti.com
mhanify@preti.com
ARIZONA LABOR: Fact Discovery in Bozek Class Suit Due Oct. 10
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Daniel Bozek, et al., v.
Arizona Labor Force Incorporated, et al. Case No. 2:24-cv-00210-SHD
(D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Sharad Desai entered a case management
order:
1. The deadline for completion of fact discovery, including
discovery by subpoena and all disclosures required under
Rule 26(a)(3), shall be Oct. 10, 2025.
2. Expert depositions shall be completed no later than March
20, 2026.
3. A Motion for Class Certification shall be filed no later
than Nov. 10, 2025.
4. Dispositive motions shall be filed no later than April 17,
2026.
5. All parties and their counsel shall meet in person and
engage in good-faith settlement talks no later than Oct. 24,
2025.
Arizona Labor was founded in 1985. The company's line of business
includes providing help supply and personnel supply services.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 25, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t4SiPJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
ASPYR MEDIA: Mickelonis Suit Seeks to Strike Portions of Exhibits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Malachi Mickelonis, et
al., v. Aspyr Media, Inc.; and Does 1-5, Case No.
8:23-cv-01220-MWC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the
Court to remove, exclude or strike the following pages from
Exhibits A through E submitted with the Declaration of Raymond Y.
Kim in support of Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which
were filed under seal with the Court:
Exhibit Name Page Numbers to
Strike or Remove
Exhibit A – Deposition transcript of Page Nos. 14-46,
Jonathan Woo, Project Manager at 56-147
defendant Aspyr
Exhibit B – Deposition transcript of Page Nos. 59-92,
Aspyr's Product Director and former 96-115, 117-161,
Marketing and Communications Manager, 182-201
Chris Bashaar
Exhibit C – Deposition transcript of Page Nos. 13-19,
Michael Rogers, Aspyr's CEO 29-120, 160-174
The Plaintiffs include Joseph Afilani, Jacob Alva-Melville, Micaiah
Flores, Matthew Gorka, Jared Hilliard, Charles Kirk, David
Kirkland, Yale Liebowitz, Jacob Mueller, Kevin Munoz, Colebie
Niedermeier,Joshua Palmer, Bryce Phillips, Christopher Sousa,
Rolando Vazquez, Adrian Villa, Brian Walsh, and Nicholas Yee,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated.
Aspyr Media is an American video game developer and publisher.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 27, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JttN5A at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Raymond Y. Kim, Esq.
RAY KIM LAW, APC
112 E. Amerige Avenue, Suite 240
Fullerton, CA 92832
Telephone: (833) 729-5529
Facsimile: (833) 972-9546
E-mail: ray@raykimlaw.com
AUTHOR REPUTATION: Class Cert Bid Filing in Simmons Due Nov. 17
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARGO SIMMONS, v. AUTHOR
REPUTATION PRESS LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-12330-BEM (D. Mass.), the
Hon. Judge Brian Murphy entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- Amendments to Pleadings: May 16, 2025
-- All requests for production of Sept. 9, 2025.
documents and interrogatories
must be served by:
-- Final Discovery Deadline: Nov. 10, 2025
-- Plaintiff(s)' trial experts must Sept. 16, 2025.
be designated, and the information
contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(2) must be disclosed, by:
-- Defendant(s)' trial experts must Oct. 20, 2025.
be designated, and the information
contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(2) must be disclosed, by:
-- Motion for Class Certification to Nov. 17, 2025.
be filed by:
A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A5KH9D at no extra
charge.[CC]
AVIS BUDGET: Bid to Dismiss Kaynaroglu Lawsuit Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FEYZULLAH KAYNAROGLU and
CIARA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. AVIS BUDGET GROUP, INC., Case No.
2:24-cv-06828-BRM-AME (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Brian Martinotti
denies Avis's motion to dismiss, denies as moot Avis's motion to
strike, and grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs' notice
motion.
The Plaintiffs allege violations of the FLSA's overtime provisions
within the statute of limitations, and that is all that is required
to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Accordingly, Avis's Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs' FLSA claim is denied.
Accordingly, the Court will conditionally certify a collective
action including
"all persons who worked at Avis car rental locations as OMs any
time between June 7, 2021, and the present."
The Plaintiffs filed the collective and class action Complaint on
June 7, 2024.
Avis is a "nationwide automobile rental company" with its corporate
headquarters in Parsippany, New Jersey.
A copy of the Court's opinion dated March 27, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CL0h0R at no extra
charge.[CC]
AXIS HOSPITALITY: Bid for Conditional Cert Filing Due April 22
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JERSON MURILLO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et
al., v. AXIS HOSPITALITY CONSTRUCTION, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:24-cv-01764-AJT-IDD (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Ivan Davis entered
an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs'
consent motion to modify scheduling order and Rule 16(b) scheduling
order.
The Scheduling Order and Rule 16(b) Order are amended as follows:
1. All pre-certification fact discovery shall be completed by
May 9, 2025; and
2. The Plaintiffs shall file their FLSA conditional
certification and Rule 23 class certification motions by
April 22, 2025.
Axis is a hotel renovation company.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TPIjKI at no extra
charge.[CC]
BOART LONGYEAR: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Alexander Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW ALEXANDER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BOART LONGYEAR COMPANY d/b/a BOART LONGYEAR
GROUP, LTD., Case No. 2:25-cv-00251 (D. Utah, March 31, 2025)
arises out of the recent data breach involving the Defendant.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint against the Defendant for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally
identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part
of its regular business practices, including Plaintiff's and Class
Members' names, national identification numbers, driver's license
numbers or other government identification card numbers, passport
numbers, financial account information, and Social Security
numbers.
Accordingly, current and former Boart Longyear employees are
required to entrust Defendant with sensitive, non-public PII,
without which the Defendant could not perform its regular business
activities, in order to obtain employment or certain employment
benefits at the Defendant.
The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff’s and Class
Members PII -- and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly
sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted PII was
compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and
omissions and its utter failure to protect employees' sensitive
data, asserts the lawsuit.
The Defendant is a company that offers production drilling
services, water services, and other technical drilling services to
its clients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason R. Hull, Esq.
Anikka T. Hoidal, Esq.
MARSHALL OLSON & HULL, PC
Ten Exchange Place, Suite 350
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 456-7655
E-mail: Jhull@Mohtrial.com
Ahoidal@Mohtrial.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: Gklinger@Milberg.com
BROOKLYN BEDDING: Class Cert. Bid in Phillips Suit Due August 15
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN PHILLIPS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BROOKLYN BEDDING LLC and NIGHT US LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-03781-RFL
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an order setting the
following case schedule through class certification:
Event Deadline
Last Day to Complete ADR: May 30, 2025
Fact Discovery Cutoff: Aug. 1, 2025
Motion for Class Certification: Aug. 15, 2025
Opposition(s) to Class Certification: Oct. 3, 2025
Class Certification Reply: Oct. 24, 2025
Class Certification Hearing: Nov. 18, 2025
Brooklyn Bedding operates as a home furnishing store.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gUbTsZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Simon Franzini, Esq.
Grace Bennett, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: simon@dovel.com
grace@dovel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Ana Tagvoryan, Esq.
Harrison Brown, Esq.
Erica R. Graves, Esq.
BLANK ROME LLP
130 North 18th Street, 1271 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
- and -
Christine Reilly, Esq.
Justin Jones Rodriguez, Esq.
MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS LLP
2049 Century Park E
Los Angeles, CA 90067
CAMPBELL SOUP: Court Narrows Claims in Serrano Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONIC SERRANO and DEBRA
SHAW, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY, Case No. 1:24-cv-04660-RMB-MJS (D.N.J.), the
Hon. Judge Renee Marie Bumb entered an order granting in part and
denying in part, the Defendant's motion to dismiss.
Accordingly, all dismissals are without prejudice.
Campbell asks this Court to dismiss this putative class action,
making several arguments ranging from Plaintiffs' lack of Article
III standing to Plaintiffs' failure to plausibly allege that a
reasonable consumer—reading the V8 Splash label—would believe
V8 Splash has no artificial flavors or is exclusively flavored from
natural ingredients.
The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against Campbell,
claiming Campbell duped them into thinking V8 Splash is free of any
artificial flavors or flavored exclusively from natural
ingredients.
According to the Plaintiffs, V8 Splash, in fact, contains an
artificial flavor—malic acid. Thus, the Plaintiffs contend that
Campbell violated New Jersey and California consumer protection
laws because V8 Splash is misbranded under federal and state
labeling laws, and the V8 Splash label misleads consumers. The
Plaintiffs also bring breach of warranty, misrepresentation, and
fraud claims based on New Jersey's and California's laws, as well
as laws from many States from coast-to-coast.
The Plaintiffs bring a NJCFA claim for themselves and on behalf of
a nationwide class that they define as:
"All U.S. residents who purchased the Products in the United
States on or after Jan. 1, 2016, and until the date the Class is
certified by the Court, excluding [Campbell] and [Campbell's]
officers, directors, employees, agents, and affiliates, and the
Court and its staff."
They bring their California statutory claims for themselves and a
California Sub-Class that they define as:
"All California residents who purchased the Products in
California on or after Jan. 1, 2018 and until the date the
Sub-Class is certified by the Court, excluding [Campbell] and
[Campbell's] officers, directors, employees, agents, and
affiliates, and the Court and its staff."
They also seek to bring multistate express- and implied-warranty
claims on behalf of the following:
"All residents of New Jersey, California, Delaware, District
of Columbia, Kansas, Missouri, Ohio, Utah, Virginia, or West
Virginia, who purchased one or more of the Products as defined
herein in one of those states on or after Jan. 1, 2018, and
until the date the Class is certified by the Court, excluding
[Campbell] and [Campbell's] officers, directors, employees,
agents, and affiliates, and the Court and its staff."
The Plaintiffs seek to bring multistate misrepresentation and fraud
claims on behalf of the following:
"All residents of New Jersey, California, Alabama, Alaska,
Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, North
Dakota, Oregon, Texas, Utah, or West Virginia, who purchased
one or more of the Products as defined herein in one of those
states on or after Jan. 1, 2018, and until the date the Class
is certified by the Court, excluding [Campbell] and
[Campbell's] officers, directors, employees, agents, and
affiliates, and the Court and its staff."
Campbell makes and offers many products, like vegetable and fruit
juices, including V8 Splash fruit juice.
A copy of the Court's opinion dated March 27, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GkT1k8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
CANDID COLOR: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Mayhew Due Oct. 17
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mayhew, et al., v. CANDID
COLOR SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-02964 (S.D. Ill.,
Filed Aug. 30, 2023), the Hon. Judge David W. Dugan entered an
amended scheduling and discovery order.
-- The parties' depositions shall be taken by June 27, 2025.
-- The Plaintiffs' expert witnesses for class certification, if
any, shall be disclosed, along with a written report prepared
and signed by the witness pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(a)(2), by July 25, 2025.
-- The Defendant's expert witnesses for class certification, if
any, shall be disclosed, along with a written report prepared
and signed by the witness pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2), by
September 5, 2025.
-- The Plaintiffs' depositions of class certification expert
witnesses must be taken by August 15, 2025.
-- The Defendant's depositions of class certification expert
witnesses must be taken by September 26, 2025.
-- The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Memorandum
in Support shall be filed by October 17, 2025, and shall not
exceed 30 pages.
-- The Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Class
Certification shall be filed by November 17, 2025, and shall
not exceed 30 pages.
-- The Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum, if any, shall be filed by
December 1, 2025, and shall not exceed 10 pages.
-- Final Pretrial Conference set for May 11, 2026, at 10:00 AM
and Jury Trial set for May 22, 2026, at 9:00 AM both in the
East St. Louis Courthouse before Judge David W. Dugan.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other
Personal Injury.
Candid Color was established in 1972 and has been doing business in
special events photo finishing and photography.[CC]
CDITH LLC: Barnhill Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
YOLANDA L. BARNHILL individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CDITH, LLC d/b/a Terre Haute Casino Resort,
Case No. 2:25-cv-00155-JRS-MG (S.D. Ind., March 31, 2025) alleges
that the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff, and other similarly
situated employees, the mandated federal minimum wage rate of $7.25
per hour for all hours worked and overtime for all hours worked
over 40 in a single workweek pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Specifically, the Defendant failed to properly inform its tipped
employees of the required tip credit provisions prior to paying a
sub-minimum direct cash wage and, as a result, Defendant may not
claim a tip credit. The Defendant expressly told Plaintiff and
other dealers in writing that Defendant was not taking a tip
credit, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees work or
worked as dealers for Defendant, a casino located in Terre Haute,
Indiana.
CDITH, LLC, d/b/a Terre Haute Casino Resort, owns a casino property
located in Terre Haute, Indiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert P. Kondras, Jr.
HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP
100 Cherry St.
Terre Haute, IN 47807
Telephone: (812) 232-9691
Facsimile: (812) 234-2881
E-mail:kondras@hkmlawfirm.com
CHEMOURS CO: Wilcoxen Bid for Conditional Class Cert Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON WILCOXEN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, known
and unknown, v. THE CHEMOURS COMPANY and THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC,
LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01416-SB (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge entered an
order granting in part the Plaintiff's motion for conditional class
certification, resolving the Plaintiff's motion to compel as moot.
Wilcoxen may proceed to notify potential class members at the
Chambers Works and Washington Works plants.
Chemours is an American chemical company that was founded in July
2015 as a spin-off from DuPont.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fzcxmM at no extra
charge.[CC]
CIGNA CORP: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by July 1
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stewart, et al., v. CIGNA
Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00769 (D. Conn., Filed June
10, 2022), the Hon. Judge Omar A. Williams entered an order
granting motion for extension of time.
-- The Plaintiffs shall file the motion for class certification
on or before July 1, 2025.
-- The parties shall confer and determine a mutually agreeable
briefing schedule for the opposition and the reply.
The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
Cigna is an American multinational for-profit managed healthcare
and insurance company based in Bloomfield, Connecticut.[CC]
CLEO COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Doe Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE, on behalf of H.E., a minor, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. CLEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC, Case No.
1:25-cv-03281 (N.D. Ill., March 27, 2025) arises from the
Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data.
The Defendant is a developer of managed file transfer platforms. As
such, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal
identifiable information (PII) about its current and former
customers. But Defendant lost control over that data when
cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer
systems in a data breach (the Data Breach), asserts the lawsuit.
Accordingly, it is unknown for precisely how long the
cybercriminals had access to the Defendant's network before the
breach was discovered. In other words, the Defendant had no
effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of
its systems—thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access
to its current and former customers' PII.
Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because
Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity
and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols
to protect the Class's PII, the Plaintiff contends.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of H.E., a minor, is a Data Breach victim.
He brings this class action on behalf of himself, and all others
harmed by Defendant's misconduct.
The exposure of one's PII to cybercriminals is a bell that cannot
be unrung. Before this data breach, its current and former
customers' private information was exactly that—private. Not
anymore. Now, their private information is forever exposed and
unsecure.
The Plaintiff is a citizen of Illinois where he intends to remain.
He is the natural father of H.E. -- who is a minor, natural person,
and citizen of Illinois.
Cleo is a privately held software company founded in 1976. The
company is best known for its ecosystem integration platform.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N Michigan Ave, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL: 60611-4501
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 863-1109
E-mail: straussborrelli.com
sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
CLIPPER REALTY: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due May 1
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sanchez v. Clipper Realty,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-08502-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Katherine Polk Failla entered an order granting the Plaintiff's
extension request regarding the briefing of parties' motions for
summary judgment, and Plaintiff's class
certification motion.
The revised schedule is as follows:
-- Plaintiffs' summary judgment and class certification motions
are due on or before April 2, 2025;
-- Defendants' cross-motion and opposition to class
certification is due on or before May 1, 2025;
-- Plaintiffs' response and reply is due on or before May 15,
2025;
-- Defendants' reply is due on or before May 22, 2025.
Clipper is a self-administered and self-managed real estate
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SmpfiV at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 WEst 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1180
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com
COLBEA ENTERPRISES: Darden Bid to Certify Class Moot
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Darden v. Colbea
Enterprises, L.L.C., Case No. 1:23-cv-11540 (D. Mass., Filed July
10, 2023), the Hon. Judge Brian E. Murphy entered an order finding
as moot motion to certify class.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Colbea delivers wholesale branded and unbranded products to New
Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.[CC]
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Torres Balks at Unprotected Personal Info
-----------------------------------------------------------
GUSTAVO FLORES TORRES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER INC.,
Defendant, Case No. MMX-CV25-6044546-S (Conn. Super., February 26,
2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence and
negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy,
and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and
protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly
situated individuals stored within its network systems following a
data breach noticed on January 2, 2025. The Defendant also failed
to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals
about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the
Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through
access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third
parties.
Community Health Center Inc. is a healthcare services provider,
with a principal place in Middlesex County, Connecticut. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
LEMBERG LAW, LLC
Juris 425027
43 Danbury Road
Wilton, CT 06897
Telephone: (203) 653-2250
Email: slemberg@lemberglaw.com
- and -
James F. Woods, Esq.
Annie E. Causey, Esq.
WOODS LONGERGAN PLLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 1410
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 684-2500
Email: jwoods@woodslaw.com
acausey@woodslaw.com
- and -
Jon Tostrud, Esq.
TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, PC
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 278-2600
Email: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com
- and -
Erik H. Langeland, Esq.
ERIK H. LANGELAND, PC
733 Third Avenue, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 354-6270
Email: elangeland@langelandlaw.com
- and -
Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 984-0000
Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
Email: malmstrom@whafh.com
- and -
Rachele R. Byrd, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
750 B. Street, Suite 1820
San Diego, CA
Telephone: (619) 239-4599
Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
Email: byrd@whafh.com
COMPASS GROUP: Bids for Summary Judgment in Jilek Suit Due June 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES JILEK, V. COMPASS
GROUP USA, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00818-JAG-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the
Hon. Judge John Gibney, Jr. entered an order denying as moot the
motion for a hearing on the motion for class certification.
1. Motions for summary judgment shall be filed by no later than
Sunday, June 1,2025.
Motions in limine shall be filed so that they can be fully
briefed before the final pretrial conference, at which time
the Court will rule on them. If no final pretrial conference
is scheduled, motions in limine shall be filed so that they
mature for hearing by no later than Friday, August 29,2025.
2. By Thursday, July 31, 2025, each plainliff shall designate
any discovery, including deposition excerpts, the plainliff
intends to introduce at trial. By Monday, Aug. 11, 2025,
each defendant shall designate any discovery the defendant
intends to introduce, including "fairness" portions of
deposition transcripts. Each plaintiff may designate any
rebuttal discovery by Friday, Aug. 15, 2025.
3. Each plaintiff shall file a list of exhibits by Thursday,
July 31, 2025. Each defendant shall file a list of exhibits
by Monday, Aug. 11, 2025. Each plaintiff shall file a list
of rebuttal exhibits by Friday, Aug. 15, 2025.
Compass Group retails prepared foods and drinks for on-premise
consumption.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=82Xzi8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
COX AUTOMOTIVE: Touch Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMNANG TOUCH, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COX
AUTOMOTIVE CORP SVCS., LLC, a limited liability company; COX
AUTOMOTIVE MOBILITY SOLUTIONS, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-01945-TLN-CSK (E.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiff, at 2:00 p.m. on May 1, 2025, will move the Court,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for an order:
1. Determining that a class action is proper as to the First
Cause of Action contained in the Class Action Complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure;
2. Determining that class treatment is appropriate under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3);
3. Certifying the following Class and subclass:
a. "All current and former employees of Defendant in the
State of California who were paid any wages at any time
from May 19, 2022, through the present (the "Class" or
"Class Members")."
4. Finding the Plaintiff to be an adequate representative and
certifying him as the class representative.
5. Finding the Plaintiff's counsel and his respective firms,
namely Larry W. Lee of Diversity Law Group, P.C., Dennis S.
Hyun of Hyun Legal, APC, Edward W. Choi of the Law Offices
of Choi & Associates, APLC, and William L. Marder of Polaris
Law Group as adequate class counsel and certifying them as
class counsel.
On May 19, 2023, the Plaintiff filed his Complaint for violation of
California Labor Code in the San Joaquin Superior Court.
On Aug. 2, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a Representative Complaint
adding a cause of action for California Labor Code.
On Sept. 8, 2023, the San Joaquin Superior Court granted
Defendant's Motion to Consolidate the two separate lawsuits that
were filed by the Plaintiff.
Cox is an automotive services and technology provider.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 27, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=088ixq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 488-6555
Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
- and -
William L. Marder, Esq.
POLARIS LAW GROUP
501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
Hollister, CA 95023
Telephone: (831) 531-4214
Facsimile: (831) 634-0333
E-mail: bill@polarislawgroup.com
- and -
Edward W. Choi, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES
515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 381-1515
Facsimile: (213) 465-4885
E-mail: edward.choi@choiandassociates.com
- and -
Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
HYUN LEGAL, APC
515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 488-6555
Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
E-mail: dhyun@hyunlegal.com
DC STAR: Fails to Pay Security Personnel's OT Wages, Hayes Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
SYDNEY HAYES and TEDDY RABURN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. DC STAR SECURITY AGENCY INC., d/b/a
SIEGUN SECURITY, and DAVID LEE, individually, Case No.
1:25-cv-00986 (D. Colo., March 27, 2025) seeks to recover overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado
Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order, and the Colorado Wage
Act.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the COMPS Order and
the CWA by failing to pay Security Personnel overtime compensation
at applicable rates as required by law.
The action is brought by the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves
and all individuals who were employed by, or contracted with
Defendants as security guards and/or other comparable positions
with different titles (Security Personnel) in Colorado during the
three years preceding, plus any period of tolling, and who were not
properly paid overtime compensation.
The Defendant is a Colorado-based physical security services
agency.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John William Billhorn, Esq.
BILLHORN LAW FIRM
53 West Jackson Blvd, Suite 1137
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 853-1450
E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com
EDDIE BAUER: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Clark Due Nov. 30
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Clark v. Eddie Bauer LLC,
et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01106 (W.D. Wash., Filed July 16, 2020),
the Hon. Judge Richard A. Jones entered an order granting unopposed
motion for extension of time to file answer re amended complaint
and to amend scheduling order.
-- Defendant's time to respond to the May 10, 2025
First Amended Complaint is
extended to:
-- Defendants' responses to Plaintiff's May 18, 2025
discovery due by:
-- Class Certification Motion to be Nov. 30, 2025
filed by:
-- Class Certification Opposition Dec. 1, 2025
due by:
-- Class Certification Reply due by: Dec. 15, 2025
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Fraud.
Eddie Bauer is an American outdoor recreation brand and chain store
headquartered in Seattle, Washington. The company sells its
merchandise via retail stores, outlet stores, online, and via
telephone.[CC]
EQUITY TRANSPORTATION: Johnson Sues Over Layoffs Without Notice
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. EQUITY TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00333
(W.D. Mich., March 26, 2025) is a class action complaint brought
under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.
Over the last 90 days, the Defendant abruptly terminated over one
hundred employees, unilaterally and without proper notice to
employees or staff, and at least 33% of active full-time employees,
including Plaintiff, at the Facility. The Plaintiff was terminated
on March 10, 2025, as part of a mass layoff and/or plant closing
without proper notice, says the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this action, individually, and on behalf of
other similarly situated former employees who worked for Defendant
and were terminated as part of the foreseeable result of a mass lay
off or plant closing ordered by Defendant on or around March 10,
2025, and within 90 days of that date and who were not provided 60
days’ advance written notice of their terminations by Defendant,
as required by the WARN Act.
The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees should have
received the full protection afforded by the WARN Act, asserts the
Court.
The Defendant operates a plant located at 3685 Dykstra NW, Walker,
MI 49544 (Facility), where Plaintiff and the putative class
worked.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Michael C. Iadevaia, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
miadevaia@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI, LLP
613 Williamson St., Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Natalie A. Lyons, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
nlyons@cohenandmalad.com
FARMERS INSURANCE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 26
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Anderson, et al., v.
Farmers Insurance Exchange, et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-00174 (N.D.
Okla., Filed April 17, 2024), the Hon. Judge Claire V. Eagan
entered an order an amended scheduling order for class
certification issues:
-- Class Certification Discovery Cutoff: May 29, 2025
-- Class Certification Motion due: June 26, 2025
-- Class Certification Response due: July 17, 2025
-- Class Certification Reply due: July 31, 2025
-- Setting Class Certification Hearing Aug. 21, 2025
scheduled for:
The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).
The Defendant provides insurance products and services. The Company
offers automobile, property, life, renters, business, and
umbrella.[CC]
FLOYD BONNER: JCI Allowed Leave to File Class Cert Reply
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Just City, Inc. v. SHERIFF
FLOYD BONNER, JR., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-02540 (W.D. Tenn.,
Filed July 31, 2024), the Hon. Judge Thomas L. Parker entered an
order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for leave to reply
to the motion for class certification.
The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC]
FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Smith-Journigan Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TREY SMITH-JOURNIGAN, on
behalf of a class of others similarly situated, v. FRANKLIN COUNTY,
OHIO, Case No. 2:18-cv-00328-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order certifying the following class and
subclass:
Class
"All detainees who, at the time of final judgment, have been
placed into the custody of the Franklin County Correctional
Center and/or Franklin County Workhouse, after being charged
with misdemeanors, summary violations, traffic infractions,
civil commitments or other minor crimes, including on arrest
warrants, and who were immediately eligible for bail under
Ohio law and the bail schedule and regulations mandated by the
Franklin County Municipal Court that in fact posted bail
within twenty-four hours of being taken into custody by
Franklin County."
The class period commences on April 11, 2016 and continues
until Nov. 18, 2025.
Specifically excluded from the Class are the Defendant and any
and all of its respective affiliates, legal representatives,
heirs, successors, employees, or assignees.
Subclass
"All members of the foregoing class who, on Franklin County's
"Miscellaneous Update Document," indicated that they had the
financial means to post bond, or where information about the
financial ability to post bond is absent from the form."
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 26, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HcE5G4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III, P.C.
One Pine West Plaza, Suite 120
Albany, NY 12205
Telephone: (518) 434-1718
E-mail: bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com
- and -
Nicholas Migliaccio, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD, LLP
412 H Street, NE, Suite 302
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
- and -
D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, PC
707 Grant Street, Suite 125
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 281-7229
E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com
- and -
Andrew Baker, Esq.
THE BAKER LAW GROUP
107 South High Street, Suite 400
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 228-1882
E-mail: andrew.baker@bakerlawgroup.net
FRED MEYER: Filing for Class Cert Bid Modified to Jan. 12, 2026
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDY SHIELDS, v. FRED
MEYER STORES INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-01455-TL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge Tana Lin entered an order that the deadlines in the case
schedule shall be extended and the modified case schedule through
class certification set as follows:
Event Date
Class disclosure of expert testimony due Sept. 1, 2025
Class expert discovery cutoff: Sept. 29, 2025
Class expert exclusion motions due: Oct. 14, 2025
Class certification discovery cutoff: Dec. 18/2025
Plaintiff's motion for class certification Jan. 12, 2026
to be filed:
Defendant's response to class Feb. 17, 2026
certification motion to be filed:
Plaintiff's reply to class certification Mar. 27, 2026
motion to be filed:
Fred Meyer is an American chain of hypermarket superstores and
subsidiary of Kroger based in Portland, Oregon.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K5lu4H at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Guy W. Beckett, Esq.
BERRY & BECKETT, PLLP
1708 Bellevue Avenue
Seattle, WA 98122
Telephone: (206) 441-5444
E-mail: gbeckett@beckettlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Fred Burnside, Esq.
Jacob M. Harper, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-161
Telephone: (206) 622-3150
E-mail: fredburnside@dwt.com
jacobharper@dwt.com
GEICO GENERAL: Faces Kane Class Action Suit Over Policy Premiums
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD KANE, on behalf of himself Civil Action No. and all others
similarly situated Plaintiff v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Case No. 6:25-cv-00532 (M.D. Fla., March 26, 2025) is a class
action lawsuit by the Plaintiff who was the named insured under a
Geico automobile policy.
Accordingly, Geico employs a standard practice of obtaining
information from consumer reporting agencies to find licensed or
permitted drivers to add them for an additional premium to
insureds’ Geico policies even when the added drivers are complete
strangers to the insureds.
The lawsuit seeks recovery for all victims of Geico's unsavory
practices. The lawsuit is brought by Plaintiff individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated insureds who have suffered
increases to their policy premiums due to Geico adding unknown
individuals to their policies.
Geico is a corporation headquartered in Maryland which, engaged in
the business of marketing, selling, and servicing insurance
policies in the State of Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Dapeer, Esq.
DAPEER LAW P.A.
520 S. Dixie Hwy, No. 240
Hallandale Beach, FL 33009
Telephone: (954) 799-5914
E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com
GIORGIO ARMANI: Parties Must File Joint Scheduling Report
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMOND T. MAHLBERG, v.
GIORGIO ARMANI CORPORATION, Case No. 0:25-cv-60573-WPD (S.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge William Dimitrouleas entered an order requiring
counsel to meet, file joint scheduling report and joint discovery
report:
1. Pretrial discovery in this case shall be conducted in accord
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and Southern
District of Florida Local Rule 16.1.
2. Within thirty-five (35) calendar days of the filing of the
first responsive pleading by the last responding defendant,
unless this action is excluded under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), the
parties shall file a Joint Scheduling Report and Joint
Proposed Order pursuant to Local Rule 16.1.B.2.
3. The parties may submit a single report combining the
discovery plan report and the scheduling conference report.
However, unilateral submissions are prohibited.
4. Failure of counsel or unrepresented parties to file a
discovery plan report or joint scheduling report may result
in dismissal, default, and the imposition of other sanctions
including attorney's fees and costs.
Giorgio Armani designs, manufactures, distributes and retails
fashion and lifestyle products including apparel.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Xbdj0L at no extra
charge.[CC]
GRETCHEN WHITMER: Plaintiffs' Bid for Judgment Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOES et al., v.
GRETCHEN WHITMER et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-10209-MAG-CI (E.D.
Mich.), the Hon. Judge Mark Goldsmith entered an order granting in
part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for judgment.
The Court finds that the Michigan Supreme Court's holding in Betts
is controlling and that severing specific provisions of SORA 2021
cannot be reconciled with what that court said Michigan law
requires.
Accordingly, the Court has no option other than to enjoin
enforcement of SORA 2021 entirely as to registrants who committed
their offenses before July 1, 2011. The Court recognizes that this
ruling will have significant consequences, but it is not
unprecedented.
The Court holds that the process used by SORA 2021's "catch-all"
provision be afforded to all registrants convicted of non-sex
offenses.
Accordingly, the Court enjoins the required registration of
individuals convicted of out-of-state offenses. To require such
individuals to register under SORA 2021, the legislature must adopt
a constitutional process that affords registrants with a judicial
determination of their registration requirements.
The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that section 28.729(1) does not
obviate Plaintiffs' vagueness concerns.
The Plaintiffs filed this class action challenging the
constitutionality of Michigan's Sex Offender Registration Act as it
was amended in 2021 (SORA 2021).
The Plaintiffs brought eleven claims, alleging that SORA 2021
violates constitutional protections regarding ex post facto, due
process, equal protection, privileges and immunities, and the First
Amendment.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 26, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JSF6kd
at no extra charge.[CC]
HARVEY, IL: Property Owners Sue Over Fraudulent Water Bill
----------------------------------------------------------
HOLY BIBLE MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH (HBMBC), JOHNATHAN JOHNSON,
DERONDA POWELL, on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated v. CITY OF HARVEY, CHRISTOPHER CLARK, RICHARD SEPUT,
COREAN DAVIS, Case No. 1:25-cv-03264 (N.D. Ill., March 27, 2025)
concerns a scheme and artifice undertaken by officials and the City
of Harvey to fraudulently bill property owners of the City of
Harvey excessive amounts for water consumption and seeks relief for
all water consumers that have been subject to the overbilling
scheme implemented by Christopher Clark and other defendants to
defraud water consumers using both the mails and electronic means.
The class action is brought pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, Breach of the Covenant of Good
Faith and Fair Dealing, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Unjust
Enrichment and Imposition of a Constructive Trust.
Historically, while the City of Harvey water system was operated by
a water reclamation district the average bill for water consumption
at Holy Bible Missionary Babtist Church was in the range of $40-$50
per month. At a point in time specifically unknown to Plaintiffs,
The City of Harvey assumed control over the water system and began
billing for water delivered by the same system.
On the Village of Harvey's web site it states: Billing Water meters
are read and billed monthly. Bills are due 15 days from the billing
date. A late fee is applied on the 16th day. However, upon
information and belief the City of Harvey does not have employees
reading water meters and the water meters are not read monthly,
asserts the lawsuit.
HBMBC is a non-for-profit Illinois corporation with its principal
place of business at 15301 Lexington Avenue, Harvey, Illinois.
City Of Harvey is a Home Rule Unit of local government situated
within Cook County, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert T. Hanlon, Esq.
NETZKY OLSWANG HANLON LLC
8605 West Bryn Mawr Avenue, Suite 309(b)
Chicago, IL 60631
HEALTH CAROUSEL: Settlement Deal in Carmen Gets Final OK
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOVIE DALE CARMEN, et al.,
v. HEALTH CAROUSEL, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00313-DRC (S.D. Ohio),
the Hon. Judge Douglas Cole entered an order as follows:
1. Retains Jurisdiction Over this case to the extent necessary to
enforce the terms of the amended settlement agreement.
2. Finally Certifies the Settlement Classes, for settlement
purposes only, as defined in the amended settlement agreement and
as amended by the parties' stipulation;
3. Finally Approves the terms of the amended settlement agreement
as fair, equitable, and reasonable;
4. Directs the parties to carry out the agreement's terms as
written and promptly make the required payments to the class
members, class representatives, and class counsel;
5. Awards attorneys' fees of $2,016,066, litigation costs of
$77,136.77, and settlement administration expenses of $43,092 to
class counsel;
6. Awards service payments to the class representatives in the
amounts requested; and
7. Directs the Clerk to enter judgment and TERMINATE this case on
its docket.
The Court preliminarily certified two classes in this action: Group
A and Group B.
The first, a Rule 23(b)(3) class—the "Group A Settlement
Class"—seeks monetary relief and includes the following persons:
"All healthcare workers who entered the United States through
Defendant's Passport USA program at any point from March 16,
2010 to Feb. 15, 2024, who do not submit a timely and valid
written notice of intent to opt-out, and who as of Feb. 15,
2024: (1) paid Health Carousel some or all "liquidated
Damages" for leaving before the end of their Commitment
Period; (2) completed their Commitment Period; or (3) are
current employees."
The parties clarified that they intended for the Group B definition
to capture all former employees with outstanding liquidated-damages
debt—not just the subset of those who hadn’t made any payments
toward that debt. So they stipulated to change the Group B
definition by one word:
"All healthcare workers who entered the United States through
Defendant's Passport USA program at any point from March 16,
2010 to Feb. 15, 2024, who do not submit a timely and valid
written notice of intent to opt-out, and who as of Feb. 15,
2024: (1) had left Heath Carousel before the end of their
Commitment Period and failed to pay Health Carousel all
"liquidated damages"; or (2) are current employees in the
Passport USA program."
To be clear, anyone who has completed their Commitment Period as
of February 15, 2024, is not considered a current employee under
this Agreement.
Health Carousel is a recruiting and staffing company in the
business of bringing foreign healthcare talent—primarily from the
Philippines—to the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RX7Dkq at no extra
charge.[CC]
HEALTH PRIME: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Knoblich Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN KNOBLICH and OLIVIA SUTER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HEALTH PRIME INTERNATIONAL, LLC, ALN
MEDICAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, NATIONAL SPINE AND PAIN CENTERS, LLC, and
BETHANY MEDICAL CENTER, P.A., Case No. 8:25-cv-01033-LKG (D. Md.,
March 28, 2025) seeks to hold the Defendants responsible for the
harm they caused Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons in the
preventable data breach of Defendants' inadequately protected
computer network.
In March 2024, ALN identified suspicious activity on certain
third-party hosted systems, indicating a data breach. Based on a
subsequent forensic investigation, ALN determined that
cybercriminals infiltrated the inadequately secured computer
environment and accessed data files between March 18, 2024, and
March 24, 2024 (the Data Breach).
The investigation further determined that, through this
infiltration, cybercriminals accessed and stole files containing
the sensitive personal information of tens of thousands of
individuals. According to the Defendants, the personal information
accessed by cybercriminals involved a wide variety of personally
identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information
("PHI"), including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers,
driver’s license numbers or other state identification numbers,
financial account information, health insurance information, and
medical information (Personal Information), says the suit.
Health Prime is the parent company of ALN. As part of their
business, and in order to gain profits, Defendants obtained and
maintained the Personal Information of Plaintiffs and Class
members. By taking possession and control of Plaintiffs' and Class
members' Personal Information, Defendants assumed a duty to
securely store and protect the Personal Information of Plaintiffs
and the Class. The Defendants breached this duty and betrayed the
trust of Plaintiffs and Class members by failing to properly
safeguard and protect their Personal Information, thus enabling
cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise,
disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view
it, the suit alleges.
ALN is healthcare advisory firm that provides administrative
services to medical providers. ALN is a subsidiary of Defendant
Health Prime.
National Spine and Pain provides healthcare and medical services,
operating centers in various locations across the country.
Bethany Medical is a healthcare provider with locations throughout
the Greensboro-Winston Salem, North Carolina area.
Health Prime provides revenue cycle management solutions to
physician groups.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Emily Cruikshank Bayonne, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: ebayonne@sirillp.com
- and -
A. Brooke Murphy, Esq.
MURPHY LAW FIRM
4116 Wills Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700
Oklahoma Ciety, OK 73108
Telephone: (405) 389-4989
E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com
HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Reply to Albert Class Cert Bid Due April 23
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Albert v. HONDA
DEVELOPMENT & MANUFACTURING OF AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00694
(S.D. Ohio, Filed Feb. 15, 2022), the Hon. Judge Edmund A. Sargus
entered an order granting the Defendant's motion for extension of
time:
-- The Defendant's deadline to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification, Appointment of Class Counsel and Class
Representative, and Issuance of Notice to Ohio Class Members
(Doc. 143 in 2:22-cv-00694-EAS-KAJ, 69 in 2:22-cv-04277-EAS-
KAJ, 70 in 2:22-cv-04372-EAS-KAJ, 87 in 2:22-cv-03828-EAS-KAJ)
is now April 23, 2025.
-- The Plaintiff's reply is still due within 14 days after the
date of service of the response.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Honda manufactures motor vehicles and parts. The Company provides
product engineering and development.[CC]
HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Reply to Scarbrough Class Cert Bid Due April 23
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Scarbrough v. HONDA
DEVELOPMENT & MANUFACTURING OF AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-04277
(S.D. Ohio, Filed Dec. 22, 2022), the Hon. Judge Edmund A. Sargus
entered an order granting the Defendant's motion for extension of
time:
-- The Defendant's deadline to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification, Appointment of Class Counsel and Class
Representative, and Issuance of Notice to Ohio Class Members
(Doc. 143 in 2:22-cv-00694-EAS-KAJ, 69 in 2:22-cv-04277-EAS-
KAJ, 70 in 2:22-cv-04372-EAS-KAJ, 87 in 2:22-cv-03828-EAS-KAJ)
is now April 23, 2025.
-- The Plaintiff's reply is still due within 14 days after the
date of service of the response.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Honda manufactures motor vehicles and parts. The Company provides
product engineering and development.[CC]
HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Reply to Tripoli Class Cert Bid Due April 23
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRIPOLI v. HONDA
DEVELOPMENT & MANUFACTURING OF AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-03828
(S.D. Ohio, Filed Oct. 27, 2022), the Hon. Judge Edmund A. Sargus
entered an order granting the Defendant's motion for extension of
time:
-- The Defendant's deadline to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification, Appointment of Class Counsel and Class
Representative, and Issuance of Notice to Ohio Class Members
(Doc. 143 in 2:22-cv-00694-EAS-KAJ, 69 in 2:22-cv-04277-EAS-
KAJ, 70 in 2:22-cv-04372-EAS-KAJ, 87 in 2:22-cv-03828-EAS-KAJ)
is now April 23, 2025.
-- The Plaintiff's reply is still due within 14 days after the
date of service of the response.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Honda manufactures motor vehicles and parts. The Company provides
product engineering and development.[CC]
HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Seeks More Time to File Opposition Brief
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL ALBERT, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. HONDA DEVELOPMENT
& MANUFACTURING OF AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00694-EAS-KAJ
(S.D. Ohio), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order to
extend its response deadline to the Plaintiff's motion for Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23 class certification, appointment of class counsel and
class representative, and issuance of notice to Ohio class members,
filed on March 19, 2025.
Presently, under this Court's local rules, the Defendant's
memorandum in opposition is due April 9, 2025.
However, the Defendant's national counsel is currently out of the
country, and the issues in Plaintiff's Motion are substantive and
require a thorough response.
Accordingly, the Defendant requests until April 23, 2025 to file
its opposition brief.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 24, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=33uvPm at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
David S. Bloomfield, Jr., Esq.
Sarah K. Squillante, Esq.
PORTER, WRIGHT, MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP
41 S. High Street, Suites 2800-3200
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 227-2000
Facsimile: (614) 227-2100
E-mail: dbloomfield@porterwright.com
ssquillante@porterwright.com
- and -
Noah Finkel, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
Chicago, IL 60606-6448
Telephone: (312) 460-5000
E-mail: nfinkel@seyfarth.com
HUMANA INC: Bid to Exclude Verkhovskaya's Testimony Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID ELLIOT, v. HUMANA
INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00329-RGJ-CHL (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge
Rebecca Grady Jennings entered an order as follows:
1. Humana's motion to exclude Verkhovskaya's testimony is
denied.
2. Humana's motion to strike the declaration of Peters-
Stasiewicz's is denied.
The Court finds Peters-Stasiewicz's declaration and Verkhovskaya's
opinion relevant as they help the court determine multiple
requirements of class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
including numerosity and ascertainability.
Verkhovskaya's opinion is also relevant in providing notice to the
class once certified. Verkhovskaya is qualified, and her opinion is
reliable and relevant. Thus, for all the reasons set forth above,
Humana's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony is denied.
Peters-Stasiewicz's declaration is nonexpert evidence submitted to
the Court for purposes of class certification. It is proper
evidence that an expert can rely on and is relevant to the Court's
class certification process. At this stage under Sixth Circuit
precedent, the future admissibility of this declaration is not
grounds to reject evidence presented to support class
certification. Humana's Motion to Exclude is denied and the Court
will consider the presented evidence.
Elliot sued Humana for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA"). The Plaintiff alleges Humana telephoned Elliot
numerous times despite not being a Humana customer and after being
informed that Humana had the wrong number.
Humana is an American for-profit health insurance company based in
Louisville, Kentucky.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nSzXFv at no extra
charge.[CC]
I.M.A. ESCAPE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Isakov Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
SIMON ISAKOV, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. I.M.A. Escape, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02474 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 26, 2025) alleges that Canali failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, Exitescaperoomnyc.com, to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant is allegedly denying blind and visually impaired
persons throughout the United States with equal access to the
services Parched Hospitality Group provides to their non-disabled
customers through its website. The Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products
and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
Exitescaperoomnyc.com provides to the public a wide array of the
services, price specials and other programs offered by I.M.A.
Escape. Yet, Exitescaperoomnyc.com contains significant access
barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and
visually-impaired customers to use the website. In fact, the access
barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users
to even complete a transaction on the website.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
I.M.A. Escape's policies, practices, and procedures to that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination, says the suit.
The Defendant controls and operates Exitescaperoomnyc.com in New
York State and throughout the
United States.
Exitescaperoomnyc.com is an online platform that offers escape room
games for online booking. The website allows the user to explore
escape room games, and perform a variety of other functions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael H. Cohen, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC
68-29 Main Street
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (718) 914-9694
E-mail: mcohen@ealg.law
IDAHO: Resource Councils Balks at Law Over Prosecuting Noncitizens
------------------------------------------------------------------
IDAHO ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCE COUNCILS; THE ALLIANCE OF IDAHO;
A.M.R.; L.M.C.; M.S.; W.G.C.; and J.R.B.M, v. RAUL LABRADOR, in his
official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Idaho, et
al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00178-AKB (D. Idaho, March 27, 2025)
challenges House Bill 83, to be codified at Idaho Code sections
18-9003- 18-9013, which purports to give Idaho state and local
officials unprecedented power to arrest, detain, and prosecute
noncitizens in the State of Idaho.
According to the complaint, under this novel system, the State of
Idaho has created its own immigration crimes, completely outside
the federal immigration system. State and local police will arrest
noncitizens for these entry (Illegal Entry) and re-entry (Illegal
Reentry) crimes; the Attorney General and county prosecutors will
bring charges in state courts; and state judges will determine
guilt and impose sentences. The federal government has no role in,
and no control over, these arrests and prosecutions, asserts the
lawsuit.
The Plaintiffs file the complaint for declaratory and permanent
injunctive relief. The Plaintiffs will seek a temporary retraining
order and a preliminary injunction to enjoin enforcement of H.B. 83
immediately.
The Defendants include JAN M. BENNETTS, in her official capacity as
Prosecuting Attorney of Ada County; MATT FREDBACK, in his official
capacity as prosecuting Attorney of Blaine County; CHRIS BOYD, in
his official capacity as Prosecuting Attorney of Canyon County;
MCCORD LARSEN, in his official capacity as Prosecuting Attorney of
Cassia County; JANNA BIRCH, in her official capacity as Prosecuting
Attorney of Clark County; SAM BEUS, in his official capacity as
Prosecuting Attorney of Jerome County; STANLEY MORTENSEN, in his
official capacity as Prosecuting Attorney of Kootenai County; CHACE
SLAVIN, in his official capacity as Prosecuting Attorney of Lemhi
County; JUSTIN COLEMAN, in his official capacity as Prosecuting
Attorney of Nez Perce County; ETHAN RAWLINGS, in his official
capacity as Prosecuting Attorney of Oneida County; MIKE DUKE, in
his official capacity as Prosecuting Attorney of Payette County;
BEN ALLEN, in his official capacity as Prosecuting Attorney of
Shoshone County; and GRANT P. LOEBS, in his official capacity as
Prosecuting Attorney of Twin Falls County.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Cody Wofsy, Esq.
Spencer Amdur, Esq.
Hannah Steinberg, Esq.
Oscar Sarabia Roman, Esq.
Omar Jadwat, Esq.
Grace Choi, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION
IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT
425 California Street, Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 343-0770
E-mail: cwofsy@aclu.org
samdur@aclu.org
hsteinberg@aclu.org
osarabia@aclu.org
ojadwat@aclu.org
gchoi@aclu.org
- and -
Paul Carlos Southwick, Esq.
Emily Myrei Croston, Esq.
ACLU OF IDAHO FOUNDATION
P.O. Box 1897
Boise, ID 83701
Telephone: (208) 344-9750
E-mail: psouthwick@acluidaho.org
ecroston@acluidaho.org
IMPERIAL PARKING: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Alston
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRUSTEE FRED ALSTON as a
TRUSTEE OF THE LOCAL 272 LABOR-MANAGEMENT PENSION FUND, v. IMPERIAL
PARKING (U.S.) LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-07298-AT-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Gabriel Gorenstein entered an order general pretrial
management:
All pre-trial applications, including those relating to scheduling
and discovery, shall be made to the undersigned (except motions to
dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief,
for summary judgment, or for class certification). All applications
must comply with this Court's Individual Practices, which are
available through the Clerk's Office or at:
https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-gabriel-w-gorenstein
The parties should write to the Court at any time that they wish to
participate in Court-sponsored mediation.
All discovery (as well as requests for admissions) must be
initiated in time to be concluded by the deadline for all
discovery.
Discovery motions -- that is, any application pursuant to Rules 26
through 37 or 45 -- not only must comply with section 2.A. of the
Court's Individual Practices but also must be made promptly after
the cause for such a motion arises. In addition, absent
extraordinary circumstances no such application will be considered
if made later than 30 days prior to the close of discovery.
Untimely applications will be denied.
Imperial Parking is a parking management company based in Brooklyn,
NY.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RJMrLL at no extra
charge.[CC]
INDIANA: Faces L.A. Class Action Suit Over Gender Identity
----------------------------------------------------------
L.A., a minor child, by her parent, next friend, and legal
guardian, Rai Eury, on her own behalf and on behalf of a class of
those similarly situated v. MIKE BRAUN, in his official capacity as
Governor of the State of Indiana; LARRY K. ERVIN, in his official
capacity as State Registrar & Division Director of Vital Records of
the Indiana Department of Health, Case No. 1:25-cv-00596-MPB-TAB
(S.D. Ind., March 28, 2025) is a class action complaint for
declaratory and injunctive relief.
L.A. is a 15-year-old transgender girl who realized when she was a
very young child that, despite a birth-assigned sex of male, she
identifies as female. In recognition of this fact, an Indiana state
trial court has issued an order that the gender marker on her birth
certificate should be changed to female.
The order was presented to the local health department in the
Indiana county where L.A. was born so that a new birth certificate
could be issued with the corrected gender marker. However, no
change was made, despite the court order. This is because of
Executive Order 25-36, issued by defendant Braun on March 4, 2025,
which announces that it is the policy of Indiana to recognize that
the sex of a person is fixed at birth and that "modern gender
ideology is internally inconsistent, diminishes sex and gender as
identifiable categories, yet nevertheless maintains that it is
possible for a person to be born in the wrong sexed body."
Consequently, the Executive Order prohibits state agencies from
"maintaining any statements, policies, regulations, forms,
communications or other messages that promote or otherwise
inculcate modern gender ideology." As a result, defendant Ervin,
the Indiana State Registrar, is refusing to process gender marker
changes for persons whose gender does not match their sex as
defined by Governor Braun and the Executive Order, even if a state
court has ordered the change. The Executive Order is disconnected
from the reality that transgender persons and other gender-diverse
persons exist in Indiana. The reality that gender identity may
differ from the sex assigned at birth is a matter of science and
medicine and also is recognized by courts, including the United
States Supreme Court.
While the Governor is free to have his opinions about transgender
and gender-diverse persons, the Executive Order and its
implementation is a targeted attempt to impose hardships on a
disfavored group and represents discrimination on the grounds of
both sex and transgender status. This violates equal protection no
matter what level of scrutiny is applied. The Executive Order and
its implementation also violates the constitutional right of
privacy enjoyed by plaintiff and the putative class that is
protected by due process, says the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of
a class of persons similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The class is defined as:
"All present and future persons who are unable to obtain a
change in the gender marker on their Indiana birth certificate
because of Executive Order 25-36 and/or any subsequent similar
Executive Orders."
Mike Braun is the duly elected Governor of the State of Indiana. He
is sued in his official capacity.
Larry K. Ervin is the duly appointed State Registrar and Division
Director of Vital Records at the Indiana Department of Health. He
is sued in his official capacity.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth J. Falk, Esq.
Gavin M. Rose, Esq.
Stevie J. Pactor, Esq.
ACLU OF INDIANA
1031 E. Washington St.
Indianapolis, IN 46202
Telephone: (317) 635-4059
Facsimile: (317) 635-4105
E-mail: kfalk@aclu-in.org
grose@aclu-in.org
spactor@aclu-in.org
INNOVATE CORP: Awaits Court OK of Settlement in DTV Derivative Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 15, 2021, holders of DTV America Corporation stock and
options filed a stockholder class action and derivative complaint
in the Delaware Court of Chancery in an action styled Bocock, et
al., v. HC2 Holdings, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 2021-0224 (Del. Ch.).
The Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding
and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty, and waste against, among
others, INNOVATE (f/k/a HC2 Holdings, Inc.), certain of INNOVATE's
subsidiaries, and certain current and former DTV officers and
directors in connection with certain sales and purchases of
broadcast stations and licenses. The Defendants moved to dismiss
the complaint in its entirety.
On October 28, 2022, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion granting
in part and denying in part Defendants' motions to dismiss. On
February 14, 2024, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to
further narrow their claims.
On July 22, 2024, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the litigation for $125,000. The parties have submitted the
settlement for Court approval, which is pending.
About Innovate
New York-based Innovate Corp. -- innovatecorp.com -- is a
diversified holding company that has a portfolio of subsidiaries
in
a variety of operating segments. The Company seeks to grow these
businesses so that they can generate long-term sustainable free
cash flow and attractive returns in order to maximize value for
all
stakeholders. As of Dec. 31, 2023, its three operating platforms
or
reportable segments, based on management's organization of the
enterprise, are Infrastructure, Life Sciences, and Spectrum, plus
its other segment, which includes businesses that do not meet the
separately reportable segment thresholds.
Innovate incurred a net loss of $38.9 million in 2023, compared to
a net loss of $42 million in 2022. As of June 30, 2024, Innovate
had $898.9 million in total assets, $1.01 billion in total
liabilities, $15.9 million in total temporary equity, and a total
stockholders' deficit of $126.1 million.
Going Concern
As of November 6, 2024, there is substantial doubt about the
Company's ability to continue as a going concern within the next
12
months. According to the Company, the principal conditions leading
to this conclusion are the upcoming maturities of current debt at
certain of the Company's subsidiaries as well as from certain
cross-default provisions in the Company's Senior Secured Notes.
Based on these conditions, the Company may not be able to meet its
obligations at maturity and comply with certain cross-default
provisions under the Senior Secured Notes over the next 12 months.
The Company plans to alleviate these conditions through various
initiatives it is currently exploring, including refinancing the
debt at Broadcasting and DBMG, pursuing asset sales, and raising
additional capital. However, there can be no assurance that the
Company will have the ability to raise additional capital when
needed, be successful in any asset sales, or refinance its
existing
debt, on attractive terms, or at all, nor any assurances that
lenders will provide additional extensions, waivers or amendments
in the event of future non-compliance with the Company's debt
covenants or other possible events of default. Further, there can
be no assurance that the Company will be able to execute a
reduction, extension, or refinancing of the debt, or that the
terms
of any replacement financing would be as favorable as the terms of
the debt prior to the maturity date. There can be no assurance
that
these plans will be successfully implemented or that they will
mitigate the conditions that raise substantial doubt about the
Company's ability to continue as a going concern. The inability to
refinance or extend the maturity of the current debt at the
Company's subsidiaries, or to raise sufficient cash to pay the
debt
at maturity would have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial condition and likely cause the price of the Company's
common stock to decline.
* * *
In September 2024, Moody's Ratings affirmed INNOVATE Corp.'s
Corporate Family Rating at Caa1 and 8.5% Senior Secured Notes'
rating at Caa2, downgraded its Probability of Default Rating to
Caa2-PD from Caa1-PD, and revised the ratings outlook to negative
from stable. The Speculative Grade Liquidity ("SGL") Rating
remains
at SGL-4.
Governance considerations under the Moody's ESG framework,
including financial strategy and risk management, were a key
driver
of the rating action.
JEROME HARRIS: AME Settlement in Alexander Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alexander v. Jerome
Harris, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01128 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge
S. Thomas Anderson entered an order as follows:
1. The Court preliminarily approves the AME Settlement and the
AME Agreement as well as the Newport Settlement and the
Newport Agreement as sufficiently fair, adequate, and
reasonable, and allows dissemination of the Long Form
Notices to the members of the proposed Class under Rule
23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule 23),
subject to further consideration at the Fairness Hearing.
This determination is not a final finding that the AME
Agreement or the Newport Agreement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable.
2. The Court appoints the Plaintiffs as the Class
Representatives for purposes of both the AME Settlement and
the Newport Settlement.
3. The Court appoints as Class Counsel the law firms of Milberg
Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC, Osborne & Francis
Law Firm, PLLC, Stranch Jennings & Garvey, PLLC, Kantor &
Kantor, LLC, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Blue,
LLP, Wright & Schulte, LLC, and the AARP Foundation for
purposes of both the AME Settlement and the Newport
Settlement. Solely for purposes of effectuating the
Settlements, Class Counsel are authorized to act on behalf
of the Class Representatives and all other Class Members
with respect to all acts or consents required by or that may
be given pursuant to the AME Agreement and the Newport
Agreement, including all acts that are reasonably necessary
to consummate the AME Settlement and the Newport Settlement,
subject to final approval by the Court of the AME Settlement
and the Newport Settlement.
4. Pursuant to Rule 23, the Court conditionally certifies the
following Class for purposes of the AME Settlement and the
Newport Settlement only:
Class:
"All persons who were participants, or were those
Participants' respective beneficiaries entitled to benefits,
in the African Methodist Episcopal Church Ministerial
Retirement Annuity Plan on June 30, 2021.
Defendants are excluded from the Class.
5. The Fairness Hearing shall be held by the Court on June 26,
2025, at 10:00 a.m.
The suit is consolidated in AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND
LITIGATION, MDL Docket No. 1:22-md-03035-STA-jay.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SQOnIq at no extra
charge.[CC]
KRISTI NOEM: Hearing on Supplemental Bids Set for April 10
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOE et al v. Kristi Noem
et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-10495 (D. Mass., Filed Feb. 28, 2025), the
Hon. Judge Indira Talwani entered an order setting the following
briefing schedule:
The Defendants shall file their opposition to the Motion to Certify
Class as currently filed (excluding consideration of claims
relating to the CHNV program, individuals paroled in pursuant to
that program, or parole sponsorships pursuant to that program), no
later than April 4, 2025.
The court will hold a hearing on both motions (excluding
consideration of claims relating to the CHNV program, individuals
paroled in pursuant to that program, or parole sponsorships
pursuant to that program) at 10:00 a.m. on April 7, 2025.
The Plaintiffs shall promptly file their anticipated Motion to
Amend the Complaint to address the issuance of the recently
published Federal Register Notice, entitled "Termination of Parole
Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans," 90
Fed. Reg. 13,611 (March 25, 2025).
The Plaintiffs shall file their anticipated Supplemental Motion for
Preliminary Injunction and Stay of Administrative Action and
Supplemental Motion to Certify Class as to claims relating to the
CHNV program, individuals paroled in pursuant to that program, or
parole sponsorships pursuant to that program by March 27, 2025.
The Defendants shall file any oppositions to these supplemental
motions no later than April 8, 2025. The clerk will set a hearing
on these supplemental motions for April 10, 2025, at 3:00
p.m.(Talwani, Indira)
The suit alleges violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.[CC]
L'ADRESSE NOMAD: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Isakov Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
SIMON ISAKOV, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. L'Adresse Nomad, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02484 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 26, 2025) alleges that Canali failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, Ladressenyc.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant is allegedly denying blind and visually impaired
persons throughout the United States with equal access to the
services Parched Hospitality Group provides to their non-disabled
customers through its website. The Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products
and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
Ladressenyc.com provides to the public a wide array of the
services, price specials and other programs offered by L'Adresse
Nomad. Yet, Ladressenyc.com contains significant access barriers
that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and
visually-impaired customers to use the website.
L'Adresse Nomad provides to the public a website known as
Ladressenyc.com, which offers consumers with access to an array of
goods and services, including the possibility to explore American
cuisine with European influences, offering innovative breakfast,
brunch, lunch, and dinner menus, along with classic French
pâtisserie made on-site.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael H. Cohen, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC
68-29 Main Street
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (718) 914-9694
E-mail: mcohen@ealg.law
LABOR SOURCE: Speight Renewed Bid to Certify Class Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BILLY SPEIGHT, JASON
HAGENS, SCOTTIE WILLIAMS, and TANGELA FLANAGAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LABOR SOURCE, LLC, Case
No. 4:21-cv-00112-FL (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Louise Flanagan
entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' renewed motion to certify
class.
The parties are directed to file, within 14 days of the date of
this order, a joint status report regarding case scheduling.
The Plaintiffs have not met their burden of proof on the instant
renewed motion for class certification. There is a mismatch between
the plaintiffs' contentions in their briefs and the evidence of the
actual experience of class representatives during the class period.
The Plaintiffs also have not shown that common issues bearing on
the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA) claims predominate
over individualized issues. Therefore, there is a lack of
commonality and predominance, as well as typicality, necessary for
class certification.
The plaintiffs seek certification of the following revised class
and three subclasses:
"All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees,
including but not limited to, Laborers, non-exempt Crew Leads,
non-commercial drivers, technicians, carpenters, apprentices,
cleaning crew, plumbers, welders, and other Laborers with
similar job duties who were transported by the Defendant
within the State of North Carolina any time from Aug. 12, 2019
through the present (the proposed "Class")."
Any Class Member who was dispatched from North Carolina to
project sites outside of North Carolina (the proposed
"Goldsboro Subclass")."
Any Class Member who performed work for Defendant on projects
located in the State of North Carolina during the Class
Period (the proposed "North Carolina Subclass")."
Any Class Member who was designated as or performed the duties
of a Crew Lead in North Carolina (the proposed "Crew Lead
Subclass")."
The Plaintiff, a former employee of defendant, commenced this
action Aug. 12, 2021, asserting collective action claims on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"); as well as putative class action claims
under the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA").
The Defendant is a staffing agency.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DxJIyl at no extra
charge.[CC]
LOANCARE LLC: Settlement in Data Breach Suit Partly Gets Initial OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Re: LoanCare Data Security
Breach Litigation, Case No. 3:23-cv-01508-CRK-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the
Hon. Judge Kelly entered a preliminary approval order as follows:
The Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied, and
Plaintiffs will refile.
The Plaintiff's Second Amended Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement, Certification of the
Settlement Class, Approval of Class Notice, Scheduling of Final
Approval Hearing, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law is granted
in part to the extent set forth below and otherwise denied.
The Settlement Class is defined as follows:
"All persons residing in the United States who received
written notice from Defendants that their Personal
Information may have been compromised in the Cybersecurity
Incident; and it is further,
The following individuals are excluded from the Settlement
Class: (a) all persons who are employees, directors, officers,
and agents of LoanCare and FNF; (b) governmental entities; and
(c) the Judge and Magistrate Judge assigned to the Action, that
Judge's and Magistrate’s Judge’s immediate family, and Court
staff; (c) persons who properly execute and file a timely
request for exclusion from the Settlement Class; (d) the legal
representatives, successors, or assigns of any such excluded
persons; (e) Plaintiffs' counsel and Defendants' counsel.
The Court designates Plaintiffs Kevin Curry, Gregory
Arrowsmith, Namuun Bat, Richard Freire, Andrew Gharibian, Cody
Kettlewood, Eisin Jahwer Martinez, Douglas Newell, Christopher
Human, April Manar and Jose Peralta as Class Representatives,
with the Plaintiffs' Counsel Mariya Weekes of Milberg Coleman
Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC and Bryan L. Bleichner of
Chestnut Cambronne PA as Class Counsel.
LoanCare is a mortgage subservicer.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o3gr3H at no extra
charge.[CC]
LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Cert Bid Hearing in Stewart Set for May 5
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN STEWART AND CARLOS
VAZQUEZ, v. ROBERT G. LUNA, SHERIFF, LIEUTENANT DESCHINO, SGT. JOHN
DOE, CAPTAIN SCHRINER, ALEX VILLANUEVA, SGT. MATHERLY,DEPUTY
GUTIERREZ, LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES, Does 1-50 inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-04641-ODW-PD (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis Wright II entered an order that:
1. The Parties' stipulation regarding briefing schedule for the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is approved.
2. The hearing on the motion for class certification is
continued to May 5, 2025, at 1:30 p.m.
3. The Defendants' opposition papers to the motion for class
certification shall be filed on or before Apr. 7, 2025.
4. The Plaintiffs' reply papers related to the motion for class
certification shall be filed on or before Apr. 21, 2025; and
5. All other deadlines in this matter shall remain unchanged.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lRZJPS at no extra
charge.[CC]
LYNDON SOUTHERN: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 21
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BELLAIRE MULTIFAMILY
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, v. LYNDON SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
Case No. 3:25-cv-00244-MMH-PDB (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Marcia
Morales Howard entered a case management and scheduling order and
referral to mediation:
Deadline for moving for class certification: Aug. 21, 2025
Deadline for completing discovery and Dec. 1, 2025
filing motions to compel:
Deadline for filing dispositive and Daubert Jan. 16, 2026
motions (responses due 21 days after service):
Deadline for filing all other motions Jun. 1, 2026
including motions in limine:
Deadline for filing the joint final Jun. 15, 2026
pretrial statement:
Final pretrial conference: Jun. 22, 2026
Lyndon is Fortegra's insurance company, writing property and
casualty-related insurance in 46 states.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jZbhzd at no extra
charge.[CC]
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: O'Connell Files Suit in Cal. State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
LANNY O'CONNELL, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01661-SB-JDE (C.D. Cal., February 26,
2025) is a class action against the Defendants for personal injury
claims.
Marriott International, Inc. is a hospitality company doing
business in California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR AND FISHER P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
- and -
Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq.
BURSOR AND FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California, Boulevard Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: sbogdanovich@bursor.com
MD GROUP: Class Schedule Conference in James Reset for April 9
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Butcher, James v. The MD
Group II LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00045 (W.D. Wisc., Filed Jan. 22,
2025), the Hon. Judge James D. Peterson entered an order resetting
the class schedule conference for April 9, 2025.
The parties must submit a supplement to their Rule 26(f) report one
week in advance.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The Defendant is a social housing and public sector building
services specialist.[CC]
MDL 2873: Faces Sullivan Suit Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTIN WATERS SULLIVAN, as Personal
Representative/Executor/Administrator of the Estate of EUGENE
MARVIN VANCE, deceased, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR
FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.;
CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB
FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA INC.;
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT
INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY
LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON
CONTROLS INC.; KIDDE PLC; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.;
MILIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP;
RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC
TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest
to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN
LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP,
Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01181-RMG (D.S.C., February 26, 2025)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery,
inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent
concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, wantonness,
wrongful death, and fraudulent transfer.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by Eugene
Marvin Vance, the Decedent, as a result of his exposure to the
Defendants' aqueous film forming foam products containing
synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively
known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn
military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Decedent, who
they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF
products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a
danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Decedent was
exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with kidney cancer and
liver cancer.
The Sullivan case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Allstar Fire Equipment is a manufacturer of firefighting products
based in California.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
BASF Corporation is a chemicals company based in New Jersey.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
CB Garment, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Oregon.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Daikin America Inc. is a chemicals company based in Alabama.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Fire-Dex, LLC is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in
Ohio.
Fire Service Plus, Inc. is a fire safety services and equipment
company based in Australia.
Globe Manufacturing Company LLC is a manufacturing company in New
Hampshire.
Honeywell Safety Products USA, Inc. is a fire safety services and
equipment company based in North Carolina.
Innotex Corp. is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in
British Columbia.
Johnson Controls Inc. is a global diversified technology firm based
in Wisconsin.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
L.N. Curtis & Sons is a manufacturer of fire safety products based
in California.
Lion Group, Inc. is a protective clothing supplier in Vandalia,
Ohio.
Milliken & Company is a chemical industry company based in South
Carolina.
Mine Safety Appliances Company, LLC is a manufacturer and supplier
of safety equipment based in Pennsylvania.
Municipal Emergency Services, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety
products based in Connecticut.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West
Chester, Pennsylvania.
PBI Performance Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of flame-resistant
and thermally stable fiber products based in North Carolina.
Perimeter Solutions LP is a chemicals company headquartered in St.
Louis, Missouri.
Ricochet Manufacturing Company, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire
safety products based in Pennsylvania.
Safety Components Fabric Technologies, Inc. is a manufacturer of
fire safety products based in South Carolina.
Southern Mills Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products based
in Georgia.
Stedfast USA Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products based
in Tennessee.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida.
Veridian Limited is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
England.
W.L. Gore & Associates Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety
products based in Delaware.
Witmer Public Safety Group, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety
products based in Pennsylvania. [BN]
MDL 2873: Warren Sues Over Injuries Sustained From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL ALAN WARREN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR
FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BASF CORPORATION; individually and as successor in interest
to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.;
CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN
AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS INC.; KIDDE PLC; L.N. CURTIS &
SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILIKEN &
COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY
SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.;
PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP; RAYTHEON
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC; SAFETY
COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST
USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.;
WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01158-RMG
(D.S.C., February 26, 2025) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with thyroid disease.
The Warren case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Allstar Fire Equipment is a manufacturer of firefighting products
based in California.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
BASF Corporation is a chemicals company based in New Jersey.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
CB Garment, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Oregon.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Incorporated is a chemical manufacturing company based
in Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corporation is a specialty chemical company based in
Charlotte, North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Daikin America Inc. is a chemicals company based in Alabama.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Fire-Dex, LLC is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in
Ohio.
Fire Service Plus, Inc. is a fire safety services and equipment
company based in Australia.
Globe Manufacturing Company LLC is a manufacturing company in New
Hampshire.
Honeywell Safety Products USA, Inc. is a fire safety services and
equipment company based in North Carolina.
Innotex Corp. is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in
British Columbia.
Johnson Controls Inc. is a global diversified technology firm based
in Wisconsin.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
L.N. Curtis & Sons is a manufacturer of fire safety products based
in California.
Lion Group, Inc. is a protective clothing supplier in Vandalia,
Ohio.
Mallory Safety and Supply LLC is a distributor of security
solutions based in Nevada.
Milliken & Company is a chemical industry company based in South
Carolina.
Mine Safety Appliances Company, LLC is a manufacturer and supplier
of safety equipment based in Pennsylvania.
Municipal Emergency Services, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety
products based in Connecticut.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West
Chester, Pennsylvania.
PBI Performance Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of flame-resistant
and thermally stable fiber products based in North Carolina.
Perimeter Solutions LP is a chemicals company headquartered in St.
Louis, Missouri.
Raytheon Technologies Corporation is an aerospace and defense
company based in Virginia.
Ricochet Manufacturing Company, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire
safety products based in Pennsylvania.
Safety Components Fabric Technologies, Inc. is a manufacturer of
fire safety products based in South Carolina.
Southern Mills Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products based
in Georgia.
Stedfast USA Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products based
in Tennessee.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida.
Veridian Limited is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
England.
W.L. Gore & Associates Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety
products based in Delaware.
Witmer Public Safety Group, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety
products based in Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Y. Shenkar, Esq.
MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP
101 West Elm St., Suite 520
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (803) 315-3357
Facsimile: (610) 941-9880
Email: jshenkar@bernllp.com
META PLATFORMS: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to August 8
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doe v. Meta Platforms,
Inc.(RE META PIXEL HEALTHCARE LITIGATION), Case No.
3:22-cv-03580-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Orrick
entered an order re case schedule deadlines as follows:
Event Current Modified
Deadline Deadline
Deadline for First Settlement May 9, 2024 June 20, 2025
Conference
Motion for Class Certification June 27, 2025 Aug. 8, 2025
(and Plaintiffs' class expert
reports)
Opposition to Class Sept. 5, 2025 Oct. 17, 2025
Certification (and Meta's
class expert reports)
Reply in Support of Class Nov. 7, 2025 Dec. 19, 2025
Certification (and Plaintiffs'
class expert reply reports)
Hearing on Class Certification Dec. 3, 2025 Jan. 14, 2026
Motion
Meta Platforms is a provider of social networking, advertising, and
business insight solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WcKT0Z at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason 'Jay' Barnes, Esq.
SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC
112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 784-6400
Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
E-mail: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com
- and -
Geoffrey Graber, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Avenue NW, Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: ggraber@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq.
KIESEL LAW LLP
8648 Wilshire Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 854-4444
Facsimile: (310) 854-0812
E-mail: koncius@kiesel.law
- and -
Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103
Telephone: (206) 816-6603
Facsimile: (2060 319-5450
E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
- and -
Andre M. Mura, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 350-9700
Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
E-mail: amm@classlawgroup.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Lauren Goldman, Esq.
Darcy C. Harris, Esq.
Elizabeth K. Mccloskey, Esq.
Abigail A. Barrera, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166
Telephone: (212) 351-4000
Facsimile: (212) 351-4035
E-mail: lgoldman@gibsondunn.com
dharris@gibsondunn.com
emccloskey@gibsondunn.com
abarrera@gibsondunn.com
MICRO ELECTRONICS: Alarcon Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Micro Electronics,
Inc. The case is styled as Gabriel Alarcon, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Micro Electronics, Inc.,
Case No. 2:25-cv-00312-JLG-CMV (S.D. Ohio, March 26, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Micro Electronics, Inc. -- https://micro-strip.com/ -- offers the
highest quality fiber optic stripping tools for
telecommunications.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
MONRO INC: Evans Files Suit in W.D. New York
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monro, Inc. The case
is styled as Wesley Evans, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Monro, Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-06168
(W.D.N.Y., March 28, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Monro's -- https://corporate.monro.com/ -- is one of the top
automotive service and tire dealers in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Randi A. Kassan, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 741-5600
Fax: (516) 741-0128
Email: rkassan@milberg.com
MONRO INC: Humphries Files Suit in W.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monro, Inc. The case
is styled as Michael Humphries, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Monro, Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-06167
(W.D.N.Y., March 28, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Monro's -- https://corporate.monro.com/ -- is one of the top
automotive service and tire dealers in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Randi A. Kassan, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 741-5600
Fax: (516) 741-0128
Email: rkassan@milberg.com
MONRO INC: Sisson Files Suit in W.D. New York
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monro, Inc. The case
is styled as Donald Sisson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Monro, Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-06166
(W.D.N.Y., March 28, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Monro's -- https://corporate.monro.com/ -- is one of the top
automotive service and tire dealers in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Randi A. Kassan, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 741-5600
Fax: (516) 741-0128
Email: rkassan@milberg.com
MONSANTO COMPANY: Burgess Suit Transferred to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Linda Burgess, and others similarly situated
v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 2:25-cv-00483 was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
March 26, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02839-VC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability.
The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an
American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation
founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John C. Enochs, Esq.
Betsy J. Barnes, Esq.
MORRIS BART, P.L.C.
601 Poydras Street, 24th Floor
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (504) 526-1087
Fax: (833) 277-4214
Email: jenochs@morrisbart.com
bbarnes@morrisbart.com
MONSANTO COMPANY: Chisholm Suit Transferred to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Frank Chisholm, and others similarly situated
v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 3:25-cv-00486 was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
March 11, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02457-VC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. For
Personal Injury.
The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an
American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation
founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Joseph Presnal, Esq.
SIMMONS HANLY CONROY
5216 Cascades Drive
College Station, TX 77845
601 Poydras Street, 24th Floor
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (979) 224-2036
Email: jpresnal@simmonsfirm.com
- and -
Jo Anna Pollock, Esq.
SIMMONS FIRM
One Court Street
Alton, IL 62002
Phone: (618) 259-2222
Fax: (618) 259-2251
Email: jpollock@simmonsfirm.com
MONTAGE RECOVERY: Aispuro Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Montage Recovery
Solutions LLC, et al. The case is styled as Gerardo Aispuro,
individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees
v. Montage Recovery Solutions LLC, Montage Recovery CA LLC, Renewal
Healthgroup LLC, TMS Services LLC, Case No. 25STCV08981 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 26, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Montage Recovery Solutions (MRS) is a leader in The delivery
ofsubstance abuse and related mental health services
nationwide..[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Genish, Esq.
BLACKSTONE LAW
8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442
Phone: 855-786-6355
Fax: 855-786-6356
Email: jgenish@blackstonepc.com
MRS BPO LLC: Moretto Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO, LLC. The
case is styled as Guilherme Moretto, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. MRS BPO, LLC, Case No.
1:25-cv-21380-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 25, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
MRS -- http://www.mrsbpo.com/-- is a full service accounts
receivable management (ARM) firm with a unique combination of
experience, technology, and compliance management processes
powering industry-leading debt recovery solutions that enhance
brand and reputation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
NATIONAL EMERGENCY: Steen Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Steen, individually and for others similarly situated v.
NATIONAL EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., Case No.
3:25-cv-00044-CDL (M.D. Ga., March 26, 2025), is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to recover unpaid wages and other
damages from the Defendant.
The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more
than 40 hours a workweek. But the Defendant does not pay the
Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees at least 1.5 times their
regular rates of pay--based on all remuneration--for all hours they
work in excess of 40 a workweek. Instead, the Defendant pays the
Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees non-discretionary bonuses
and shift differentials that it fails to include in these
employees' regular rates of pay for overtime purposes (the
Defendant's "bonus pay scheme"). the Defendant's bonus pay scheme
violates the FLSA by failing to compensate The Plaintiff and the
other Hourly Employees at least 1.5 times their regular rates of
pay--based on all remuneration--for all hours worked in excess of
40 a workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an emergency medical
technician (EMT) since April 2023.
National states it "specializes in 911 emergency system design to
ensure exceptional response and expert care, as well interfacility
medically necessary transportation between hospitals and health
care facilities."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
P.O. Box 4979
Orlando, FL 32802-4979
Phone: (407) 420-1414
Fax: (407) 245-3401
Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: 713-877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
NATURE'S PRODUCE: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nature's Produce. The
case is styled as Alejandro J. Escoto Garcia, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated v. Nature's Produce, Case No.
25STCV09104 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 27, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Nature's Produce -- https://naturesproduce.com/ -- is a Los Angeles
wholesale food and restaurant supply distributor.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638
Phone: 310-432-0000
Fax: 310-432-0001
Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT: Bartley Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Navy Federal Credit
Union, et al. The case is styled as Heather Bartley, on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Navy Federal Credit Union, John
Does 1-10, Case No. CACE25004190 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty.,
March 25, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other."
Navy Federal Credit Union -- https://www.navyfederal.org/ -- is a
global credit union headquartered in Vienna, Virginia, chartered
and regulated under the authority of the National Credit Union
Administration.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paolo Chagas Meireles, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 W Yamato Rd Ste 285
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Phone: (561) 477-8888
- and -
Amanda Ann Simpson, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS
390 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1285
Orlando, FL 32801
Phone: 407-246-8408
Fax: 407-246-8441
Email: Amanda.Simpson@jacksonlewis.com
NETFLIX INC: Scott Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Malcolm Scott, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. NETFLIX, INC., Case No.
24-CA-009170 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth
Judicial District in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, to the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on
March 28, 2025, and assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-00775.
The Plaintiff asserts three claims--one for breach of contract and
two claims for a violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA") and the Florida Consumer Collection
Practices Act ("FCCPA").[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Billy Howard, Esq.
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM PLLC
401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 500-1500
Facsimile: (813) 435-2369
Email: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Brian M. Ercole, Esq.
Brian C. Frontino, Esq.
Matthew M. Papkin, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1600
Miami, FL 33131-3075
Phone: (305) 415.3000
Facsimile: (305) 415.3001
Email: brian.ercole@morganlewis.com
brian.frontino@morganlewis.com
matthew.papkin@morganlewis.com
NEW TASTY BISCUIT: Knight Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexis Knight, and individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. NEW TASTY BISCUIT, INC., and HASNAA HUSSEIN
an individual, Case No. 1:25-cv-03212 (N.D. Ill., March 26, 2025),
is brought arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL") for Defendants' failure to
pay minimum wages to Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees.
The Defendants required waiters and servers to pool tips and
improperly distributed a percentage of the tips to the owner,
Defendant Hussein. The inclusion of Hussein invalidated the tip
pool, and therefore, Defendants could not avail themselves of a tip
credit. Because Defendants could not claim a tip credit and paid
waiters and servers less than $7.25 per hour, Defendants violated
section 6 of the FLSA. As a result of these practices, Plaintiff
and the putative class are owed lost wages and liquidated damages
as a result of not being paid the proper minimum wages, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was hired by Defendant as a Manager in August 2023
and later moved to a Waitress until her unlawful termination on May
28, 2024.
NTB operates as a restaurant, serving food and beverages to its
customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Travis P. Lampert, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone (630)581-5456
Fax (630) 575 - 8188
Email: tlampert@sulaimanlaw.com
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Buettner Files Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York University.
The case is styled as Jackson Buettner, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. New York University, Case No.
1:25-cv-02503 (S.D.N.Y., March 26, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
New York University -- https://nyu.edu/ -- is a private research
university in New York City, New York, United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip Michael Hines, Esq.
HELD & HINES, LLP
4815 Avenue N
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Phone: (718) 531-9700
Fax: (718) 444-5768
Email: phines@heldhines.com
NEWPORT GROUP: Class Settlement in Alexander Gets Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alexander v. Harris et
al.,Case No. 1:22-cv-01128 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge S. Thomas
Anderson entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement with AMEC
defendants and Defendant Newport Group, Inc.
The Court finds that the Rule 23 standard for preliminary approval
of the AMEC settlement and the Newport settlement is met.
Therefore, the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval is
granted.
The AMEC Defendants' partial motion to dismiss certain claims
against them in the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint is denied
as moot.
Newport's partial motion to dismiss certain claims against it in
Plaintiff's second amended complaint and partial motion to dismiss
AMEC's cross-claims are likewise denied as moot.
The Court finds that the UAW factors favor preliminary approval of
the settlement. Having made a determination of each of the Rule
23(e)(2) factors and the UAW factors, the Court concludes that it
will likely be able to approve the settlement under Rule 23(e)(2).
This multidistrict litigation concerns losses to a non-ERISA
retirement plan established by the African Methodist Episcopal
Church for its clergy and employees. Plaintiffs are current or
retired clergy of the church and have alleged a number of claims
under Tennessee law against the denomination, church officials,
third-party service providers to the plan, and other alleged
tortfeasors.
On June 2, 2022, the Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred
the civil actions to this Court, finding that consolidation would
"serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just and efficient conduct of this litigation."
The case is consolidated in RE: AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND
LITIGATION, Lead Case No., 1:22–md–03035–STA–jay.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated March 24,
2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Muua9Z at no extra charge.[CC]
NEWPORT GROUP: Class Settlement in Jackson Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jackson v. Newport Group,
Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02174 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge S.
Thomas Anderson entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary approval of class action settlement with AMEC
defendants and Defendant Newport Group, Inc.
The Court finds that the Rule 23 standard for preliminary approval
of the AMEC settlement and the Newport settlement is met.
Therefore, the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval is
granted.
The AMEC Defendants' partial motion to dismiss certain claims
against them in the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint is denied
as moot.
Newport's partial motion to dismiss certain claims against it in
Plaintiff's second amended complaint and partial motion to dismiss
AMEC's cross-claims are likewise denied as moot.
The Court finds that the UAW factors favor preliminary approval of
the settlement. Having made a determination of each of the Rule
23(e)(2) factors and the UAW factors, the Court concludes that it
will likely be able to approve the settlement under Rule 23(e)(2).
This multidistrict litigation concerns losses to a non-ERISA
retirement plan established by the African Methodist Episcopal
Church for its clergy and employees. Plaintiffs are current or
retired clergy of the church and have alleged a number of claims
under Tennessee law against the denomination, church officials,
third-party service providers to the plan, and other alleged
tortfeasors.
On June 2, 2022, the Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred
the civil actions to this Court, finding that consolidation would
"serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just and efficient conduct of this litigation."
The case is consolidated in RE: AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND
LITIGATION, Lead Case No., 1:22–md–03035–STA–jay.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated March 24,
2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FPh0m6 at no extra charge.[CC]
NEWPORT GROUP: Settlement in Ewing Suit Gets Initial Nod
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ewing v. Newport Group,
Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02136 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge S.
Thomas Anderson entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary approval of class action settlement with AMEC
defendants and Defendant Newport Group, Inc.
The Court finds that the Rule 23 standard for preliminary approval
of the AMEC settlement and the Newport settlement is met.
Therefore, the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval is
granted.
The AMEC Defendants' partial motion to dismiss certain claims
against them in the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint is denied
as moot.
Newport's partial motion to dismiss certain claims against it in
Plaintiff's second amended complaint and partial motion to dismiss
AMEC's cross-claims are likewise denied as moot.
The Court finds that the UAW factors favor preliminary approval of
the settlement. Having made a determination of each of the Rule
23(e)(2) factors and the UAW factors, the Court concludes that it
will likely be able to approve the settlement under Rule 23(e)(2).
This multidistrict litigation concerns losses to a non-ERISA
retirement plan established by the African Methodist Episcopal
Church for its clergy and employees. Plaintiffs are current or
retired clergy of the church and have alleged a number of claims
under Tennessee law against the denomination, church officials,
third-party service providers to the plan, and other alleged
tortfeasors.
On June 2, 2022, the Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred
the civil actions to this Court, finding that consolidation would
"serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just and efficient conduct of this litigation."
The case is consolidated in RE: AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND
LITIGATION, Lead Case No., 1:22–md–03035–STA–jay.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated March 24,
2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ttVWOC at no extra charge.[CC]
NUNA BABY: Faces Moncada Class Suit Over Child Restraint System
---------------------------------------------------------------
ELIANA RICARDO MONCADA and MARIYA DUKLER, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. NUNA BABY ESSENTIALS, INC.
Case No. 1:25-cv-02592 (S.D.N.Y., March 28, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant on behalf of themselves and Class Members who
purchased the child restraint system Products during the applicable
statute of limitations period.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and Class Members paid a
price premium for the Product based upon Defendant's marketing and
advertising campaign. Given that Plaintiffs and Class Members paid
a premium for the Products, Plaintiffs and Class Members suffered
an injury in the amount of the premium paid. The Defendant's
conduct violated and continues to violate, inter alia, New York
General Business Law sections 349 and 350, and constitutes a breach
of express and implied warranties.
Accordingly, the decision as to which car seat to purchase is among
the first and most important choices new parents will make.
Reasonable consumers expect that, when they purchase a child
restraint system (CRS) designed for infants, toddlers and
preschoolers, it will keep their babies safe.
All convertible seats have a five-point harness system "to keep the
baby safe, secure and comfortable when traveling in the vehicle."
The Defendant designs, manufactures and sells defective convertible
car seats that do not deliver on their promise of safety and
high-quality. Rather, all Nuna Rava convertible car seats
manufactured between July 16, 2016, and October 25, 2023, contain
defective front harness adjusters that may allow the harness to
loosen, the suit alleges.
Plaintiffs Moncada and Dukler reside in Bronx, New York and Staten
Island, New York, respectively.
Nuna Baby designs, manufactures, markets, and sells juvenile
products, including the Products at issue, in the United States and
New York, both online and through brick and mortar stores such as
Bloomingdales, Nordstrom, Pottery Barn Kids, and Dillard's.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Catherine H. Friesen, Esq.
James R. Denlea, Esq.
Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq.
Catherine H. Friesen, Esq.
DENLEA & CARTON LLP
2 Westchester Park Drive, Suite 410
White Plains, New York 10604
Telephone: (914) 331-0100
Facsimile: (914) 331-0105
E-mail: jdenlea@denleacarton.com
jcarton@denleacarton.com
cfriesen@denleacarton.com
O'REILLY AUTO: McMillon Suit Removed to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Noah McMillon, on behalf of others similarly
situated v. O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC; et al., Case No.
25CU009825C was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Diego, to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California on March 26, 2025,
and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00711-CAB-SBC.
In his Complaint, Plaintiff asserts eleven causes of action,
including: Failure to Pay All Minimum Wages Owed; Failure to Pay
All Overtime Wages; Meal Period Violations; Rest Period Violations;
Paid Sick Leave Violations; Unpaid Vacation Wages; Untimely Payment
of Wages; Wage Statement Violations; Waiting Time Penalties;
Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; and (11) Unfair
Competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
James M. Peterson, Esq.
Edwin M. Boniske, Esq.
HIGGS FLETCHER & MACK LLP
401 West A Street, Suite 2600
San Diego, CA 92101-7910
Phone: (619) 236-1551
Facsimile: (619) 696-1410
Email: peterson@higgslaw.com
boniske@higgslaw.com
OCEAN PRIME: Gupta Files Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ocean Prime, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Tanish Gupta individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Ocean Prime, LLC, Moinian
Development Group, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02486 (S.D.N.Y., March 26,
2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Ocean Prime -- https://ocean-prime.com/ -- is a nationally
acclaimed, dynamic seafood & steakhouse from the award-winning
Cameron Mitchell Restaurants.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
OPTOTRAFFIC LLC: Lavender Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Demetra Lavender, individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated persons as defined herein v.
Optotraffic, LLC, Case No. 25CV001184 was removed from the U
Superior Court of Fulton County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia on March 11, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01255-JPB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Optotraffic -- https://optotraffic.com/ -- is a leading provider of
red light and speed camera solutions, trusted by numerous
jurisdictions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Austin Lewis Perry, Esq.
MCCLURE RAMSAY DICKERSON & ESCOE, LLP
P.O. Drawer 1408
38 Falls Road
Toccoa, GA 30577
Phone: (706) 886-3178
Fax: (706) 886-1150
Email: alp@mrdelaw.com
- and -
Michael Jordan Lober, Esq.
William Gregory Dobson, Esq.
LOBER & DOBSON, LLC
3333 Northside Drive, Suite A
Macon, GA 31210
Phone: (770) 741-0700
Email: mjlober@lddlawyers.com
wgd@lddlawyers.com
- and -
Robert Brent Irby, Esq.
IRBY LAW, LLC
2201 Arlington Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: (205) 335-9102
Fax: (205) 905-7084
Email: brent@irbylaw.net
- and -
Todd L. Lord, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF TODD L. LORD
P.O. Box 901
4 Courthouse Square
Cleveland, GA 30528
Phone: (706) 219-2239
Email: attytllord@windstream.net
The Defendant is represented by:
David E. Mills, Esq.
Matt K. Nguyen
COOLEY, LLP - DC
1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: (202) 842-7800
Email: dmills@cooley.com
- and -
James Alexander Demetry, Esq.
DEMETRY, DECARLO & COFFMAN, LLC
5456 Peachtree Blvd., Ste. 523
Atlanta, GA 30341
Phone: (770) 274-4383
Fax: (770) 274-4395
Email: jdemetry@demetrydecarlo.com
OTTER PRODUCTS: Button Suit Removed to D. Colorado
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Troy Button, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, et al. v. OTTER PRODUCTS, LLC, Case No.
2025CV30046 was removed from the District Court of Colorado,
Larimer County, Chancery Division, to the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado on March 26, 2025, and assigned
Case No. 1:25-cv-00969-NRN.
Despite the clear limitations delineated in the Limited Warranty,
Plaintiffs seek to represent several classes of similarly situated
individuals alleging, inter alia, breach of express warranty under
several state laws and breach of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
("MMWA").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Elizabeth A. Och, Esq.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
1601 Wewatta Street, Suite 900
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 899 7300
Email: elizabeth.och@hoganlovells.com
- and -
Trenton H. Norris, Esq.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 3500
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 374 2300
Email: trent.norris@hoganlovells.com
- and -
Joseph R. O'Connor, Esq.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 785 4600
Email: joe.oconnor@hoganlovells.com
OYO HOTELS INC: Lien Files Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oyo Hotels Inc. The
case is styled as Rebekka Lien, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Oyo Hotels Inc., Case No.
2:25-cv-01785-FLA-AGR (C.D. Cal., Feb. 28, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
OYO Rooms -- https://www.oyorooms.com/us/ -- also known as OYO
Hotels & Homes, is an Indian multinational hospitality chain of
leased and franchised hotels, homes, and living spaces,
headquartered in Gurgaon.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
- and -
Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Fax: (925) 407-2700
Email: sbogdanovich@bursor.com
PENDRY WEST HOLLYWOOD: Raduseviciute Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PENDRY WEST
HOLLYWOOD, LLC. The case is styled as Dovile Raduseviciute, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. PENDRY WEST
HOLLYWOOD, LLC, Case No. 25STCV08350 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., March 21, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Pendry West Hollywood -- https://www.pendry.com/west-hollywood/ --
features interiors by Martin Brudnizki Design Studio, 149 luxury
guestrooms & suites and 40 Residences with access to all
amenities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638
Phone: 310-432-0000
Fax: 310-432-0001
Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
PENNSYLVANIA STATE EDUCATION: Plassio Files Suit in Pa. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pennsylvania State
Education Association. The case is styled as Audrey Plassio, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pennsylvania State
Education Association, Case No. 2025-CV-02484 (Pa. Ct. of Common
Pleas, Dauphin Cty., March 24, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Contract - Civil."
Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) --
https://www.psea.org/ -- is a community of education professionals
who make a difference in the lives of students every day.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
PENNSYLVANIA STATE EDUCATION: Yurcho Files Suit in Pa. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pennsylvania State
Education Association. The case is styled as Joseph Yurcho, and
others similarly situated v. Pennsylvania State Education
Association, Case No. 2025-CV-02511 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas,
Dauphin Cty., March 25, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Tort."
Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) --
https://www.psea.org/ -- is a community of education professionals
who make a difference in the lives of students every day.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew William Ferich,, Esq.
201 King of Prussia Road
PA 19087
PERMIAN RESOURCES: Faces Suit Over Shale Oil Production Conspiracy
------------------------------------------------------------------
GARY ANDERSON, individually on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PERMIAN RESOURCES CORP. f/k/a CENTENNIAL
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, INC.; EXPAND ENERGY CORPORATION f/k/a
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION; CONTINENTAL RESOURCES INC.;
DIAMONDBACK ENERGY, INC.; EOG RESOURCES, INC.; HESS CORPORATION;
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION; PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
COMPANY; SCOTT D. SHEFFIELD, and individual; and JOHN B. HESS, an
individual, Case No. 1:25-cv-00320 (D.N.M., March 31, 2025) arises
from the Defendants' conspiracy to coordinate, and ultimately
constrain, domestic shale oil production, which has had the effect
of fixing, raising, and maintaining the price of crude oil, and
thereby the price paid by end-users of oil-derivative products,
including but not limited to gasoline, distillate fuel, marine
fuel, and jet and aviation fuel (crude oil derivative fuel
products) in and throughout the United States of America.
Accordingly, beginning January 2021, the U.S. saw an unprecedented
increase in crude oil prices, culminating in record high prices the
following year. Basic principles of supply and demand dictate that
Defendants, in their role as swing producers, should have increased
production to capitalize on this price rise if acting as rational
profit maximizers. Instead, the Defendants collectively agreed not
to increase their U.S. shale oil production.
The Defendants' agreement is complemented by their cooperation and
collusion with the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting
Countries, the international cartel of large oil producing nations,
that also sought to raise oil prices by limiting oil production
during this period. 11. Between 2017 and 2023, Defendants met and
communicated regularly with each other, and with OPEC members and
representatives, to coordinate their collective oil output, asserts
the lawsuit.
Shale oil, also called "tight oil," is a high-quality crude oil
found between layers of shale rock, impermeable mudstone, or
siltstone that can be extracted, refined, and used to produce
gasoline, diesel fuel, home heating oil, and other commercial
products sold in the U.S.
Shale oil is produced by fracturing the rock formations that
contain the layers of oil in a process known as hydraulic
fracturing, or "fracking."
United States shale producers (U.S. Shale Producers), including the
Defendants, are companies that primarily focus on the exploration,
development, and production of domestic shale resources. These
companies are distinct from large vertically integrated energy
companies, like BP (British Petroleum) and Shell, with diverse
global operations encompassing the exploration, production,
refining, and distribution of various energy resources.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher A. Dodd, Esq.
DODD LAW OFFICE, LLC
500 Marquette Avenue NW, Suite 1330
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
Telephone: (505) 475-2932
E-mail: chris@doddnm.com
- and -
Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
Carmen Medici, Esq.
Daniel J. Brockwell, Esq.
Patrick McGahan, Esq.
Michael Srodoski, Esq.
Karin E. Garvey, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-4565
E-mail: pcoughlin@scott-scott.com
cmedici@scott-scott.com
dbrockwell@scott-scott.com
idelisi@scott-scott.com
pmcgahan@scott-scott.com
msrodoski@scott-scott.com
kgarvey@scott-scott.com
- and -
Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
Candice Enders, Esq.
Richard D. Schwartz, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3080
E-mail: mdellangelo@bm.net
cenders@bm.net
rschwartz@bm.net
- and -
Karin B. Swope, Esq.
Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
Vara G. Lyons, Esq.
Ellen Wen, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE, & McCARTHY, LLP
1809 7th Avenue, Suite 1610
Seattle, WA 98103
Telephone: (206) 778-2123
E-mail: kswope@cpmlegal.com
tloeser@cpmlegal.com
vlyons@cpmlegal.com
ewen@cpmlegal.com
- and -
Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
Adam Zapala, Esq.
Vasti S. Montiel, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE, & McCARTHY, LLP
840 Malcolm Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
azapala@cpmlegal.com
vmoniel@cpmlegal.com
PERNOD RICARD USA: Bullock Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Bullock, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. PERNOD RICARD USA, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02536
(S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually-impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Pernod Ricard provides to their non-disabled customers
through www.shopjamesonus.com (hereinafter "shopjamesonus.com" or
"the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to
its website, and therefore denial of its products and services
offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (the "ADA").
Because Defendant's website, shopjamesonus.com, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change
in Pernod Ricard policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
Shopjamesonus.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials, employment opportunities and other
programs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com
PERRY ELLIS MENSWEAR: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Perry Ellis Menswear, LLC d/b/a Original Penguin, Case
No. 0:25-cv-01118-KMM-DTS (D. Minn., March 27, 2025), is brought
arising because Defendant's Website (www.originalpenguin.com) (the
"Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally
accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in
violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the
effective communication and auxiliary aids and services
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and
its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the
ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the
Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA).
The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is
responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning
the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her
experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past
year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff
found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that
deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to
important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its
sighted Website users.
Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to
access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or
shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant
offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and
operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully
accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with
vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class
have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to
be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to
provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is
compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore
disabled under the ADA.
The Defendant offers clothing and accessories for sale including,
but not limited to, shirts, pants, golf activewear, racquet sports
activewear, paddle sports activewear, shoes, belts, hats, 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
ROEHL TRANSPORT: Faces Harris Suit Over Deceptive Training Program
------------------------------------------------------------------
RACHELLE HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ROEHL TRANSPORT, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00227-wmc (W.D.
Wisc., March 26, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
on behalf of individuals who allegedly owe Roehl the amount of
$7,000 (or some lesser amount due to payments made by individuals
toward this alleged debt), after being denied the opportunity to
complete their training and mileage obligation under a training
repayment agreement.
The Plaintiff alleges that Roehl recruited her and other drivers
for work as over-the-road drivers using unfair trade practices in
violation of Wisconsin's Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
Specifically, Roehl failed to comply with an order issued by the
Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
regulating "Work Recruitment Schemes."
First, Roehl failed to include in its advertisements the nature and
amount of the financial obligation that a recruit must incur in
order to become employed by Roehl, in violation of Wis. Admin. Code
ATCP second 116.02. Second, Roehl requires recruits to incur this
financial obligation as part of the first step in the job
application process, before they are even interviewed by a
recruiter. Third, in Roehl's subsequent communications with
recruits, including the "Conditional Employment Offer," Roehl makes
statements of potential earnings, without including the disclosures
required by Wis. Admin. Code ATCP section 116.04. Fourth, Roehl
makes false, deceptive, and misleading representations to recruits
about the nature of their obligations under the training repayment
agreement, and the conditions under which they will become
obligated to repay Roehl the amount of $7,000, in violation of Wis.
Admin. Code ATCP Section 116.05, says the suit.
Plaintiff Harris is an adult resident of Turnbull County in the
state of Indiana. She was recruited by Roehl to attend Roehl's
Safety and Job Skills Training Program Get Your CDL (GYCDL Training
Program) in January 2024, and she attended the program from
approximately February to May 2024.
For the DTPA claims, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of
a class defined as:
"All individuals who have been recruited to attend Roehl's
GYCDL Training Program and were terminated by Roehl from the
program within the past three years."
For the Wisconsin Antitrust and unlawful penalty claim, Plaintiff
brings this action on behalf of a class defined as:
"All individuals who have been terminated by Roehl from the
GYCDL Training Program within the past six years."
Roehl is a motor carrier based in Wisconsin that offers a variety
of transportation services nationwide. Based on information
submitted to and published by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration Safety Measurement System, Roehl employs more than
2,000 drivers at a given time.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hillary Schwab, Esq.
Rachel Smit, Esq.
Brook S. Lane, Esq.
FAIR WORK, P.C.
192 South Street, Suite 450
Boston, MA 02111
Telephone: (617) 607-3260
E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com
rachel@fairworklaw.com
brook@fairworklaw.com
SOUNDHOUND AI: Faces Liles Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------
TREVAR LILES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SOUNDHOUND AI, INC., KEYVAN MOHAJER, and NITESH SHARAN,
Case No. 5:25-cv-02915 (N.D. Cal., March 28, 2025) is a federal
securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired SoundHound securities between May 10, 2024 and
March 3, 2025, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages
caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, SoundHound has acknowledged that it has
"lacked sufficient oversight of activities related to its internal
control over financial reporting," and that due to "rapid business
growth," "changes to existing controls or the implementation of new
controls have not been sufficient to respond to changes to the
risks of material misstatement to financial reporting, which [has]
resulted in the Company not designing and maintaining effective
controls related to substantially all accounts and disclosures,"
including "effective controls to verify appropriate accounting for
complex financing transactions. "However, SoundHound has
consistently represented that it is "in the process of designing
and implementing controls and taking other actions to remediate”
the foregoing material weaknesses.
In Jan. 2024, SoundHound acquired all of the issued and outstanding
equity of SYNQ3, a provider of voice AI and other technology
solutions to the restaurant industry, for total purchase
consideration of $15.8 million (the "SYNQ3 Acquisition").
Then, in August 2024, the Company acquired Amelia Holdings, Inc., a
privately-held conversational AI software company involved in the
development and delivery of AI and automation solutions and related
services, for a "purchase price of $80M in cash and equity, with
partial payment and assumption of Amelia's debt, as well as future
earnout potential aligned to revenue milestone achievements".
SoundHound has stated that these "strategic acquisitions"
contributed to the Company's "breakthrough year" in 2024,
"expanding [its] leadership position in voice and conversational
AI."
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that the
material weaknesses in SoundHound's internal controls over
financial reporting impaired the Company's ability to effectively
account for corporate acquisitions, says the suit.
On March 4, 2025, SoundHound disclosed in a filing with the SEC
that it would be unable to timely file its Annual Report for 2024.
SoundHound stated that "due to the complexity of accounting for
[the SYNQ3 and Amelia Acquisitions], the Company require[d]
additional time to prepare financial statements and accompanying
notes" and that it "had identified material weaknesses in its
internal control over financial reporting."
On this news, SoundHound's stock price fell $0.61 per share, or
5.86%, to close at $9.72 per share on March 4, 2025. Then, on March
11, 2025, SoundHound filed its 2024 10-K. In the 2024 10-K,
SoundHound stated, in relevant part, that, as of December 31, 2024,
the Company did not design and maintain effective controls related
to the identification of and accounting for certain non-routine,
unusual or complex transactions, including the accounting for
complex financing transactions and acquisitions" -- disclosing for
the first time that the Company's lack of effective controls was
impairing its ability to account for corporate acquisitions.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, asserts the suit.
SoundHound provides an independent voice artificial intelligence
platform that purportedly enables businesses across industries to
deliver high-quality conversational experiences to their customers.
The Company has identified material weaknesses in its internal
control over financial reporting. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
Jeremy A. Lieberman
J. Alexander Hood II
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Brian Schall, Esq.
THE SCHALL FIRM
2049 Century Park East, Ste. 2460
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 301-3335
E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com
STAKE CENTER: Monroe Bid for Protective Order Partly OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRAIN MONROE & ANDRELL
WHITE, individually and for others similarly situated, v. STAKE
CENTER LOCATING, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00692-EWH-RJK (E.D. Va.),
the Hon. Judge Elizabeth Hanes grants in part and denies in part
the Plaintiffs' motion for a protective order and corrective
notice.
The Court orders that Stake Center provide the attached corrective
notice to the 22 locators who have signed the Bonus Plan Agreement
within seven days of the entry of this opinion. As reflected in the
Corrective notice, Stake Center must then provide the locators
within 21 days to withdraw form the Agreement.
Stake Center is further directed to file a status report with the
Court on the results of the Corrective Notice no later than 14 days
after the 21-day withdrawal period has passed.
The Court does not find it appropriate, or within the scope of its
discretion, to modify the Bonus Plan by removing certain terms. The
Plaintiffs appear to suggest that Stake Center should be required
to pay locators a bonus for working 1,000 hours, without any
additional consideration.
The Court declines to commit Stake Center to a bargain that would
violate fundamental tenets of contract law. To do so would
drastically overstep the Court's cabined authority to regulate
communications under Rule 23(d).
In December 2023, Plaintiffs Adrain Monroe and Andrell White filed
a Class Complaint against Stake Center, bringing claims under
Virginia law for unpaid wages arising from their work as utility
locators.
In July 2024, while the case was still pending, but before the
Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the case as a class action,
Stake Center announced the rollout of a "Locator Appreciation Bonus
Plan."
Stake Center provides utility locating services for gas,
electrical, cable, and communications companies across the country,
including in Virginia.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated March 27, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=br0qqe
at no extra charge.[CC]
STAKE CENTER: Monroe Bid to Certify Class Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRAIN MONROE & ANDRELL
WHITE, individually and for others similarly situated, v. STAKE
CENTER LOCATING, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00692-EWH-RJK (E.D. Va.),
the Hon. Judge Elizabeth Hanes entered an order granting in part
and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule 23's class
certification requirements with respect to the vehicle pay claim,
but not with respect to their other claims.
The Plaintiffs allege that they were not paid fully for all of the
hours they worked in Virginia.
The Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Certify Class, proposing
the following class definition:
"All individuals who worked for [Stake Center] as hourly
Utility Locators in Virginia who were subject to [Stake
Center's] "ticket to ticket" policy, meal break policy, [and]
vehicle pay scheme during the 3 years prior to the
filing of this Complaint until final resolution of this
action."
a
Stake Center provides utility locating services for gas,
electrical, cable, and communications companies across the country,
including in Virginia.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated March 27, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i7VANj
at no extra charge.[CC]
STATE FARM: Wins Summary Judgment v. Belotti
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMIE BELOTTI, et al., v.
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 3:22-cv-01284-JFS
(M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr. entered an order
that:
1. The defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted.
2. The plaintiffs' motion to certify a class and subclass
concerning the claims filed in its complaint and the
defendant's motion to exclude testimony from the plaintiffs'
proposed witness are denied as moot.
3. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of the defendant.
4. The Clerk shall mark this case closed.
State Farm is a property, casualty and auto insurance provider.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 25, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kF6maH at no extra
charge.[CC]
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Amato Bid for Class Cert Denied w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMATO et al v. SUBARU OF
AMERICA, INC. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-16118-KMW-AMD (D.N.J.), the
Hon. Judge Karen Williams entered an order as follows:
1. The Plaintiffs' motions for class certification are denied
without prejudice for failure to comply with the
independent, ascertainability factor that the Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit requires to identify class
membership.
2. The Plaintiffs may supplement their class certification
briefs by amending soley and only that portion of the briefs
discussing the ascertainability requirements.
Subaru is the United States–based distributor of Subaru's brand
vehicles.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1EzTJk at no extra
charge.[CC]
TASKUS INC: Lozada's Unredacted Exhibits Can be Filed Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lozada v. TaskUs, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01479-JPC-GS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge John
Cronan entered an order granting the request to keep filed under
seal the unredacted version of Plaintiffs' supplemental memorandum
and its exhibits 5 to 7 and 9.
The Court finds that Defendants' interest in maintaining the
confidentiality of the redacted portions of the Supplemental
Memorandum and of Exhibits 5 to 7 and 9, which include confidential
information about TaskUs's response to the Spruce Report and the
company's securities trading policy, outweighs the presumption of
full public access to the judicial documents in which that
information is contained.
The Clerk of Court is directed to maintain under seal the
unredacted version of Plaintiffs' supplemental memorandum and its
exhibits 5 to 7 and 9.
The Clerk of Court is also directed to close Docket Number 168.
TaskUs is an outsourcing company that handles content moderation,
customer experience, artificial intelligence, operations and risk &
response services.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k7021P at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph A. Fonti, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
300 Park Avenue, Suite 1301
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 789-1340
Facsimile: (212) 205-3960
E-mail: jfonti@bfalaw.com
THETRADEDESK INC: Illegally Collects Personal Info, Michie Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
DOUG MICHIE and JUSTIN DYER, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. TheTradeDesk, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-02889
(N.D. Cal., March 28, 2025) alleges that the Defendant engages in
the mass collection, use, and sale of highly detailed personal
information about tens of millions of people in the United States.
According to the complaint, in the course of operating its
business, Trade Desk incessantly surveils Americans' conduct both
online and in real space. Trade Desk collects Americans' Internet
browsing habits and their real-world movements and activities, and
combines it with vast troves of data about their health, politics,
religion, sexuality, finances, and life habits.
It then makes the data in these massive dossiers available for sale
through various products and services to third parties, who can
subsequently use that data to further surveil and manipulate
people.
Trade Desk creates detailed dossiers on Americans by tagging them
with a permanent identification number and collecting their
activity and communications on the Internet and across their
phones, computers, and connected TVs.
Trade Desk has accomplished this even though (and perhaps because)
virtually no consumer has ever heard of it, no consumer has ever
actually consented to any of its activities in question here, and
no consumer has a meaningful ability to opt-out of its tracking,
dossier building, or dossier sales unless they forego use of the
Internet altogether, asserts the suit.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated to enforce their fundamental Constitutional,
common law, and statutory rights to privacy, which Trade Desk has
violated and continues to violate, and to seek permanent injunctive
relief in the form of an order ensuring their ability to
participate in modern society without Trade Desk surveilling their
activities and creating profiles about them without their consent.
Plaintiff Doug Michie resides in Ventura, California. Like most
members of modern society, Plaintiff Michie must use the Internet
to conduct routine affairs of daily life.
On Jan. 31, 2025, he received a data access request response that
consisted of a Microsoft Excel file1 from Trade Desk, indicating
that the company had tracked, compiled, and analyzed his personal
information, including geolocation, web browsing activities, and
real-world activities, thereby created a comprehensive profile of
him. Trade Desk used this information to place him into thousands
of data "segments," and to sell access to information about him to
the highest advertising bidder through nearly instantaneous
Real-Time Bidding (RTB) auctions. Trade Desk continues to track
Plaintiff Michie's internet activity, enrich the profile it
maintains of him, and make access to his personal information
available to third parties without his consent. The data access
request file consists of two Excel sheets, one labeled "BidFeedback
Results" and one labeled "DMP Results," the suit further asserts.
Trade Desk operates one of the world's largest "demand-side"
platforms, through which it bids on ad space on the Internet on
behalf of advertisers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason "Jay" Barnes, Esq.
Eric Johnson, Esq.
An Truong, Esq.
Sona R. Shah, Esq.
SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLP
112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 784-6400
Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
E-mail: wjaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com
ejohnson@simmonsfirm.com
atruong@simmonsfirm.com
sshah@simmonsfirm.com
- and -
Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
David T. Rudolph, Esq.
Linnea D. Pittman, Esq.
Danna Elmasry, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
E-mail: msobol@lchb.com
drudolph@lchb.com
lpittman@lchb.com
delmasry@lchb.com
TMX FINANCE: Court Provisionally Certifies Settlement Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAVANNAH KOLSTEDT et al.
v. TMX FINANCE CORPORATE SERVICES, INC.; TMX FINANCE LLC d/b/a
"TitleMax" d/b/a "TitleBucks" d/b/a "InstaLoan," Case No.
4:23-cv-00076-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge R. Stan Baker
entered an preliminary approval order as follows:
-- The Court provisionally certifies the following Settlement
Class:
"All residents of the United States whose Personal Information
was accessed, stolen, impacted, or compromised as a result of
the Data Breach as identified in the Class List."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) TMX, any Entity in
which TMX has a controlling interest, and TMX's officers,
directors, legal representatives, successors, subsidiaries,
and assigns; (ii) any judge, justice, or judicial officer
presiding over the Action and the members of their immediate
families and judicial staff; and (iii) any individual who
timely and validly opts out of the Settlement.
-- Makecia Berry, Sheneequa Carrington, Antonio DeJesus, Tommy
Domino, Patsy Eslinger, Evelyn Francis, Dewayne Jackson, Von
King, Melvin Nicholas, Jodie Petty, LaPetra Robinson, Edwin
Scheide, Joseph Trottier, and Francis Ann Washington are
designated and appointed as the Settlement Class
Representatives.
-- The following lawyers, who were previously appointed by the
Court as interim Co-lead Counsel, are designated as Class
Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g): MaryBeth V. Gibson
of Gibson Consumer Law Group, LLC; Kelly K. Iverson of Lynch
Carpenter, LLP; and Amy Keller of DiCello Levitt LLP. The
Court finds that these lawyers are experienced and will
adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class.
-- A Final Approval Hearing shall take place before the Court at
10:00 AM on Tuesday, Aug. 12, 2025, at the Federal Courthouse,
Courtroom 1, 8 Southern Oaks Court, Savannah, Georgia.
TMX is an American company that provides consumer loans and payday
loans.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 25, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VtWPS6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNITED HEALTH: Class Settlement in MAC Gets Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARDEN'S ARK CORP., and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, V. UNITED HEALTH GROUP
INCORPORATED, Case No. 5:23-cv-00708-M-KS (E.D.N.C.), the Hon.
Judge Richard Myers II entered an order granting the Plaintiffs
motion for preliminary approval of a class action Settlement
Agreement:
1. The Settlement Class is provisionally certified as a class
of:
"All regular users or subscribers to numbers assigned to
wireless carriers which Optum Community Health Workers
called as part of the Optum at Home program during the
Settlement Class Period using an artificial or pre-recorded
voice who were not members or subscribers of United
Healthcare or that opted out of receiving calls from United
Healthcare."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the Judges
presiding over this action and members of their families;
(2) the Defendant, Defendant's respective subsidiaries,
parent compames, successors, predecessors, and any entity in
which the Defendant or their parents have a controlling
interest and its current or former officers and directors;
(3) persons who properly execute and file a timely request
for exclusion from the class; and (4) the legal
representatives, successors or assigns of any such excluded
person(s);
2. The Plaintiff is conditionally certified as the class
representative to implement the Parties' settlement in
accordance with the Settlement Agreement. Avi R. Kaufman of
Kaufman P.A. and Stefan Coleman of Coleman PLLC are
conditionally appointed as Class Counsel;
3. On Aug. 4, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 1, Alton Lennon
Federal Courthouse, 2 Princess Street, Wilmington, North
Carolina, this court will hold a Fairness Hearing to
determine whether the Settlement Agreement should be finally
approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate.
UnitedHealth is a health care and well-being company.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=M5wyvy at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNITED HEALTH: Mitchell Wins Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRYSTAL MITCHELL, v.
UNITED HEALTH CENTERS OF THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, a Colorado
corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-00060-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Erica Grosjean recommended that:
1. The Plaintiff's request for judicial notice of the State
Court Action be granted.
2. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification be granted.
The Court says that the findings and recommendations are submitted
to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant
to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(l).
Within 30 days after being served with these findings and
recommendations, any party may file written objections with the
Court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to
Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the
objections shall be served and filed within thirty (30) days after
service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to
file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver
of rights on appeal.
The Court finds that the Plaintiff has met her burden in satisfying
the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b) as to the Underpaid
PTO Class. Therefore, the Court recommends that the Underpaid PTO
Class be certified.
The Plaintiff's memorandum defines the Underpaid PTO Class and
Former Employee Sub-Classes as:
"All current and former non-exempt California employees of
UHSJ who were eligible for and used PTO/PTOU during a workweek
when he/she also earned a bonus pursuant to Bonus Policy
FN0040 between July 17, 2018 and the date of certification
(the "Underpaid PTO Class"); and
"All members of the Underpaid PTO Class whose employment ended
at any time between July 17, 2019 and the date of
certification (the "Former Employee Sub-Class")."
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated state labor laws
by failing to include bonus calculations into the rate of pay for
paid time off ("PTO"). The Plaintiff further alleges that the
Defendant did not pay out all unpaid PTO to former employees upon
separation.
The Plaintiff Mitchell is a former hourly, non-exempt employee of
the Defendants who worked as a staff accountant at Defendant's
facility.
United Health provides comprehensive medical, dental and community
health services.
A copy of the Court's findings and recommendations dated March 26,
2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zKvI5p at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Insurers' Lose Bid for Summary Judgment
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHEENA MARANDINO et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY and THE NORTH RIVER INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 4:23-cv-40072-DJC (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge
Denise Casper entered an order allowing the Plaintiffs' motion to
strike and denying Insurers' motion for summary judgment.
It is not clear how the material that Plaintiffs seeks to strike
serve to "refute their allegations that Insurers failed to meet
their obligations under c. 93A and 176D, particularly where their
initial, settlement demand response.
Accordingly, the Court allows the motion to strike as to mediation
communications in Insurers' reply memorandum, and portions of the
Gallagher Affidavit, and the Court has not considered them in the
resolution of the motion for summary judgment.
Considering the record in the light most favorable to the
Plaintiffs, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have presented
genuine disputes of material facts regarding Insurers' clear
articulation of their coverage defenses to Plaintiffs and whether
Insurers have proceeded in good faith concerning settlement.
Accordingly, summary judgment at this juncture is not warranted as
to Count II of the complaint and the Court denies Insurers' motion
for summary judgment as to this claim.
On March 15, 2019, the Plaintiffs sued Peterson's Oil in state
court, alleging that Peterson's Oil sold them fuel for home heating
which contained more than five percent biodiesel.
On April 13, 2023, Insurers filed a declaratory judgment action
against the Peterson Defendants seeking a declaration that Insurers
have no further duty to defend or to indemnify them in connection
with the Underlying Action.
On June 21, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed this action, seeking a
declaratory judgment that the Primary Policies and Umbrella
Policies issued by Insurers provide coverage for the allegations in
the Underlying Action (Count I) and alleging that Insurers violated
Mass. Gen. L. c. 93A and c. 176D (Count II).
United States Fire Insurance provides market-leading property &
casualty, accident & health and specialty insurance solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 25, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jEgLBD at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hampton Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PHYLLIS HAMPTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. The United States Playing Card, Case No.
1:25-cv-03208 (N.D. Ill., March 26, 2025) alleges that the
Cedarville failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
interactive website, Bicyclecards.com, to be fully accessible to
and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under
the Americans with Disabilities Act and The Rehabilitation Act of
1973, prohibiting discrimination against the blind.
Because of the Defendant's denial of full and equal access to, and
enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of the website,
Plaintiff and the class have suffered an injury-in-fact which is
concrete and particularized and actual and is a direct result of
Defendant's conduct.
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
suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
The Defendant owns and operates Bicyclecards.com.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Reyes, Esq.
Equal Access Law Group PLLC
68-29 Main Street,
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (630) 478-0856
E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law
UPSTART HOLDINGS: Crain Plaintiffs Win Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Crain v. Upstart Holdings,
Inc. et al. (re UPSTART HOLDINGS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case
No. 2:22-cv-02935-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algenon
Marbley entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
The Court certifies the following Class under subsection 23(b)(3)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
"All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Upstart Holdings, Inc. common stock or exchange-traded Upstart
call options, or who sold exchange-traded Upstart put options
(together, the "Securities"), between Dec. 16, 2020, and Nov.
8, 2022, inclusive."
Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendants; (ii) the officers
and directors of Upstart at all relevant times; and (iii)
members of their immediate families and their legal
representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity
in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest.
In addition, the Court appoints Lead Plaintiff
Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH and plaintiffs Kathy Brooks
and Kevin Crain as Class Representatives and appoints Motley Rice
LLC and Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Class Counsel.
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' class description is
sufficiently definite. It is administratively feasible to determine
objectively whether a potential class member purchased or otherwise
acquired Upstart stock or exchange-traded call options, or sold
exchange-traded put options during the proposed class period.
Therefore, the ascertainability requirement is met the Court says.
The Plaintiffs and the proposed class meet the requirements of Rule
23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3).
Upstart operates a cloud-based artificial intelligence (AI) lending
platform in the United States.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 27, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9VB7cw
at no extra charge.[CC]
VOLT MANAGEMENT: Class Cert Bid Filing in Gonzalez Due Nov. 17
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIBEL GONZALEZ, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VOLT
MANAGEMENT CORP., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01348-KES-CDB (E.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered a class certification scheduling
order as follows:
-- Pleading Amendment: May 24, 2025
-- Initial Disclosures: March 26, 2025
-- Class Certification Discovery
Deadlines:
Fact Discovery: Sept. 5, 2025
Mid-Disc. Status Conf.: July 25, 2025
Expert Disclosures: Sept. 19, 2025
Rebuttal Disclosures: Oct. 3, 2025
Expert Discovery: Nov. 3, 2025
Class Certification
Motion Deadlines:
Filing: Nov. 17, 2025
Opposition: Dec. 1, 2025
Reply: Dec. 11, 2025
Hearing (CDB): Jan. 12, 2026
Volt Management provides recruitment and staffing services.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 25, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mWigU3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
WELLS FARGO: Parties Seeks to Extend Class Cert Briefing Schedule
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Parties ask the Court to enter
an order extending briefing schedule for certain motions in
connection with class certification and summary judgment:
(a) The following deadlines apply to motions challenging
experts or evidence in connection with class certification
and summary judgment, including those currently pending and
any filed in the future ("Covered Motions");
(b) Opposition briefs to Covered Motions shall be filed within
28 days of the filing of the motion; and
(c) Replies in support of Covered Motions shall be filed within
14 days of the filing of the opposition brief.
Wells Fargo is a full-service bank.
A copy of Parties' motion dated March 27, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W867dj at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
Jordan Elias, Esq.
Tom Watts, Esq.
Jordan Isern, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
E-mail: dgirard@girardsharp.com
jelias@girardsharp.com
tomw@girardsharp.com
jisern@girardsharp.com
- and -
Eric Gibbs, Esq.
David K. Stein, Esq.
Spencer S. Hughes, Esq.
Emily Beale, Esq.
GIBBS MURA LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 350-9700
Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
ds@classlawgroup.com
shughes@classlawgroup.com
eb@classlawgroup.com
- and -
Robert L. Brace, Esq.
Maria F. Elosu, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. BRACE
1807 Santa Barbara St.
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 886-8458
E-mail: rlbrace@rusty.lawyer
mariaelosulaw@gmail.com
- and -
Miles N. Clark, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MILES N. CLARK,
LLC
5510 S. Fort Apache Rd., Suite 30
Las Vegas, NV 89148-7700
Telephone: (702) 856-7430
E-mail: miles@milesclarklaw.com
- and -
Jarrod L. Rickard, Esq.
Katie L. Cannata, Esq.
SEMENZA KIRCHER RICKARD
10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, NV 89145
- and -
Jeffrey C. Schneider, Esq.
Jason K. Kellogg, Esq.
Marcelo Diaz-Cortes, Esq.
LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN
SCHNEIDER + GROSSMAN LLP
100 SE 2nd Street
Miami Tower, 36th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
The Defendant is represented by:
Joseph G. Went, Esq.
Sydney R. Gambee, Esq.
HOLLAND & HART LLP
9555 Hillwood Drive, 2nd Floor
Las Vegas, NV 89134
Telephone: (702) 669-4600
Facsimile: (702) 669-4650
E-mail: jgwent@hollandhart.com
srgambee@hollandhart.com 1
- and -
K. Issac deVyver, Esq.
Alicia A. Baiardo, Esq.
Anthony Q. Le, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS
1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 315-8200
Facsimile: (310) 315-8210
E-mail: KdeVyver@mcguirewoods.com
ABaiardo@mcguirewoods.com
ALe@mcguirewoods.com
WICKED TACO: Bid to Reconsider Jan. 31, 2025 Order Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE R GONZALEZ, on behalf
of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, v. WICKED
TACO LLC, d/b/a BONGO BURRITO, et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-09555-NCM-JAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Joseph Marutollo
entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for reconsideration
concerning the Court's Jan. 31, 2025 Opinion and Order.
Furthermore, the Defendants' motion for a preliminary injunction
based on improper communication with potential opt-in class members
is denied.
The Court also denies both Defendants' and Plaintiff's
cross-motions for sanctions.
The Defendants fail to demonstrate that there are any matters or
controlling decisions that the Court has overlooked. In light of
the Plaintiff's limited burden at the FLSA conditional
certification stage, and because the Defendants' challenge fails to
identify an "intervening change of controlling law, the
availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error
or prevent manifest injustice," the Defendants' request to
reconsider the scope of the covered employees as defined by the
Jan. 31, 2025 Opinion and Order is denied.
Bongo Burrito offers Mexican-inspired dishes, focusing particularly
on tacos, burritos, and chimichangas.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 25, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=soQDE5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
*********
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 ***