/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250409.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, April 9, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 71 Headlines 2191 NIAGARA: Bid to Dismiss Davis Suit Tossed w/o Prejudice 3M COMPANY: Eubaire Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Gower Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Grider Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Hyde Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Irwin Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Landenberg Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Langille Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Millwood Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Morman Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Mutter Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Papa Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Perrodin Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals AANIIIH NAKODA: Wood Balks at Non-Tribal Lenders' Unlawful Loans ACACIA NETWORK: Statewide Collective Action Conditionally Certified ACTINIUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Intends to Defend NY Securities Suit ACX PACIFIC: Settlement in Rojas-Cifuentes Suit Gets Initial Nod AKIMA GLOBAL: Loses Summary Judgment v. Yeend ALL-WAYS FORWARDING: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Ying ALN MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Judka Files Suit in D. Nebraska ALN MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Peck Files Suit in D. Nebraska AMENTUM SERVICES: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due March 8, 2027 ATHENA BITCOIN: Seeks Oral Argument in Jackson Class Suit AVANT HEALTHCARE: Haviland Sues Over Unlawful Collection and Data BAY COVE HUMAN: Holmes Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII BETTER TAX RELIEF: Kutom Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois BG CALIFORNIA: Zelaya Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. BIOLINERX LTD: Tel Aviv Court Junks "Peete" Securities Suit BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in Armstrong Suit BRADLEY UNIVERSITY: Wins Summary Judgment Bid v. Eddlemon BROADWAY GOURMET: Guzman Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages BUILD REALTY: Class Settlement in Compound Suit Gets Initial Nod CHUNG LEE: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment v. Knight CLIPPER REALTY: Sanchez Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid COLORADO CHRISTIAN: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER: Dallape Suit Removed to D. Connecticut DAVID DINELLO: Loses Summary Judgment Bid v. Dockery DELTA DENTAL: Weiler Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. DREXEL BUILDING: Final Certification of Collective Action Sought EAGLE FAMILY: Court Remands Ortiz Suit to NY State Court EDFINANCIAL SERVICES: Filing for Class Cert in Bailey Due July 31 EIDP INC: Court Extends Class Cert Deadlines in Caporale Suit ENERGY FUEL: Faces Rojano Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. EXPEDIA GROUP: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment v. Echevarria FALCON TRANSPORT: Class Settlement in Chavez Gets Final Nod FARHA ROOFING: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Ford FIRST FEDERAL: Seeks Denial of Summey Class Certification Bid FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS: Court Excludes Woolfson's Declaration FLORIDA: Court Dismisses Americas' Class Suit FORD MOTOR: Bid to Compel Arbitration Granted in McCabe Lawsuit FORD MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in McCabe Amended Complaint FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Court Extends Time to File Additional Exhibits GARDA CL SOUTHEAST: Class Settlement in Cravens Gets Initial Nod GENERAL MOTORS: Court Narrows Claims in Miller SAC GENERAL MOTORS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due July 24 GRAND AMERICA: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition GREEN DOT: Trial in Koffsmon Class Suit Set for February 2027 HUMANA INC: Elliot's Bid to Exclude Daley's Testimony Tossed INTEL CORP: Corrected Scheduling Order Entered in Berkeley INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Faces Securities Suit in Israel Court JOBBLE INC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Taylor Due July 18 KALEIDA HEALTH: Must File Class Cert Response by May 15 KANE & MYERS: Scheduling Order in Peredia Class Suit Entered KOHLS INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Eugenia Due Jan. 15, 2026 LABORATORY CORP: Wins Bid to Exclude Otto Testimony LAKEVIEW LOAN: Morrill Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification LASALLE APARTMENTS: Damare Seeks OK of Renewed Class Cert Bid LATOYA HUGHES: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment v. Davis LATOYA HUGHES: Sanctioned for Violating Protective Order LCA-VISION: Court Dismisses Crabill Suit with Prejudice LEIDOS INC: Miller Bid for Conditional Status Partly OK'd LEPRINO FOODS: Class Cert Deadlines & Hearings in Domiguez Vacated LGBCOIN LTD: Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd LHNH LAVISTA: Class Cert Bid Filing in Lanz Revised to April 30 LINCOLN UNIVERSITY: Dixon Seeks Prelim. Approval of Settlement MARIO'S AIR: Has Until April 21 File Class Cert Bid Response MARYLAND: Discovery Re-Opened for 30 Days MCA MERRILLVILLE: Seeks Stay of Napoleon Class Action MDL 3111: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class and Subclasses MERCER COUNTY, PA: Campbell's Bid for Class Certification Tossed NEW YORK: Engesser Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action OLAPLEX HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Lilien Securities Class Suit PARADISE ENTERTAINMENT: Moore Must Refile Class Cert Exhibits RC BIGELOW INC: Newton Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd REBUILT BROKERAGE: Must File Class Cert Response by April 21 REDWOOD TOXICOLOGY: Toothman Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. RESTORATION BUILDERS: Bid to Certify Class Denied w/o Prejudice SENTOSACARE LLC: Seeks to Stay Chow Class Action SIG SAUER: Seeks to File Portion of Opposition Under Seal SKIDMORE COLLEGE: Class Settlement in Kobor Suit Gets Prelim. Nod SPM OF ALABAMA: Parties in Kunce Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines ST. TAMMANY PARISH: Baquer Seeks Leave to Amend Complaint STONECO LTD: Must File Opposition to Class Cert Bid by June 3 STONECO LTD: Seeks to Adhere to Briefing Schedule w/o Conference SUSAN MUELLER: Loses Summary Judgment Bid v. Dickinson SUSAN MUELLER: Loses Summary Judgment Bid v. Hernandez SUSAN MUELLER: Loses Summary Judgment Bid v. Mathis SUSAN MUELLER: Loses Summary Judgment Bid v. Stewart TIPPECANOE COUNTY COUNCIL: Bartole Files Suit in N.D. Indiana UIPATH INC: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Briefing Schedule US CONCEPTS: Rombaut Suit Removed to C.D. California VOLATO INC: Gray Suit Seeks Class Certification WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Brown Suit Seeks to Certify Four Classes WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Harris Suit Seeks to Certify Four Classes WEBHELP AMERICAS: Johnson Seeks Conditional Cert of FLSA Collective WELLS FARGO: Class Cert Briefing Sched in Winkler Suit Extended WELLS FARGO: Class Cert Briefing Schedule in Henzel Extended WOODBURY WELLNESS: Desoto Wins FLSA Collective Certification WOODSTREAM CORP: Court Certifies Maroney Fraud & Warranty Claims YAZAM INC: Seeks to Continue Pope's Bid for Class Certification [^] CLASS ACTION MONEY & ETHICS CONFERENCE 2025 -- Agenda ********* 2191 NIAGARA: Bid to Dismiss Davis Suit Tossed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELE DAVIS and VICTORIA BLASZAK, on behalf of themselves and all other and employees similarly situated, v. 2191 NIAGARA STREET, LLC, CLASSIS EVENTS AT THE LAFAYETTE, LLC, EVENTS AT THE FOUNDRY, LLC, MOLLY FORD KOESSLER, WILLIAM KOESSLER, and RIVERFRONT ON THE NIAGARA, LLC, D/B/A ACQUA, Case No. 1:15-cv-00429-RJA-LGF (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Leslie Foschio entered an order that: -- The Defendants' motion to dismiss is dismissed without prejudice and with leave to refile; -- The Plaintiffs' motion is granted as to the request for limited discovery pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(d), but dismissed as moot insofar as Plaintiffs move to preclude the court's consideration of the Kershner Affidavits. The discovery requested by Plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 56(d) shall be conducted within 120 days of receipt of this Decision and Order after which Defendants may again move for partial summary judgment to dismiss claims against Defendant Niagara Street. The court finds that in the present context, the Sanderson Affidavit is in compliance with Rule 56(d)'s requirement that Plaintiffs show why, without discovery, Plaintiff cannot present facts to defeat summary judgment as required by Meloff by identifying the facts Plaintiffs seek, how those facts could demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment on the claims asserted against Niagara Street, as well as specifies the discovery to be pursued. The court thus exercises its discretion to defer ruling on the instant motion for partial summary judgment and directs the parties to proceed to discovery limited to whether Niagara Street is part of an integrated enterprise so as to be considered an employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). On Nov. 3, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, asserting six claims for relief based on violations of wages and hours under the FLSA and NYLL. A copy of the Court's decision and order dated March 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5ZKJMZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Nelson Thomas, Esq. Jessica Lynne Lukasiewicz, Esq. Jonathan W. Ferris, Esq. THOMAS & SOLOMON PLLC 693 East Avenue Rochester, NY 14607 The Defendants are represented by: Ginger D. Schroder, Esq. Linda H. Joseph, Esq. SCHRODER, JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES, LLP 394 Franklin Street, 2nd Floor Buffalo, NY 14202 - and - Bradley J. Shafer, Esq. Matthew J. Hoffer, Esq. SHAFER AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 3800 Capitol City Boulevard, Suite 2 Lansing, MI 48906 3M COMPANY: Eubaire Files Suit in D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Torrey Eubaire, 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-01583-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: Gower Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as William Gower, 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-01593-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: Grider Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Grider, 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.; 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 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-01238-RMG (D.S.C., Feb. 28, 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. The Plaintiffs seek relief against Defendants for personal injury and due to exposure from PFAS related to the direct use of AFFF, a firefighting foam containing PFAS compounds and for direct exposure to AFFF and/or exposure from ingestion of PFAS from their water supply. 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. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. 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 Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were being exposed to toxic chemicals until the contamination was recently discovered. 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 during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a 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: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Hyde Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as James Hyde, 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-01577-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: Irwin Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Irwin, 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.; 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 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-01239-RMG (D.S.C., Feb. 28, 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. The Plaintiffs seek relief against Defendants for personal injury and due to exposure from PFAS related to the direct use of AFFF, a firefighting foam containing PFAS compounds and for direct exposure to AFFF and/or exposure from ingestion of PFAS from their water supply. 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. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. 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 Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were being exposed to toxic chemicals until the contamination was recently discovered. 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 during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis 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: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Landenberg Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Brandon Landenberg, 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-01581-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: Langille Files Suit in D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Steven Langille, 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-01591-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: Millwood Files Suit in D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Melissa Millwood, 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-01579-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: Morman Files Suit in D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Timothy Morman, 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-01592-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: Mutter Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Mutter, and other similarly situated 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.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, 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.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01526-RMG (D.S.C., March 10, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). 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. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. 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 or TOG 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 or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG 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 or TOG 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 was diagnosed with Thyroid Disease, and High Cholesterol as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' 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: Joseph Y. Shenkar, Esq. MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP 101 West Elm St., Suite 520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (803) 315-3357 Fax: (610) 941-9880 Email: jshenkar@bernllp.com 3M COMPANY: Papa Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Joseph Papa, 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-01575-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: Perrodin Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------- Mitchell Perrodin, 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.; 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 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-01240-RMG (D.S.C., Feb. 28, 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. The Plaintiffs seek relief against Defendants for personal injury and due to exposure from PFAS related to the direct use of AFFF, a firefighting foam containing PFAS compounds and for direct exposure to AFFF and/or exposure from ingestion of PFAS from their water supply. 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. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. 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 Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were being exposed to toxic chemicals until the contamination was recently discovered. 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 during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with hypothyroidism 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: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com AANIIIH NAKODA: Wood Balks at Non-Tribal Lenders' Unlawful Loans ---------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM WOOD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff V. AANIIIH NAKODA FINANCE, LLC, d/b/a BRIGHT LENDING, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-25-RGJ (W.D. Ky., March 26, 2025) seeks redress for the predatory and unlawful loans issued and enforced by Defendant to Plaintiff and all others similarly situated. According to the complaint, the Defendant has tricked the Plaintiffs into believing that Bright Lending is a tribal lending entity that is wholly owned by the Fort Belknap Indian Community, a sovereign nation located within the United States of America. In reality, the Defendant operates a "rent-a-tribe" scheme in order to circumvent state usury laws, including the laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. A rent-a-tribe scheme is colloquial phrase used to describe the business practices of non-tribal payday lenders, including Bright Lending, hiding behind the guise of a Native American tribe in order to avoid usury laws by invoking sovereign immunity. The Plaintiff seeks a (i) declaratory judgment that the loans are void under Kentucky Revised Statutes 360.010 (Count I) and (ii) damages pursuant to KRS 360.020 (Count II) and KRS 367.110 (Count III). Aaniiih Nakoda Finance, LLC, d/b/a Bright Lending, describes itself as a tribal lending entity.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew T. Lockaby, Esq. Amanda M. Lockaby, Esq. LOCKABY PLLC 476 East High Street, Suite 200 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (859) 263-7884 Facsimile: (859) 406-3333 E-mail: mlockaby@lockabylaw.com alockaby@lockabylaw.com - and - Matthew J. Langley, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (773) 554-9354 E-mail: matt@almeidalawgroup.com ACACIA NETWORK: Statewide Collective Action Conditionally Certified ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GIITOU NEOR and TYRONE WALLACE on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. ACACIA NETWORK, INC., d/b/a ACACIA NETWORK, ACACIA NETWORK HOUSING INC., d/b/a ACACIA NETWORK, PROMESA RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITY, INC., d/b/a PROMESA, and JOHN DOE CORP 1-100, Case No. 1:22-cv-04814-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Edgardo Ramos entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion: -- The Court will conditionally certify the proposed statewide collective action, but only as to those hourly employees who worked during the three years preceding the filing of the original complaint. The statute of limitations will be equitably tolled pending notice to the potential opt-in plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have therefore sufficiently established a common plan or policy of not properly compensating for overtime hours extending to hourly employees who performed a wider range of job duties than those of the named Plaintiffs. On April 1, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional collective certification and for court facilitation of notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants failed to compensate overtime work performed due to automatic meal break deductions, post-shift time shaving, and impermissible rounding. The Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") and request damages consisting of unpaid wages, including overtime, unpaid spread of hours premium, compensation for late payment of wages, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. Acacia is a domestic not-for-profit corporation that subleases hotels and accommodations to the government to use as housing and assistance centers for the homeless in New York City. A copy of the Court's order dated March 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aU6LHd at no extra charge.[CC] ACTINIUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Intends to Defend NY Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that on March 27, 2025, a putative class action complaint was filed by alleged stockholder Nihil Kohil against the Company and executives Sandesh Seth, Avinash Desai, Madhuri Vusirikala, and Sergio Giralt, styled Kohil v. Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-02553 in the Southern District of New York, wherein, the Complaint alleges that the defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions concerning the Iomab-B Phase 3 Sierra Trial and the plaintiff asserts claims against all defendants pursuant to section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as additional claims against the individual defendants pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Complaint purports to assert class action claims on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Actinium securities between October 31, 2022 and August 2, 2024. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint, and they intend to vigorously defend themselves against the plaintiff's allegations. The Company and other defendants intend to defend vigorously against such claims, however, there can be no assurances as to the outcome. Actinium is a late-stage biopharmaceutical company that 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 and has the potential to treat elderly relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia. 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 with statistical significance. ACX PACIFIC: Settlement in Rojas-Cifuentes Suit Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIGUEL ROJAS-CIFUENTES, v. ACX PACIFIC NORTHWEST INC., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00697-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Carolyn Delaney entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiff's unopposed motion for conditional class certification and preliminary approval of settlement is granted; 2. The Rule 23 class is provisionally certified, the Plaintiff Miguel Rojas-Cifuentes is appointed class representative, and Mallison & Martinez is appointed class counsel 3. The Settlement Agreement is preliminarily approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; 4. The Plaintiff's request to file a third amended complaint is granted; and 5. The parties shall follow the deadlines set herein as delineated by the Settlement Agreement. A fairness hearing is scheduled for Sept. 10, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 24 of the Matsui Courthouse, 501 I. St., Sacramento, CA, 95814. Because the Rule 23 requirements for the proposed class are met, and because the standard to preliminary certify a class is less rigorous than necessary for final certification, conditional class certification of the expanded class is warranted for the purposes of preliminary approval of the class action settlement. Considering the other factors from Rule 23(e)(2), the Court finds the PAGA portion of the settlement to be similarly fair and adequate for the PAGA members. T The proposed class is defined as: "all current and former non-exempt employees who worked for Al Dahra in the State of California at any time during the period from March 14, 2010, through Oct. 15, 2023." There is a sub-class named the Wilmington Auto-Deduct Sub-Class, which means: "all current and former non-exempt hourly employees who worked at the Wilmington, California location of Al Dahra at any time from March 14, 2010 up to May 17, 2018 and worked at least one shift greater than 6 hours and had 30 minutes of pay automatically deducted for a meal period." The Plaintiff brings this putative class action against the Defendants alleging class violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), California Labor Code, and California's Unfair Competition Law. ACX distributes forage, roughage, and products. A copy of the Court's order dated March 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OVcATf at no extra charge.[CC] AKIMA GLOBAL: Loses Summary Judgment v. Yeend --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DALILA YEEND, BOUNNAM PHIMASONE, ELVIN MINAYA RODRIGUEZ, LISA LAPOINTE, and SHANTADEWIE RAHMEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AKIMA GLOBAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01281-AMN-PJE (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Anne Nardacci entered an order that Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied. The Court further entered an order that the Defendant's motion to strike is denied; and the Court further orders that the Clerk serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules. On Sept. 3, 2020, the Plaintiffs commenced this action against the Defendant in New York State Supreme Court, asserting state law claims pertaining to their civil immigration detention at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility ("BFDF"). On Oct. 16, 2020, the Defendant removed this action to federal court. On Sept. 7, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with class action allegations and claims for unjust enrichment and violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act ("TVPRA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). Akima provides the people, equipment, and processes that safeguard federal buildings, military bases, and detention centers. A copy of the Court's order dated March 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Roqxuw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Allison Frick, Esq. Alanna G. Kaufman, Esq. Alyssa Isidoridy, Esq. KAUFMAN LIEB LEBOWITZ & FRICK LLP 18E, 48th Street, Suite 802 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 660-2332 E-mail: africk@kllf-law.com aisidoridy@kllf-law.com - and - Maureen Hussain, Esq. Cristina Brito, Esq. Olivia Post Rich, Esq. WORKER JUSTICE CENTER OF NEW YORK 9 Main Street Kingston, NY 12401 Telephone: (845) 331-6615 E-mail: mhussain@wjcny.org cbrito@wjcny.org opostrich@wjcny.org The Defendant is represented by: Jessica L. Marrero, Esq. Amiel J. Provosty, Esq. Heather F. Crow, Esq. THE KULLMAN FIRM 1100 Poydras St., Suite 1600 New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: (504) 524-4162 Facsimile: (504) 596-4114 E-mail: JLM@kullmanlaw.com ALL-WAYS FORWARDING: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Ying ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN YING, on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. ALL-WAYS FORWARDING OF N.Y. INC. f/k/a All Ways Forwarding of N.Y. Inc., f/k/a All Ways Forwarding International of N.Y., Inc., f/k/a All Ways Forwarding International Inc., ALL-WAYS FORWARDING INT'L INC., ALL-WAYS PACIFIC LLC, ALL-WAYS FORWARDING HOLDINGS LLC, SOLOMON WEBER, and DAVID PASKES, Case No. 1:20-cv-06242-ENV-MMH (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Marcia Henry entered an order granting in part and denying in part the parties' motions for final approval of the class settlement, approval of service awards, and approval of the attorneys' fees: (1) The Court certifies the Settlement Class and approves the parties' Settlement Agreement, with the exception of the confidentiality and non-disparagement provision of the Agreement, which is stricken. (2) The Court approves the following awards: (a) to Ying, the Named Plaintiff, $30,000.00 as a service award; (b) to Class counsel, $258,333.33 for attorneys' fees and $1,352.70 for litigation costs; and (c) to the Settlement Administrator, a fee of $9,000.00. Accordingly, the class settlement is both procedurally and substantively fair under Rule 23(e), and therefore the class action settlement is approved. On Dec. 24, 2020, Ying commenced this collective and class action, alleging that the Defendants and individuals Paul Selvage, Ezra Danziger, and Paul Reisz (1) failed to pay overtime wages in violation of the FLSA, the NYLL, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), and the California Labor Code ("CLC"); and (2) failed to pay the spread of hours premium and to provide wage notices and wage statements in violation of the NYLL. In November 2023, the parties filed the instant motions for final approval of the class settlement, approval of service awards, and approval of the attorneys' fees. The Settlement Agreement defines the Settlement Class as "Named Plaintiff and the current and former non-exempt employees who worked overtime and were employed by AW NY from Dec. 24, 2014 to March 4, 2022." All-Ways provides arranging of transportation of freight and cargo. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated March 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lQBbFW at no extra charge.[CC] ALN MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Judka Files Suit in D. Nebraska ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ALN Medical Management, LLC. The case is styled as Jeffrey Judka, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALN Medical Management, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-03074-JMG-MDN (D. Neb., March 31, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. ALN -- http://alnmm.com/-- provides hosting, implementing, training, and ongoing support to physician practices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Kennedy M. Brian, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Fax: (405) 239-2112 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com kpb@federmanlaw.com ALN MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Peck Files Suit in D. Nebraska ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against ALN Medical Management, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Gail Peck, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALN Medical Management, LLC, National Spine and Pain Centers LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-03073 (D. Neb., March 31, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. ALN -- http://alnmm.com/-- provides hosting, implementing, training, and ongoing support to physician practices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com AMENTUM SERVICES: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due March 8, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNA WISE, on behalf of herself and the Proposed Rule 23 Class, v. AMENTUM SERVICES INC.; GANA-A'YOO SERVICES CORPORATION; SIX MILE LLC; GRAY HAWK GLOBAL CORPORATION; and LEIDOS, INC. Case No. 1:25-cv-00031-JLK-TPO (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Timothy P. O'Hara entered an order as follows: a. Deadline for Joinder of Parties Sept. 29, 2025 and Amendment of Pleadings: b. Discovery Cutoff: June 8, 2026 c. Dispositive Motion Deadline: May 8, 2027 d. Deadline for Class Certification March 8, 2027 Motions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23: e. Deadline for Motions to Exclude Oct. 8, 2026 Expert Testimony pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 702: f. Expert Discovery Cut-off: Feb. 8, 2027. The Plaintiff also brings a claim against the Defendant Six Mile, LLC for violating the Colorado Public Health Emergency Whistleblower Act, alleging the Defendant Six Mile has a practice and policy of prohibiting workers from raising workplace safety concerns and has retaliated against or threatened workers who speak out on issues workers reasonably believe are unlawful. Amentum is a subcontractor for Leidos under the ASC to provide seasonal employees to work in Antarctica in the following fields: carpenters, heavy equipment operators, mechanics, electricians, pipefitters, welders, firefighters, and more. A copy of the Court's order dated March 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=u86OFd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura B. Wolf, Esq. SPARK JUSTICE LAW LLC 3435 S. Inca Street, Suite C-113 Englewood, CO 80110 Telephone: (303) 802-5390 Facsimile: (303) 848-3003 E-mail: laura@spark-law.com - and - Aurora L. Randolph, Esq. ALR CIVIL RIGHTS LLC 9878 W. Belleview Ave., Suite 2129 Denver, CO 80123 Telephone: (303) 968-1703 E-mail: aurora@alrcivilrights.com - and - Rachel W. Dempsey, Esq. Juno Turner, Esq. David H. Seligman, Esq. TOWARDS JUSTICE Denver, CO 80237-5680 Telephone: (720) 441-2236 E-mail: rachel@towardsjustice.org juno@towardsjustice.org david@towardsjustice.org - and - Rachhana T. Srey, Esq. H. Clara Coleman, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 215-6870 E-mail: srey@nka.com ccoleman@nka.com The Defendants are represented by: Diane R. Hazel, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 1400 16th Street, Suite 200 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (720) 437-2000 E-mail: dhazel@foley.com - and - Perry A. Lange, Esq. Arielle K. Herzberg, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 2100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 663-6493 E-mail: Perry.Lange@wilmerhale.com Arielle.Herzberg@wilmerhale.com - and - Bryant S. Banes, Esq. NEEL, HOOPER & BANES 1800 West Loop South, Suite 1750 Houston, TX 77027 Telephone: (713) 629-1800 E-mail: bbanes@nhblaw.com - and - Adam L. Hudes, Esq. Craig P. Seebald, Esq. Michael McCambridge, Esq. VINSON & ELKINS LLP 2200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Suite 500 West Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 639-6578 E-mail: ahudes@velaw.com cseebald@velaw.com mmccambridge@velaw.com - and - Jennifer S. Harpole Lukasz Gilewski LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 1900 Sixteenth Street, Suite 800 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 629-6200 E-mail: jharpole@littler.com lgilewski@littler.com ATHENA BITCOIN: Seeks Oral Argument in Jackson Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEON JACKSON, v. ATHENA BITCOIN, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00331-MW-MJF (N.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order permitting 90 minutes of oral argument from both sides on the Plaintiff's fully briefed motion for class certification, only if the Court is inclined to grant the Motion on the papers, and should the Motion be denied, permitting Athena to file a Surresponse to the Plaintiff's Reply, to be filed on or by 14 days from the date of entry of the Order. Athena owns and operates several business lines around Digital Currency. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6oIU0J at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Krystina N. Machado, Esq. Houston S. Park, III, Esq. FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP 9130 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 670-3700 E-mail: Houston.Park@fmglaw.com Krystina.Machado@fmglaw.com AVANT HEALTHCARE: Haviland Sues Over Unlawful Collection and Data ----------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Haviland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AVANT HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-at-00421 (E.D. Cal., March 31, 2025), is brought as a result of the Defendant's violations of the California Trap and Trace Law due to unlawful collection and data. The Defendant has installed on its Website software created by TikTok in order to identify website visitors (the "TikTok Software"). The TikTok Software acts via a process known as "fingerprinting." Put simply, the TikTok Software collects as much data as it can about an otherwise anonymous visitor to the Website and matches it with data TikTok has acquired and accumulated about hundreds of millions of Americans. The TikTok Software gathers device and browser information, geographic information, referral tracking, and url tracking by running code or "scripts" on the Website to send user details to TikTok. Additionally, since Avant has decided to use TikTok's "AutoAdvanced Matching" technology, TikTok scans every website for information, such as name, date of birth, and address, the information is sent simultaneously to TikTok, so that TikTok can isolate with certainty the individual to be targeted. The Defendant did not obtain Class Members' express or implied consent to be subjected to data sharing with TikTok for the purposes of fingerprinting and de-anonymization. CIPA imposes civil liability and statutory penalties for the installation of trap and trace software without a court order, says the complaint. The Plaintiff visited the Defendant's website on November 11, 2024. The Defendant owns, operates and/or controls www.avanthealthcare.com, an online platform that offers staffing services for healthcare workers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. Narain Kumar, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 927-9270 Email: rtauler@taulersmith.com nkumar@taulersmith.com BAY COVE HUMAN: Holmes Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII --------------------------------------------------------- Latina Holmes, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. BAY COVE HUMAN SERVICES, INC., Case No. 15-10470 (Mass. Commonwealth, Suffolk Cty., March 31, 2025), is brought seeking monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief arising from Defendant's failure to safeguard the names, driver's license information, financial account information and Social Security Numbers ("Personally Identifiable Information"' or "PII") and diagnosis, treatment, health and employment-related information ("Protected Health Information" or "PHI") (together, "Private Information") of its patients and employees, which resulted in unauthorized access to its information systems on December 2024, and the compromised and unauthorized disclosure of that Private Information, causing widespread injury and damages to Plaintiff and the proposed Class. On December 25, 2023, Bay Cove detected unusual activity in its computer systems and ultimately determined that an unauthorized third party accessed its network and obtained certain files from its systems on or around December 25, 2023 ("Data Breach"). As a result of the Data Breach, which Defendant failed to prevent, the Private Information of Defendant's patients and employees, including Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members, were stolen, including their name, date Of birth, Social Security number, diagnosis or treatment information, and/or other health-related information. The Defendant's investigation concluded that the Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiffs and other individuals' information (together, "Patients/Employees"). The Defendant's failure to safeguard Patients/Employees' highly sensitive Private Information as exposed and unauthorizedly disclosed in the Data Breach violates its common law duty, Massachusetts law, and Defendant's implied contract with its Patients' Employees to safeguard their Private Information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a patient of the Defendant. Bay Cove Human Services, Inc. is a not-for-profit community services provider with its principal place of business in Boston, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randi Kassan, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (212) 594-5300 Email: rkassan@milberg.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: 305-479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com lloginov@shamisgentile.com BETTER TAX RELIEF: Kutom Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Better Tax Relief, LLC. The case is styled as Raed Kutom, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Better Tax Relief, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03436 (N.D. Ill., March 31, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Better Tax Relief -- https://bettertaxrelief.com/ -- offers tailored tax relief services to help clients manage IRS debt with personalized plans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD 2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com BG CALIFORNIA: Zelaya Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as ROXANA ZELAYA, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BG CALIFORNIA MULTIFAMILY STAFFING, INC., a corporation; BG CALIFORNIA IT STAFFING, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25CU009110C, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on March 26, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00705-H-SBC to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint asserts the following claims on a class-wide basis: (1) unfair competition; (2) failure to pay minimum wages; (3) failure to pay overtime wages; (4) failure to provide meal periods; (5) failure to provide rest periods; (6) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (7) failure to reimburse work expenses; and (8) failure to pay sick pay. BG California Multifamily Staffing, Inc. provides services in property management and property maintenance staffing.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Marlene M. Moffitt, Esq. Brett R. Tengberg, Esq. Stephen A. Dolar, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (858) 652-3110 Facsimile: (858) 652-3101 E-mail: marlene.moffitt@ogletree.com brett.tengberg@ogletree.com stephen.dolar@ogletree.com BIOLINERX LTD: Tel Aviv Court Junks "Peete" Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- On January 5, 2023, a putative securities class action complaint captioned Winston Peete v. BioLineRx Ltd. and Philip A. Serlin (Case no: Case 2:23-cv-00041 was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by purported shareholder Winston Peete, naming the Company and its chief executive officer, Mr. Serlin, as defendants, BioLineRx Ltd. disclosed in a Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024. The complaint asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, claiming that the defendants made false and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts pertaining to our financial position with regard to the development of motixafortide and that we would require a loan and a securities offering to commercialize motixafortide. The complaint asserted a putative class period of February 23, 2021 to September 19, 2022, inclusive, and sought certification as a class action and an unspecified amount of damages. On July 5, 2023, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging the same claims and adding the Company's Chief Financial Officer, Mali Zeevi, as a defendant. On September 5, 2023, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, and on July 15, 2024, the court granted the order to dismiss without prejudice. The plaintiffs did not file an amended claim by the deadline, which passed on August 14, 2024. In addition, on February 5, 2023, the Company received a lawsuit and motion to approve the lawsuit as a class action lawsuit pursuant to the Class Action Lawsuits Law 5766-2006, which was filed against the Company and Mr. Serlin in the Tel Aviv District Court (Economic Division). The motion asserts substantially similar allegations as the U.S. action. The motion asserts to define the class as all shareholders who held the company's securities traded on the TASE, on September 19, 2022 and the class period relates to the company's statements between February 23, 2021, and September 19, 2022. The total amount claimed, if the lawsuit is certified as a class action, as set forth in the motion is approximately NIS 113.5 million (approximately $32 million). On December 10, 2024, the Tel Aviv District Court (Economic Division) granted an order to dismiss the claim. About BioLineRx Ltd. Headquartered in Modi'in, Israel, BioLineRx is a commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing life-changing therapies in oncology and rare diseases. Tel Aviv, Israel-based Kesselman & Kesselman, the Company's auditor since 2003, issued a "going concern" qualification in its report dated March 26, 2024, citing that the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations and has cash outflows from operating activities, indicating a material uncertainty that may cast significant doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. BioLineRx recorded net losses of $27.1 million in 2021, $25 million in 2022, and $60.6 million in 2023. As of March 31, 2024, the Company had $51.6 million in total assets, $38.54 million in total liabilities, and a total equity of $13.06 million. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in Armstrong Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHEA ARMSTRONG and SAMUEL CALDWELL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, V. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, and BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, Case No. 2:23-cv-03046-JXN-SDA (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Julien Xavier Neals entered an order granting in part Defendants' motion to dismiss. Counts Five brought under California law, Seven and Eight brought under Florida law, as well as Counts Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, and Eleven to the extent they are brought by a nationwide class are dismissed without prejudice. Count Eleven is dismissed with prejudice. All other claims for relief are denied. The Plaintiffs quasi-contract claim fails. Thus, the unjust enrichment claims in Count Nine is dismissed with prejudice as to Armstrong and the California subclass. This putative class action arises from an alleged "latent defect found" in certain BMW vehicles. According to the Plaintiffs, the Class Vehicles "contain defectively designed and/or manufactured coolant lines that cause them to prematurely fail which the Defendants failed to disclose. On Oct. 4, 2020, Armstrong "purchased a certified pre-owned 2017 5301" BMW from a "BMW dealership located in Glendale, California." BMW of North America markets and sells motor vehicles. A copy of the Court's opinion dated March 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=shUcNv at no extra charge.[CC] BRADLEY UNIVERSITY: Wins Summary Judgment Bid v. Eddlemon --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ORION EDDLEMON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BRADLEY UNIVERSITY, an Illinois not-for-profit corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-01264-CRL (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Colleen Lawless entered an order that the University motion for summary judgment is granted as to the claims relating to the course surcharge fees. Accordingly, Bradley University's motion for Summary Judgment is granted. The Plaintiff's motion t certify class is dismissed as moot. The Clerk is directed to enter in favor of the Defendant and against Plaintiff. Bradley University is a private university in Peoria, Illinois, United States. A copy of the Court's opinion dated March 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QtXiW9 at no extra charge.[CC] BROADWAY GOURMET: Guzman Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alfredo Guzman, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. BROADWAY GOURMET, INC. (d/b/a BROADWAY GOURMET FOOD MARKET ON SOHO) and MARK H. KIM, Case No. 1:25-cv-02676 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2025), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL), including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay The Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring The Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a delivery worker from December 18, 2023 until November 6, 2024 at Meson Restaurant. The Defendants own, operate, or control a food market, located in New York under the name "Broadway Gourmet Food Market On Soho."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE ESQ. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 BUILD REALTY: Class Settlement in Compound Suit Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as COMPOUND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC, et al., v. BUILD REALTY INC., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00133-DRC (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Douglas Cole entered an order as follows: 1. Preliminarily approves the proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release as modified to reflect (1) that the Build Defendants' payments are deemed to be assigned to the Common Fund, not a separate stream of payments directly to class counsel; and (2) that the class members are to receive payments according to the updated formula provided by class counsel in its supplemental briefing; 2. Approves the proposed notice plan and authorizes the settlement administrator to distribute the proposed notices as modified to reflect (1) that the Build Defendants' payments are deemed to be assigned to the Common Fund, not directly to Class Counsel's fees; and (2) that the class members are to receive payments according to the updated formula provided by class counsel in its supplemental briefing; 3. Adopts the proposed calendar deadlines to govern notice, claims administration, and the motions for attorneys' fees and final approval; and 4. Schedules a final fairness hearing for Oct. 16, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 805. The cost and complexity of litigation so far, coupled with the inherent complexity of at least some of the class's claims, and the meaningful collectability risks, convinces the Court that the costs, risks, and delays of further litigation favor settlement. The Plaintiffs seek to tweak the already-certified class definition to the following: "Plaintiffs and all other persons and entities in Ohio and Kentucky, individually and collectively, that invested in real property and were named as beneficiaries to a trust created through a real estate transaction engaged in by, through, or with any of the Defendants named herein during the Class Period." "Class Period" means from Feb. 1, 2013, through May 24, 2019. Excluded from the Class are: Defendants and their past or present officers, employees, agents, directors, lawyers, and immediate family members; judicial officers and their immediate family members and associated Court staff assigned to this case; and any entities owned or controlled by an individual excluded from the Class. Build Realty is a real estate agency, specializing in residential and commercial property transactions. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NQPqac at no extra charge.[CC] CHUNG LEE: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment v. Knight --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Knight v. Lee, Case No. 1:23-cv-05662 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Loretta Preska entered an order on the motions for summary judgment as follows: 1. The Plaintiff Daniels: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5654) is granted. 2. The Plaintiff Dickinson: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5657) is denied. 3. The Plaintiff Dockery: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5658) is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as to Dr. Hammer and NP Salotti, and denied as to Drs. Mueller and Dinello. 4. The Plaintiff Gradia: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5660) is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as to Dr. Hammer and denied as to Drs. Mueller and Dinello. 5. The Plaintiff Hernandez: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5661) is denied. Dr. Mantaro's motion for summary judgment (23-CV-5661) is granted. 6. The Plaintiff Knight: Dr. Lee's motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5662) is denied. 7. The Plaintiff Mathis: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5663) is denied. 8. The Plaintiff Pritchett: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5664) is denied. 9. The Plaintiff Rivera Cruz: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5667) is denied. 10. The Plaintiff Stewart: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5668) is denied. Counsel for the parties shall confer and inform the Court by letter no later than April 11, 2025, of how they propose to proceed, the Court says. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c9kwRx at no extra charge.[CC] CLIPPER REALTY: Sanchez Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting an additional one (1) week extension regarding the briefing of parties' motions for summary judgment, and Plaintiff's class certification motion. The Plaintiff's briefing of these motions was slightly delayed as the Plaintiff's counsel was out unwell for a portion of last week and due to the voluminous records being distilled for the Court's review. For these reasons, I am seeking an additional one (1) week to fully address all of the issues presented in this matter, and to fully prepare all relevant discovery for the Court’s review. In accordance with this extension, the new briefing schedule for the Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion and class certification motion is listed out below: -- The Plaintiffs' moving papers for a summary judgment motion and class certification motion is one (1) weeks from April 2, 2025, to April 9, 2025. -- The Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to class certification would receive a reciprocal one (1) week extended from May 8, 2025. -- The Plaintiffs' response and reply is extended from to May 15, 2025, to May 22, 2025. -- The Defendant's reply is extended from May 22, 2025, to May 29, 2025. The extension will permit Plaintiffs to fully address all issues as well as properly organize and present all relevant facts for the Court's review. The Defendants' counsel has consented to this extension, and this is the second extension of time requested by the Plaintiffs' counsel for the filing of the above two (2) motions. Clipper operates as a real estate investment company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=26uO6C at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert A. Kansao, 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 COLORADO CHRISTIAN: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Edery Herrera, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. COLORADO CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:25-cv-02611 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2025), is brought this civil rights action against the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://www.ccu.edu, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, including, but not limited to, https://www.ccu.edu/athletics (collectively the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen reading software to read website content using the computer. COLORADO CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY, operates the CCU online interactive Website and retail store across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.lega COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER: Dallape Suit Removed to D. Connecticut --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Gregory Dallape, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Community Health Center, Inc., Case No. FST-CV25-6072023-S was removed from the Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford at Norwalk, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on March 31, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00511 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Community Health Center, Inc. (CHC) -- https://www.chc1.com/ -- has been building a world-class primary healthcare system for uninsured and underinsured populations.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Philip H. Bieler, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP - NY 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10111 Phone: (212) 847-2868 Fax: (212) 589-4201 Email: pbieler@bakerlaw.com DAVID DINELLO: Loses Summary Judgment Bid v. Dockery ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dockery v. David Dinello et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-05658 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Loretta Preska entered an order on the motions for summary judgment as follows: 1. The Plaintiff Daniels: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5654) is granted. 2. The Plaintiff Dickinson: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5657) is denied. 3. The Plaintiff Dockery: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5658) is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as to Dr. Hammer and NP Salotti, and denied as to Drs. Mueller and Dinello. 4. The Plaintiff Gradia: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5660) is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as to Dr. Hammer and denied as to Drs. Mueller and Dinello. 5. The Plaintiff Hernandez: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5661) is denied. Dr. Mantaro's motion for summary judgment (23-CV-5661) is granted. 6. The Plaintiff Knight: Dr. Lee's motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5662) is denied. 7. The Plaintiff Mathis: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5663) is denied. 8. The Plaintiff Pritchett: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5664) is denied. 9. The Plaintiff Rivera Cruz: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5667) is denied. 10. The Plaintiff Stewart: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5668) is denied. Counsel for the parties shall confer and inform the Court by letter no later than April 11, 2025, of how they propose to proceed, the Court says. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nYRQxQ at no extra charge.[CC] DELTA DENTAL: Weiler Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled ERIN WEILER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DELTA DENTAL OF CALIFORNIA, a California mutual benefit nonprofit corporation; DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC-25-622474, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on March 26, 2025. The Clerk of the District Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02846 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that data related to website visitors' visits to DDC's website are intercepted and transmitted to third parties without the visitors' consent. The Complaint brings causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) breach of confidence, (4) unjust enrichment, (5) violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, (6) violation of California Unfair Competition Law, and (7) violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Delta Dental of California is an insurance agency in California.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Wynter L. Deagle, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 12275 El Camino Real, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92130-4092 Telephone: (858) 720-8900 Facsimile: (858) 509-3691 E-mail: wdeagle@sheppardmullin.com - and - Samuel Z. Hyams-Millard, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Telephone: (415) 434-9100 Facsimile: (415) 434-3947 E-mail: shyams-millard@sheppardmullin.com DREXEL BUILDING: Final Certification of Collective Action Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Amber Kidd On behalf of Herself and all others similarly situated, v. Drexel Building Supply, Inc., Drexel Systems, LLC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00356-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: -- granting final certification for a FLSA opt-in collective action including the following: "All individuals who, while they were employed as hourly non- exempt employees by either Drexel Building Supply, Inc. or Drexel Systems, LLC during the period of May 29, 2022 through the date the Court grants preliminary approval to the parties' settlement agreement; (the "Class Period") either (a) received a payment because of their participation in the Drexel Book Club; (b) received a payment from the Focus on Family Program; and/or (c) received backpay because Drexel adjusted their punch-in times or meal break punch-in times before computing their number of hours worked; and who opts into the Lawsuit by either filing a Consent to Join Form or cashing their settlement check(s) (collectively, the "FLSA Collective"; individually, a "Collective Member")"; -- granting certification pursuant to Rule 23 for an opt-out class including the following: "All individuals who, while they were employed as hourly non- exempt employees by either Drexel Building Supply, Inc. or Drexel Systems, LLC during the Class Period, either (a) received a payment because of their participation in the Drexel Book Club; (b) received a payment from the Focus on Family Program; and/or (c) received backpay because Drexel adjusted their punch-in times or meal break punch-in times before computing their number of hours worked; who do not timely opt out of the settlement. (collectively, the "Rule 23 Class"; individually, a "Class Member")." Drexel is a provider of building materials and services to professional contractors and homeowners. A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CXmpuc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yingtao Ho, Esq. THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C. 310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW Milwaukee, WI 53203 Telephone: (414) 271-4500 Facsimile: (414) 271-6308 E-mail: yh@previant.com The Defendants are represented by: Erick Kaplan, Esq. KAPLAN & GOURNIS, P.C. One South Wacker Drive, Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 726-0531 Facsimile: (312) 726-4928 E-mail: ekaplan@kpglaw.com EAGLE FAMILY: Court Remands Ortiz Suit to NY State Court -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS ORTIZ II, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EAGLE FAMILY FOODS GROUP LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-09861-JLR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer Rochon entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to remand. The Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at Dkts. 4 and 12. The action is remanded to New York state court. Since the Defendant has not met its burden to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, the Court is without jurisdiction and must grant the motion to remand. The Plaintiff commenced this putative class action in New York state court against the Defendant, alleging violations of New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350 in connection with the alleged misbranding of Defendant's product, Popcorn Indiana Movie Theater Butter Popcorn. The Defendant then removed this action to federal court. The Defendant manufactures, labels, markets, packages, distributes and/or sells "Movie Theater Butter" popcorn under the Popcorn Indiana brand. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pcGtp0 at no extra charge.[CC] EDFINANCIAL SERVICES: Filing for Class Cert in Bailey Due July 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bailey v. EdFinancial Services, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00144 (N.D. Ga., Filed June 6, 2024), the Hon. Judge William M. Ray, II entered an order on motion for extension of time to complete discovery: -- Plaintiff's motion for class July 31, 2025 certification: -- Defendant's opposition to class Aug. 28, 2025 certification: -- Plaintiff's reply in support Sept. 18, 2025 of class certification: -- Discovery ends: Oct. 29, 2025 -- Expert discovery: Jan. 29, 2026 -- Motions for summary judgment: March 2, 2026 The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. EdFinancial is a financial company which provides student loans servicing.[CC] EIDP INC: Court Extends Class Cert Deadlines in Caporale Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CANDY CAPORALE, et al., v. EIDP, INC., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01672-JLH-SRF (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge Sherry Fallon entered an order extending the class certification deadlines as follows: -- Plaintiffs' opposition to the Defendants' May 2, 2025 Motions to exclude and/or strike Plaintiffs' Class certification experts: -- Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs' May 23, 2025 Objections to the Class Cert. Expert: EIDP operates as an agricultural chemical company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rBWBIY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas Crumplar, Esq. JACOBS & CRUMPLAR, P.A. 750 Shipyard Drive, Suite 200 Wilmington DE 19801 Telephone (302) 656-5445 E-mail: tom@jcdelaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Catherine A. Gaul, Esq. Andrew Colin Mayo, Esq. Randall J. Teti, Esq. ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A. 500 Delaware Avenue – Floor 8 Wilmington DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 654-1888 E-mail: cgaul@ashbygeddes.com amayo@ashbygeddes.com rteti@ashbygeddes.com - and - Brian D. Tome, Esq. REILLY, McDEVITT & HENRICH, P.C. 1013 Centre Road – Suite 210 Wilmington DE 19805 Telephone: (302) 777-1700 E-mail: btome@rmh-law.com - and - Gerry Gray, Esq. DOROSHOW, PASQUALE, KRAWITZ & BHAYA 14 Village Square Smyrna DE 19977 Telephone: (302) 508-2140 E-mail: GerryGray@dplaw.com ENERGY FUEL: Faces Rojano Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------- SIMON ROJANO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENERGY FUEL CAFE, INC. (d/b/a ENERGY FUEL CAFE) and SONY BARIBARI, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01668 (E.D.N.Y., March 26, 2025) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor policies and practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide written wage notice, failure to furnish wage statements, and failure to reimburse costs and expenses for purchasing and maintaining equipment and "tools of trade." Plaintiff Romano is a former employee of the Defendants who was employed as a delivery worker from approximately 2016 until January 11, 2025. Energy Fuel Café, Inc. owns, operates, and controls a restaurant located in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 EXPEDIA GROUP: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment v. Echevarria ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIO ECHEVARRIA, v. EXPEDIA GROUP, INC., HOTELS.COM L.P., HOTELS.COM GP, LLC, and ORBITZ, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-22621-FAM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Federico Moreno entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. The Plaintiff, Mario Echevarria, is a U.S. national who claims he inherited a claim to an island off the coast of Cuba called Cayo Coco. He claims that Defendants, Expedia Group, Inc., Hotels.com, and Orbitz trafficked his property by entering into contracts to sell reservations at three hotels that are currently operating on the land he claims his ancestors owned. The Defendants move for summary judgment arguing that Plaintiff cannot establish that he owns a claim to Cayo Coco under Cuban law and that the record evidence fails to establish he inherited his claim. Defendants also move for summary judgment on the Act's trafficking prong claiming the record evidence fails to establish scienter as required by the Act and that Defendants sold reservations after having notice of the claim. Defendant Expedia Group, Inc. also moves for summary judgment claiming that as a parent company, it is not liable for the acts of its subsidiaries. Finally, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment argues the record evidence does not establish damages. The Plaintiff also filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to the affirmative defenses, which include the lawful travel defense. Because the Court finds there are issues of foreign law that must be determined pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1 and there are genuine issues of material fact, the Court denies the motions for summary judgment. The Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment as to the 15 affirmative defenses. Given that the Court is allowing the case to proceed to trial, the Court will not limit the Defendants from presenting their affirmative defenses, which includes their defenses that the bookings they offered were incident to lawful travel to Cuba and that their conduct was authorized by a license issued by the Office of Foreign Asset Control. Accordingly, the Court denies the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Affirmative Defenses. Expedia provides online travel services for leisure and small business travelers. A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BgANSK at no extra charge.[CC] FALCON TRANSPORT: Class Settlement in Chavez Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY CHAVEZ, et al., v. FALCON TRANSPORT CO., et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-00958-JPC (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge J. Philip Calabrese entered an order granting class certification, final approval of settlement, and associated relief. The Court orders that the settlement agreement be implemented according to its terms and conditions and: -- certifies the Rule 23 class for purposes of the settlement; -- appoints Mary E. Olsen and M. Vance McCrary of The Gardner Firm, P.C.; Robert J. Dubyak and Christina C. Spallina of Dubyak Nelson, LLC; Stuart Miller of Lankenau & Miller, LLP; and James M. Kelley, III and Gary Cowan of Elk & Elk Co. Ltd.as class counsel; -- approves the payment of $400,000 to the class; -- approves the release of the Plaintiffs' claims; awards Mary E. Olsen and M. Vance McCrary of The Gardner Firm, P.C.; Robert J. Dubyak and Christina C. Spallina of Dubyak Nelson, LLC; Stuart Miller of Lankenau & Miller, LLP; and James M. Kelley, III and Gary Cowan of Elk & Elk Co. Ltd. $128,000; -- approves the payment of 27,827.98; and -- approves the $4,000.00 service awards to the Representative Plaintiffs. The Court finds that a class action is a superior method for adjudicating the claims of the class. Satisfied that they meet the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3), the Court certifies the Rule 23 class for purposes of settlement. On Oct. 21, 2019, four named plaintiffs filed a master consolidated amended class action complaint alleging that the Defendants terminated them without receiving sixty-day notice, breached their fiduciary duties, failed to submit to the Falcon Transport/GD Leasing Co. of Indiana Group Health Plan, and committed other violations pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN"), and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). Falcon is a trucking company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OvqbIf at no extra charge.[CC] FARHA ROOFING: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Ford ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIANNA FORD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. FARHA ROOFING, LLC, FARHA ROOFING KC, LLC and SUMMA MEDIA, LLC., Case No. 4:23-cv-00635-FJG (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Gaitan, Jr. entered an order preliminarily certifying, for settlement purposes only, as a class action on behalf of the following class of plaintiffs (the "Settlement Class Members") with respect to the claims asserted in this action: "All persons throughout the United States (1) to whom Summa Media, LLC, Farha Roofing, LLC, or Farha Roofing KC, LLC delivered, or caused to be delivered, more than one text message within a 12-month period, promoting Farha Roofing, LLC's or Farha Roofing KC, LLC's or their business partners' goods or services, (2) from Sept. 13, 2019 to Oct. 16, 2024, and (3) whose residential telephone number is included in the Settlement Class Data. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court preliminarily appoints Brianna Ford as the class representative and Alex D. Kruzyk and Bryan A. Giribaldo of Pardell, Kruzyk & Giribaldo, PLLC as Class Counsel. The Court will conduct a hearing on July 15, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, Farha's motion to strike class allegations is denied; Farha's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is denied; Summa's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is denied; Brianna Ford's motion for leave to file excess pages is granted and Brianna Ford's motion to certify class and for preliminary approval of class settlement is granted. Farha provides residential roofing repair and replacement. A copy of the Court's order dated March 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ljGtRD at no extra charge.[CC] FIRST FEDERAL: Seeks Denial of Summey Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAWN DEMAS SUMMEY, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. FIRST FEDERAL BANK, Case No. 6:24-cv-01862-PGB-RMN (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order denying class certification. FFB states as follows: There is no amount of evidence that will enable the Plaintiff to ever meet her burden of establishing the requisite elements to certify a class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Discovery will not change the result, and so this Court should enter an order denying certification of the Plaintiff's proposed classes at this point. FFB incorporates by reference the contemporaneously filed Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion to Deny Class Certification. The Plaintiff alleges that FFB's calls to her phone number violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), and the Florida Telephone Solicitations Act ("FTSA"). The Plaintiff seeks to represent a TCPA "Do-Not-Call" class, a TCPA pre-recorded message class, and an FTSA class. All three classes proposed by Plaintiff would consist of "Individuals who had navigated to the LendingTree website, entered their contact information and loan request and then consented to be contacted to discuss a potential loan." FFB is a bank that, among other services, provides mortgage products. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sPCIza at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: The Defendant is represented by: Alexis Buese, Esq. Stephen C. Parsley, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP 1001 Water Street, Suite 1000 Tampa, FL 33602-5809 Telephone: (813) 559-5500 E-mail: abuese@bradley.com jcannon@bradley.com sparsley@bradley.com FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS: Court Excludes Woolfson's Declaration ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Leon Mosier, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Firstsource Solutions USA LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-01343-JJH (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey Helmick entered an order granting Firstsource's motion to exclude the Plaintiff's expert witness Aaron Woolfson's first supplemental declaration as to the discussion of the LiveVox records and to exclude his second supplemental declaration as untimely. The Court also deny the motion as the sections of the first supplemental declaration that discuss the updated call and consent records. I further deny Mosier's motion for class certification. Firstsource operates as a real estate services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iC5HzI at no extra charge.[CC] FLORIDA: Court Dismisses Americas' Class Suit --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALIANZA AMERICAS, YANET DOE, PABLO DOE, and JESUS DOE on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. RONALD D. DESANTIS, Governor of Florida, in his personal capacity; LAWRENCE A. KEEFE, Florida Public Safety Czar, in his personal capacity; JAMES UTHMEIER, Chief of Staff to Florida Governor, in his personal capacity; JAMES MONTGOMERIE; PERLA HUERTA; and VERTOL SYSTEMS COMPANY, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-11550-ADB (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Allison Burroughs entered an order granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court retains jurisdiction over Vertol. The Plaintiffs' motion for jurisdictional discovery is denied. The Defendants' motion to transfer is denied as moot. Because Plaintiffs fail to establish that Vertol's conduct can be imputed to any of the Individual State Defendants, and because their contacts are insufficient to establish jurisdiction under the Massachusetts long-arm statute, their motion to dismiss is granted. The Plaintiffs allege that, between Sept. 14, 2022—the day of the flights—and Sept. 19, 2022, Fenske engaged in media outreach regarding the Flights, some of which the Plaintiffs allege was specifically directed at Massachusetts media outlets. Alianza is a non-profit corporation that provides "programming and resources to immigrant communities, immigrant-serving organizations, state and local officials, and the public concerning issues of immigration, human rights, and democratic participation." A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated March 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rwLtYP at no extra charge.[CC] FORD MOTOR: Bid to Compel Arbitration Granted in McCabe Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL MCCABE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-10829-FDS (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV entered an order that: 1. The Defendant's motion to compel arbitration is granted as to the claims of the plaintiffs Peter Adduci, Richard Bunger, Cruz Garza, James Grier, Julie and Todd Haworth, Richard Metz, Steve Ropieski, Matthew Skole, Bridgett Thompson, Brian and Kelly Wolfe, Jeffrey Wright, Justin and Erin Barlup, and Pablo Martinez. Those plaintiffs' claims are stayed pending further arbitration proceedings. 2. The Defendant's motion to compel arbitration is granted as to the claims of plaintiffs Daniel Wright and Daniel McCabe for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent misrepresentation, and violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A. Those claims are stayed pending further arbitration proceedings. 3. The Defendant's motion to compel arbitration is denied without prejudice as to the claims of plaintiff Shannon Hartman. Those claims are severed from the present action and transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California for resolution of the arbitration issue. The Plaintiffs have brought suit against defendant Ford Motor Company. They represent putative classes of purchasers and lessees of Ford vehicles equipped with a 10R80 10-speed automatic transmission. According to the consolidated complaint, the transmission "can shift harshly and erratically, causing the vehicle to jerk, lunge, clunk, and hesitate between gears." Ford is an American multinational automobile manufacturer. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated March 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3q3Cj3 at no extra charge.[CC] FORD MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in McCabe Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL MCCABE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-10829-FDS (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Ford's motion to dismiss the amended consolidated class action complaint As set forth in the Memorandum and Order on the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration, filed March 28, 2025, the claims of certain identified plaintiffs are being stayed pending arbitration, and the claim of plaintiff Shannon Hartman is being severed from the present action and transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California for resolution of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. As to the claims of those Plaintiffs, the motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice to its renewal should those claims be litigated, rather than arbitrated, at a future time. The motion to dismiss is granted as to the claims of all plaintiffs, other than the Arbitration Plaintiffs and the Severed and Transferred Plaintiff, asserted in Count 1 (Breach of Express Warranty). The motion to dismiss is granted as to the claims of all plaintiffs, other than the Arbitration Plaintiffs, the Severed and Transferred Plaintiff, and Massachusetts plaintiff Jeffrey Pollack, asserted in Count 5 (Fraud), to the extent the claims are based on an alleged affirmative misrepresentation. Ford Motor is an American multinational automobile manufacturer. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated March 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j9g3uS at no extra charge.[CC] FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Court Extends Time to File Additional Exhibits ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Smith-Journigan et al v. Franklin County, Ohio, Case No. 2:18-cv-00328 (S.D. Ohio, Filed April 11, 2018), the Hon. Judge Michael H. Watson entered an order granting motion for extension of time to file additional exhibits to the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC] GARDA CL SOUTHEAST: Class Settlement in Cravens Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDRE CRAVENS, RYAN GAWRONSKI, DIANNA J. VIVEROS, GWENDOLYN KENNEDY, JEREMY ANGELLE and JOSEPH TYLER HALEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GARDA CL SOUTHEAST, INC., GARDA, CL GREAT LAKES, INC., GARDA CL CENTRAL, INC., GARDA CL SOUTHWEST, INC., AND GARDAWORLD CASH SERVICES, INC. D/B/A GARDAWORLD CASH U.S., Case No. 9:24-cv-80400-BER (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Bruce Reinhart entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. 1. The Court provisionally certifies the following Settlement Class for settlement purposes only, finding it is likely to final certify it at the final approval stage: "All living individuals residing in the United States who the Defendant sent or attempted to send a notice that their Private Information may have been impacted in the Data Incident." The Settlement Class specifically excludes: (a) all persons who are directors or officers of Defendants; (b) governmental entities; and (c) the Judge assigned to the Action, that Judge's immediate family, and Court staff; and (d) any individual who timely and validly opts-out of the Settlement. 2. The Plaintiffs Andre Cravens, Ryan Gawronski, Dianna J. Viveros, Gwendolyn Kennedy, and Jeremy Angelle are designated and appointed as the Class Representatives. 3. John A. Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan and Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A. are designated as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). 4. A Final Approval Hearing shall take place before the Court on Sept. 10, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. Garda provides detective, guard, and armored car services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9CcoPO at no extra charge.[CC] GENERAL MOTORS: Court Narrows Claims in Miller SAC -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jason Miller et al., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. General Motors, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-12739-JJCG-KGA (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan J.C. Grey entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's second amended complaint. Additionally, General Motors' motion to dismiss additional specific claims is denied as moot because plaintiffs have voluntary dismissed the following claims: all claims based on Indiana and Ohio law, including General Counts II, III, and VI as to Indiana and Ohio, Indiana Counts I, II, and III and Ohio Counts I and II; Illinois Count II; Maryland Count IV; and Michigan Count III. Because Colley's section 349 claim based on GM's conduct before or around the time of sale is time-barred and Colley lacks an alternative section 349 claim, the Court DISMISSES the NY GBL section 349 claim. Because Broennan fails to specify an allegedly deceptive advertisement or communication that she received from GM, the Court DISMISSES the ICFA claim. The Plaintiff Jason Miller and 19 other named plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, filed a complaint against the Defendant for allegedly selling and failing to repair a defective vehicle: the second-generation Chevrolet Volt, Model Years 2016–2019. General Motors is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iIzvtM at no extra charge.[CC] GENERAL MOTORS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due July 24 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GINN MOTOR COMPANY, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-03773-TRJ (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Tiffany Johnson entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for clarification of schedule. The Plaintiff seeks clarification on the deadlines to file a motion for class certification and any motion for summary judgment. The remaining schedule will be as follows: -- If the parties are unable to reach a settlement by April 30, 2025, the parties shall have until May 30, 2025, to complete discovery. -- A motion for class certification shall be due on or before July 24, 2025. Responses shall be due within 30 days of service of any motion for class certification, and replies shall be due within 30 days of service of any responses. -- Summary judgment motions shall be due on or before July 24, 2025. Responses shall be due within 30 days of service of any motion for summary judgment, and replies shall be due within 30 days of service of any responses. -- The proposed consolidated pretrial order shall be due within 30 days of the Court's ruling on the motion for class certification and any motion for summary judgment. General Motors is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mYv3ls at no extra charge.[CC] GRAND AMERICA: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANN DESCANZO, et al., v. GRAND AMERICA HOTELS & RESORTS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00443-HCN-DBP (D. Utah), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file an overlength opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs moved to certify a class on February 24, 2025. The Plaintiffs carry the burden of showing all four requirements under Rule 23(a) (numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy) as well as two requirements under Rule 23(c) (predominance and superiority). The Defendants challenge whether Plaintiffs have made the requisite showing on any of these six requirements. In addition, Plaintiffs are asserting three separate claims under three separate federal statutes. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EuWu5w at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: P. Alex McBean, Esq. ALEX MCBEAN LAW OFFICE PLLC P.O. Box 1726 505 South Main Street Bountiful, Utah 84010 E-mail: alex@alexmcbeanlaw.com - and - Alexander N. Hood, Esq. TOWARDS JUSTICE 1410 High Street, Suite 300 Denver, Colorado 80218 alex@towardsjustice.org - and - Elizabeth A. Adams, Esq. Beth E. Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 E-mail: eadams@terrellmarshall.com bterrell@terrellmarshall.com The Defendants are represented by: Matthew R. Lewis, Esq. Stephen Richards, Esq. KUNZLER BEAN & ADAMSON, PC 50 W. Broadway, 10th Floor Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Telephone: (801) 994-4646 E-mail: mlewis@kba.law srichards@kba.law - and - Brett L. Tolman, Esq. TOLMAN GROUP Salt Lake City, Utah Office@TolmanGroup.com Telephone: (801) 639-9840 GREEN DOT: Trial in Koffsmon Class Suit Set for February 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------- Green Dot Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2025, that the trial for Koffsmon class suit is scheduled to start in February 2027. On December 18, 2019, an alleged class action entitled Koffsmon v. Green Dot Corp., et al., No. 19-cv-10701-DDP-E, was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, against the Company and two of its former officers. The suit asserts purported claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act for allegedly misleading statements regarding its business strategy. Plaintiff alleges that defendants made statements that were misleading because they allegedly failed to disclose details regarding its customer acquisition strategy and its impact on its financial performance. The suit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of its securities between May 9, 2018 and November 7, 2019, and seeks compensatory damages, fees and costs. On October 6, 2021, the Court appointed the New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund as lead plaintiff, and on April 1, 2022, plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on May 31, 2022, and the motion was denied on March 29, 2024. The trial on these claims is currently scheduled to begin in February 2027. Green Dot Corporation and its consolidated subsidiaries is a financial technology and registered bank holding company providing a broad set of financial services to consumers and businesses including debit, checking, credit, prepaid, and payroll cards, as well as robust money processing services, such as tax refunds, cash deposits and disbursements. HUMANA INC: Elliot's Bid to Exclude Daley's Testimony Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Elliot v. Humana, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-00329-RGJ-CHL (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings entered an order denying Elliot's motion to Exclude Daley's testimony. Accordingly, Daley's opinion is reliable. Because the Court finds Daley to be sufficiently qualified, and her opinions reliable and relevant, Elliot's motion to exclude Daley's testimony is denied. Elliot sued Humana for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges Humana telephoned Elliot numerous times despite not being a Humana customer and after being informed that Humana had the wrong number. Elliot seeks to certify his claims as a class action, alleging other individuals have similarly received repetitive robocalls from Humana over a four-year period., Humana is an American for-profit health insurance company. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated March 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qaXsfy at no extra charge.[CC] INTEL CORP: Corrected Scheduling Order Entered in Berkeley ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGG BERKELEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. INTEL CORPORATION and the ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE INTEL MINIMUM PENSION PLAN, Case No. 5:23-cv-00343-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward Davila entered a corrected scheduling order: -- The current deadline for Filing Reply to Class Certification was April 7, 2025, rather than April 15, 2025. -- The Court granted the parties' January 9, 2025 stipulation. Intel is an American multinational corporation and technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G2JlaP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michelle C. Yau, Esq. Daniel R. Sutter, Esq. Caroline E. Bressman, Esq. Allison C. Pienta, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW, Eighth Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: myau@cohenmilstein.com dsutter@cohenmilstein.com cbressman@cohenmilstein.com apienta@cohenmilstein.com - and - Shaun P. Martin, Esq. 5998 ALCALA PARK, WARREN HALL San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 260-2347 Facsimile: (619) 260-7933 E-mail: smartin@sandiego.edu The Defendants are represented by: Myron D. Rumeld, Esq. Kelly Marie Curtis, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP Eleven Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 969-3000 Facsimile: (212) 969-2900 E-mail: mrumeld@proskauer.com kcurtis@proskauer.com - and - David S. Kurtzer-Ellenbogen, Esq. Daniel A. Martinez, Esq. Alexander C. Gaudio, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 680 Maine Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20024 Telephone: (202) 434-5000 Facsimile: (202) 434-5029 E-mail: dkurtzer@wc.com gmartinez@wc.com agaudio@wc.com INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Faces Securities Suit in Israel Court ------------------------------------------------------------ International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. (IFF) disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2025, that it is facing a securities class action filed in the Tel Aviv District Court, Israel, alleging, among other things, false and misleading statements largely in connection with IFF's acquisition of Frutarom Industries Ltd. and improper payments made by Frutarom businesses operating principally in Russia and Ukraine to representatives of customers. A motion to approve was filed in August 2019. The motion, following an initial amendment, asserted claims under the Israeli Securities Act-1968 against IFF, its former Chairman and CEO, and its former CFO, and against Frutarom and certain former Frutarom officers and directors, as well as claims under the Israeli Companies Act-1999 against certain former Frutarom officers and directors. On July 14, 2022, the court approved the parties' motion to mediate the dispute, which postponed all case deadlines until after the mediation. The parties held mediation meetings in September 2022, November 2022, March 2023, November 2023, March 2024 and April 2024. In November 2024, the court granted extensions for the filing of the responses to the motion and for the evidentiary hearings, for the parties to exhaust the mediation proceeding. International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. and its subsidiaries is a creator and manufacturer of food, beverage, health & biosciences, scent and pharma solutions and complementary adjacent products, including cosmetic active and natural health ingredients. JOBBLE INC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Taylor Due July 18 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Taylor v. Jobble, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-10018 (D. Mass., Filed Jan. 3, 2025), the Hon. Judge Richard G. Stearns entered an order setting the following pretrial schedule after having denied Jobble's motion to dismiss (an Answer is due by April 14): -- Initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) will be completed by April 30, 2025. -- If there is disagreement as to the delineation of the plaintiff class, class discovery will be completed by Jun 27, 2025. -- Class certification motions will be filed by July 18, 2025, with any opposition by Aug. 1, 2025. -- If there is no disagreement as to delineation of the class (the class parameters appear clear), all fact discovery will be completed by Oct. 10, 2025. -- If class discovery and certification is necessary, all fact discovery will be completed by Dec. 5, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Jobble offers a platform for finding part-time, full-time, temporary, and remote job positions in multiple industries.[CC] KALEIDA HEALTH: Must File Class Cert Response by May 15 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cleary, et al., v. Kaleida Health, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00026 (W.D.N.Y., Filed Jan. 7, 2022), the Hon. Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy entered an order granting motion for extension of time to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. -- The Defendants' response to the motion for class certification shall be filed on or before May 15, 2025. -- The Plaintiffs' reply, if any, shall be filed on or before June 16, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (E.R.I.S.A.). Kaleida Health, founded in 1998, is a not-for-profit healthcare network that manages five hospitals in the Buffalo–Niagara Falls metropolitan area.[CC] KANE & MYERS: Scheduling Order in Peredia Class Suit Entered ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE PEREDIA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. KANE & MYERS, PLLC, d/b/a and a/k/a THE702FIRM; MICHAEL KANE, an individual; BRADLEY MYERS, an individual; JOEL HENGSTLER, an individual; TAMARA HARLESS, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-02132-APG-MDC (D. Nev.), the Court entered a stipulated discovery plan and scheduling order as follows: special scheduling review requested Pursuant to LR 26-1(b)(1), the parties agree to complete discovery within one hundred eighty (180) days from the Court's order on the parties' renewed briefing -- or no later than Dec. 19, 2025. The Plaintiff shall file her motion for class certification and/or conditional certification of the collective action on or before: June 18, 2025 or three (3) weeks after the Court's order on the parties' renewed briefing—whichever is earlier. The parties shall have until Sept. 14, 2025, to file any motions to amend pleadings or to add parties. The parties shall disclose their initial expert witnesses to each other by Oct. 20, 2025, which 60 days before the discovery cut-off date. Rebuttal expert witnesses shall be disclosed no later than Nov. 19, 2025 which is thirty (30) days after the initial date for disclosure of experts. The parties shall have until Jan. 19, 2026, to file dispositive motions, which is thirty (30) days after the discovery cut-off date. In the event no dispositive motions are filed, the parties shall submit a proposed pre-trial order on or before Feb. 18, 2026. THE702FIRM is a group of litigators in Southern Nevada specializing in the kinds of personal injury cases. A copy of the Court's order dated March 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Xxp5eB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Kuller, Esq. Robert Montes, Jr., Esq. RAFII & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1120 N. Town Center Dr., Suite 130 Las Vegas, NV 89144 Telephone: (725) 245-6056 Facsimile: (725) 220-1802 E-mail: jason@rafiilaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Sheri M. Thome, Esq. Holly Walker, Esq. WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN, & DICKER LLP 6689 Las Vegas Blvd. S., Ste. 200 Las Vegas, NV 89119 KOHLS INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Eugenia Due Jan. 15, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA EUGENIA VANDERZEE, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KOHLS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01373-FMO-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Olguin entered scheduling and case management order as follows: Any stipulation or motion to amend as to any claims, defenses and/or parties shall be lodged/filed no later than June 30, 2025, failing which it shall be deemed that party's waiver of any such amendments in this action. All "Doe" defendants are to be identified and named on or before June 30, 2025, on which date all remaining "Doe" defendants will be dismissed, unless otherwise ordered by the court upon a showing of good cause. All fact discovery shall be completed no later than September 30, 2025. The court does not bifurcate discovery. All expert discovery shall be completed by December 15, 2025. The parties must serve their Initial Expert Witness Disclosures no later than October 14, 2025. Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosures shall be served no later than Nov. 14, 2025. The parties shall complete their settlement conference before a private mediator no later than Sept. 30, 2025. Any motion for class certification shall be filed no later than Jan. 15, 2026 ,sand noticed for hearing regularly under the Local Rules. Kohl's, Inc. operates as a specialty online retailer. A copy of the Court's order dated March 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZAlRM9 at no extra charge.[CC] LABORATORY CORP: Wins Bid to Exclude Otto Testimony --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAMIAN MCDONALD, on behalf of the Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings Employees' Retirement Plan, and all others similarly situated, v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, Case No. 1:22-cv-00680-LCB-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Loretta Biggs entered an order granting LabCorp's motion to exclude expert Al Otto, specifically as to the contested opinions. The Cort further entered an order that: -- LabCorp's motion to exclude expert Ty Minnich is denied. -- LabCorp's motion for summary judgment is denied. Accordingly, the Court finds, that Otto's opinion related to what is a reasonable recordkeeping fee, is not supported by any scientific methodology, nor supported by appropriate validation, and therefore is not reliable. This opinion will be excluded. Therefore, this Court finds that Otto’s opinion regarding the amount of float compensation Fidelity received does not meet the requirements under Rule 702, as it is unreliable. This opinion will therefore be excluded. Thus, the Court concludes that LabCorp's Motion to Exclude Expert Al Otto, specifically his contested opinions, is granted and Otto’s opinions regarding reasonable record keeping fees and float compensation received by Fidelity are excluded and will not be considered in determining summary judgment. The Plaintiff alleges that LabCorp breached its fiduciary duty of prudence by: (1) selecting imprudent investments for the Plan; and (2) failing to prudently manage and control the compensation the recordkeeper received from the Plan. On Aug. 18, 2022, the Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint. The Plaintiff then filed his First Amended Complaint on Nov. 14, 2022. LabCorp provides laboratory services used for diagnosis and healthcare decisions. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated March 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qaBSLR at no extra charge.[CC] LAKEVIEW LOAN: Morrill Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Morrill v. Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC, (re LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING DATA BREACH LITIGATION), Case No. 1:22-cv-20955-DPG (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying class and subclasses under Rule 23(b)(3) or, alternatively, Rule 23(c)(4), and under Rule 23(b)(2) for injunctive and declaratory relief. The Plaintiffs further request that the Court appoint Plaintiffs as Class representatives and appoint Proposed Class Counsel as Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs are 16 individuals who—along with over five million other American consumers—had their highly sensitive personally-identifiable information, including Social Security numbers, stolen in a months' long data breach (October-December 2021) of the Defendants' shared computer network. Lakeview Loan operates as a mortgage finance company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eTZqrI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julie Braman Kane, Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON 255 Alhambra Circle – Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 476-7400 Facsimile: (305) 476-7444 E-mail: julie@colson.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ryan McGee, Esq. Ron Podolny, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com rmcgee@ForThePeople.com rpodolny@ForThePeople.com - and - Adam E. Polk, Esq. Simon Grille, Esq. Mikaela Bock, Esq. Kristen Palumbo, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California St, Ste 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com jelias@girardsharp.com sgrille@girardsharp.com kmacey@girardsharp.com - and - Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Dorothy P. Antullis, Esq. Nicolle B. Brito, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 (fax) E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com dantullis@rgrdlaw.com nbrito@rgrdlaw.com - and - M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL CORP. 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 777-7777 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com gharoutunian@justice4you.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com dlietz@milberg.com - and - Ryan D. Maxey, Esq. MAXEY LAW FIRM, P.A. 107 North 11th Street, Suite 402 Tampa, FL 33602 E-mail: ryan@maxeyfirm.com - and - Terry R. Coates, Esq. Dylan J. Gould, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 E. Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com dgould@msdlegal.com - and - Lori G. Feldman, Esq. GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC 102 Half Moon Bay Drive Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520 Telephone: (917) 983-9321 Facsimile: (888) 421-4173 E-mail: LFeldman@4-Justice.com - and - Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM, LLC 2754 Erie Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com LASALLE APARTMENTS: Damare Seeks OK of Renewed Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESLIE DAMARE, CYNTHIA SCOTT DAY, BRADY DVORAK, NOAH CARTER, CARLOS MATUS, SABRINA HARRIS, CHRISTIAN HEALY, ELENA WARD, ROBERT RADUCHEL, THOMAS BUTLER, ROSE BRIENZA, MELISSA SHAPCOTT, SETH KOREN, EVAN REINER, KAYLA BALENTINE, JORDAN BOILEAU, GIZELLE MENENDEZ, & MATAKALA KALUWE, JAQUELYN SLOAN, v. THE LASALLE APARTMENTS, & MICHAELS MANAGEMENT AFFORDABLE, LLC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00554-PPS-AZ (N.D. Ind.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their renewed motion for class certification. The action is brought by the Plaintiff on her own behalf and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs consist of nineteen residents who have been stripped of their right to park that was contractually agreed upon within their lease agreements. The classes and subclasses are defined as follows: a. All residents who live at the same address of Plaintiff and the Defendants who had their contractually agreed upon parking rights unlawfully stripped and taken away from them after said rights were legally promised pursuant to a legally enforceable agreement. On July 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their initial Class Action Complaint. On Feb. 27, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to file the present motion to certify this lawsuit as a class action. Lasalle Apartments is a residential community featuring one and two bedroom apartments in South Bend, IN. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JhwasI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott Granfeldt, Esq. Scott Seville, Esq. ROBBINS AND SEVILLE, LLC 714 N. Main St. Crown Point, IN 46307 Telephone: (219) 333-2375 Facsimile: (219) 333-2375 E-mail: scott.granfeldt@roseattorneys.com scott.seville@roseattorneys.com LATOYA HUGHES: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment v. Davis ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as HENRY DAVIS, et al., v. LATOYA HUGHES, Case No. 3:16-cv-00600-MAB (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Mark Beatty entered an order denying the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the case will proceed to trial on the Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment claim (Count 1) and on Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment claim (Count 2). A status conference will be set by separate notice to discuss, what the Court imagines, will be a multitude of issues necessary for preparing this case for trial. Further instructions and potential topics that the Court will want to discuss at this upcoming status conference will be forthcoming. The Court finds that it cannot and/or need not rule on some of the Defendant's objections because either Plaintiffs did not have a chance to respond as the objections were raised in Defendant's reply brief or the Court did not rely on the contested portions of the evidence in ruling on the motion for summary judgment. As for the Plaintiffs' remaining objections, the Court need not rule on them because even if Defendant's contested evidence was admitted, it would not affect the summary judgment outcome. In other words, even if every ruling went in Defendant's favor and all of her objected-to exhibits were admitted, it still would not change that Defendant has failed to show she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The suit for declaratory and injunctive relief was filed by six inmates in the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) challenging the IDOC's use of restrictive housing, which they claim is tantamount to "extreme isolation" and violates the Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment's proscription against deprivation of liberty without due process of law. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated March 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HiNrnw at no extra charge.[CC] LATOYA HUGHES: Sanctioned for Violating Protective Order -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HENRY DAVIS, et al., v. LATOYA HUGHES, Case No. 3:16-cv-00600-MAB (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Mark Beatty entered an order granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions. The Plaintiffs are awarded their expenses and fees incurred in bringing the motion. The Plaintiffs shall have 14 days to file a declaration and itemized statement of the expenses and fees they incurred in bringing their motion for sanctions. The Defendant shall then have 14 days to contest the amount requested by Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Defendant's violation of the protective order merits sanctions but opts not strike the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and instead resolve the motion on the merits and provide finality on the issues presented therein. The Plaintiffs will, however, be awarded their attorney's fees and expenses incurred in bringing the instant motion. The parties submitted an Agreed Confidential Order (also referred to herein as the protective order), which was entered by the Court with some slight modifications on Dec. 5, 2016. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated March 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x8YOgE at no extra charge.[CC] LCA-VISION: Court Dismisses Crabill Suit with Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAREN CRABILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LCA-VISION, a corporation, also d/b/a LASIKPLUS, also d/b/a JOFFE MEDICENTER, Case No. 1:23-cv-00280-TSB (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Timothy S. Black entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing. The case is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall docket a final Judgment accordingly. The Plaintiff alleges no causal connection between Defendant's advertisements (even initially misleading as they may have been) and her subsequent, deliberate, and thought-out decision to pay the higher cost of LASIK surgery. In other words, the Plaintiff economic loss is not "fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant[.]" Accordingly, the Plaintiff lacks standing to bring her claims, and thus the Court lack subject-matter jurisdiction to consider them. And given this lack of jurisdiction, the Court declines to consider the further arguments relating to failure to state a claim and striking class allegations. On May 12, 2023, the Plaintiff brought this civil class action against the Defendant, alleging violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA"), unjust enrichment, fraud, fraudulent omission, and breach of express warranty. The Defendant is an Ohio corporation that operates vision/surgery centers in numerous states under the names LasikPlus or Joffe MediCenter. A copy of the Court's order dated March 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CLbZwd at no extra charge.[CC] LEIDOS INC: Miller Bid for Conditional Status Partly OK'd --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDUJAR MILLER, et al. V. LEIDOS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00931-PTG-LRV (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles will grant the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file additional supplement. The Court will also grant in part and deny in part the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification, as the Plaintiffs evidence does not support as broad a class as the Plaintiffs seek to certify. The Court will deny, without prejudice, the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude declaration of Cathy Zagar. The Court rejects the Plaintiffs proposed class definition and will conditionally certify the following class: "Employees who (1) worked on the DHMSM contract; (2) were staffed from the following subcontracting companies: ALKU/Holland Square, ECCO Select, BlueRidge, NetVision, or Bridgemore; (3) held one of the following job titles: "Deployment Trainer," "Health Informatics Trainer," "EMR Trainer," "Lead Training Coordinator," "Medical Health System Genesis Trainer," "Training Specialist II," "Training Specialist," "Ambulatory SME," "Clinical Informaticist," or "Tier 3 Support Analyst"; and (4) were not paid overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week." The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant Leidos refused to pay the Plaintiffs and other employees overtime wages for time worked in excess of 40 hours per week, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). On Sept. 19, 2024, the Court heard oral argument on the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification. Leidos provides information technology services. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated March 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iVOekA at no extra charge.[CC] LEPRINO FOODS: Class Cert Deadlines & Hearings in Domiguez Vacated ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dominguez v. Leprino Foods Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-01018 (E.D. Cal., Filed Aug. 12, 2022), the Hon. Judge Kirk E. Sherriff entered an order vacating all deadlines and hearings currently pending before the Court. However, the court will not terminate the pending motion for class certification until Plaintiff expressly notifies the court that it is withdrawing that motion. The Court thus orders Plaintiff to file a notice to withdraw the pending motion for class certification no later than April 4, 2025, if it intends to do so. Additionally, the Court orders the parties to file a motion for preliminary approval of settlement by no later than April 24, 2025. If the parties require additional time, they may move the court for an extension of time based on good cause. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation. Leprino Foods is an American company with headquarters in Denver, Colorado that produces cheese, lactose, whey protein and sweet whey.[CC] LGBCOIN LTD: Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC DE FORD, SANDRA BADER and SHAWN R. KEY, v. JAMES KOUTOULAS and LGBCOIN, LTD, Case No. 6:22-cv-00652-PGB-DC (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Paul Byron entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, appointment of class representatives, and appointment of class counsel is granted in part and denied in part. 2. The Court certifies a Rule 23(b)(3) Class with respect to the Plaintiffs' section 12(a)(1) claims only. The Class consists of the following: "All persons who, between Nov. 2, 2021, and March 15, 2022, purchased LGBCoin." 3. The Plaintiffs Eric De Ford, Sandra Bader, and Shawn R. Key are certified as Representatives of the Class. 4. Counsel from Zigler Law Group and Scott + Scott are certified as Class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). 5. On or before April 11, 2025, the parties shall jointly file for approval by the Court a putative notice to Class members. Alternatively, if the parties cannot agree on a putative notice, the Plaintiffs shall file a putative notice on or before April 11, 2025, and the Defendant Koutoulas shall file any objections within three (3) days of the filing of the Plaintiffs' putative notice. In sum, the Plaintiffs establish the propriety of class certification as to their Section 12(a)(1) claims under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3). However, as to their unjust enrichment claims, the Plaintiffs fail to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement, and thus, class certification is improper as to these claims. The Court therefore finds that partial certification under Rule 23(c)(4) is warranted here. This putative class action was initiated on April 1, 2022, and arises from the creation, marketing, and sale of LGBCoin, a cryptocurrency. A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MIxEe9 at no extra charge.[CC] LHNH LAVISTA: Class Cert Bid Filing in Lanz Revised to April 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDER LANZ, et al., v. LHNH LAVISTA LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-05344-LMM (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Leigh Martin May entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to modify class certification briefing schedule. The class certification briefing schedule is revised as follows: -- The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due on April 30, 2025. -- The Defendants' response to said motion is due within 30 days of the filing of the class certification motion. -- The Plaintiffs' reply to the Defendants' response is due within 30 days of the filing of said response. The Defendant is A copy of the Court's order dated March 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SVtYFS at no extra charge.[CC] LINCOLN UNIVERSITY: Dixon Seeks Prelim. Approval of Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENITA DIXON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. LINCOLN UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:24-cv-01057-KSM (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23: (1) Preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement on behalf of the Settlement Class Members according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement; (2) Provisionally certifying, for purposes of the Settlement only, the following Settlement Class: "All Lincoln University students enrolled in the Spring 2020 Semester for at least one in-person class who did not withdraw by March 12, 2020 for whom any amount of tuition or fees was paid to Lincoln from any source other than a scholarship, grant, or tuition remission from Lincoln, and whose tuition and/or fees have not been fully refunded." Excluded from the Potential Settlement Class are (i) any students who received full scholarships or tuition remission from Lincoln; (ii) Lincoln and its officers, trustees and their family members; and (iii) all persons who properly execute and file a timely opt-out request to be excluded from the Settlement Class. (3) Preliminarily appointing Named Plaintiff Benita Dixon as Settlement Class Representative; (4) Preliminarily appointing Nicholas A. Colella of Lynch Carpenter, LLP, and Anthony M. Alesandro of Leeds Brown Law, P.C. as Class Counsel to act on behalf of the Settlement Class and the Settlement Class Representative with respect to the Settlement; (5) Approving the Parties' proposed settlement procedure, including approving the Parties' selection of RG/2 Claims Administration LLC as Settlement Administrator and approving the Parties' proposed schedule; (6) Entering the proposed Order Preliminarily Approving the Proposed Settlement and Provisionally Certifying the Proposed Settlement Class, attached as Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement, which is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Nicholas A. Colella; and (7) Granting such other and further relief as may be just and appropriate. Lincoln is a public state-related historically black university (HBCU) near Oxford, Pennsylvania. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VEH3xR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: NickC@lcllp.com - and - Anthony M. Alesandro, Esq.* LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com MARIO'S AIR: Has Until April 21 File Class Cert Bid Response ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Germain v. Mario's Air Conditioning and Heating, Inc., Case No. 8:23-cv-00671 (M.D. Fla., Filed March 27, 2023), the Hon. Judge Thomas P. Barber entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' partially unopposed joint motion for enlargement of time to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. -- Defendants' motion is granted to the extent that Defendants shall have until April 21, 2025, to respond to Plaintiff's motion for class certification. -- Defendants' motion is denied in all other respects. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Defendant offers furnace repair & air conditioner repair.[CC] MARYLAND: Discovery Re-Opened for 30 Days ----------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMIEN PALMER, et al., v. STATE OF MARYLAND, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00899-CDA (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Charles Austin entered an order that discovery re-open for 30 days for the sole purpose of allowing the Plaintiffs to re-open the deposition of Dr. Huber and inquire regarding the recently produced graphics relevant to the parties' dispute and any related information disclosed in response to the Plaintiffs' questions on this limited universe of materials. If they are unable to depose Dr. Huber within the thirty-day window, the Plaintiffs shall file a motion with the Court requesting an extension, the Court says. Re-opening Dr. Huber's deposition is consistent with the advisory committee's notes to Rule 30. F Discovery ended two weeks ago, and to the Court's knowledge, there is no outstanding discovery left other than this deposition. A trial date has not been set. The current Scheduling Order contemplates additional discovery after the resolution of a motion on class certification. Providing a thirty-day window to complete the re-opened deposition ensures there is no hindrance to the natural progression of the case as scheduled. Maryland is a Mid-Atlantic state that's defined by its abundant waterways and coastlines on the Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated March 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3PVhMl at no extra charge.[CC] MCA MERRILLVILLE: Seeks Stay of Napoleon Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTEN NAPOLEON on Behalf of ) Class & Collective Action Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. MCA MERRILLVILLE DELI, INC. and MCA VALPARAISO DELI, INC., MCA SCHERERVILLE DELI, INC., MCA BLOOMINGDALE, INC., MCA ELIGIN, INC, MCA ALGONQUIN, INC., MCA SCHAUMBURG, INC., KEYSTONE MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. and JAY PUNUKOLLU, Case No. 2:24-cv-00093-PPS-APR (N.D. Ind.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting motion staying proceedings, including briefing on Napoleon's Certification Motion pending the determination of the Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Default. Alternatively, if the Court is not inclined to stay the case, the Defendants request the Court enter an order extending the time for the Defendants to file its opposition to Napoleon's Motion for Class Certification by 30 days, up to and including, May 7, 2025. Given the relief sought, the Defendants cannot reasonably be expected to fully brief an opposition to Napoleon's certification motion until it knows how this Court intends to rule on this motion or until there is clarity regarding which the Defendants are involved in this lawsuit and the issues still at stake. The Defendants' request is not made for any improper purpose or to unnecessarily delay this case and Napoleon will not be prejudiced by Defendants’ request. As mentioned above, there is no discovery plan in place; thus, no current deadlines are affected should the Court grant the additional extension. In Napoleon's Certification Motion, she seeks to certify the following class: "All present and former hourly employees of the MCA Merrillville Deli, Inc., MCA Schererville Deli, Inc. and MCA Valparaiso Deli, Inc. who worked over 40 hours in a workweek between Oct. 28, 2019 and Oct. 27, 2024 and were not paid overtime premium wages." A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9Tvwpj at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Neil H. Dishman, Esq. Andrew D. Welker, Esq. Tina Dukandar, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 150 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 787-4949 Facsimile: (312) 787-4995 E-mail: Neil.Dishman@jacksonlewis.com Andrew.welker@jacksonlewis.com tina.dukandar@jacksonlewis.com MDL 3111: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class and Subclasses --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re: Capital One 360 Savings Account Interest Rate Litigation, Case No. 1:24-md-03111-DJN-WBP (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following Class: "All persons who are or were Capital One 360 Savings accountholders at any time since Capital One launched 360 Performance Savings (i.e., Sept. 18, 2019) (the "Class"). The Plaintiffs further request that Court certify the following Subclasses: Pennsylvania Subclass "All persons in Pennsylvania who are or were Capital One 360 Savings accountholders at any time since Capital One launched 360 Performance Savings (i.e., Sept. 18, 2019)." Florida Subclass "All persons in Florida who are or were Capital One 360 Savings accountholders at any time since Capital One launched 360 Performance Savings (i.e., Sept. 18, 2019)." Oregon Subclass "All persons in Oregon who are or were Capital One 360 Savings accountholders at any time since Capital One launched 360 Performance Savings (i.e., Sept. 18, 2019)." New York Subclass "All persons in New York who are or were Capital One 360 Savings accountholders at any time since Capital One launched 360 Performance Savings (i.e., September 18, 2019)" New Jersey Subclass "All persons in New Jersey who are or were Capital One 360 Savings accountholders at any time since Capital One launched 360 Performance Savings (i.e., September 18, 2019)." Massachusetts Subclass "All persons in Massachusetts who are or were Capital One 360 Savings accountholders at any time since Capital One launched 360 Performance Savings (i.e., September 18, 2019)." Michigan Subclass "All persons in Michigan who are or were Capital One 360 Savings accountholders at any time since Capital One launched 360 Performance Savings (i.e., September 18, 2019)." Illinois Subclass All persons in Illinois who are or were Capital One 360 Savings accountholders at any time since Capital One launched 360 Performance Savings (i.e., September 18, 2019)." Texas Subclass "All persons in Texas who are or were Capital One 360 Savings accountholders at any time since Capital One launched 360 Performance Savings (i.e., September 18, 2019)." Nebraska Subclass "All persons in Nebraska who are or were Capital One 360 Savings accountholders at any time since Capital One launched 360 Performance Savings (i.e., September 18, 2019)." Delaware Subclass "All persons in Delaware who are or were Capital One 360 Savings accountholders at any time since Capital One launched 360 Performance Savings (i.e., September 18, 2019)." California Subclass "All persons in California who are or were Capital One 360 Savings accountholders at any time since Capital One launched 360 Performance Savings (i.e., September 18, 2019)." Missouri Subclass "All persons in Missouri who are or were Capital One 360 Savings accountholders at any time since Capital One launched 360 Performance Savings (i.e., September 18, 2019)." Georgia Subclass "All persons in Georgia who are or were Capital One 360 Savings accountholders at any time since Capital One launched 360 Performance Savings (i.e., September 18, 2019)." Maryland Subclass "All persons in Maryland who are or were Capital One 360 Savings accountholders at any time since Capital One launched 360 Performance Savings (i.e., September 18, 2019)." Virginia Subclass "All persons in Virginia who are or were Capital One 360 Savings accountholders at any time since Capital One launched 360 Performance Savings (i.e., September 18, 2019)." North Carolina Subclass "All persons in North Carolina who are or were Capital One 360 Savings accountholders at any time since Capital One launched 360 Performance Savings (i.e., September 18, 2019)." Excluded from the Class and Subclasses are Capital One and any person, firm, trust, corporation, or other entity related to or affiliated with any of Capital One's partners, subsidiaries, affiliates or joint ventures. The Plaintiffs further move for an order: (1) appointing each Plaintiff as a Representative of the Class; (2) appointing each Plaintiff as a Representative of the Subclasses for the following states, respectively: Scott C. Savett (Pennsylvania Subclass), Jay Sim (California Subclass), Amber Terrell (Florida Subclass), Angela Uherbelau (Oregon Subclass), Gwendolyn Wright (New York Subclass), Elizabeth Zawacki (New Jersey Subclass), Sheryl Barnes (Massachusetts Subclass), Alessandra Bellantoni (New York Subclass), Ayal Brenner (New York Subclass), Anthony Guest (Michigan Subclass), Samuel Hans (Illinois Subclass), Ronald Hopkins (Texas Subclass), Michael Krause (Nebraska Subclass), Steve Lenhoff (Delaware Subclass), Jerry Magaña (California Subclass), Seth Martindale (California Subclass), Jennie Meresak (Missouri Subclass), Gregory Mishkin (Georgia Subclass), Andrew Molloy (Maryland Subclass), Jay Nagdimon (California Subclass), Neelima Panchang (Virginia Subclass), Sailesh Panchang (Virginia Subclass), Patrick Perger Jr. (California Subclass), Howard Port (New Jersey Subclass), and Jane Rossetti (North Carolina Subclass); and (3) designating Chet B. Waldman and his firm Wolf Popper LLP as Class Counsel and The Kaplan Law Firm as Local Counsel for the Class and Subclasses in this action. The actions in the MLD share common questions of fact arising from allegations that Capital One misled holders of its 360 Savings Account into believing that they were earning a higher interest rate than they were, in large part by offering, since September 2019, the similarly named 360 Performance Savings account, which paid a higher interest rate than the 360 Savings account. The actions will involve common questions of fact relating to Capital One’s marketing of the savings accounts and its policies and practices for setting the interest rates for the accounts. All actions are putative nationwide or statewide class actions on behalf of current or former 360 Savings account holders, and all plaintiffs assert similar claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and violation of state consumer protection laws. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XLWdsO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew B. Kaplan, Esq. THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM 1100 N Glebe Rd, Suite 1010 Arlington, VA 22201 Telephone: (703) 665-9529 E-mail: mbkaplan@thekaplanlawfirm.com - and - Chet B. Waldman, Esq. Carl L. Stine, Esq. Philip M. Black, Esq. Matthew Insley-Pruitt, Esq. Timothy D. Brennan, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor New York, NY 10022 E-mail: cwaldman@wolfpopper.com cstine@wolfpopper.com pblack@wolfpopper.com minsley-pruitt@wolfpopper.com tbrennan@wolfpopper.com MERCER COUNTY, PA: Campbell's Bid for Class Certification Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOYELLE CAMPBELL, et al., v. THE COUNTY OF MERCER, Case No. 2:23-cv-00099-CB-KT (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Cathy Bissoon entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs will not be granted leave to amend their class allegations. The case was filed over two years ago, and the Plaintiffs already once have amended their pleadings. They clearly articulated their theory for class treatment, and it is precluded under binding legal authority. Allowing additional amendment would result in unfair prejudice to the Defendant, and the delay is unexcused. The case may proceed only with individual claims. The class aspects are over. On March 3, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification be denied. A copy of the Court's memorandum order dated March 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OJZSuE at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK: Engesser Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LIZA ENGESSER, MARISOL GETCHIUS, GEETANJALI SEEPERSAUD by her Next Friend SAVITRI SEEPERSAUD, and MARIA JAIME on her own behalf and as Next Friend to Y.P.S. and C.P., individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated; BROOKLYN CENTER FOR INDEPENDENCE OF THE DISABLED, and REGIONAL CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING, v. JAMES V. MCDONALD, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, Case No. 1:25-cv-01689-FB-LKE (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying putative class consisting of the following members: "All individuals who receive Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Program services, who have not enrolled, or whose Personal Assistant(s) have not enrolled with PPL." A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OvPxk4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lisa E. Cleary, Esq. Caitlin A. Ross, Esq. Emma Guido Brill, Esq. PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP 1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036-6710 Telephone: (212) 336-2000 Facsimile: (212) 336-2222 E-mail: lecleary@pbwt.com kross@pbwt.com ebrill@pbwt.com - and - Lisa Rivera, Esq. Elizabeth Jois, Esq. Julia Russell, Esq. NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP 100 Pearl Street, 19th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 613-5093 E-mail: ejois@nylag.org jrussell@nylag.org OLAPLEX HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Lilien Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Olaplex Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Lilien securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On November 17, 2022, a putative securities class action was filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Lilien v. Olaplex Holdings, Inc. et al., No. 2:22-cv-08395. A consolidated complaint was filed on April 28, 2023, which names as additional defendants the underwriters for the Company's IPO and various stockholders that sold shares of common stock of the Company in the IPO. The action is brought on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's common stock in or traceable to the Company's IPO and asserts claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The action seeks certification of the putative class, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and any other relief that the court determines is appropriate. The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on July 19, 2023. The court held hearings on the defendants' motions to dismiss on October 16, 2023 and July 1, 2024. On August 23, 2024, the court issued an order staying the action pending the United States Supreme Court's resolution of the appeal in Facebook, Inc., et al. v. Amalgamated Bank, et al., No. 23-980. On November 22, 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as improvidently granted, leading to the stay of the Lilien action being lifted. On February 7, 2025, the court issued a decision on the defendants' motions to dismiss, granting the motions in part and denying them in part. Specifically, the court granted the motions filed by the underwriter and stockholder defendants but denied the motion to dismiss filed by the Company and the director and officer defendants. The underwriter defendants previously notified the Company of their intent to seek indemnification from the Company pursuant to the IPO underwriting agreement regarding the claims asserted in this action. The Company intends to vigorously defend the pending lawsuit. Olaplex Holdings, Inc. operates indirectly through its wholly owned subsidiaries, Penelope and Olaplex, Inc., which conducts business under the name "Olaplex." Olaplex develops, manufactures and distributes a line of hair care products developed to address three key uses: treatment, maintenance and protection. PARADISE ENTERTAINMENT: Moore Must Refile Class Cert Exhibits ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RIQUELLE MOORE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. PARADISE ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC., doing business as Magic City, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-04389-LMM (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Leigh Martin May entered an order that the Plaintiff shall refile the exhibits so that the docket entries comply with the Local Rules and correspond to the documents' content. Paradise Entertainment is a dynamic entertainment company based in Atlanta, GA, offering a range of services to enhance events and experiences. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rh6mBt at no extra charge.[CC] RC BIGELOW INC: Newton Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAUDIA NEWTON and BRANDY LEANDRO, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. R.C. BIGELOW INC. and DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:22-cv-05660-LDH-SIL (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lashann Dearcy Hall entered an order that the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted in part and denied in part. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have not met their burden to show that their fraud, misrepresentation, and breach of express warranty claims are amenable to class certification under the standard set forth in Rule 23(b)(3) because the element of reliance, as a general matter, is not subject to generalized proof. The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against the Defendant R.C. Bigelow, Inc. and ten unnamed defendants for violations of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law sections 349 and 350, breach of express warranty pursuant to N.Y. U.C.C. section 2-313, common law fraud, and intentional misrepresentation. R.C. Bigelow is a specialty tea company headquartered in Fairfield, Connecticut. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated March 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Flrwxz at no extra charge.[CC] REBUILT BROKERAGE: Must File Class Cert Response by April 21 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHAVEZ v. REBUILT BROKERAGE LLC et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00504 (W.D. Tex. Filed May 11, 2024), the Hon. Judge Alan D. Albright entered an order granting motion for extension of time to file: -- Defendants' response to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due on April 21, 2025. -- Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Response is due on May 5, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).[CC] REDWOOD TOXICOLOGY: Toothman Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled ROBERT TOOTHMAN, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REDWOOD TOXICOLOGY LABORATORY, INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. SCV-271680, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sonoma to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on March 28, 2025. The Clerk of the District Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02902 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this suit against the Defendants for their alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the California Labor Code. Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, Inc. owns and operates testing laboratories. The Company offers urine, oral fluid, alcohol, and cotinine screening and testing services. RTL serves customers in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michele J. Beilke, Esq. Julia Y. Trankiem, Esq. Steven A. Morphy, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793 Telephone: (213) 270-9600 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 E-mail: mbeilke@seyfarth.com jtrankiem@seyfarth.com smorphy@seyfarth.com RESTORATION BUILDERS: Bid to Certify Class Denied w/o Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN HARRISON, et al., v. RESTORATION BUILDERS, INC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00240-CCB-SJF (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Cristal Brisco entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. The Plaintiffs are ordered to file a Jurisdictional Supplement by April 11, 2025, that properly alleges subject matter jurisdiction for this action. In their breach of contract claim, the Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to compensation and accrued paid time off from Defendant, but the record before the Court includes no facts to suggest that the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity-based jurisdiction has been met. Lacking adequate allegations of the parties' citizenship and the amount in controversy, the Plaintiffs have failed to establish jurisdiction. Restoration Builders is a residential & commercial contractor operating in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ajdRQP at no extra charge.[CC] SENTOSACARE LLC: Seeks to Stay Chow Class Action ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chow v. SentosaCare, LLC et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-03541-FB-JRC (E.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting request to stay of the Chow action and a continued stay of the related Skolkin action pending: (i) the Second Circuit's review of the Defendants' March 27, 2025 Rule 23(f) petition for interlocutory appeal of Judge Block's March 13, 2025 order reversing his Sept. 26, 2023 order, and any appeals approved pursuant to that petition; and (ii) Judge Block's decision of the motion for reconsideration that the Defendants are serving on or before April 11, 2025,of Judge Block's March 13, 2025, order. A stay of all proceedings in the Chow action and a continued stay of the Skolkin action are warranted due to the pending appeal and soon-to-be filed motion for reconsideration. SentosaCare is a hospital & health care company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K7VyYE at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Lori R. Semlies, Esq. WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 133 Westchester Avenue White Plains, NY 10604 Telephone: (914) 872.7731 Mobile: (917) 693-2506 E-mail: lori.semlies@wilsonelser.com SIG SAUER: Seeks to File Portion of Opposition Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA GLASSCOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SIG SAUER, INC., Case No. 6:22-cv-03095-MDH (W.D. Mo.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order allowing to file under seal a portion of its suggestions in opposition to Plaintiff Joshua Glasscock's motion for class certification as well as confidential supporting exhibits and declarations. Sig Sauer seeks to file under seal material that has been designated confidential pursuant to the Protective Order entered by the Court on October 11, 2022 (“Protective Order”). See ECF No. 38. The Protective Order states that “[m]aterial designated Confidential or Highly Confidential in accordance with this Order may be filed under seal only after the Court issues an Order granting continued protection for the document, material or information at issue.” Id. at 2. Sig Sauer need not file the entire Opposition or all exhibits and declarations under seal. However, portions of Sig Sauer’s Opposition and certain exhibits and declarations may need to be filed under seal to comply with the Court’s Protective Order. See id. Accordingly, Sig Sauer seeks leave to file a portion of its Opposition, as well as confidential supporting exhibits and declarations, under seal. Sig Sauer is a provider and manufacturer of firearms, electro-optics, ammunition, airguns, suppressors, remote controlled weapons stations. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HRqlFU at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Cara Rose, Esq. FRANKE, SHULTZ & MULLEN, P.C. 1919 E. Battlefield, Suite B Springfield, MO 65804 Telephone: (417) 863-0040 E-mail: crose@fsmlawfirm.com - and - Colleen Carey Gulliver, Esq. Jason E. Kornmehl, Esq. Connor Rowinski, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 335-4500 E-mail: colleen.gulliver@us.dlapiper.com jason.kornmehl@us.dlapiper.com connor.rowinski@us.dlapiper.com - and - Robert L. Joyce, Esq. B. Keith Gibson, Esq. LITTLETON JOYCE UGHETTA & KELLY LLP 4 Manhattanville Road, Suite 202 Purchase, NY 10577 Telephone: (914) 417-3400 E-mail: robert.joyce@littletonjoyce.com keith.gibson@littletonjoyce.com SKIDMORE COLLEGE: Class Settlement in Kobor Suit Gets Prelim. Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PETER KOBOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SKIDMORE COLLEGE, Case No. 1:23-cv-01392-MAD-DJS (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mae D'Agostino entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement, provisionally certifying the proposed class, appointing class counsel, directing notice to the potential class, and setting a hearing on final approval. 1. The Court provisionally certifies the following Settlement Class: "All persons who were sent written notification by Skidmore that their Private Information was potentially compromised as a result of the Incident discovered by Skidmore in February 2023." The Settlement Class specifically excludes: (i) Skidmore, the Related Parties, and their officers and directors; (ii) all Settlement Class Members who timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class; (iii) any judges assigned to this case and their staff and family; 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 Incident or who pleads nolo contendere to any such charge. 2. The Plaintiffs Peter Kobor and Mary Cogan are designated and appointed as the Settlement Class Representatives. 3. William B. Federman of Federman & Sherwood, Philip J. Krzeski of Chestnut Cambronne PA, and John J. Nelson of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC, who were previously appointed by the Court as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel, are designated as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). 4. A Final Approval Hearing shall take place before the Court on Aug. 11, 2025, at 12:30 p.m. at James T. Foley United States Courthouse. Skidmore is a private liberal arts college in Saratoga Springs, New York. A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gja4lu at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randi A. Kassan, Esq. John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 - and - Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South - Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 The Defendant is represented by: Casie E. Collignon, Esq. Robyn M. Feldstein, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1801 California Street - Suite 4400 Denver, CO 80202 SPM OF ALABAMA: Parties in Kunce Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kunce v. SPM of Alabama, LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-00533 (M.D. Fla., Filed March 26, 2025), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report: The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery - class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Real Property -- Rent Lease & Ejectment. ST. TAMMANY PARISH: Baquer Seeks Leave to Amend Complaint --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AHMED BAQER, et al., v. ST. TAMMANY PARISH GOVERNMENT, a/k/a/ ST. TAMMANY PARISH COUNCIL, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00980-DJP-EJD (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to amend their complaints in the case. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to file a renewed motion for class certification, which would ask the Court to amend its Jan. 25, 2022, Order denying class certification. Should the Court grant the Plaintiffs' requested relief, Plaintiffs will require a short period to amend their complaint and prepare an amended motion for class certification. Plaintiffs respectfully propose the following schedule for doing so: 1. The Plaintiffs to amend their complaint by May 2, 2025. 2. The Plaintiffs to file an amended motion for class certification by May 2, 2025. Plaintiffs brought this case to challenge their prolonged confinement—in violation of the Parish’s own written regulations limiting holding cell detention to 48 hours—under filthy, crowded, and unsanitary conditions in the holding cells of the St. Tammany Parish jail. Plaintiffs had sufficient information to allege that the conditions of their confinement were unconstitutional, and they had sufficient information to allege that the conditions of their confinement were widespread. All this is to say that this is the right time to give Plaintiffs the chance to show the Court that, in light the revelations obtained in discovery about the common cause of their over-detention in St. Tammany jail's holding cells, class certification is now appropriate under theories adjusted for the evidence, summarized above, that was revealed in discovery. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IGFhXj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Devon M. Jacob, Esq. JACOB LITIGATION, INC. Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0837 Telephone: (717) 796-7733 E-mail: djacob@jacoblitigation.com - and - Antonio M. Romanucci, Esq. Sam Harton, Esq. Josh Levin, Esq. ROMANUCCI & BLANDIN, LLC 321 N. Clark Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 458-1000 Facsimile: (312) 458-1004 E-mail: aromanucci@rblaw.net b.raveendran@rblaw.net sharton@rblaw.net - and - Maria B. Glorioso, Esq. Vincent J. Glorioso, Jr., Esq. THE GLORIOSO LAW FIRM 2716 Athania Parkway Metairie, LA 70002 Telephone: (504) 569-9999 Facsimile: (504) 569-9022 E-mail: maria@gtorts.com STONECO LTD: Must File Opposition to Class Cert Bid by June 3 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ray v. StoneCo Ltd. et al. (re StoneCo Ltd. Sec. Litig.), Case No. 1:21-cv-09620-GHW-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gregory Woods entered an order granting the March 28, 2025, request by Lead Plaintiff Indiana Public Retirement System for leave to file a motion for class certification. In accordance with the Dec. 19, 2024, case management plan entered by Judge Wang, the deadline for Lead Plaintiff to file and serve its motion for class certification is April 4, 2025. The Defendant's opposition is due by June 3, 2025. The Plaintiff's reply, if any, is due by Aug. 4, 2024. StoneCo is a financial technology company founded in Brazil, providing solutions to empower merchants and integrated partners to conduct electronic commerce seamlessly across in-store, online, and mobile channels. A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Qjxdfa at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael H. Rogers, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: mrogers@labaton.comston STONECO LTD: Seeks to Adhere to Briefing Schedule w/o Conference ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ray v. StoneCo Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-09620-GHW-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the Lead Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order permitting the parties to adhere to the briefing schedule entered by Judge Wang, without a conference. Alternately, the Lead Plaintiff requests that the court conduct a pre-trial conference prior to April 4, 2025. Lead Plaintiff will move to certify a class in this securities fraud suit on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded common stock of StoneCo during the period from May 27, 2020, through November 16, 2021, both dates inclusive, and were damaged thereby. StoneCo is a financial technology company founded in Brazil, providing solutions to empower merchants and integrated partners to conduct electronic commerce seamlessly across in-store, online, and mobile channels. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fC04Jw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael H. Rogers, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: mrogers@labaton.com SUSAN MUELLER: Loses Summary Judgment Bid v. Dickinson ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dickinson v. Susan Mueller et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-05657 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Loretta Preska entered an order on the motions for summary judgment as follows: 1. The Plaintiff Daniels: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5654) is granted. 2. The Plaintiff Dickinson: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5657) is denied. 3. The Plaintiff Dockery: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5658) is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as to Dr. Hammer and NP Salotti, and denied as to Drs. Mueller and Dinello. 4. The Plaintiff Gradia: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5660) is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as to Dr. Hammer and denied as to Drs. Mueller and Dinello. 5. The Plaintiff Hernandez: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5661) is denied. Dr. Mantaro's motion for summary judgment (23-CV-5661) is granted. 6. The Plaintiff Knight: Dr. Lee's motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5662) is denied. 7. The Plaintiff Mathis: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5663) is denied. 8. The Plaintiff Pritchett: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5664) is denied. 9. The Plaintiff Rivera Cruz: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5667) is denied. 10. The Plaintiff Stewart: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5668) is denied. Counsel for the parties shall confer and inform the Court by letter no later than April 11, 2025, of how they propose to proceed, the Court says. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aNXVwD at no extra charge.[CC] SUSAN MUELLER: Loses Summary Judgment Bid v. Hernandez ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hernandez v. Mueller et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-05661 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Loretta Preska entered an order on the motions for summary judgment as follows: 1. The Plaintiff Daniels: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5654) is granted. 2. The Plaintiff Dickinson: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5657) is denied. 3. The Plaintiff Dockery: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5658) is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as to Dr. Hammer and NP Salotti, and denied as to Drs. Mueller and Dinello. 4. The Plaintiff Gradia: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5660) is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as to Dr. Hammer and denied as to Drs. Mueller and Dinello. 5. The Plaintiff Hernandez: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5661) is denied. Dr. Mantaro's motion for summary judgment (23-CV-5661) is granted. 6. The Plaintiff Knight: Dr. Lee's motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5662) is denied. 7. The Plaintiff Mathis: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5663) is denied. 8. The Plaintiff Pritchett: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5664) is denied. 9. The Plaintiff Rivera Cruz: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5667) is denied. 10. The Plaintiff Stewart: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5668) is denied. Counsel for the parties shall confer and inform the Court by letter no later than April 11, 2025, of how they propose to proceed, the Court says. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NE1DhW at no extra charge.[CC] SUSAN MUELLER: Loses Summary Judgment Bid v. Mathis --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mathis v. Mueller et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-05663 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Loretta Preska entered an order on the motions for summary judgment as follows: 1. The Plaintiff Daniels: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5654) is granted. 2. The Plaintiff Dickinson: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5657) is denied. 3. The Plaintiff Dockery: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5658) is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as to Dr. Hammer and NP Salotti, and denied as to Drs. Mueller and Dinello. 4. The Plaintiff Gradia: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5660) is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as to Dr. Hammer and denied as to Drs. Mueller and Dinello. 5. The Plaintiff Hernandez: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5661) is denied. Dr. Mantaro's motion for summary judgment (23-CV-5661) is granted. 6. The Plaintiff Knight: Dr. Lee's motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5662) is denied. 7. The Plaintiff Mathis: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5663) is denied. 8. The Plaintiff Pritchett: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5664) is denied. 9. The Plaintiff Rivera Cruz: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5667) is denied. 10. The Plaintiff Stewart: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5668) is denied. Counsel for the parties shall confer and inform the Court by letter no later than April 11, 2025, of how they propose to proceed, the Court says. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=F6OWwv at no extra charge.[CC] SUSAN MUELLER: Loses Summary Judgment Bid v. Stewart ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stewart v. Susan Mueller et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-05668 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Loretta Preska entered an order on the motions for summary judgment as follows: 1. The Plaintiff Daniels: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5654) is granted. 2. The Plaintiff Dickinson: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5657) is denied. 3. The Plaintiff Dockery: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5658) is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as to Dr. Hammer and NP Salotti, and denied as to Drs. Mueller and Dinello. 4. The Plaintiff Gradia: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5660) is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as to Dr. Hammer and denied as to Drs. Mueller and Dinello. 5. The Plaintiff Hernandez: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5661) is denied. Dr. Mantaro's motion for summary judgment (23-CV-5661) is granted. 6. The Plaintiff Knight: Dr. Lee's motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5662) is denied. 7. The Plaintiff Mathis: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5663) is denied. 8. The Plaintiff Pritchett: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5664) is denied. 9. The Plaintiff Rivera Cruz: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5667) is denied. 10. The Plaintiff Stewart: State Represented Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Case No. 23-CV-5668) is denied. Counsel for the parties shall confer and inform the Court by letter no later than April 11, 2025, of how they propose to proceed, the Court says. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=11YE9H at no extra charge.[CC] TIPPECANOE COUNTY COUNCIL: Bartole Files Suit in N.D. Indiana ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tippecanoe County Council, et al. The case is styled as Marcus T. Bartole, Shuvar Davis, Deontae Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tippecanoe County Council, Tippecanoe County Board of Commissioners, Tippecanoe County Public Defender Board, Case No. 1:25-cv-00148-TLS-JEM (N.D. Ind., March 31, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. Tippecanoe County Government -- https://www.tippecanoe.in.gov/ -- provide responsive, high-quality services that enhance and maintain self-sufficiency, personal safety, economic opportunity.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. UIPATH INC: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Briefing Schedule --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Severt et al., v. UiPath, Inc. et al. (re UiPath Securities Litigation), Case No. 1:23-cv-07908-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting slight modification to the briefing schedule and structure on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. Accordingly, the Parties do not expect the proposed modification to affect any other deadlines in the Amended Scheduling Order. The Defendants respectfully submit that, because of the nature of the issues raised in the Class Certification Motion and the party bearing the burden of proof on those issues, a short sur-reply brief would enable Defendants to fully address and assist the Court in considering the issues on the motion. The Defendants submit that a short sur-reply brief, together with the single expert deposition, would enable the Parties to present the relevant issues to the Court in the most complete and efficient manner. Other courts in this District have taken similar approaches in securities cases where similar price-impact arguments have been raised in opposition to class certification. The Plaintiff consents to this request, and as part of it the Parties also respectfully request that that the Court grant Plaintiff a 3500-word enlargement of the word limit for his reply brief to enable Plaintiff to address the price impact assertions that Defendants raise in their opposition brief. Defendants consent to that word limit extension for the reply brief. Accordingly, the Parties jointly request that the Court -- permit Defendants to file a sur-reply brief of no more than 3500 words on or before July 11, 2025, and -- provide Plaintiff with an additional 3500 words for his reply brief (for a total of 7000 words), due June 13, 2025. UiPath is a global software company that makes robotic process automation software. A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=m1hAQX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Max R. Schwartz, 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: mschwartz@scott-scott.com The Defendants are represented by: Edmund Polubinski, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 US CONCEPTS: Rombaut Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Deborah J. Rombaut, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. US CONCEPTS LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 TO 50, Case No. 25STCV03387 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on March 31, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02802. The Complaint asserts claims for: Failure to Pay All Minimum Wages; Failure To Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Rest Periods and Pay Missed Rest Period Premiums; Failure to Provide Meal Periods and Pay Missed Meal Period Premiums; Failure To Maintain Accurate Employment Records; Failure to Pay Wages Timely During Employment; Failure to Pay All Wages Earned and Unpaid at Separation; Failure to Indemnify All Necessary Business Expenses; Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; and Violation of California's Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Evan R. Moses, Esq. Omar M. Aniff, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 Email: evan.moses@ogletree.com omar.aniff@ogletree.com - and - Eric E. Suits, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK &STEWART, P.C. 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916-840-3150 Facsimile: 916-840-3159 Email: eric.suits@ogletree.com VOLATO INC: Gray Suit Seeks Class Certification ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOUANN GRAY and JENNIFER NICHOLS, on their own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. VOLATO, INC. and VOLATO GROUP, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00952-WWB-PDB (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- certifying case as a class action for the group of former employees pursuant to the WARN Act and state wage laws; -- appointing Louann Gray, Khea Trevena, and Michael Ricketts as class representatives; -- appointing Ryan Barack, Michelle Nadeau, and Arthur Schofield as class counsel; and -- approving the proposed class notice. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to certify a class defined as: "All former employees of Volato, Inc. and Volato Group, Inc., or their related entities, who worked at or reported to the Defendants' facilities and were not given a minimum of 60 days' written notice of termination and whose employment was terminated without cause on or about August 30, 2024, within 30 days of that date or thereafter, as part of, or as the reasonably expected consequence of the mass layoffs or plant closings (as defined by the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988). The putative Class Members hold identical claims for identical statutory WARN Act remedies consisting of sixty days’ pay and the consequent loss of benefits during that period. A Rule 23 class action is widely regarded as the optimal legal process for resolving WARN Act claims. The proposed class satisfies all of Rule 23's requirements and fulfills the objective and rationale for efficiently resolving such claims on a class-wide basis. The Court should appoint Louann Gray, Khea Trevena, and Michael Ricketts as the class representatives and appoint Ryan Barack and Michelle Nadeau of Kwall Barack Nadeau PLLC and Arthur Schofield of Arthur T. Schofield, P.A. as class counsel. Finally, the Court should also approve the proposed notice to the class. On Aug. 30, 2024, Volato provided the Plaintiffs an email that contained "formal notice of the termination of your employment with Volato Group, Inc, effective Friday, August 30, 2024." Volato is an aviation company providing fractional ownership, aircraft management, jet card, deposits and charter programs. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1JWOAO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan D. Barack, Esq. Michelle Erin Nadeau, Esq. KWALL BARACK NADEAU PLLC 304 S. Belcher Rd., Suite C Clearwater, FL 33765 Telephone: (727) 441-4947 Facsimile: (727) 447-3158 E-mail: rbarack@employeerights.com mnadeau@employeerights.com - and - Arthur Schofield, Esq. ARTHUR T. SCHOFIELD, P.A E-mail: aschofield@flalabor.com Via Jardin Building 330 Clematis Street, Suite 207 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 655-4211 Facsimile: (561) 655-5447 WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Brown Suit Seeks to Certify Four Classes ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAITLIN BROWN, et al., v. COUNTY OF WAYNE, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-10779-LJM-APP (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting certification, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, of the following classes: -- Class No. 1 "All females who were housed and/or detained by the Wayne County Sheriff at the Wayne County Jail on or after April 27, 2020, until the date of judgment or settlement of this case, who were strip searched in a group with other detainees;" -- Class No. 2 "All females who were housed and/or detained by the Wayne County Sheriff at the Wayne County Jail on or after April 27, 2020, until the date of judgment or settlement of this case who were strip searched in view of members of the opposite sex;" -- Class No. 3 "All females who were housed and/or detained by the Wayne County Sheriff at the Wayne County Jail on or after April 27, 2020, until the date of judgment or settlement of this case, who were subject to derogatory comments by Defendant Graham during strip searches; and -- Class No. 4 "All females who were housed and/or detained by the Wayne County Sheriff at the Wayne County Jail on or after April 27, 2020, until the date of judgment or settlement of this case, who were strip searched under unsanitary and/or unhygienic conditions, including being exposed to the bodily fluids of other detainees." The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated their Fourth Amendment rights by subjecting them to unreasonable strip searches while housed at the Wayne County Jail. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dzUaN8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael R. Dezsi, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL R. DEZSI, PLLC, 1523 N. Main St. Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (313) 757-8112 E-mail: mdezsi@dezsilaw.com WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Harris Suit Seeks to Certify Four Classes ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLE HARRIS, et al., v. COUNTY OF WAYNE, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-10986-LJM-APP (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting certification, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, of the following classes: -- Class No. 1 "All females who were housed and/or detained by the Wayne County Sheriff at the Wayne County Jail on or after April 27, 2020, until the date of judgment or settlement of this case, who were strip searched in a group with other detainees;" -- Class No. 2 "All females who were housed and/or detained by the Wayne County Sheriff at the Wayne County Jail on or after April 27, 2020, until the date of judgment or settlement of this case who were strip searched in view of members of the opposite sex;" -- Class No. 3 "All females who were housed and/or detained by the Wayne County Sheriff at the Wayne County Jail on or after April 27, 2020, until the date of judgment or settlement of this case, who were subject to derogatory comments by Defendant Graham during strip searches; and -- Class No. 4 "All females who were housed and/or detained by the Wayne County Sheriff at the Wayne County Jail on or after April 27, 2020, until the date of judgment or settlement of this case, who were strip searched under unsanitary and/or unhygienic conditions, including being exposed to the bodily fluids of other detainees." The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated their Fourth Amendment rights by subjecting them to unreasonable strip searches while housed at the Wayne County Jail. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zBuvxE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael R. Dezsi, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL R. DEZSI, PLLC, 1523 N. Main St. Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (313) 757-8112 E-mail: mdezsi@dezsilaw.com WEBHELP AMERICAS: Johnson Seeks Conditional Cert of FLSA Collective ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SASHA JOHNSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WEBHELP AMERICAS LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-22043-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order under Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA\), granting court-authorized notice to all similarly situated employees. The Plaintiffs request that the Court enter an order: (1) Conditionally certifying the proposed Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") Collective; (2) Requiring Defendant to identify all putative collective members by providing a list of their names, last known addresses, dates and location of employment, phone numbers, and email addresses in electronic and importable format within ten (10) days of the entry of the order; (3) Authorizing the Plaintiffs' proposed form of notice (Exhibits B & C) and implementing a procedure whereby the notice of Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail, email, and text message) to: "All current and former hourly customer service agents who worked for the Defendant at any time during the past three years (the "FLSA Collective").\; (4) Appointing the undersigned counsel as counsel for the FLSA Collective; and (5) Giving members of the FLSA Collective 60 days to join this case, measured from the date the Court-authorized notice is sent, with one reminder email sent 30 days thereafter to anyone who did not respond. Webhelp is a customer service outsourcing company based in Miami, Florida, specializing in providing support solutions for various industries. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=05oDbw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley W. Butcher, Esq. THE DORCEY LAW FIRM, PLC 13515 Bell Tower Drive, Second Floor Fort Meyers, FL 33907 Telephone: (239) 322-1615 E-mail: bbutcher@dorceylaw.com - and - Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com WELLS FARGO: Class Cert Briefing Sched in Winkler Suit Extended --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GEOFF WINKLER, as court-appointed receiver for J&J Consulting Services, Inc., an Alaska corporation; J&J Consulting Services, Inc., a Nevada corporation; and J and J Purchasing LLC, Florida limited liability company, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. 2:23-cv-00703-GMN-NJK (D. Nev.), the Court entered an order granting the Parties' stipulation to extend 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; (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 the Court's order dated March 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c2WuX5 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 WELLS FARGO: Class Cert Briefing Schedule in Henzel Extended ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Court entered an order granting the Parties' stipulation to extend 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; (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 the Court's order dated March 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VbfzW1 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 WOODBURY WELLNESS: Desoto Wins FLSA Collective Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERESA DESOTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WOODBURY WELLNESS CENTER, INC., Case No. 7:24-cv-00464-BO-RN (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Terrence Boyle entered an order granting stipulation regarding Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective certification: "All hourly, non-exempt Woodbury Wellness employees who received an automatic meal period deduction at any time during the past 3 years ("FLSA Collective")." Desoto alleges Woodbury implemented an automatic meal period deduction policy, and failed to pay overtime for hours worked over 40 in a workweek by its hourly, non-exempt workers in violation of the FLSA. The Parties agree that certification conserves the Parties' resources from spending time and money on pre-certification discovery, as well as the Court's time and resources in deciding precertification discovery disputes and certification itself. The parties assert certification serves judicial efficiency by allowing Desoto's claims, and Woodbury's defenses, to be decided in one proceeding. The Parties agree to toll the statute of limitations of the FLSA Collective from the date of the filing of this Stipulation until the close of the opt-in period. Woodbury is a senior living facility that provides memory care. A copy of the Court's order dated March 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=l4dKFI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl A. Fitz, Esq. FITZ LAW PLLC 3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 766-4000 E-mail: carl@fitz.legal - and - Bert J. Miano, Esq. MIANO LAW 1213 West Morehead Street Fifth Floor, Unit #99 Telephone: (704) 275-7199 Facsimile: (704) 630-7199 E-mail: bmiano@mianolaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Kevin S. Joyner, Esq. Vanessa N. Garrido, Esq. Charlotte C. Smith, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART PC 8529 Six Forks Road, Suite 600 Raleigh, NC 27615 Telephone: (919) 787-9700 Facsimile: (919) 783-9412 E-mail: Kevin.joyner@ogletree.com Vanessa.Garrido@ogletree.com Charlotte.Smith@ogletree.com WOODSTREAM CORP: Court Certifies Maroney Fraud & Warranty Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORY MARONEY, et al., v. WOODSTREAM CORPORATION, Case No. 7:19-cv-08294-KMK-JCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth Karas entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion as to the GBL sections 349, 350 claims and New York common law fraud and breach of express warranty claims but denying as to all other class members. The Court concludes that common questions predominate as to Plaintiffs' New York GBL claims. Accordingly, the Court finds certification of the breach of express warranties claim appropriate. The Plaintiffs do not allege that PestChasers provide some value to some customers, even under the "functional value" theory. Instead, they allege that when used in the home, PestChasers are "functionally worthless." Therefore, the preceding analysis applies, and the Court holds that Plaintiffs demonstrated that their damages calculation is subject to class-wide proof. The Plaintiffs seek to certify six classes: Nationwide Fraud Class: "All persons who purchased one or more Victor PestChaser Rodent Repellers in the United States from August 29, 2013, until the date notice is provided to the Class." Nationwide Fraud Subclass 1 (3-year statute): "All persons who purchased one or more Victor PestChaser Rodent Repellers in the states of Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Idaho, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and Washington from August 29, 2016, until the date notice is provided to the Class. " Nationwide Fraud Subclass 2 (2-year statute): "All persons who purchased one or more Victor PestChaser Rodent Repellers in the states of Alabama, Alaska, Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia from August 29, 2017, until the date notice is provided to the Class." Multistate Breach of Express Warranty Class [1] (4 year statute): "All persons who purchased one or more Victor PestChaser Rodent Repellers in the states of Alaska, California, Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming, from August 29, 2015, until the date notice is provided to the Class." Multistate Breach of Express Warranty Subclass [2] (3-year statute): "All persons who purchased one or more Victor PestChaser Rodent Repellers in the state of Colorado from August 29, 2016, until the date notice is provided to the Class." New York Subclass: "All persons who purchased one or more Victor PestChaser Rodent Repellers in the United States from August 29, 2015, until the date notice is provided to the Class. " The Plaintiffs alleges that the labeling on Defendant's Victor-brand ultrasonic PestChasers are advertised in a manner which is false and misleading. Woodstream Corporation manufactures and markets pest control and wildlife caring and control products. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O7m4aV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Aleksandr J. Yarmolinets, Esq. James Davis, Esq. Timothy G. Blood, Esq. BLOOD HURST O'REARDON, LLP San Diego, CA - and - Andrew Obergfell, Esq. Caroline C. Donovan, Esq. Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Stephen A. Beck, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. New York, NY The Defendant is represented by: Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Jacob Feiler, Esq. Robyn E. Bladow, Esq. Savannah Jensen, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP New York, NY - and - Leonora Cohen, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP Los Angeles, LA YAZAM INC: Seeks to Continue Pope's Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL POPE et al., v. YAZAM, INC. D/B/A EMPOWER, Case No. 1:24-cv-03540-CJN (D.D.C.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order to: -- continue the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, -- issuance of class notice, and appointment of class counsel, and -- to stay briefing and other proceedings on that motion, pending the Court's decision on Empower's motion to dismiss the complaint. Empower's opposition to the Plaintiffs' class-certification motion is currently due, without continuance or extension, on April 2, 2025. If Empower's motion to dismiss this action is granted -- just as it was in the exceptionally similar Woodford action—then no further proceedings on the class-certification motion will be necessary, asserts the Defendant. On Dec. 19, 2024, the Plaintiffs Michael Pope, Sarah Abel, and Jordynn Goins filed a Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand. The Complaint's class action allegations defined a putative Class "as all Empower passenger-consumers who through the Empower app have booked and taken rides beginning or ending in the District of Columbia during the time Empower has operated here." Yazam provides investment banking services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iXeeXD at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Matthew M. Madden, Esq. Lauren C. Andrews, Esq. KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP 2000 K Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20006 Telephone (202) 775-4500 Facsimile: (202) 775-4510 E-mail: mmadden@kramerlevin.com landrews@kramerlevin.com [^] CLASS ACTION MONEY & ETHICS CONFERENCE 2025 -- Agenda --------------------------------------------------------- Registration is ongoing for the 9TH ANNUAL CLASS ACTION MONEY & ETHICS CONFERENCE (CAME 2025), to be held May 7-8, 2025, at The Harmonie Club in New York. Conference Chairs Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., and Jennifer A. Riley, both Partners at Duane Morris LLP, will welcome participants with their Opening Remarks and present key findings from their inaugural Duane Morris-Class Action Review 2025. "AI in Law" will follow with Denise Scotto, Esq., Managing Director and Senior Litigation Analyst at Esquire Bank; Etia Rottman Frand, VP Litigation Partnerships at Darrow; and Mark Berman, Member at Bond, Schoeneck & King PLLC. "Guarding the Process: How to Combat Fraud in Class Action Claims" will be led by Bryan Heller, Chief Operating Officer at ClaimScore; Eric Schachter, Vice President at AB Data; and Ryan Clarkson, Managing Partner at Clarkson Law Firm. This will be followed by "How Securities Litigation Benefits Investors," to be headed by James Christie and Lauren Ormsbee, both Partners at Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP. The morning session will close with a panel on "Data Breach Litigation: The Next Wave of High-Stakes Class Actions," by moderator Bryn Bridley, VP of Business Development at Atticus Administration; Christopher Longley, Co-Founder & CEO at Atticus; Chris Wood, Partner at Lewis Brisbois; William Federman, Founder & Managing Member at Federman & Sherwood; Terry Coates, Managing Partner at Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC; and Alfred "Al" Saikali, Chair, Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice at Shook Hardy Bacon. A Lunch Panel, "Bankruptcy Developments in the Past Year" spearheaded by the Hon. Melanie L. Cyganowski (Ret.), Partner at Otterbourg P.C., will discuss how mass tort claims are being facilitated in bankruptcy. The session resumes in the afternoon with "Connecting with Plaintiffs in the Age of Tech," to be led by Evyatar Ben Artzi, Co-Founder & CEO at Darrow; Rebecca Gilliland, Principal at Beasley Allen; and Bryan Heller, Chief Operating Officer at ClaimScore. "The Rise of Mass Arbitration: Strategy, Ethics, and Corporate Response," will follow with Dai Wai Chin Feman, Managing Director and Corporate Counsel at Parabellum Capital; Jonathan Waisnor, Partner & Chair of ADR Practice at Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP; Ryan Ellersick, Partner at Zimmerman Reed LLP; Tim Kolesk, Partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP; and Raphael Janove, Founder at Janove PLLC, leading the discussion. Josh Janow, CEO at SMI Aware, will then lead the discussion on "Ethics of Social Media Discovery Panel." Nick Baum, CEO at Tremendous, will cap the day's events with "Beyond the Check: How Digital Payments Are Transforming Class Action Payouts and Fighting Fraud." The Conference Agenda is available at https://www.classactionconference.com/agenda.html Register at https://www.classactionconference.com Breakfast and lunch included. This year's conference will kick off with an OPENING NIGHT COCKTAIL RECEPTION on May 7 from 5-7 p.m. also at The Harmonie Club. Enjoy specialty cocktails and hors d'oeuvres with other professionals attending the conference. There is no additional cost to attend the opening reception. The reception is included in the cost of conference registration so join us! This year's event is sponsored by: (A) Major Sponsors Atticus Administration, LLC Visit at https://www.atticusadmin.com ClaimScore Visit https://www.claimscore.ai Duane Morris LLP Visit https://www.duanemorris.com Esquire Bank Visit https://esquirebank.com Labaton Keller Sucharow Visit https://www.labaton.com Tremendous Visit https://www.tremendous.com (B) Patron Sponsors AB Data Visit https://www.abdataclassaction.com Darrow AI Visit https://www.darrow.ai Miller Kaplan Visit https://www.millerkaplan.com (C) Supporting Sponsors Verita (Kurtzman Carson Consultants, LLC, KCC Class Action Services, LLC, Gilardi & Co., LLC, and RicePoint Administration Inc. have rebranded as Verita) Visit https://veritaglobal.com (D) Media Partners Class Action Insights Visit https://classactionsinsight.com PacerMonitor, a Fitch Solutions Company Visit https://www.pacermonitor.com/dashboard Once a year, the top industry experts gather together to discuss the latest topics and trends in class action. This value-packed event features special presentations from keynote speakers and live panel discussions with industry experts, and provides networking opportunities with other professionals. The CAME 2024 edition was attended by the industry's Who's Who. Last year's conference attendees include: Firm/Organization Firm/Organization ----------------- ----------------- A.B. Data, Ltd. Lake Avenue Capital Alvarez & Marsal Levi & Korsinsky LLP Analytics Consulting LLC Levine Law, LLC Angeion Group Lieff Cabraser Heimann Atticus Administration LLC & Bernstein, LLP Avenue 33, LLC Locke Lord LLP Beasley Allen Law Firm LTIMindtree Beer Marketer's Insights Lynch Carpenter LLP Berger Montague PC MarGrady Research Blank Rome Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC Bloomberg Law Messing & Spector LLP Brann & Isaacson Milberg BRG Miller Kaplan Broadridge Morgan Lewis Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney New York Law Journal Butsch Roberts & Associates New York Legal Assistance Group Cardtable Enterprises New York Times Certum Group New York University Citi Law Firm Group O’Melveny & Myers LLP ClaimScore Orr Taylor Cohen Milstein Otterbourg P.C. Cooley LLP PacerMonitor Cozen O'Connor Parabellum Capital, LLC CPT Group Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton Darrow & Garrison LLP DCirrus Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP Dealpath PJT Partners Disability Rights Michigan Pollock Cohen LLP Duane Morris LLP Public Justice Dukas Linden Public Relations Red Bridges Advisors LLC EisnerAmper Riverdale Capital Esquire Bank Sadaka Law Farra & Wang PLLC Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law Flexpoint Ford Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP Foley & Lardner LLP Simpluris Foster Yarborough PLLC Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher George Feldman McDonald, PLLC & Flom LLP Gernon Law Slarskey LLC Giftogram Steptoe Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Tremendous Hausfeld Tristate Capital Bank Hook Point UConn Law injuryclaims.com - Verus LLC Typhon Interactive Wall Street Journal Integrity Administration Western Alliance Bank Janove PLLC Wilkie Farr & Gallagher LLP KCC Winston & Strawn LLP Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check Wollmuth Maher & Deutsch LLP King & Spalding Working Solutions Kirkland & Ellis X Ante Missed last year's event? Check the CAME 2024 conference agenda at https://www.classactionconference.com/agenda.html Videos of the conference are available on-demand at https://www.classactionconference.com/2024-video-replays.html For more information, contact: Will Etchison Tel: 305-707-7493 E-mail: will@beardgroup.com ********* 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 ***