/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250410.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, April 10, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 72
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Sherwood Files Suit in D. South Carolina
3M COMPANY: Stevens Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Strickland Files Suit in D. South Carolina
3M COMPANY: Wagner Files Suit in D. South Carolina
3M COMPANY: Wilkes Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Zimmerman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
ALN MEDICAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Washington Says
ALN MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Private Info, Rosenberg Says
BANSHEE ONE: Wee-Ellis Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
BRASKEM SA: Awaits Dismissal of Shareholder Suit
BROOGE ENERGY: July 26 Claim Form Submission Deadline Set
CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: May 12 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
COLLARS & COMPANY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Sumlin Says
COMPASS MINERALS: June 27 Claim Form Submission Deadline Set
CORNERSTONE BUILDING: $45MM Class Settlement to be Heard on May 29
CREDIT SUISSE: $71MM Class Settlement to be Heard on July 16
CRUNCH LLC: Lara Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Untimely Wages
DAVID DINELLO: Loses Summary Judgment Bid v. Gradia
DAVID DINELLO: Loses Summary Judgment Bid v. Pritchett
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Certifies Barnes Class Action
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Zorgani Seeks to Certify Class Action
DONG BANG: Lee Seeks Leave to File First Amended Complaint
ELON MUSK: Emrit Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
FEDERAL INSURANCE: Must File Class Cert Opposition by April 25
FLAGSTAR FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Garfield Class Suit in NY
FLAGSTAR FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Lemm Shareholder Class Suit
FLUENT INC: Made $1.1MM Cash Payment to "Berman" Class Settlement
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Valley Health Sues Over Price-Fixing Scheme
INSTRUCTURE INC: Hernandez-Silva Sues for Invasion of Privacy
INTELLICHECK LLC: Faces BIPA Class Suit in Illinois
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Larkin Hospital Wins Class Status Bid
JJFM CORP: Agnone Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users
KARTOON STUDIOS: Intends to File Bid to Junk Securities Suit
MIGUEL GOMEZ: Bryant Bid to Certify Class Action Tossed
MOUNTAIRE FARMS: Court Lifts Stay on Ovando Proceedings
NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA: Court Dismisses Afriyie FAC
NELNET SERVICING: Class Settlement in Spearman Gets Initial Nod
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Thomas Says
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Turner Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Ward Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
NEW YORK, NY: Class Cert Briefing Sched in Gould Suit Entered
NEW YORK, NY: Court Narrows Claims in Greene Suit
NEW YORK: Salvo Partners Sues Over Illegal Taking of Property
NEW YORK: Wawrzyniec Files Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
NEW YUNG: Xia Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
NICHOLAS MALWITZ: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Set for April 23
OHIO CASUALTY: Tyler Technologies Bid to Dismiss Claims Tossed
PAMELA BONDI: Class Settlement in Segar Suit Gets Final Nod
PAYCOR INC: Renewed Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd
PERSONAL TOUCH: Class Settlement in Everetts Suit Gets Final Nod
PHARM-SAVE INC: Loses Partial Summary Judgment v. Savidge
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Bid to Strike of Class Allegations Partly OK'd
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Shubkagel Insurance Suit Removed to D. Kan.
SCHURE SPORTS: Miller Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
STRAFFORD PUBLICATIONS: Lindekugel Seeks to Suspend Class Cert Bid
SUSAN MUELLER: Loses Summary Judgment Bid v. Daniels
SUSAN MUELLER: Loses Summary Judgment Bid v. Rivera-Cruz
TALPHERA INC: 9th Cir. Appeal in Securities Suit Remains Pending
WASTE MANAGEMENT INC: Securities Suit Certified as Class Action
WEST IRONDEQUOIT: Faces Doe Suit Over Alleged Sexual Harassment
WORKHORSE GROUP: Obtains Final Approval of Calif. Class Settlement
YAZAM INC: Briefing on Bid to Certify Class Held in Abeyance
[^] Class Action Money & Ethics Conference 2025 -- The Sponsors
*********
3M COMPANY: Sherwood Files Suit in D. South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al.
The case is styled as Jay Sherwood, Sr., 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-01589-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: Stevens Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------
John Stevens, 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-01274-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.
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, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of Decedent's exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of
Decedent'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 his service in the United States Navy
and was diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma 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:
Tessa G. Cuneo, Esq.
Alexandra W. Robertson, Esq.
ASK LLP
2600 Eagan Woods Drive, Suite 400
St. Paul, MN 55121
Phone: (651) 406-9665
Facsimile: (651) 406
Email: tcuneo@askllp.com
arobertson@askllp.com
3M COMPANY: Strickland Files Suit in D. South Carolina
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al.
The case is styled as Keith Strickland, 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-01582-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: Wagner Files Suit in D. South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al.
The case is styled as Scott Wagner, 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-01580-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: Wilkes Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jana Wilkes, 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-01241-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
thyroid disease 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: Zimmerman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Zimmerman, 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-01273-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.
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, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of Decedent's exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of
Decedent'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 his service in the United States Navy
and was diagnosed with kidney cancer in both kidneys 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:
Tessa G. Cuneo, Esq.
Alexandra W. Robertson, Esq.
ASK LLP
2600 Eagan Woods Drive, Suite 400
St. Paul, MN 55121
Phone: (651) 406-9665
Facsimile: (651) 406
Email: tcuneo@askllp.com
arobertson@askllp.com
ALN MEDICAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Washington Says
------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN WASHINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALN MEDICAL MANAGEMENT LLC, and
NATIONAL SPINE AND PAIN CENTERS LLC, Defendants, Case No.
4:25-cv-03071 (D. Neb., March 28, 2025) arises from the public
exposure of confidential, private information of Defendant's
current and former patients' personally identifying information and
protected health information, including that of Plaintiff's and the
Class Members, which was in the possession of Defendants in a
cyberattack on ALN's systems, beginning on or around March 2024.
According to Defendants, the personal information unauthorizedly
disclosed in the data breach includes patients' names, health
insurance information, demographic information, and medical
information. The Defendants failed to undertake adequate measures
to safeguard the personal information of Plaintiff and the proposed
Class Members.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' failures to protect
current and former patients' sensitive Personal Information and
warn them promptly and fully about the data breach, the Plaintiff
and the proposed Class Members have suffered widespread injury and
damages necessitating Plaintiff seeking relief on a class wide
basis, says the suit.
ALN Medical Management LLC, a healthcare advisory firm, provides
services such as, physician, facility, and non-par provider
hospital billing, professional coding, claims recovery, review of
billing practices, and credentialing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One W Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 332-4200
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
ALN MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Private Info, Rosenberg Says
---------------------------------------------------------
EUGENE ROSENBERG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALN MEDICAL MANAGEMENT, LLC and
NATIONAL SPINE AND PAIN CENTERS, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
4:25-cv-03069 (D. Neb., March 26, 2025) seeks to hold the
Defendants responsible for the harms they caused to the Plaintiff
and similarly situated persons as a result of a data breach of the
Defendants' computer network.
In March 2024, ALN identified suspicious activity on certain
third-party hosted systems, indicating a data breach. Based on a
subsequent forensic investigation, ALN determined that
cybercriminals infiltrated the inadequately secured computer
environment and accessed data files between March 18, 2024 and
March 24, 2024.
By taking possession and control of Plaintiff's and Class members'
personal information, the Defendants assumed a duty to securely
store and protect the personal information of Plaintiff and the
Class. The Defendants breached this duty and betrayed the trust of
Plaintiff and Class members by failing to properly safeguard and
protect their personal information, thus enabling cybercriminals to
access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber,
exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view it, says the suit.
As a result of the data breach, Plaintiff and Class members have
already suffered damages that will continue for the rest of their
lives, as they are now forced to deal with the danger of identity
thieves possessing and using their personal information, the suit
alleges.
ALN Medical Management, LLC is healthcare advisory firm that
provides administrative services to medical providers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
A. Brooke Murphy, Esq.
MURPHY LAW FIRM
4116 Wills Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700
Oklahoma City, OK 73108
Telephone: (405) 389-4989
E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com
BANSHEE ONE: Wee-Ellis Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
---------------------------------------------------------------
MELCHION WEE-ELLIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Banshee One Corp., Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-01699 (E.D.N.Y., March 27, 2025) is a civil rights action
against Banshee One for its failure to design, construct, maintain,
and operate its website, https://www.daisysli.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human
Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers
that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using
keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive
and include, but are not limited to inaccurate landmark structure,
inaccurate heading hierarchy, ambiguous link texts, inaccessible
contact information, changing of content without advance warning,
inaccessible drop down menus, the lack of navigation links, and the
requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Banshee One's policies, practices, and procedures so that its
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.
Banshee One Corp. operates the website that provides consumers with
access to a variety of Southern American dish.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael H. Cohen, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
68-29 Main Street
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (917) 437-3737
E-mail: mcohen@ealg.law
BRASKEM SA: Awaits Dismissal of Shareholder Suit
------------------------------------------------
Braskem S.A. disclosed in its Form 20-F report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2023, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission that on August 25, 2020, a class action was
filed against Braskem S.A. and some of its current and former
executives in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey, on behalf of an alleged class of investors who acquired
securities issued by the Company.
The lawsuit was grounded in the Exchange Act, and its rules, based
on allegations that the defendants made false statements or
omissions related to the geological event in Alagoas.
On December 15, 2022, the parties entered into an agreement to
settle the class action with a payment of US$3 million, which was
made in January 2023. On December 20, 2022, as the first measure
for approval of the agreement, the lead plaintiff filed a
preliminary approval motion, and the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey is expected to follow the required procedure
for the approval of the settlement agreement. The extinction of the
class action is expected to be declared only after the final
approval of the settlement agreement and after the obligations
assumed by the parties to the settlement agreement are met.
Braskem S.A is a Brazilian petrochemical company headquartered in
Sao Paulo. The company is the largest petrochemical company in
Latin America and has become a major player in the international
petrochemical market.
BROOGE ENERGY: July 26 Claim Form Submission Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued a release in relation
to In the Matter of Brooge Energy Limited, Nicolaas Lammert,
Paardenkooper, and Lina Saheb Administrative Proceeding File No.
3-21816 (January 28, 2025).
The release is as follows:
Those who purchased or acquired Brooge Energy Limited ("Brooge")
common stock, traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the
symbol BROG (the "Securities") during the Relevant Period (December
20, 2019 through December 21, 2023, inclusive), may be eligible for
a distribution from the Fair Fund.
On December 22, 2023, the Commission issued an Order instituting
and simultaneously settling cease-and-desist proceedings against
the Respondents. In the Order, the Commission found that Brooge
went public through a special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC")
transaction in December 2019. Before and after going public between
thirty and eighty percent of Brooge's revenues were unsupported and
materially misstated from 2018 through early 2021. After the SPAC
transaction, Brooge registered the offer and sale of up to $500
million in different types of securities with the Commission and an
affiliate of the company issued $200 million in 5-year senior
secured bonds in the Nordic bond market. The Commission also found
that Paardenkooper and Saheb knew, or were reckless in not knowing,
of this accounting fraud. The Commission ordered the Respondents to
pay $5,200,000 in civil money penalties to the Commission. The
Commission also created the Fair Fund, pursuant to Section 308(a)
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, so the penalties collected can
be distributed to harmed investors.
The Respondents have paid in full. The Fair Fund has been deposited
in a Commission-designated account at the United States Department
of the Treasury, and any accrued interest will be added to the Fair
Fund.
To be eligible for a payment from the Brooge Energy Fair Fund, you
must satisfy certain eligibility criteria that are described in
detail in the Plan of Distribution (the "Plan"). Those criteria
include the following: 1) You must have purchased or acquired
Brooge Energy common stock, traded on the New York Stock Exchange
under the trading symbol BROG, during the Relevant Period; 2) Your
approved transactions must calculate to an Eligible Loss Amount as
calculated under the Plan and the Distribution Payment must equal
or exceed $20.00; and 3) You are not an Excluded Party as defined
in the Plan.
You can complete and submit an online Claim Form or obtain a
physical Claim Form by visiting www.BroogeEnergyFairFund.com. To
submit a Claim Form by mail, you must submit it to SEC v Brooge
Energy Fair Fund, c/o Rust Consulting, Inc., Fund Administrator –
8793, P.O. Box 2599, Faribault, MN 55021-9599. All Claim Forms are
due by July 26, 2025.
For more information:
Copies of the Plan, the Plan Notice, and the Claim Form are
available at www.BroogeEnergyFairFund.com as well as background
information. You may also call 1 (888) 558-0547 or email the Fund
Administrator at info@BroogeEnergyFairFund.com.
CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: May 12 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
RG/2 Claims Administration LLC, as a settlement administrator,
issued a release as follows:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
STADIUM CAPITAL LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. CO-DIAGNOSTICS, INC., DWIGHT H. EGAN, and BRIAN L.
BROWN, Case No.: 22-cv-6978-AS
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION
To: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Co-Diagnostics, Inc. common stock or call options, or sold put
options, during the period May 12, 2022 through the close of the
market on August 11, 2022 (4:00 p.m. ET), inclusive. (the "Class")
Excluded from the Class are: Defendants and Defendants' immediate
family members, any person, firm, trust, corporation, officer,
director or other individual or entity in which any Defendant has a
controlling interest or which is related to or affiliated with any
Defendant, and the legal representatives, agents, affiliates,
heirs, successors-in-interest, or assigns of any such excluded
party.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, that the above captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THE ACTION. A full notice of Pendency of Class Action can be
obtained by visiting www.co-diagnosticssecuritieslitigation.com, or
by contacting the Notice Administrator at:
Stadium Capital LLC v. Co-Diagnostics, Inc. et al.
c/o RG/2 Claims Administration, LLC
P.O. Box 59479
Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479
Telephone 866-742-4955
Facsimile 215-827-5551
Email: info@rg2claims.com
Inquires, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Class
Counsel:
Frederic S. Fox
Donald R. Hall
Jason A. Uris
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor
New York, NY 10022
(212) 687-1980|
If you are a Class Member, you have the right to decide whether to
remain a member of the Class. If you choose to remain a member of
the Class, you do not need to do anything at this time other than
to retain your documentation reflecting your transactions in
Co-Diagnostics common stock and options. You will automatically be
included in the Class. If you are a Class Member and do not
exclude yourself from the Class, you will be bound by the
proceedings in the Action, including all past, present and future
orders and judgments of the Court, whether favorable or
unfavorable.
If you ask to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound by
any order or judgment of the Court, and you will not be eligible to
receive a share of any money that might be recovered for the
benefit of the Class. To exclude yourself from the Class, you must
submit a written request for exclusion postmarked no later than May
12, 2025, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the full
printed Notice. Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(4) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, it is within the Court's discretion to decide
whether a second opportunity to request exclusion from the Class
will be allowed if there is a settlement or judgment in the
Action.
Further information may be obtained by directing your inquiry in
writing to the Notice Administrator.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT REGARDING THIS SUMMARY NOTICE.
BY THE ORDER OF THE COURT
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Dated: March 18, 2025
COLLARS & COMPANY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Sumlin Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS SUMLIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Collars & Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-02529 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2025) is a civil rights action
against Collars & Company for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, https://www.collarsandco.com/,
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights
Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers
that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using
keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive
and include, but are not limited to ambiguous link texts, changing
of content without advance warning, inadequate focus order,
repetitive alt-text on graphics, the denial of keyboard access for
some interactive elements, unclear labels for interactive elements,
and the requirement that some actions be performed solely with a
mouse.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Collars & Company's policies, practices, and procedures so that its
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.
Collars & Company, Inc. operates the website that offers men's
fashion items, including various types of shirts, sweaters,
hoodies, jackets, pants, socks, accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael H. Cohen, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
68-29 Main Street
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (917) 437-3737
E-mail: mcohen@ealg.law
COMPASS MINERALS: June 27 Claim Form Submission Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Simpluris, Inc., Fund Administrator for the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission, issued a ststement regarding
the Compass Minerals International, Inc., Fair Fund and Plan of
Distribution.
NOTICE OF FAIR FUND DISTRIBUTION PLAN
In the Matter of Compass Minerals International, Inc.
Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-21145
For more information, visit www.CompassMineralsFairFund.com
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") has
settled administrative proceedings (the "Order") against Compass
Minerals International, Inc. ("Compass"). In the Order, the
Commission found that from 2017 to 2018, Compass made repeated
misrepresentations about its plans to reduce costs and about the
production levels at its Goderich salt mine in Canada. In addition
to these violations, Compass filed materials that did not comply
with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") standards.
The SEC found that Compass' statements violated Section 8(A) of the
Securities Act, and Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act.
The SEC ordered the Respondents to pay a $12,000,000 civil money
penalty to the Commission. The SEC also created a Fair Fund,
pursuant to Section 308(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, so
that the penalty collected can be distributed to harmed investors
(the "Fair Fund").
The Fair Fund will be paid out according to the Plan of
Distribution ("Plan").
A summary of the eligibility criteria and claims process is below.
Full details are available at www.CompassMineralsFairFund.com . You
may also request a copy of the Plan from the Fund Administrator via
email at info@CompassMineralsFairFund.com or by calling
866-675-2446.
Who is eligible to receive a payment from the Fair Fund? To receive
a payment, you must have:
1. purchased Compass common stock between March 2, 2017, and
October 22, 2018;
2. approved transactions that calculate to at least $10.00 of
Recognized Loss under the Plan;
3. not been an Excluded Party under the Plan;
4. submitted a valid Claim Form.
How do I submit a Claim? The easiest way to submit a claim is
online at the Compass Fair Fund website:
www.CompassMineralsFairFund.com. Claim Forms completed online must
be submitted on or before 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on June
27, 2025.
If you are unable to submit a Claim Form online, you may request a
copy of the paper Claim Form from the Fund Administrator via email
at info@CompassMineralsFairFund.com or by calling 866-675-2446. You
may also download a copy of the Claim Form to print from:
www.CompassMineralsFairFund.com. Claim Forms submitted via mail
must be sent to the address provided on the Claim Form and
postmarked (or if not sent by U.S. Mail, then received) by June 27,
2025.
The Fund Administrator will send a Determination Notice advising
each Eligible Claimant who timely submitted a Claim Form of their
eligibility determination and will provide a calculation of the
claimant's Recognized Loss. The Fund Administrator may consider
disputes of an Eligible Claimant's Recognized Loss calculation if
timely submitted in accordance with the Plan.
This notice is a summary. For more information, visit
www.CompassMineralsFairFund.com
CORNERSTONE BUILDING: $45MM Class Settlement to be Heard on May 29
------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN RE CORNERSTONE BUILDING
BRANDS, INC. STOCKHOLDER
LITIGATION
C.A. No. 2023-0092-JTL
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR
TO:
All record holders and beneficial owners of shares of Cornerstone
Building Brands, Inc.'s ("Cornerstone") common stock (NYSE: "CNR")
who received $24.65 per share in cash at the closing of the
take-private transaction between Cornerstone and CD&R on July 25,
2022 (the "Closing") in exchange for their Cornerstone shares,
including their heirs, successors in interest, successors,
transferees, and assigns (the "Class").
PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned stockholder class action (the "Action") is pending
in the Court.
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs Whitebark Value Partners LP
and Robert Garfield (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), individually and
on behalf of the Class, have reached a proposed settlement with
defendants Clayton Dubilier & Rice, LLC, CD&R Pisces Holdings,
L.P., Clayton, Dubilier & Rice Fund VIII, L.P., CD&R Friends &
Family Fund VIII, L.P., George Ball, Gary Forbes, John Holland,
William Jackson, Judith Reinsdorf, Alena Brenner, and Centerview
Partners LLC (collectively, "Defendants"), and Cornerstone for
$45,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). The terms of the Settlement
are stated in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement,
Compromise, and Release between Plaintiffs, Defendants and
Cornerstone, dated February 24, 2025 (the "Stipulation"), a copy of
which is available at
www.CornerstoneBuildingStockholderLitigation.com. If approved by
the Court, the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action as
against Defendants.
A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on May 29, 2025
at 9:15 a.m., before The Honorable J. Travis Laster, Vice
Chancellor, either in person at the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware, New Castle County, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center,
500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, or remotely by
Zoom (in the discretion of the Court), to, among other things: (i)
determine whether the proposed Settlement on the terms and
conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and
adequate to the Class, and should be approved by the Court; (ii)
determine whether a Judgment, substantially in the form attached as
Exhibit D to the Stipulation, should be entered dismissing the
Action with prejudice as against Defendants; (iii) determine
whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund
is fair and reasonable, and should therefore be approved; (iv)
determine whether the application by Plaintiffs' counsel for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses, and any incentive awards to
Plaintiffs, should be approved; (v) hear and rule on any objections
to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or to the
application by Plaintiffs' Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses, including any incentive awards to Plaintiffs; and
(vi) consider any other matters that may properly be brought before
the Court in connection with the Settlement. Any updates regarding
the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time
of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances
at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement website,
www.CornerstoneBuildingStockholderLitigation.com.
If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to
share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the
Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting the
Settlement Administrator at Cornerstone Building Stockholder
Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 170500, Milwaukee, WI
53217. A copy of the Notice can also be downloaded from the
Settlement website,
www.CornerstoneBuildingStockholderLitigation.com.
If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date
occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata
basis to "Eligible Class Members" in accordance with the proposed
Plan of Allocation stated in the Notice or such other plan of
allocation as is approved by the Court. Under the proposed Plan of
Allocation, "Eligible Class Members" consist of all Class Members
who held or beneficially owned shares of Cornerstone common stock
at the Closing on July 25, 2022, and therefore received, or were
entitled to receive, the Transaction Consideration for their
"Eligible Shares". Pursuant to the proposed Plan of Allocation,
each Eligible Class Member will be eligible to receive a pro rata
payment from the Net Settlement Fund equal to the product of (i)
the number of Eligible Shares held by the Eligible Class Member and
(ii) the "Per-Share Recovery" for the Settlement, which will be
determined by dividing the total amount of the Net Settlement Fund
by the total number of Eligible Shares. As explained in further
detail in the Notice, pursuant to the Plan of Allocation, payments
from the Net Settlement Fund to Eligible Class Members will be made
in the same manner in which Eligible Class Members received the
Transaction Consideration. Eligible Class Members do not have to
submit a claim form to receive a payment from the Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Plaintiffs' counsel's application for an award
attorneys' fees and litigation expenses and any incentive awards to
Plaintiffs in connection with the Settlement must be filed with the
Register in Chancery in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware and delivered to Plaintiffs' counsel and Defendants'
counsel such that they are received no later than May 7, 2025, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in
Chancery regarding this notice. All questions about this notice,
the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to the Settlement Administrator or
Plaintiffs' counsel.
Requests for the Notice should be made to the Settlement
Administrator:
Cornerstone Building Stockholder Litigation
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 170500
Milwaukee, WI 53217
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to
Plaintiffs' counsel:
Ned Weinberger
LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP
222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1510
Wilmington, DE 19801
nweinberger@labaton.com
Kimberly A. Evans
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1120
Wilmington, DE 19801
kim@blockleviton.com
Dated: March 28, 2025
BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF
CHANCERY OF THE STATE
OF DELAWARE
Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Class by
definition, as set forth in the full Notice of Pendency of
Stockholder Class Action and Proposed Settlement, Settlement
Hearing, and Right to Appear (the "Notice"), available at
www.CornerstoneBuildingStockholderLitigation.com. Any capitalized
terms used in this Summary Notice that are not otherwise defined in
this Summary Notice shall have the meanings given to them in the
Notice.
CREDIT SUISSE: $71MM Class Settlement to be Heard on July 16
------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS,
FAIRNESS HEARING AND CLASS MEMBERS' RIGHTS
TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO, DIRECTLY OR THROUGH AN AGENT,
ENTERED INTO ONE OR MORE U.S. INTEREST RATE SWAP(S) ("IRS")
TRANSACTION WITH ANY DEFENDANT DURING THE SETTLEMENT CLASS PERIOD.
The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of the proposed
Settlements in this Action.
A Settlement has been reached with the "Credit Suisse Settling
Defendants,": Credit Suisse Group AG; Credit Suisse AG; Credit
Suisse Securities (USA) LLC; and Credit Suisse International. The
"Settlement Class Period" for the Credit Suisse Settlement is
January 1, 2008 through January 21, 2022. A second Settlement has
been reached with the "Newly Settling Defendants": Bank of America
Corporation; Bank of America, N.A.; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
Smith Incorporated (n/k/a BofA Securities, Inc.); Barclays Bank
PLC; Barclays Capital Inc.; BNP Paribas, S.A.; BNP Paribas
Securities Corp.; Citigroup Inc.; Citibank, N.A.; Citigroup Global
Markets Inc.; Citigroup Global Markets Limited; Deutsche Bank AG;
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.; The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.;
Goldman, Sachs & Co. LLC; Goldman Sachs Bank USA; Goldman Sachs
Financial Markets, LP; Goldman Sachs International; JPMorgan Chase
& Co.; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.; J.P. Morgan Securities LLC; J.P.
Morgan Securities plc; Morgan Stanley; Morgan Stanley Bank, N.A.;
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC; Morgan Stanley Capital Services LLC;
Morgan Stanley Derivative Products Inc.; Morgan Stanley & Co.
International plc; Morgan Stanley Bank International Limited;
NatWest Group plc (f/k/a The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc);
NatWest Markets plc (f/k/a Royal Bank of Scotland plc); NatWest
Markets Securities Inc. (f/k/a RBS Securities Inc.); UBS AG; and
UBS Securities LLC. This Settlement is referred as the "New
Settlement." The "Settlement Class Period" for the New Settlement
is January 1, 2008 through June 10, 2024.
Collectively, the Credit Suisse Settling Defendants and the Newly
Settling Defendants are referred to as the "Settling Defendants."
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants conspired to prevent buy-side
investors from trading Interest Rate Swaps on all-to-all anonymous
electronic trading platforms that plaintiffs believe would have
provided more transparent and competitive trading options.
Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants conspired to prevent
buy-side investors from trading with each other, thus ensuring that
a dealer bank would remain on one side of every trade. Plaintiffs
allege that these actions violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15
U.S.C. Sec. 1, and that, as a result, Defendants generated
supracompetitive profits from the challenged conduct. All
Defendants deny they did anything wrong.
The Court has preliminarily approved the Settlements with the
Settling Defendants. To resolve all Released Claims against all
Released Parties, the Credit Suisse Settling Defendants are
required to pay $25,000,000 and the Newly Settling Defendants are
required to pay $46,000,000. Settlement Class Members who do not
opt out of the Settlements will release their legal claims against
all Settling Defendants in the Action.
Your Legal Rights and Options in these Settlements
DO NOTHING: If you do nothing in connection with the Settlements,
you will receive no payment from the Settlements and you will be
bound by any past and future Court rulings, including rulings on
the Settlements, if approved, and the Settlement releases.
FILE A CLAIM FORM: If you are a Settlement Class Member of either
or both Settlement Classes and do not exclude yourself, you must
file a Claim Form to receive your share of money from the Net
Settlement Fund(s). Claim Forms must be submitted online at the
Settlement Website on or before 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on June 16,
2025 OR postmarked by June 16, 2025 and mailed to: Interest Rate
Swaps Antitrust Litigation, Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box
2796, Portland, OR 97208-2796. If you do not file a Claim Form, you
will not receive any payments under the Settlements but will still
be bound by any past and future Court rulings, including rulings on
the Settlements, if approved, and the Settlement releases.
EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENTS: If you wish to exclude
yourself from either or both of the Settlement Classes, you must
submit your request for exclusion by U.S. first class mail to the
Settlement Administrator received by May 16, 2025. If you exclude
yourself from a Settlement, you will not be bound by that
Settlement, if approved, or that Settlement's release, and you will
not be eligible for any payment from that Settlement. You can
exclude yourself by sending a written "Request for Exclusion." You
cannot exclude yourself by telephone or email. Your written Request
for Exclusion must be mailed by U.S. first class mail and received
by May 16, 2025, to: Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litigation,
EXCLUSIONS, Settlement Administrator, PO Box 2796, Portland, OR
97208-2796.
OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENTS: If you wish to object to either or both
of the Settlements, you must file a written objection with the
Court by May 16, 2025 and mail your objection by U.S. first class
mail to Plaintiffs' Counsel and Settling Defendants' counsel
postmarked by May 16, 2025. You can object to all or any part of
the Settlements, Plans of Allocation, and/or application for
attorneys' Fee and Expense Award, costs, or the Plaintiffs' Service
Awards. You must be and remain a Settlement Class Member in order
to object to that Settlement.
FAIRNESS HEARING: The Court will hold the Fairness Hearing on July
16, 2025. At the Fairness Hearing, the Court will consider whether
the Settlements are fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court will
also consider whether to approve the Plans of Allocation and
requests for the attorneys' Fee and Expense Awards, costs, and
Plaintiffs' Service Awards. If there are any objections, the Court
will consider them at this time. Although you do not need to
participate, you are welcome to participate at the Fairness
Hearing. You may also hire your own lawyer to participate, but you
are not required to do so.
This Notice summarizes the Settlement Agreements. More details are
in the Settlement Agreements and Plans of Allocation, which are
available for your review at the Settlement Website,
www.InterestRateSwapsAntitrustLitigation.com. The Settlement
Website also has answers to common questions about the Settlements,
Claim Form, and other information to help you determine whether you
are a Settlement Class Member and whether you are eligible for a
payment. You may also call toll-free 1-888-597-6416.
CRUNCH LLC: Lara Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Untimely Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA VERTIZ LARA, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CRUNCH LLC CRUNCH
BUSHWICK, LLC, CRUNCH LEFFERTS, LLC, and any other related
entities, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02483 (S.D.N.Y., March 26,
2025) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff
required overtime rates for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek and failure to pay wages on a timely basis.
Patricia Vertiz resides in the State of New York and was employed
by Defendants from approximately May 2019 to February 2024. While
employed by the Defendants, Named Plaintiff performed cleaning
services for Defendants including but not limited to cleaning the
floors, windows, and workout machines.
The Defendants own and operate a chain of gyms/health clubs in the
United States and internationally.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
LaDonna Lusher, Esq.
Paige I. Piazza, Esq.
VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 943-9080
E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com
ppiazza@vandallp.com
- and -
Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
NAYDENSKIY LAW FIRM, LLC
517 Brighton Beach, Ave, 2nd Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11235
Telephone: (718) 808-2224
E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com
DAVID DINELLO: Loses Summary Judgment Bid v. Gradia
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gradia v. David Dinello,
et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-05660 (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=JV4LFW
at no extra charge.[CC]
DAVID DINELLO: Loses Summary Judgment Bid v. Pritchett
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pritchett v. David Dinello
et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-05664 (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=7kdrUg
at no extra charge.[CC]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Certifies Barnes Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAKEL BARNES, et al., v.
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00750-RCL
(D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Royce Lamberth entered an order certifying
a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure:
The Plaintiff shall consist of:
"all District residents between the ages of 18 and 24 who: (1)
are incarcerated in the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") as D.C. Code
offenders and are currently entitled to receive special
education and/or related services pursuant to the Individuals
with Disabilities Act ("IDEA") and its federal and local
implementing regulations and District law; (2) are or were
incarcerated in the BOP as D.C. Code offenders and were
entitled to receive special education and/or related services
pursuant to the IDEA and its federal and local implementing
regulations and District law, but have since aged out of
eligibility; or (3) will be incarcerated in the BOP as D.C.
Code offenders and are entitled to receive special education
and/or related services pursuant to the IDEA and its federal
and local implementing regulations and District law, and do
not, did not, or will not, receive special education and/or
related services pursuant to the IDEA and its federal and
local implementing regulations and District law while
incarcerated in the BOP";
The Court further entered an order that the claims upon which the
class may seek relief are:
1) That the District, by and through its subsidiaries the
DCPS OSSE), has denied a FAPE to the Plaintiffs in
violation of 20 U.S.C. section 1412(a)(1)(A). And the
relief sought by the Plaintiffs is an order extending
their eligibility to receive a FAPE.
2) That the BOP has denied the Plaintiffs access to a FAPE
while the Plaintiffs are in BOP custody without notice or
an opportunity to be heard in violation of the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
District of Columbia is a compact city on the Potomac River,
bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0b9n8A at no extra
charge.[CC]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Zorgani Seeks to Certify Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOHAMED MEDHI ZORGANI and
SOUKAINA LAASIRI, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al. Case No.
1:17-cv-02360-EGS-MAU (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
(1) certifying action as a class action;
(2) certifying the class as consisting of all persons whose
Driver's license was suspended by the District of Columbia
for ticket-based debt, without receiving notice of the
suspension, from 2016 to 2018; and
(3) appointing the undersigned counsel as class counsel.
The suit seeks monetary damages and other appropriate relief
against the District of Columbia and its Department of Motor
Vehicles (DMV). From 2010 to 2018, the District of Columbia adopted
a policy of not sending notices to drivers when their license was
subject to suspension. This policy resulted in the suspension of
thousands of drivers licenses without notice, between 2010 and
2018.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated. The class is composed of all person who
had their driver’s license suspended by the District of Columbia
for ticket-based debt between 2016 and 2018.
Based on data from the District of Columbia on the number of
licenses suspended between 2016 and 2018 exceeds 27, 881 people.
District of Columbia is a compact city on the Potomac River,
bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 31, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pVs5mP at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Harvey S. Williams, Esq.
David J. Stillings, Esq.
WILLIAMS LEGAL GROUP
2300 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Ste. 100A
Washington, D.C. 20007
Telephone: (202) 462-5900
Facsimile: (202) 462-5904
E-mail: hsw@williamslegalgroup.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Tyler Gerstein, Esq.
400 6th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
E-mail: tyler.gerstein@dc.gov
DONG BANG: Lee Seeks Leave to File First Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEE v. DONG BANG
CORPORATION et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01336-MEF-SDA (D.N.J.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting leave to file
first amended complaint.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is not asserting a new legal theory. She
seeks only to clarify that Defendants’ wage deductions under the
pretense of tax withholdings fall within the existing claims for
unjust enrichment and conversion. Because the proposed amendments
are limited in scope and based on facts already developed in
discovery and briefing, there will be no undue delay, prejudice, or
expansion of the case.
The Plaintiff seeks to amend her complaint to include factual
allegations and supporting language concerning the Defendants'
longstanding practice of deducting wages from employees under the
pretense of tax withholdings, without remitting the full amount to
any taxing authority.
The proposed amendments are narrowly tailored to clarify that the
Defendants' alleged practice of deducting wages under the guise of
tax withholdings falls within the scope of Plaintiff’s existing
claims for unjust enrichment and conversion. No new causes of
action are being added, and the proposed changes do not alter the
core structure or nature of the case.
Specifically, the amended complaint includes a short factual
subsection describing the tax withholding scheme and inserts two
brief paragraphs under the Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action,
confirming that this conduct is encompassed within those claims.
Dong Bang was founded in 1977. The company's line of business
includes manufacturing fluid power cylinders and actuators.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 28, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=02iakY at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Kim Esq.
RYAN KIM LAW
222 Bruce Reynolds Blvd, 490
Fort Lee, NJ 07024
Telephone: (201) 897-8787
E-mail: ryan@ryankimlaw.com
ELON MUSK: Emrit Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Presidential Candidate
Number P60005535 "also known as" (aka) Ronald Satish Emrit, &
Presidential Committee/Political Action Committee/Separate
Segregated Fund (SSF) Number C00569897 d/b/a United Emrits of
America, V. Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, Speaker of the House Mike
Johnson, & Department of Government Efficiency, Case No.
2:25-cv-00096-JCZ-KWR (E.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying a class action lawsuit pursuant to Rule
23 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP).
Accordingly, there is commonality, typicality, and numerosity of
claims in which other accountholders nationwide of SSI, SSDI,
Medicare/Medicaid, EBT/SNAP benefits subsidized by USDA, and
Section 8 Housing Vouchers (HCV) subsidized by HUD should be added
and/or joined to this proposed class.
The proposed class should include anyone receiving SSI, SSDI,
Social Security, and/or Medicare/Medicaid whose information has
been accessed illegally by both Elon Musk and DOGE Employees.
The plaintiff also argues that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent as
another billionaire supporting Project 2025 is an accomplice to the
worst identity theft and/or data breach in American history and so
the class action lawsuit would presumably also include Treasury
Secretary Scott Bessent as a defendant in addition to DOGE and Elon
Musk.
According to the laws defining an inchoate crime, the plaintiff
also argues that Treasury Scott Bessent has entered into a
conspiracy to commit identity theft with Elon Musk and DOGE as
Special Government Employees (SGE's) violating the Appointments
Clause of Article II of U.S. Constitution whether or not that
involves a chain conspiracy or hub-and-spoke conspiracy according
to the Wharton Rule.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 12, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aWxsQy at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Pro Se
Ronald Satish Emrit
6655 38th Lane East
Sarasota, FL 34243
Telephone: (703)936-3043
E-mail: einsteinrockstar@hotmail.com
FEDERAL INSURANCE: Must File Class Cert Opposition by April 25
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GILBERT PURCELL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-04927-JD (N.D. Cal),
the Plaintiff and the Defendant ask the Court to enter an order as
follows:
The Defendant's deadline to oppose Plaintiff's motion for class
certification shall be extended to April 25, 2025; and
The Plaintiff's deadline to file a reply in support of his
motion for class certification shall be extended to May 15,
2025.
The hearing date should remain set for May 29, 2025.
On March 28, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification. The Defendant's current deadline to oppose the
motion for class certification is April 11, 2025. The Plaintiff's
current deadline to reply to Defendant’s opposition is April 18,
2025.
Federal Insurance offers fire, marine, casualty, accident and
health, and property insurance services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 31, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EgmuNZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Oren Giskan, Esq.
GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP
90 Broad St 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 835-0773
- and -
Patrick Deblase, Esq.
DEBLASE BROWN EYERLY LLP
80 S Santa Fe Ave,
Los Angeles, CA 90021
Telephone: (310) 575-9955
The Defendant is represented by:
Richard B. Goetz, Esq.
Zoheb P. Noorani, Esq.
Andrew M. Levine, Esq.
Jessica A. Snyder, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 430-6000
Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
E-mail: rgoetz@omm.com
znoorani@omm.com
alevine@omm.com
jsnyder@omm.com
FLAGSTAR FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Garfield Class Suit in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Flagstar Financial Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
annual period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2025, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Garfield shareholder class suit
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.
On December 19, 2024, another purported shareholder of the Company
filed an additional purported shareholder class action, captioned
Garfield v. Flagstar Financial, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:24-cv-08655, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York against the Company and certain current and
former directors and executive officers of the Company.
This purported class action alleges substantially the same claims
as those set forth in the Lemm complaint and the plaintiff has
filed a motion to consolidate this matter with the Lemm matter.
The Company is vigorously defending the allegations set forth in
the purported class action complaints and also intends to
vigorously defend any related actions.
Flagstar Financial is a bank holding company headquartered in
Hicksville, NY.[BN]
FLAGSTAR FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Lemm Shareholder Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Flagstar Financial Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
annual period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2025, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Lemm shareholder class suit in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.
The Company and certain former executive officers of the Company
and certain current and former directors of the Company have been
named as defendants in a consolidated purported shareholder class
action captioned Lemm, Jr. v. New York Community Bancorp, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00903, filed on February 6, 2024 in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
This action, which seeks unspecified compensatory damages to be
proven at trial, alleges violations of the federal securities laws,
including Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5, with respect to
disclosures concerning the Company's business, operations and
prospects, particularly regarding the impact of the Flagstar and
Signature transactions and the Bank's commercial real estate loan
portfolio and related matters, that were made in the Company's
public SEC filings and press releases during the period beginning
on July 27, 2022 and ending on February 29, 2024.
The Company is vigorously defending the allegations set forth in
the purported class action complaints and also intends to
vigorously defend any related actions.
Flagstar Financial is a bank holding company headquartered in
Hicksville, NY.[BN]
FLUENT INC: Made $1.1MM Cash Payment to "Berman" Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fluent Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-K with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2024, that the
Company was involved in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class
action, Daniel Berman v. Freedom Financial Network, which was
originally filed in the Northern District of California in 2018.
On May 31, 2023, the parties entered into an Amended Class Action
Settlement Agreement, which included injunctive provisions and
payment to plaintiffs of $9,750,000 for legal fees and a consumer
redress fund, of which the Company was responsible for $3,100,000.
The final approval of the Berman Settlement Agreement was filed on
February 23, 2024. To satisfy its obligations under the Berman
Settlement Agreement, the Company made a cash payment of $1,100,000
on March 15, 2024 and issued a junior secured promissory note in
the principal amount of $2,000,000 payable to the co-defendant,
Freedom Debt Relief, LLC.
About Fluent Inc.
Fluent, Inc. -- https://www.fluentco.com -- is a digital marketing
services company specializing in customer acquisition. The
Company
operates highly scalable digital marketing campaigns that connect
advertiser clients with their target consumers. The Company
accesses these consumers through both its owned and operated
digital media properties and Commerce Media Solutions marketplace.
Since 2023, the Company delivered data-driven, performance-based
customer acquisition services for over 500 consumer brands, direct
marketers, and agencies across various industries, including Media
& Entertainment, Financial Products & Services, Health & Life
Sciences, Retail & Consumer, and Staffing & Recruitment.
Fluent said in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended Sept. 30, 2024, that "Based on current projections, the
Company expects to be in compliance with the new financial
covenants for each of the quarters in the twelve months following
the issuance date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. However,
the Company has not met its projections for certain recent
quarters, so there can be no assurance that the Company will meet
its projections in the future. If during any fiscal quarter, the
Credit Parties do not comply with any of their financial
covenants,
such non-compliance would result in an event of default that would
give SLR the right to accelerate maturities. Additionally, if the
Company fails to raise capital in at least the amount required
under the Third Amendment by November 29, 2024, such failure would
also result in an event of default. In such case, the Company
would not have sufficient funds to repay the SLR Term Loan ... and
the SLR Revolver...In addition, even if the Company is able to
raise additional capital as required by the Third Amendment, there
is no assurance that such capital plus the available cash plus
borrowing base on the SLR Revolver will be sufficient to fund
operations over the next twelve months. If needed, the Company
will consider implementing other cost-saving measures, but there
is
no guarantee that such plans would be successfully executed or
have
the expected benefits. As a result, management concluded that
there
is substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a
going concern for one year after the date of this Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q."
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Valley Health Sues Over Price-Fixing Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
VALLEY HEALTH CARE, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOODRX HOLDINGS, INC., CVS
CAREMARK CORPORATION, EXPRESS SCRIPTS HOLDING COMPANY, MEDIMPACT
HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC., and NAVITUS HEALTH SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00456-CLM (N.D. Ala., March 26, 2025)
arises from Defendants' conspiracy to fix prices paid by pharmacy
benefit managers to pharmacies for reimbursement of generic
prescription drug claims.
According to the complaint, over the past few decades, PBMs,
including the PBM Defendants, have vertically integrated themselves
with pharmacies, health insurers, health care providers, drug
private labelers, and various other entities at different points in
the distribution chain for prescription drugs, allowing them to
have vast market power over prescription drug access and pricing in
the United States.
The PBM Defendants exert their market power by employing various
anticompetitive tactics to restrain competition in the prescription
drug dispensing market, forcing independent pharmacies out of
business and thereby increasing the market share of the PBMs'
affiliated pharmacies. Among these tactics is a recent scheme
devised by Defendants to (i) share real time pricing data with one
another using GoodRx as a clearinghouse, and (ii) allocate
transactions to one another in order to maximize the number of
claims processed using prescription discount cards, the suit says.
As a direct result of the alleged conduct, pharmacies like
Plaintiff were injured by receiving decreased reimbursements for
dispensing generic prescription drugs and paying increased fees to
PBMs resulting from discount card transactions. This has
contributed to the closure of hundreds of independent pharmacies,
thus lessening competition in the prescription drug dispensing
market. In the end, consumers will suffer as these restraints on
competition lead to fewer pharmacy choices, lower quality services,
and higher healthcare costs, the suit contends.
GoodRx Holdings, Inc. operates a digital healthcare platform. The
Company develops telemedicine platform and a free-to-use website to
access quality healthcare at a reasonable price.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert G. Methvin, Jr., Esq.
James M. Terrell, Esq.
Courtney C. Gipson, Esq.
METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS &
MILLER, P.C.
The Highland Building
2201 Arlington Avenue
South Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 939-0199
Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
E-mail: rgm@mtattorneys.com
jterrell@mtattorneys.com
cgipson@mtattorneys.com
- and -
Jeffrey L. Bowling, Esq.
BEDFORD, ROGERS, BOWLING & MCREYNOLDS, P.C.
Post Office Box 669
303 North Jackson Avenue
Russellville, AL 35653
Telephone: (256) 332-2880
Facsimile: (256) 810-8970
E-mail: jeffbrbpc@bellsouth.net
INSTRUCTURE INC: Hernandez-Silva Sues for Invasion of Privacy
-------------------------------------------------------------
JASMINE HERNANDEZ-SILVA and MICHAEL SILVA, on behalf of their minor
children M.C. 1 and M.C. 2, and HEIDI SAAS, on behalf of her minor
child M.C. 3, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. INSTRUCTURE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-02711 (C.D. Cal., March 27, 2025) is a class action against
the Defendant for invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment and
violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, the California
Invasion of Privacy Act, the Comprehensive Computer Data Access and
Fraud Act, the California's Unfair Competition Law, and the
California Civil Code.
According to the complaint, Defendant Instructure has built a
multibillion-dollar corporate empire by monetizing troves of
personal information from users of its products -- including
millions of school-aged children -- without effective consent.
Instructure markets itself as an education technology company, but
its core business is generating, extracting, and analyzing as much
information as possible about students and monetizing that
information.
The suit asserts that the products it markets for use by children
in K-12 education are no exception. Through an ever-growing suite
of digital products, Instructure generates and extracts personal
and private information from school-aged children. It then provides
that information to its customers, including schools and school
districts, but also more than a thousand private companies.
Instructure and its customers convert that information into
intimately detailed profiles on children, which they use to develop
and market products and services, to manipulate how children think
and act, shape their information environment, and make significant
decisions affecting their lives and their futures, all without
students or their parents ever knowing.
Instructure's massive data-harvesting apparatus exposes children to
serious and irreversible risks to their privacy, property, and
autonomy, and harms them in ways that are both concealed and
profound, the suit alleges.
Instructure, Inc. is an educational technology company based in
Salt Lake City, Utah.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Melisa A. Rosadini-Knott, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90010-1923
Telephone: (323) 982-4109
E-mail: mrosadini@peifferwolf.com
- and -
Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP
One US Bank Plaza, Suite 1950
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 833-4825
E-mail: bwise@peifferwolf.com
- and -
Andrew R. Tate, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP
235 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 400
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (314) 669-3600
E-mail: atate@peifferwolf.com
- and -
Andrew Liddell, Esq.
EDTECH LAW CENTER PLLC
P.O. Box 300488
Austin, TX 78705
Telephone: (737) 351-5855
E-mail: julie.liddell@edtech.law
andrew.liddell@edtech.law
- and -
Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC
102 Half Moon Bay Drive
Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520
Telephone: (917) 983-9321
E-mail: LFeldman@4-Justice.com
- and -
Brittany L. Sackrin, Esq.
GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC
9897 Lake Worth Road, Suite 302
Lake Worth, FL 33467
Telephone: (561) 232-6002
E-mail: BSackrin@4-Justice.com
- and -
Karen Dahlberg O'Connell, Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
157 Columbus Ave, 4th Floor
New York NY 10023
Telephone: (347) 395-5666
E-mail: karen@almeidalawgroup.com
- and -
Britany A. Kabakov, Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
849 W. Webster Avenue
Chicago, IL 60614
Telephone: (708) 529-5418
E-mail: britany@almeidalawgroup.com
INTELLICHECK LLC: Faces BIPA Class Suit in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------
Intellicheck LLC disclosed that it received a class action
complaint on March 24, 2024 alleging that the Company collected
biometric information from users in Illinois in violation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq.
("BIPA").
The Company said it is not able to fully assess the probability and
outcome of the matter due to the need to conduct further
investigation. However, it does not currently believe that a
material loss is probable nor estimable. As such, the Company has
not recognized a liability and intends to fully defend the matter.
About Intellicheck LLC
Intellicheck LLC, originally incorporated in the state of New York
in 1994 as Intelli-Check, Inc., is a technology company that
delivers on-demand digital identity validation solutions for KYC,
fraud, and age verification needs.
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Larkin Hospital Wins Class Status Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARKIN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
v. Intuitive Surgical Inc. (RE: DA VINCI SURGICAL ROBOT ANTITRUST
LITIGATION), Case No. 3:21-cv-03825-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an order granting Larkin
Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class action.
The Court defines the Class to include:
"All entities that purchased da Vinci service and EndoWrists
from Intuitive in the United States at any time from May 21,
2017, to Dec. 31, 2021. Hospitals run by the Departments of
Defense and Veterans Affairs are excluded from the Class."
Taking all of these Rule 23(b)(3) factors into account, the Court
finds that maintaining this action as a class action would be
superior to individual actions.
In sum, with the assistance of Prof. Elhauge's opinion, the
Hospital Plaintiffs have shown that common issues predominate. If a
jury is persuaded by Hospital Plaintiffs' class-wide evidence at
trial, the Class as a whole will win, and if the jury remains
unpersuaded, the entire Class will lose.
The case is a putative antitrust class action related to surgical
robots, their instruments, and whether the robot's manufacturer has
engaged in anticompetitive conduct. This is one of two related
cases before the Court alleging anticompetitive conduct by the
Defendant.
The two cases involve similar antitrust claims -- this case is
brought by customers, and the other case is brought by a
competitor. The Plaintiffs' motion to certify the class was heard
before the Court on Jan. 23, 2025.
On March 31, 2025, the Court issued its order regarding the
parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.
Intuitive manufactures the sophisticated da Vinci surgical robot
system for minimally-invasive soft tissue ("MIST") surgery.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 31, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uiDnsQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
JJFM CORP: Agnone Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users
------------------------------------------------------------
PASQUALE AGNONE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JJFM Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-01723 (E.D.N.Y., March 28, 2025) is a civil rights action
against JJFM for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website, https://www.manninosrestaurant.com, to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the
New York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers
that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using
keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive
and include, but are not limited to inaccurate landmark structure,
inaccurate heading hierarchy, ambiguous link texts, unclear labels
for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, and the
requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
JJFM's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will
become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to
compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful
discrimination.
JJFM Corporation operates the website that offers consumers with
access to Italian dishes and restaurant services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (718) 705-8706
Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
E-mail: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com
KARTOON STUDIOS: Intends to File Bid to Junk Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Kartoon Studios, 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 February 4, 2025, the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California issued an order
granting in part and denying in part the renewed motion to dismiss
and denying Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a sur-reply in the
securities litigation styled In re Genius Brands International,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 2:20-cv-07457 DSF
(RAOx).
The District Court dismissed all claims against former Chief
Financial Officer Robert Denton and claims against the Company and
Chief Executive Officer Andy Heyward based on all but one of the
complained-of statements. However, the District Court determined
that Plaintiffs had adequately pled a Section 10(b) claim based on
March 2020 statements concerning the number of times that the
Rainbow Rangers cartoon was airing on Nickelodeon. As to the other
alleged misstatements that were dismissed, and as to any claims
against Mr. Denton, the District Court granted Plaintiffs leave to
amend their pleading another time. On March 3, 2025, Plaintiffs
filed a Third Amended Complaint, seeking again to assert claims
against the Company and Mr. Heyward related to the four alleged
misstatements that survived the Ninth Circuit appeal; they did not
replead any claims against Mr. Denton. Defendants intend to file
another motion to dismiss directed to the Third Amended Complaint.
Under a briefing schedule that has been entered by the Court, that
motion must be filed by April 14, 2025. Briefing extends into late
June, and a hearing has been scheduled for July 14, 2025.
Meanwhile, as previously reported, the parties elected to mediate
the dispute, as well as the shareholder derivative actions
referenced below in Item 2, before Phillips ADR. The mediation was
held December 9, 2024. The case did not settle during the
mediation. In light of the District Court's February 4, 2025,
order, however, the mediator has reached out to the parties to
determine whether there is a basis now to resolve the dispute.
While the Company has advised that it would like to settle the
lawsuit, the mediator has not reported back concerning his
discussions with Plaintiffs' counsel. The Company said it cannot
predict whether the parties will decide to continue with mediation
or, if they do, whether they will be able to reach a settlement of
the case and of related shareholder derivative litigation on terms
acceptable to the parties.
As previously disclosed, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer
Andy Heyward, and its former Chief Financial Officer Robert Denton
were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
and styled In re Genius Brands International, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 2:20-cv-07457 DSF (RAOx). Lead
plaintiffs alleged generally that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing
allegedly false or misleading statements about the Company,
initially over an alleged class period running from March into
early July 2020. Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages on behalf of
the alleged class of persons who invested in the Company's common
stock during the alleged class period. Defendants moved to dismiss
lead plaintiffs’ amended complaint, and in a decision issued on
August 30, 2021, the Court dismissed the amended complaint but
granted lead plaintiffs a further opportunity to plead a claim.
In September 2021, lead plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint, naming the same defendants. The new complaint alleged
again that the Company made numerous -- depending on how one
counted, more than two dozen -- false or misleading statements
about the Company's business and business prospects, this time over
an expanded alleged class period that extended into March 2021.
They again alleged that these misstatements violated Section 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Lead plaintiffs again sought
unspecified damages on behalf of an alleged class of persons who
invested in the Company’s common stock during the expanded
alleged class period. In November 2021, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On July 15, 2022,
the Court issued a decision dismissing the second amended complaint
in its entirety and with prejudice.
On August 12, 2022, lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. After a full
briefing of the appeal, a panel of the Court of Appeals held oral
argument on the appeal on November 6, 2023, and took the matter
under submission.
On April 5, 2024, the Appellate Court issued its opinion, affirming
in part and reversing in part the decision of the District Court.
The Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal of certain claims
pertaining to Company statements where it found that Plaintiffs
failed to adequately plead a 10(b) cause of action but reversed the
lower court’s dismissal of claims related to four of the
Company’s alleged misstatements, finding that, in three of those
instances, the Plaintiffs adequately pleaded loss causation, and in
one instance adequately alleged a misleading statement. The Court
of Appeals did not address other elements of any claims based on
these four complained-of statements, noting that the District Court
should address those issues on remand.
The matter was remanded to the District Court in May 2024. By order
entered June 4, 2024, the Court directed the defendants to file a
renewed motion to dismiss on a schedule to be proposed by the
parties. Consistent with that order, Defendants filed their renewed
motion on July 29, 2024. Plaintiffs filed the opposition to the
motion on September 16, 2024, and Defendants filed a reply brief on
October 16, 2024. The District Court subsequently vacated the
hearing on the renewed motion to dismiss (including plaintiffs’
motion for leave to file a sur-reply) that had been scheduled for
November 4, 2024, determining that the matter could be resolved by
the Court based on the parties’ written submissions.
Since the Company's last quarterly report, there have been no
developments in the shareholder derivative actions involving the
Company. Related to the securities class action, the Company's
directors (other than Dr. Cynthia Turner-Graham and Michael Hirsh),
together with Messrs. Heyward and Denton and former director
Michael Klein, have been named as defendants in several putative
stockholder derivative lawsuits. As previously disclosed, these
include a consolidated proceeding pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California and styled In re
Genius Brands Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Case No.
2:20-cv-08277 DSF (RAOx); an action filed in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court captioned Ly, etc. v. Heyward, et al., Case No.
20STCV44611; and an additional case pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nevada, styled Miceli, etc. v. Heyward,
et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00132-MMD-WGC. While the allegations and
legal claims vary somewhat among the derivative actions, they all
generally allege that the defendants breached fiduciary duties owed
to the Company. The plaintiffs, all alleged stockholders of the
Company, purport to sue on behalf and for the benefit of the
Company. Accordingly, the derivative plaintiffs seek no recovery
from the Company. Instead, as a stockholder derivative action, the
Company is named as a nominal defendant. Pursuant to agreements
among the parties, the courts in all of the derivative lawsuits
have stayed proceedings pending the outcome of the securities
litigation. As the Company cannot predict the outcome of the
securities litigation, it is likewise unable to predict the outcome
of the shareholder derivative lawsuits.
Kartoon Studios, Inc. is a global content and brand management
company that creates, produces, licenses, and broadcasts timeless
and educational, multimedia animated content for children.
MIGUEL GOMEZ: Bryant Bid to Certify Class Action Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHAD ERIC BRYANT, v.
MIGUEL GOMEZ, et al, Case No. 2:22-cv-12169-DPH-CI (E.D. Mich.),
the Hon. Judge Denise Page Hood entered an order that the
Plaintiff's objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation are overruled.
The Court further entered an order that:
-- Magistrate Judge Curtis Ivy, Jr.'s Sept. 12, 2024, Report and
Recommendation is accepted and adopted as this Court's
findings of fact and conclusions of law.
-- Plaintiff's motion to certify class action is denied.
The Magistrate Judge did not err in finding that ascertainability
of subclass 1 is "thorny" because membership hinges on the
subjective belief of putative class members who have an interest in
the success of this matter. Therefore, Objection No. 1 is
overruled.
Though the proposed class members may only be residents in S Pod
for a short period, unlike the putative plaintiffs in Turnage who
were homeowners in close geographic proximity, the inmates in S Pod
were documented and contact information is readily available
through discovery or other means. Such information cuts against the
impracticability of joinder. The Plaintiff's second objection is
overruled.
The Plaintiff failed to provide adequate arguments as to
commonality, therefore, the Magistrate Judge did not err in finding
that commonality does not exist, here. The Plaintiff's third
objection is overruled.
The Plaintiff proposes that subclass 1 be defined as:
"32 male inmates of S Pod of the Saginaw County Jail who, on
July 24- 25, were strip searched in attorney conference rooms,
Room 3018 and 3022, under surveillance cameras connected to
the jail CCTV system which transmitted images of the searches
to video monitors that were viewed by female corrections
officers and preserved to computer servers."
A copy of the Court's order dated March 31, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iDyqas at no extra
charge.[CC]
MOUNTAIRE FARMS: Court Lifts Stay on Ovando Proceedings
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gomez Ovando, et al., v.
Mountaire Farms Inc., et al., Case No. 7:23-cv-00004 (E.D.N.C.,
Filed Jan. 10, 2023), the Hon. Judge Richard E. Myers, II entered
an order as follows:
-- The stay imposed on the proceedings of the case is lifted.
-- The Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification and
Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment are denied
without prejudice as moot.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The Defendant is a family-owned and operated vertically integrated
poultry company founded in 1914.[CC]
NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA: Court Dismisses Afriyie FAC
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMMA AFRIYIE and ROY
CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA, LLC and PEACOCK TV, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-09433-LTS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Laura Taylor Swain
entered an order granting in full the Defendants' motion to dismiss
and dismissing in its entirety the First Amended Complaint.
The Plaintiffs are, however, granted permission to file a motion
for leave to file an amended complaint, within 21 days of the date
of this Opinion and Order. Any such motion must comply with all
applicable federal, local and individual rules of procedure
(including Local Civil Rule 15.1). Failure to make a timely motion
for leave to amend, or to demonstrate in such a motion that
amendment would not be futile, will result in dismissal of this
action with prejudice. This Opinion and Order resolves docket entry
no. 30.
The Plaintiffs have thus failed to allege facts sufficient to
support an inference that the information disclosed by the
Purchased NBC Apps is "personally identifiable information" within
the meaning of the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA") or the New
York Video Consumer Protection Act ("VCPA").
The Plaintiffs bring a four-count putative class action against the
Defendants, alleging violations of the VPPA; VCPA; the New York
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practice Act, N.Y. GEN. BUS. LAW ("GBL")
section 349; and unjust enrichment.
Because the Plaintiffs have not alleged disclosure in potential
violation of either statute, their allegation of violations of
related disclosure obligations fails to state a section 349 claim.
NBCUniversal own and operate several mobile applications that offer
a wide array of prerecorded video content, including TV shows,
movies, trailers, and clips concerning news, politics, financial
and market segments, and sports.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 31, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=brgJOt
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christian Levis, Esq.
Nicole A. Veno, Esq.
Amanda Fiorilla, Esq.
Claire Noelle Forde, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
- and -
Michael P. Canty, Esq.
Carol C. Villegas, Esq.
Danielle Izzo, Esq.
LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10005
The Defendants are represented by:
Jeffrey Landis, Esq.
Benjamin S. Thomassen, Esq.
ZWILLGEN PLLC
1900 M Street NW, Suite 250
Washington, DC 20036
NELNET SERVICING: Class Settlement in Spearman Gets Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM SPEARMAN, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
NELNET SERVICING, LLC and EDFINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
4:22-cv-03191-JMG-JMD (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge John Gerrard
entered an order certifying settlement class, preliminarily
approving class-action settlement, and approving form and manner of
notice.
1. The Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement is granted.
2. For settlement purposes only, this action may be maintained
as a class action on behalf of all Persons in the United
States whose Personal Information was compromised in the
Data Security Incident.
Excluded from the settlement class are (a) the Settling
Entities, any person in which the Settling Entities have a
controlling interest, and the Settling Entities' officers,
directors, legal representatives, successors, subsidiaries,
and assigns; (b) any judge, justice, or judicial officer
presiding over the action and the members of their immediate
families and judicial staff; (c) any person that timely and
validly opts out of the Settlement and; and (d) any person
found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be guilty
under criminal law of initiating, causing, aiding, or
abetting the Data Security Incident or who pleads guilty or
nolo contendere to any such charge.
3. Ian Scott, Jessica Alexander, Pamela Bump, Bridget Cahill,
Lesly Canales, Melissa Charbonneau, Douglas Conley, Noah
Helvey, Dallin Iler, Dustin Jones, Kayli Lazarz, Brittni
Linn, Delilah Oliveira, Devinne Peterson, Eric Polanco,
Justin Randall, Sofia Rodriguez, Joshua Sanchez, Charles
Sangmeister, William Spearman, Taylor Vetter, Rachel Woods,
Garner J. Kohrell, Olivia Covington, Alexis Luna, Mary
Traynor, and MaKayla Nelson are designated as the class
representatives for the settlement class.
4. Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Silver Golub & Teitell LLP are
appointed as settlement class counsel for purposes of
settlement only.
Nelnet provides education services.
A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated March 31, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mOpWeT
at no extra charge.[CC]
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Thomas Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-02500 (S.D.N.Y., March 26, 2025) arises out of
Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's
and other students' sensitive personally identifiable information
leading to a targeted cyberattack that compromised Defendant's
network.
According to the complaint, the data breach was a direct result of
Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect
individuals' private information with which it was entrusted. The
Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by,
inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or
negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized
intrusions.
Through this Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms
on behalf of all similarly situated individuals whose private
information was compromised and/or stolen during the data breach.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant
seeking redress for its unlawful conduct and asserting claims for:
(i) negligence and negligence per se, (ii) breach of implied
contract, (iii) unjust enrichment, and (iv) declaratory relief.
New York University is a private university based in New York, New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William B. Federman, Esq.
Tanner R. Hilton, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
trh@federmanlaw.com
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Turner Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
QUENTIN TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-02552 (S.D.N.Y., March 26, 2025) arises out of Defendant's
failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other
students' sensitive personally identifiable information leading to
a targeted cyberattack that compromised Defendant's network.
According to the complaint, the data breach was a direct result of
Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect
individuals' private information with which it was entrusted. The
Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by,
inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or
negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized
intrusions.
Through this Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms
on behalf of all similarly situated individuals whose private
information was compromised and/or stolen during the data breach.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant
seeking redress for its unlawful conduct and asserting claims for:
(i) negligence and negligence per se, (ii) breach of implied
contract, (iii) unjust enrichment, and (iv) declaratory relief.
New York University is a private university based in New York, New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
405 East 50th Street
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (516) 491-4665
E-mail: vmaniatis@milberg.com
- and -
Jason M. Wucetich, Esq.
WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP
222 N. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 2000
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (310) 335-2001
E-mail: jason@wukolaw.com
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Ward Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
NATHAN HIRSCH WARD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-02495 (S.D.N.Y., March 26, 2025) is a class action
against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
sensitive information of its students and student-applicants.
According to the complaint, the data breach was a direct result of
Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect
individuals' private information with which it was entrusted. The
Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by,
inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or
negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized
intrusions.
Through this Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms
on behalf of all similarly situated individuals whose private
information was compromised and/or stolen during the data breach.
The Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing interest in
ensuring that their information is and remains safe, and they
should be entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief.
New York University is a private university based in New York, New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
405 East 50th Street
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (516) 491-4665
E-mail: vmaniatis@milberg.com
- and -
Jason M. Wucetich, Esq.
WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP
222 N. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 2000
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (310) 335-2001
E-mail: jason@wukolaw.com
NEW YORK, NY: Class Cert Briefing Sched in Gould Suit Entered
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gould, et al., v. The City
of New York, Case No. 1:24-cv-01263 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Feb. 20,
2024), the Hon. Judge Rachel P. Kovner entered an order re joint
proposed briefing schedule for plaintiffs' motion for class
certification:
-- The plaintiffs shall serve, but not file, their motion by May
5, 2025.
-- The Defendant shall serve a response by June 20, 2025.
-- The Plaintiffs may serve a reply, if any, by July 30, 2025.
The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC]
NEW YORK, NY: Court Narrows Claims in Greene Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN GREENE, et al., v.
CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-05762-LAP (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Loretta Preska entered an order that the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the disability claims regarding the emergency
response program pursuant to Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and
the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL") is granted as to all
Individual Plaintiffs.
Additionally, the Defendants' motion to dismiss claims under
Section 1983 against Executive Defendants is granted. Lastly, the
Defendants' motion to strike the Plaintiffs' demand for class
certification is denied.
The Court finds this matter suitable for determination on the
papers and without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 78(b).
The parties shall confer and inform the Court, by letter, how the
parties wish to proceed, including on the outstanding discovery
issues, by April 15, 2025.
Notably, even though MHL section 9.41 permits the "arrest" it does
not mean that it precludes reasonable accommodations from being
made during such "arrest." Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to
dismiss this claim under the NYCHRL is denied.
The Defendants' motion to dismiss the Section 1983 claims against
Executive Defendants is granted due to a lack of personal
involvement. As such, the Court need not address the parties'
arguments regarding absolute legislative immunity or qualified
immunity.
The Plaintiffs allege that the City's emergency response program
discriminates against people who experience mental health
emergencies. The Plaintiffs additionally allege that Defendants use
"unlawful entries, detentions, and excessive force" when responding
to mental health emergencies.
The Plaintiffs include GIOVANNA SANCHEZ-ESQUIVEL; SARAH ARVIO; LISA
COLLINS; ORITSEWEYIMI OMOANUKHE AYU; and NEIL AMITABH, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and COMMUNITY
ACCESS, INC.; NATIONAL ALLIANCE ON MENTAL ILLNESS OF NEW YORK CITY,
INC.; CORRECT CRISIS INTERVENTION TODAY – NYC; and VOICES OF
COMMUNITY ACTIVISTS AND LEADERS NEW YORK,
The Defendants include ERIC ADAMS; BILL DE BLASIO; EDWARD A. CABAN;
KEECHANT L. SEWELL; DERMOT F. SHEA; NYPD POLICE OFFICER MARTIN
HABER; NYPD POLICE SERGEANT CARRKU GBAIN, NYPD POLICE OFFICER
VIKRAM PRASAD; NYPD POLICE OFFICER ANDRE DAWKINS; NYPD POLICE
OFFICER TYRONE FISHER; NYPD POLICE OFFICER DEVIENDRA RAMAYYA; NYPD
POLICE OFFICER JULIAN TORRES; NYPD OFFICER APRIL SANCHEZ; NYPD
POLICE OFFICER GABRIELE MORRONE; NYPD OFFICER JOHN FERRARA; NYPD
POLICE OFFICER MARYCATHERINE NASHLENAS; and NYPD OFFICERS JOHN and
JANE DOES No. 1-40.
New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 28, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tC2xfs
at no extra charge.[CC]
NEW YORK: Salvo Partners Sues Over Illegal Taking of Property
-------------------------------------------------------------
SALVO PARTNERS LLC; UZMA KHAN; BROWNSTONE HOUSING CORPORATION; and
158W118 LLC Plaintiffs v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-02531 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2025) alleges that the Defendant
systematically engages in a taking of property from thousands of
New Yorkers, including Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs each own real property in the City that is located
next to another property that, according to the City, poses a
potential safety risk. The City, however, has commanded and
authorized the owners of each of these at-risk properties to extend
the shed onto the property of Plaintiffs -- each of whom is a
blameless neighbor who owns a property next to an at-risk property.
Thus, Plaintiffs' properties are encumbered by sheds that the City
required the neighboring property-owners to erect on and in contact
with Plaintiffs' property.
According to the complaint, the City does not require the at-risk
neighbor to pay Plaintiffs. Nor does the City compensate Plaintiffs
for this intrusion. Nor does it preserve Plaintiffs' right to
exclude others. Rather, the City requires another party to build
something that touches each Plaintiff's building, occupies space on
their land, or both. This appropriation of property has happened to
thousands of New Yorkers.
The City prevents Plaintiffs from stopping this intrusion.
Specifically, for each Plaintiff, the City engaged in a taking of
property under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause by requiring
the Plaintiff's neighbor to erect a shed, by requiring the shed to
occupy a portion of each Plaintiff's property, and by requiring
that shed to touch each Plaintiff's building. This occupation of a
portion of their property is a taking, the suit alleges.
City of New York is a municipal entity organized under the laws of
the State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Hamish P.M. Hume, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
1401 New York Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 237-2727
E-mail: hhume@BSFLLP.com
- and -
Robert J. Dwyer, Esq.
Jared Lin, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
55 Hudson Yards, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 446-2300
E-mail: rdwyer@BSFLLP.com
jlin@BSFLLP.com
- and -
Noah A. Messing, Esq.
MESSING & SPECTOR LLP
250 Park Avenue 7th Floor
New York, NY 10177
Telephone: (212) 960-3720
E-mail: nm@messingspector.com
- and -
Phillip M. Spector, Esq.
MESSING & SPECTOR LLP
145 West Ostend Street Suite 600
Baltimore, MD 21230
Telephone: (202) 277-8173
E-mail: ps@messingspector.com
NEW YORK: Wawrzyniec Files Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW WAWRZYNIEC, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, DANIEL MARTUSCELLO, DARREN AYOTTE, and
DOES-50, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00282 (W.D.N.Y., March 28,
2025) arises from Defendants' practice of systemically interfering
with and/or retaliating against Plaintiff and other similarly
situated individuals' exercise of leave under the Family Medical
Leave Act.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are correction officers who have
been employed by DOCCS during the relevant time period. Due to
chronic understaffing of COs throughout the state, Defendants have
promulgated a policy and practice of mandating COs to work overtime
hours.
When Plaintiff and other employees attempt to use intermittent FMLA
leave for mandated overtime shifts, their requests are routinely
ignored, and when they miss their shift due to their previously
approved reasons under the FMLA, they are considered "AWOL" and not
paid their accrued sick pay, the suit alleges.
Had Defendants not interfered with and/or retaliated against COs
for attempting to use intermittent FMLA leave, COs would have been
properly placed on FMLA leave for the mandated overtime shifts at
issue and paid at their overtime rates of pay for those shifts,
says the suit.
New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision
is, generally, the New York state entity responsible for the
management of the state’s prison and parole system.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew D. Carlson, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW D. CARLSON
3959 N. Buffalo Road, Suite 29
Orchard Park, NY 14127
Telephone: (716) 242-1234
E-mail: mdcarlson@mdcarlsonlaw.com
NEW YUNG: Xia Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHUNYU XIA, SIAN GAO, PING
AN LI, FNU LOBSANG MONLAM, DESHENG JIANG, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, et al., v. NEW YUNG WAH CARRIER,
LLC, NEW YUNG: WAH TRADING, LLC, XIN PING ZHENG, JUAN QING LIN,
JIHONG LEE a/k/a JI HONG LEE, HIU MING MA, YU JIE ZHENG a/k/a
JESSIE ZHENG, YU ZHEN ZHENG a/k/a YUZHEN NANCY ZHENG a/k/a YU ZHEN
NANCY ZHENG, Case No. 1:21-cv-04475-HG-VMS (E.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiffs will move the Court for an Order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification pursuant to FRCP 23, as
well as granting such other relief.
The Plaintiffs include BAO JIN XU, JIN FU HUANG, JIANPING WU, QIANG
LI, YING JIE WANG, JIAN HUA ZHENG, TIN SOON WONG, YI TIM CHENG, YUE
G. CHEN, YOUWEN YUAN, KUN WANG, MIN CHEN, JIANGNIE CHEN, CHONGLI
YANG, YUN DENG ZHANG, JIAXIN ZHOU, NAIQI LI, QINGWEI QUAN, YA CHEN,
GENGHAI ZHANG, GUO QIANG LI, BAOZHOU LIAN, JUN LIANG, SHIGANG TIAN,
XIANMING WANG, ZUNCHANG LIN, SHI HAN YAN, XIUCHUN WANG, CHUNYAN
DONG, ZHE ZHONG ZOU, ZHEN SHENG LI, LINHAI LI, HANYANG LIN, QING
BIN GAO, XIN XING LIN, XINZHU LIN, KONG HUI WANG, SEN QI, XIAO DAN
ZHU, ZHEN XING XIE, JIN FENG LIAN, SONGGUAN XIE, AH YENG PHUAN, and
WEN XING LIU.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 31, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3dUoio at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Heng Wang, Esq.
HENG WANG & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
305 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 203-5231
Facsimile: (212) 203-5237
E-mail: all@wanggaolaw.com
NICHOLAS MALWITZ: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Set for April 23
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIAN CONEJO, CHRISTOPHER
ASHMORE, JASON MACK, MIGUEL ACOSTA, JEFFREY MARTIN, DAVID
KELSCH-HAGHIRI, REBECCA HAMPTON, RACHEL CALDWELL, ALFONSO BARAJAS,
ANGEL LOUGH, COLE TIMIAN, MARQUIVAS AVEREY CRAWFORD, CODY PITTSER,
and DANIEL GARZA, in their individual capacities and on behalf of
others similarly situated, v. NICHOLAS ("NIC") MALWITZ, an
individual, Case No. 1:24-cv-00232-CNS-NRN (D. Colo.), the Hon.
Judge entered an order that a motion hearing is set on April 28,
2025 at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom A-401, Fourth Floor, Alfred A. Arraj
United States Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado.
The matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Default
Judgment and Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 31, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5vdrFo at no extra
charge.[CC]
OHIO CASUALTY: Tyler Technologies Bid to Dismiss Claims Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMIA CHAPLIN; SARAH
FIELDS; SAYELINE NUNEZ; THOMAS HAYWARD; KEVIN SPRUILL; ROTESHA
MCNEIL; QIANA ROBERTSON; YOUSEF JALLAL; MESSIEJAH BRADLEY; DENNIS
KEITH LASSITER; PAULINO CASTELLANOS; ROBERT LEWIS; and ALLEN
SIFFORD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. GARY L. MCFADDEN, officially, as the Sheriff of Mecklenburg
County; JOHN DOE SURETY, as Surety for the Sheriff of Mecklenburg
County; WILLIE R. ROWE, officially, as the Sheriff of Wake County;
THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, as Surety for the Sheriff of
Wake County; and TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No.
1:23-cv-00423-WO-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge entered an order
denying the Defendant Tyler Technologies' motion to dismiss.
The Court further entered an order that the Defendant Sheriff
Rowe's motion to dismiss is granted.
Accordingly, the negligence claim and 42 U.S.C. section 1983 claim
against both Sheriff Rowe and his surety, The Ohio Casualty
Insurance Company, are dismissed. The defendant sheriff McFadden's
motion to dismiss is denied.
Because the court finds that all named Plaintiffs have plausibly
alleged that Defendant Tyler Technologies owed them a duty of due
care and breached that duty, thereby causing their injuries,
Plaintiffs have adequately stated a claim of negligence against
Defendant Tyler Technologies.
Because the court finds that Defendant Rowe is entitled to
statutory immunity for any alleged negligence associated with
executing warrants, this court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to
plausibly allege a claim of negligence against Defendant Rowe and
accordingly, his surety, The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company.
Plaintiffs Fields, Nunez, and Hayward have, however, stated a claim
of negligence against Defendant McFadden and his surety, John Doe
Surety, as they have plausibly alleged that Sheriff McFadden owed
them a duty of care and breached that duty when they were
over-detained.
The Plaintiffs allege the following three putative classes pursuant
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3).
Overdetention Class:
"All individuals in the State of North Carolina who, beginning
on and including Feb. 13, 2023, and due to the Defendants'
adoption, implementation and design of eCourts (including
eWarrants), were released from jail more than two (2) hours
after the basis for their detention ended."
Wrongful Arrest Class:
"All individuals in the State of North Carolina who, beginning
on and including July 1, 2022, were arrested or detained
pursuant to warrants that would not have been issued but for
Defendants' adoption, implementation and design of eCourts
(including eWarrants)."
Injunctive Relief Class:
"All members of the Wrongful Arrest Class and the
Overdetention Class. All Plaintiffs except Robert Lewis are
named representatives for this class."
A copy of the Court's order dated March 31, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AKosle at no extra
charge.[CC]
PAMELA BONDI: Class Settlement in Segar Suit Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HENRY W. SEGAR, et al., v.
PAMELA J. BONDI, U.S. Attorney General, et al., Case No.
1:77-cv-00081-EGS (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Emmet Sullivan entered
an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval, and
approves the proposed settlement.
The Court will issue an Order to accompany this Memorandum Opinion
following receipt of the parties' proposed Order on April 7, 2025.
Because all the factors under Rule 23(e)(2) are satisfied, the
Court gives final approval to the Proposed Settlement.
In 2010, Plaintiffs filed a motion for compliance and to show cause
why the DEA should not be held in contempt for violating the
Court's orders to implement non-discriminatory procedures.
On April 5, 2024, the Defendants submitted a notice that "the
parties have reached an agreement in principle regarding
Plaintiffs’ request for individual relief."
On March 18, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Final
Approval.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated March 28, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=evLihj
at no extra charge.[CC]
PAYCOR INC: Renewed Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLIN JOHNS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and JUAN BARRON, v.
PAYCOR, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00264-DWD (S.D. Ill.), the Hon.
Judge David Dugan entered an order denying the amended motion,
granting in part and denying in part the Renewed motion for class
certification, and denying as moot the motion to strike.
The Court certifies the following class in this case:
"All individuals working in the State of Illinois who had
their fingerprints, hand geometry or other biometric data
collected, captured, received, or otherwise obtained or
disclosed by the Defendant's Perform Time biometric
timekeeping system during the applicable statutory period."
The Court appoints the Plaintiff Juan Barron as class
representative.
The Court appoints the law firms of Stephan Zouras, LLC, and
Peiffer, Wolf, Carr, Kane, Conway & Wise, LLP, as class counsel.
A Status Conference will be scheduled, approximately 30 days from
the date of this Memorandum & Order, to discuss matters such as:
(1) the need to enter a scheduling and discovery order for
additional merits discovery in advance of the filing of dispositive
motions; and (2) if necessary, other matters pertaining to the
class.
The Court can reasonably infer from the factual circumstances that
Defendant disclosed or otherwise disseminated the Plaintiffs'
biometric identifiers or information, without consent or the
application of the other exceptions contained in that statutory
provision, to "clients and/or other third parties that host
biometric data in their data center(s)," which could include, at a
minimum, Club Fitness itself. For now, though, it suffices for the
Court to conclude that the First Amended Class Action Complaint
satisfies the liberal federal pleading standards.
On Oct. 29, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action
Complaint, alleging violations of the Biometric Information Privacy
Act ("BIPA").
Paycor operates as a software company.
A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated March 28, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eU0vaC
at no extra charge.[CC]
PERSONAL TOUCH: Class Settlement in Everetts Suit Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL EVERETTS, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. PERSONAL
TOUCH HOLDING CORP., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:21-cv-02061-JMA-LGD (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Joan Azrack
entered an order granting
-- the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for final approval of class
action settlement and certification of settlement class, and
-- the Plaintiff's unopposed motions for service award and award
of attorney's fees and costs.
The Final Approval Motion and the Fees, Costs, and Service Award
Motions are granted as stated herein and with the modifications set
forth in the Court's written Order issued in conjunction with this
Order.
The Court certifies, for settlement purposes only, a Settlement
Class consisting of:
(i) an Exposure Class consisting of individuals whose
personally identifiable information or protected health
information was potentially exposed in the security
breach, and
(ii) a Non-Exposure Class consisting of individuals whose
personally identifiable information or protected health
information was not potentially exposed in the security
breach, defined as follows:
Settlement Class:
"All individuals who are a member of the Exposure Class or
the Non-Exposure Class."
The Settlement Class specifically excludes: (i) PTHC and its
officers and directors; (ii) all Settlement Class Members
who timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement
Class; (iii) the Judge assigned to evaluate the fairness of
this settlement; (iv) the attorneys representing the Parties
in the Litigation; and (v) any other individual found by a
court of competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal
law of initiating, causing, aiding or abetting the criminal
activity involved in the Data Breach or who pleads nolo
contendere to any such charge.
Exposure Class:
"[A]ll individuals who received notice of the security
breach that PTHC announced on or around March 24, 2021 and
whose personally identifiable information or protected
health information was potentially exposed in the security
breach."
The Exposure Class specifically excludes: (i) PTHC and its
officers and directors; (ii) all Settlement Class Members
who timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement
Class; (iii) the Judge assigned to evaluate the fairness of
this settlement; (iv) the attorneys representing the Parties
in the Litigation; and (v) any other individual found by a
court of competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal
law of initiating, causing, aiding or abetting the criminal
activity involved in the Data Breach or who pleads nolo
contendere to any such charge.
Non-Exposure Class:
"[A]ll individuals who received notice from Defendant of the
security breach that Defendant announced on or around March
24, 2021 and whose personally identifiable information or
protected health information was not potentially exposed in
the security breach."
The Non-Exposure Class specifically excludes: (i) PTHC and
its officers and directors; (ii) all Settlement Class
Members who timely and validly request exclusion from the
Settlement Class; (iii) the Judge assigned to evaluate the
fairness of this settlement; (iv) the attorneys representing
the Parties in the Litigation; and (v) any other individual
found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be guilty
under criminal law of initiating, causing, aiding or
abetting the criminal activity involved in the Data Breach
or who pleads nolo contendere to any such charge.
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) PTHC and its
officers and directors; (ii) all Settlement Class Members
who timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement
Class; (iii) the Judge assigned to evaluate the fairness of
this settlement; (iv) the attorneys representing the Parties
in the Litigation; and (v) any other individual found by a
court of competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal
law of initiating, causing, aiding or abetting the criminal
activity involved in the Data Breach or who pleads nolo
contendere to any such charge.
3. PTHC shall pay the balance of the approved Settlement
Claims, up to $3,000,000.00 as set forth in paragraph 2.3 of
the Settlement Agreement, to the Settlement Administrator.
4. PTHC shall separately pay the costs of approved Claims for
Identity Defense Total Service, up to $67,000.00 as set
forth in paragraph 2.5 of the Settlement Agreement, in
accordance with the Settlement Agreement.
5. Plaintiff moved for a Service Award, which PTHC did not
oppose. Plaintiff requested a service award of $2,500.00. T
The Clerk is directed to close this case and terminate any pending
motions as moot.
Personal Touch is a New York-based home health organization.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=15bIPP at no extra
charge.[CC]
PHARM-SAVE INC: Loses Partial Summary Judgment v. Savidge
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA K. SAVIDGE, et al.,
v. PHARM-SAVE, INC., d/b/a NEIL MEDICAL GROUP, et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-00186-CHB-RSE (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Claria Horn Boom
entered an order denying the Defendant's motion for partial summary
judgment on the Plaintiffs' negligence claim is denied.
The Defendant Pharm-Save, Inc.'s motion to alter or amend order
granting class certification or, in the alternative, to bifurcate
the issue of damages is granted in part and denied in part.
a. The motion is granted to the extent Pharm-Save requests
removal of the potentially problematic causation
language.
b. The motion is denied in all other respects.
The Court will enter a separate order setting a telephonic
conference to address the concerns outlined in this opinion.
As the Court has explained, Kentucky recognizes an employer's duty
to safeguard its employees' personal information under the facts of
this case. Because Pharm-Save's sole argument in support of its
motion for partial summary judgment was that no such duty existed
under the law, the Court will deny the motion.
The Plaintiff's proposed class definition read:
"All persons who, like ANDREA SAVIDGE and BETH A. LYNCH, were
the victims of a data security breach that occurred on March
3, 2016, wherein their sensitive and personal data was
compromised.
Pharm-Save's proposed definition similarly reads:
"All persons who, like ANDREA SAVIDGE and BETH A. LYNCH, were
the victims of the Pharm-Save data security breach that
occurred on or about March 3, 2016, wherein their sensitive
and personal data was compromised."
Pharm-Save was founded in 1984. The Company's line of business
includes wholesale distribution of prescription and proprietary
drugs and toiletries.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated March 31,
2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qKZmJa at no extra charge.[CC]
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Bid to Strike of Class Allegations Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAH-NITA BOYKIN, et al.,
v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-00427-JPH (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Jeffery Hopkins entered an order granting in
part and denying in part P&G's motion to the extent that it
requests striking of the Plaintiffs' class allegations.
The Court strikes the Plaintiffs' class allegations to the extent
that they go toward a Rule 23(b)(2) class, to the extent that they
implicate users (not purchasers) of the Febreze Clips who did not
experience vehicular damage, and to the extent that they support
Counts VIII and IX but otherwise denies the Motion.
The Court grants in part and denies in part P&G's Motion to the
extent that it requests dismissal of the Named Plaintiffs' claims.
P&G's motion to dismiss is granted as to Count II for all Named
Plaintiffs and as to Counts I, IX, X, and XI for Plaintiff
Jeansonne. P&G's Motion is otherwise denied.
Because the Court found that Named Plaintiffs adequately pleaded
the existence of a defect, P&G's motion to dismiss Count I is
denied.
Because the Named Plaintiffs here cannot circumvent this
exclusivity provision by framing their product liability
allegations as LUPTA claims, Count IX is accordingly dismissed.
The Plaintiffs seek to represent and certify
(1) a Nationwide Class defined to include all
"all persons or entities in the United States who have
purchased or used a Febreze Clip"; and
(2) eight subclasses composed of
"all persons or entities in Illinois, California, North
Carolina, Texas, Montana, Florida, Tennessee, and Louisiana
who have purchased or used a Febreze Clip."
P&G designs, manufactures, distributes, and sells one of the most
popular brands of automotive air fresheners meant to eliminate or
mask odors ("Febreze Clips").
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 31, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nmxpzz
at no extra charge.[CC]
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Shubkagel Insurance Suit Removed to D. Kan.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as KEITH SHUBKAGEL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT
INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio corporation, Defendant, Case No.
JO-2024-CV-005997, was removed from the District Court of Johnson
County, Kansas, 10th Judicial District, to the United States
District Court for the District of Kansas on March 26, 2025.
The Clerk of the District Court for the District of Kansas assigned
Case No. 2:25-cv-02155-HLT-GEB to the proceeding.
In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that he was insured by
Progressive Direct; that he was in an automobile accident on or
about July 30, 2024; and that Progressive Direct determined that
his vehicle was a total loss. He alleges that Progressive Direct
improperly valued his total loss claim because it used a valuation
system provided by Mitchell International, Inc. that applies a
Projected Sold Adjustment to determine the value of his total loss
vehicle. The PSA adjusts an unsold vehicle's sticker price to
account for typical negotiation differences between list and sale
prices, a practice Plaintiff contends does not reflect market
realities and results in under-payment of claims.
Progressive Direct Insurance Company operates as an insurance
company. The Company underwrites auto, fire, marine, and casualty
insurance.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Matthew W. Greenberg, Esq.
Brette S. Hart, Esq.
HARRIS & HART, LLC
9260 Glenwood Street
Overland Park, KS 66212
Telephone: (913) 213-6980
Facsimile: (913) 213-6991
E-mail: mgreenberg@harrisandhart.com
bhart@harrisandhart.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq.
Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq.
J. Matthew Brigman, Esq.
Allison Hill White, Esq.
Daniel S. Sanders, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
1180 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 572-4600
Facsimile: (404) 572-5100
E-mail: jcashdan@kslaw.com
zmcentyre@kslaw.com
mbrigman@kslaw.com
awhite@kslaw.com
dsanders@kslaw.com
- and -
Julia Barrett Bates, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
500 W. 2nd Street
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 457-2000
Facsimile: (512) 457-2100
E-mail: jbates@kslaw.com
SCHURE SPORTS: Miller Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
--------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY MILLER, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCHURE SPORTS U.S.A., INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00272 (W.D.N.Y., March 27, 2025) is a
civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://us.karbon.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York
State Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business
Law.
During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on
March 11, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Catalyst Insulated
Jacket from Defendant and to view the information on the website,
the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied her
a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full
and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public
and made available to the public. She was unable to locate pricing
and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links,
pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on
Defendant's website, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Schure Sports U.S.A., Inc. operates the website that offers
technical apparel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
STRAFFORD PUBLICATIONS: Lindekugel Seeks to Suspend Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELENA TREBAOL LINDEKUGEL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
STRAFFORD PUBLICATIONS, LLC; and BARBRI, INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-05642-AT (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order suspending deadline to move for class certification,
pending receipt of the joint preliminary report and discovery plan
from the parties.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff consented to multiple extensions of the
Defendants' deadline to respond to the Complaint. The Plaintiff
initially anticipated that the Defendants would file "a motion to
dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 in lieu of an answer to the
complaint." The discovery period has not yet commenced. Fourth, the
parties are currently attempting to negotiate a stipulated case
management schedule.
Strafford operates as a continuing education provider.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 31, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=J4iLgr at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric Funt, Esq.
THE CHAMPION FIRM, P.C.
445 Franklin Gateway SE, Suite 100
Marietta, GA 30067
Telephone: (404) 495-7459
Facsimile: (404) 671-9347
E-mail: eric@thechampionfirm.com
- and -
Tyler K. Somes, Esq.
HEDIN LLP
1100 15th Street NW, Ste 04-108
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 900-3332
Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
E-mail: tsomes@hedinllp.com
SUSAN MUELLER: Loses Summary Judgment Bid v. Daniels
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK DANIELS, v. SUSAN
MUELLER, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-05654 (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=jNiEOq
at no extra charge.[CC]
SUSAN MUELLER: Loses Summary Judgment Bid v. Rivera-Cruz
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rivera-Cruz v. Susan
Mueller et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-05667 (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=jHiKQS
at no extra charge.[CC]
TALPHERA INC: 9th Cir. Appeal in Securities Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Talphera, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2024, that on June 8, 2021, a securities class action
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and two of its
officers.
The plaintiff is a purported stockholder of the Company. The
complaint alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making false and
misleading statements and omissions of material fact about the
Company's disclosure controls and procedures with respect to its
marketing of DSUVIA. The complaint sought unspecified damages,
interest, attorneys’ fees, and other costs.
On December 16, 2021, the Court appointed co-lead plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs' amended complaint was filed on March 7, 2022. The
amended complaint named the Company and three of its officers and
continued to allege that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making false and
misleading statements and omissions of material fact about the
Company's disclosure controls and procedures with respect to its
marketing of DSUVIA. The amended complaint also asserted a
violation of Section 20A of the Exchange Act against the individual
defendants for alleged insider trading. The amended complaint
sought unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other
costs.
The Court granted three motions to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint:
the first on September 28, 2022, the second on November 28, 2022,
and the third, with prejudice on May 7, 2024. Judgment was entered
for defendants on plaintiffs’ claims on May 7, 2024.
On June 5, 2024, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Briefing on the
appeal was complete on January 21, 2025. The Court has not yet
scheduled a hearing on the appeal.
About Talphera
Headquartered in San Mateo, California, Talphera, Inc. --
www.talphera.com -- is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused
on the development and commercialization of innovative therapies
for use in medically supervised settings. Talphera's lead product
candidate, Niyad, is a lyophilized formulation of nafamostat and
is
currently being studied under an investigational device exemption
(IDE) as an anticoagulant for the extracorporeal circuit, and has
received Breakthrough Device Designation status from the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA).
Walnut Creek, Calif.-based BPM LLP, the Company's auditor since
2023, issued a "going concern" qualification in its report dated
March 6, 2024, citing that the Company has suffered recurring
operating losses and negative cash flows from operating activities
since inception, and expects to continue to incur operating losses
and negative cash flows in the future. These matters raise
substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going
concern.
Talphera reported a net loss of $18.4 million for 2023 and a net
income of$47.8 million for 2022.
WASTE MANAGEMENT INC: Securities Suit Certified as Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Waste Management Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:22-cv-04838-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Lorna Schofield entered an order granting in part the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify the class.
The action is certified to proceed as a class action on behalf of
the following class:
"All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired any of the
following Waste Management redeemable senior notes, between
Feb. 13, 2020 and June 23, 2020, inclusive, in one or more
domestic transactions, and were damaged thereby: (i) 2.95%
Senior Notes due 2024; (ii) 3.20% Senior Notes due 2026; (iii)
3.45% Senior Notes due 2029; or (iv) 4.00% Senior Notes due
2039."
Excluded from the Class are Defendants, the officers and
directors of the Company, at all relevant times, members of
their immediate families and their legal representatives,
heirs, successors, or assigns and any entity in which the
Defendants have or had a controlling interest.
The Plaintiffs are appointed as Class Representatives of the class.
Robbins Geller is appointed as Class Counsel. The Defendants'
Daubert motion is denied.
The Plaintiffs have established that all of the prerequisites in
Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) are met and that the proposed class is
ascertainable.
The Lead Plaintiffs the Seafarers Funds are holders of certain
notes issued by the Defendant.
The Plaintiffs assert that WM and the individual Defendants, who
were officers of WM, made misrepresentations and omissions about
whether a proposed acquisition would be completed before the date
that would trigger mandatory redemption of the notes at a price
just above par value.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 31, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=smcifv
at no extra charge.[CC]
WEST IRONDEQUOIT: Faces Doe Suit Over Alleged Sexual Harassment
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Doe and Jennifer Doe, on behalf of themselves, and their minor
child, Jane Doe, Plaintiffs v. West Irondequoit Central School
District, Board of Education, Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-06165
(W.D.N.Y., March 27, 2025) is an action seeking declaratory, and
equitable relief, as well as monetary damages, to redress
Defendant's violations of Title IX of the Education Amendments of
1972 and its implementing regulations, and the New York State Human
Rights Law for failing to address peer sexual harassment.
In April 2024, Ms. Doe was enrolled as a ninth-grade student at
West Irondequoit High School in the WICSD. On or around April 30,
2024, Mr. Smith, an individual over six feet tall and nearing 200
pounds, forcibly touched Ms. Doe, an individual around five feet
four inches and 115 pounds, on her genital area, multiple times and
forced Ms. Doe to touch his erect penis and genital area. This
constitutes sexual harassment as defined by the Title IX
regulations, says the suit.
The Defendant's unlawful conduct was knowing, willful, and wanton
and/or showed a reckless disregard for Plaintiffs' protected
rights, which caused and continues to cause them to suffer
substantial economic and non-economic damages. Because Defendant
was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs' reports of harassment,
Ms. Doe suffered an exacerbation of her depressive symptoms, the
suit alleges.
West Irondequoit Central School District is a public school
district located in the Town of Irondequoit, County of Monroe,
State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Morgan Levy, Esq.
J. MORGAN LEVY FIRM, PLLC
24 N. Main Street, Ste. 2
Fairport, NY 14450
Telephone: (585) 678-1160
E-mail: morgan@jmorganlevyfirm.com
WORKHORSE GROUP: Obtains Final Approval of Calif. Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Workhorse Group Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December
31, 2024, that on July 24, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California entered an order granting final
approval of the Stipulation of Settlement entered into by the
parties to the Securities Litigation on January 13, 2023.
Pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement, in exchange for a
release of all claims and dismissal with prejudice of the
Securities Class Action, the Company agreed to create a settlement
fund with an escrow agent, consisting of $15.0 million in cash and
$20.0 million in shares of Common Stock of the Company from which
class members would receive payment. During the third quarter of
2023, the Company issued 25.4 million shares of Common Stock, which
adjusted for our 2024 Reverse Stock Split and our 2025 Reverse
Stock Split would be 0.1 million shares of Common Stock, in
settlement of the securities class action litigation, pursuant to
the stipulation of settlement
On June 21, 2023, the State District Court of Nevada granted final
approval of the settlement of the Shareholder Derivative
Litigation. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company will
receive $12.5 million of the $15.0 million described above from the
Company's directors and officers insurers and will, in turn,
deliver the $12.5 million in connection with the settlement of the
Securities Litigation. The Company has also agreed to adopt various
corporate governance changes. The parties agreed to a $4.0 million
fee to the derivative plaintiffs' attorneys, $3.5 million of which
is payable by the D&O insurers and $0.5 million of which was
payable by the Company.
About Workhorse Group
Workhorse Group Inc. -- http://www.workhorse.com-- is an American
technology company with a vision to pioneer the transition to
zero-emission commercial vehicles. The Company designs, develops,
manufactures and sells fully electric ground and air-based
electric
vehicles.
Cincinnati, Ohio-based Grant Thornton LLP, the Company's auditor
since 2018, issued a "going concern" qualification in its report
dated March 12, 2024, citing that the Company incurred a net loss
of $123.9 million and used $123.0 million of cash in operating
activities during the year ended December 31, 2023. As of that
date, the Company had total working capital of $40.5 million,
including $25.8 million of cash and cash equivalents, and an
accumulated deficit of $751.6 million. These conditions, along
with other matters, raise substantial doubt about the Company's
ability to continue as a going concern.
YAZAM INC: Briefing on Bid to Certify Class Held in Abeyance
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as POPE, et al., v. YAZAM
INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-03540 (D.D.C., Filed Dec. 19, 2024), the
Hon. Judge Carl J. Nichols entered an order that briefing on the
motion to certify class be held in abeyance unless and until the
court orders otherwise.
The nature of suit states Torts --Personal Injury -- Other Personal
Injury.
Yazam provides investment banking services.[CC]
[^] Class Action Money & Ethics Conference 2025 -- The Sponsors
---------------------------------------------------------------
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, New York City.
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
Register for CAME 2025 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!
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 sponsorship opportunities, 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 ***