/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250411.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, April 11, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 73
Headlines
ACCESS TELECARE: Bid to Extend Class Cert Deadline Partly OK'd
ADVANCE AUTO: Collins Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA
ALL-MET RECYCLING: Scheduling & CMO Entered in MTP Suit
AMAZON.COM: Parties in Brown Seek OK of Sealing Procedure
AMAZON.COM: Parties in De Coster Seek OK of Sealing Procedure
AMAZON.COM: Parties in Frame-Wilson Seek OK of Sealing Procedure
AMAZON.COM: Sealing Procedure OK'd in Frame-Wilson Suit
AMAZON.COM: Vaccarro Bid to Reconsider Class Cert Denial Tossed
AMERICARE SYSTEMS: Phase Discovery in Lyon Suit Amended to July 18
AMPLIFY ENERGY: M&A Probes Proposed Merger with Juniper Capital
ANCIENT ORGANICS: Effinger Seeks to Move Hearing to April 17
APRIA HEALTHCARE: Bid to Strike Class Cert in Tisdale Tossed
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Extends Class Cert Deadlines
BLIND BARBER: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Suit Says
CAPITAL ONE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach
CASEY'S GENERAL: Blalock Sues Over Unfair Insurance Surcharge
CENTRIC WEST: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hernandez Says
CLARINS USA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hernandez Says
CLEO COMMUNICATIONS: Doe Suit Sues Over Alleged Data Breach
CLEO COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Alleges
COX AUTOMOTIVE: May 1 Class Cert Hearing in Touch Suit Vacated
CRAIGS BEDS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hernandez Says
DOTDASH MEREDITH: Discloses Users' Info to Facebook, Suit Alleges
E.T. BROWNE: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Miller Says
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces Butler Class Suit Over Credit Report
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due July 2
EXQUISITE TIMEPIECES: Battle Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
FABRICTECH 2000: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hernandez Says
FAROUK SYSTEMS: Howard Sues Over Unlawful Labeling of Products
FLANIGAN'S MANAGEMENT: Gampong Sues to Recover Back Wages
FORD MOTOR: Seeks to Dismiss Silberman Class Action
FR8 SOLUTIONS: Parties in Husidic Seek Entry of Protective Order
GREAT AMERICAN: Onyeneho Sues Over Labor Law Breaches
HENKEL US: Fails to Pay Factory Workers' OT Wages, Carroll Says
JMJ ENTERPRISES: Second Bid for Summary Judgment Partly OK'd
LAFAYETTE FEDERAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Aviles Says
LAFAYETTE FEDERAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Darbinyan Says
LAS VEGAS, NV: Myers Sues Over Illegal Seizures, False Arrests
LEAFFILTER NORTH: Christian Sues Over Deceptive Sales Practices
LL BEAN: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Miller Suit Claims
MONRO INC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Dunlap-Smith Says
MONRO INC: Mikels Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach
MONRO INC: Yanez Sues Over Data Security Failures
MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Crume Sues Over Drop in Share Price
NORTHWESTERN MEDICINE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Andrews Says
NUNA BABY: Faces Pelufo Class Suit Over Defective RAVA Car Seat
OBP WEST: Agnone Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
RADIUS HEALTH: Walton Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
S&P GLOBAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Dinosaur Amended to August 14
SAZERAC CO: Can File Class Cert Opposition Docs Under Seal
SEGWAY INC: Sabu Files Suit in D. Delaware
SMART ERP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Aguilera Alleges
SOUNDHOUND AI: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
SOUTHEAST SERIES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Beasley Alleges
SUNFLOWER MEDICAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Says
ULTRA CLEAN: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set May 23
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Sued Over Data Privacy Violations
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fundamental Global Reports $0.3MM Loss Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Defends Product Liability Lawsuits
*********
ACCESS TELECARE: Bid to Extend Class Cert Deadline Partly OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Aldana v. Access Telecare
LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-03254 (N.D. Tex., Filed Dec. 27, 2024), the
Hon. Judge Brantley Starr entered an order granting in part and
denying in part Aldana's motion to extend deadline to move for
class certification.
The Court extends the deadline by 90 days, so Aldana must move for
certification by June 25, 2025.
The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract.
Access offers specialty telemedicine.[CC]
ADVANCE AUTO: Collins Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
RICKY COLLINS JR., individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-00167-FL
(E.D.N.C. March 31, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other
relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant from approximately December 2023
through December 2024, as a non-exempt, hourly employee. The
Plaintiff worked at an Advance Auto Parts store in Danville,
Illinois.
The Plaintiff's most recent base hourly rate of pay was $15.25. In
addition to the base rate of pay, the Defendant incorporated
various types of routine and non-discretionary pay into their
payment structure. For example, Defendant paid employees SPIF pay,
which is a type of non-discretionary bonus paid based on sales
goals, asserts the suit.
Throughout the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant, the
Plaintiff was not earning a consistent and properly calculated
overtime wage that included SPIF pay in the regular rate for proper
overtime calculation, the suit adds.
The Plaintiff is an adult resident of Illinois and was employed by
Defendant as a Manager from December 2023 through December 2024.
Additional putative Collective members were or are employed by
Defendant in different states as hourly employees during the past
three years.
The Defendant is an automotive aftermarket parts provider that
operates over 4,700 stores in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ethan C. Goemann, Esq.
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Town Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 746-4050
Facsimile: (248) 936-0796
E-mail: egoemann@sommerspc.com
kstoops@sommerspc.com
ALL-MET RECYCLING: Scheduling & CMO Entered in MTP Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Donald McArthy Trading
Pte., Ltd., v. All-Met Recycling Inc., Case No.
8:24-cv-02670-ODW-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis Wright, II
entered a scheduling and case management order:
To secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every
action, all counsel are ordered to familiarize themselves with and
follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of
the Central District of California. This Court follows these rules
and they will govern this litigation unless otherwise provided in
the Order.
Because the Order in some respects modifies or adds to the Local
Rules, counsel are advised to read it carefully. Counsel are
advised to pay particular attention to the requirements of the
Court with respect to the filing of motions for summary judgment
and documents to be submitted at the Final Pretrial Conference and
Trial.
The attorney attending any proceeding before this Court must be an
attorney who is thoroughly knowledgeable about the case,
responsible for the conduct of the litigation, and who has
authority to enter into stipulations and to make admissions
regarding all matters that the participants reasonably anticipate
may be discussed. Lead counsel who will actually try the case must
attend the Pretrial Conference. A party who is not represented must
attend all proceedings in person.
All-Met Recycling is a fully integrated scrap metal recycling
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 12, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k46R8d at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM: Parties in Brown Seek OK of Sealing Procedure
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER BROWN, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:22-cv-00965-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order granting the following procedure for filing and sealing in
connection with Plaintiffs' Opposition to Amazon's Motion and
Amazon's Reply, subject to the Court's approval.
1. Pursuant to LCR 5(g)(2), the Plaintiffs will provisionally
file under seal its opposition brief, declarations,
exhibits, and all other evidence and declarations on which
Plaintiffs rely which contain material designated
Confidential or Highly Confidential-Attorneys' Eyes Only by
Amazon.
2. Pursuant to LCR 5(g)(2), Amazon will provisionally file
under seal its reply brief, declarations, exhibits, and all
other evidence and declarations on which Amazon rely which
may contain material designated Confidential or Highly
Confidential-Attorneys' Eyes Only.
3. Within five business days of the filing of Amazon's Reply
Papers, pursuant to LCR 5(g), the Parties will meet and
confer and, as appropriate, file (1) public versions of the
Opposition Papers and the Reply Papers, with necessary
redactions, and (2) corresponding motion(s) to seal pursuant
to LCR 5(g)(3). The Party seeking to maintain material under
seal (or under redaction) shall be the movant for purposes
of any such motion(s) to seal associated with the Parties'
Supplemental Papers.
The Plaintiffs requested Amazon confirm this by Monday, March 31,
2025. In response, Amazon requested that Plaintiffs file their
Opposition under seal, so that Amazon can determine whether any
portions of the Opposition should remain under seal.
Accordingly, in order to ensure that such materials are treated
appropriately under Amazon’s request and the applicable
protective order, and to reduce burdens on the Court,
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 1, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ez5DC9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq.
Anne F. Johnson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
barbaram@hbsslaw.com
annej@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Zina G. Bash, Esq.
Jessica Beringer, Esq.
Shane Kelly, Esq.
Alex Dravillas, Esq.
KELLER POSTMAN LLC
111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500
Austin, TX, 78701
Telephone: (512) 690-0990
E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com
Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com
shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com
ajd@kellerpostman.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John A. Goldmark, Esq.
MaryAnn Almeida, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Telephone: (206) 622-3150
Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com
JohnGoldmark@dwt.com
MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com
- and -
Karen L. Dunn, Esq.
William A. Isaacson, Esq.
Amy J. Mauser, Esq.
Martha L. Goodman, Esq.
Kyle Smith, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1047
Telephone: (202) 223-7300
Facsimile: (202) 223-7420
E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com
wisaacson@paulweiss.com
amauser@paulweiss.com
ksmith@paulweiss.com
mgoodman@paulweiss.com
AMAZON.COM: Parties in De Coster Seek OK of Sealing Procedure
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH DE COSTER, et
al., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:21-cv-00693-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order granting the following procedure for filing and sealing in
connection with Plaintiffs' Opposition to Amazon's Motion and
Amazon's Reply, subject to the Court's approval.
1. Pursuant to LCR 5(g)(2), the Plaintiffs will provisionally
file under seal its opposition brief, declarations,
exhibits, and all other evidence and declarations on which
Plaintiffs rely which contain material designated
Confidential or Highly Confidential-Attorneys' Eyes Only by
Amazon.
2. Pursuant to LCR 5(g)(2), Amazon will provisionally file
under seal its reply brief, declarations, exhibits, and all
other evidence and declarations on which Amazon rely which
may contain material designated Confidential or Highly
Confidential-Attorneys' Eyes Only.
3. Within five business days of the filing of Amazon's Reply
Papers, pursuant to LCR 5(g), the Parties will meet and
confer and, as appropriate, file (1) public versions of the
Opposition Papers and the Reply Papers, with necessary
redactions, and (2) corresponding motion(s) to seal pursuant
to LCR 5(g)(3). The Party seeking to maintain material under
seal (or under redaction) shall be the movant for purposes
of any such motion(s) to seal associated with the Parties'
Supplemental Papers.
The Plaintiffs requested Amazon confirm this by Monday, March 31,
2025. In response, Amazon requested that Plaintiffs file their
Opposition under seal, so that Amazon can determine whether any
portions of the Opposition should remain under seal.
Accordingly, in order to ensure that such materials are treated
appropriately under Amazon’s request and the applicable
protective order, and to reduce burdens on the Court,
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 1, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i9vlYo at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq.
Anne F. Johnson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
barbaram@hbsslaw.com
annej@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Zina G. Bash, Esq.
Jessica Beringer, Esq.
Shane Kelly, Esq.
Alex Dravillas, Esq.
KELLER POSTMAN LLC
111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500
Austin, TX, 78701
Telephone: (512) 690-0990
E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com
Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com
shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com
ajd@kellerpostman.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John A. Goldmark, Esq.
MaryAnn Almeida, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Telephone: (206) 622-3150
Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com
JohnGoldmark@dwt.com
MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com
- and -
Karen L. Dunn, Esq.
William A. Isaacson, Esq.
Amy J. Mauser, Esq.
Martha L. Goodman, Esq.
Kyle Smith, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1047
Telephone: (202) 223-7300
Facsimile: (202) 223-7420
E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com
wisaacson@paulweiss.com
amauser@paulweiss.com
ksmith@paulweiss.com
mgoodman@paulweiss.com
AMAZON.COM: Parties in Frame-Wilson Seek OK of Sealing Procedure
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH FRAME-WILSON, et
al., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:20-cv-00424-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order granting the following procedure for filing and sealing in
connection with Plaintiffs' Opposition to Amazon's Motion and
Amazon's Reply, subject to the Court's approval.
1. Pursuant to LCR 5(g)(2), the Plaintiffs will provisionally
file under seal its opposition brief, declarations,
exhibits, and all other evidence and declarations on which
Plaintiffs rely which contain material designated
Confidential or Highly Confidential-Attorneys' Eyes Only by
Amazon.
2. Pursuant to LCR 5(g)(2), Amazon will provisionally file
under seal its reply brief, declarations, exhibits, and all
other evidence and declarations on which Amazon rely which
may contain material designated Confidential or Highly
Confidential-Attorneys' Eyes Only.
3. Within five business days of the filing of Amazon's Reply
Papers, pursuant to LCR 5(g), the Parties will meet and
confer and, as appropriate, file (1) public versions of the
Opposition Papers and the Reply Papers, with necessary
redactions, and (2) corresponding motion(s) to seal pursuant
to LCR 5(g)(3). The Party seeking to maintain material under
seal (or under redaction) shall be the movant for purposes
of any such motion(s) to seal associated with the Parties'
Supplemental Papers.
The Plaintiffs requested Amazon confirm this by Monday, March 31,
2025. In response, Amazon requested that Plaintiffs file their
Opposition under seal, so that Amazon can determine whether any
portions of the Opposition should remain under seal.
Accordingly, in order to ensure that such materials are treated
appropriately under Amazon’s request and the applicable
protective order, and to reduce burdens on the Court,
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 1, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RJtOS1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq.
Anne F. Johnson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
barbaram@hbsslaw.com
annej@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Zina G. Bash, Esq.
Jessica Beringer, Esq.
Shane Kelly, Esq.
Alex Dravillas, Esq.
KELLER POSTMAN LLC
111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500
Austin, TX, 78701
Telephone: (512) 690-0990
E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com
Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com
shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com
ajd@kellerpostman.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John A. Goldmark, Esq.
MaryAnn Almeida, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Telephone: (206) 622-3150
Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com
JohnGoldmark@dwt.com
MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com
- and -
Karen L. Dunn, Esq.
William A. Isaacson, Esq.
Amy J. Mauser, Esq.
Martha L. Goodman, Esq.
Kyle Smith, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1047
Telephone: (202) 223-7300
Facsimile: (202) 223-7420
E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com
wisaacson@paulweiss.com
amauser@paulweiss.com
ksmith@paulweiss.com
mgoodman@paulweiss.com
AMAZON.COM: Sealing Procedure OK'd in Frame-Wilson Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH FRAME-WILSON, et
al., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:20-cv-00424-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Chun entered an
order granting the following procedure for filing and sealing in
connection with Plaintiffs' Opposition to Amazon's Motion and
Amazon's Reply, subject to the Court's approval.
1. Pursuant to LCR 5(g)(2), the Plaintiffs will provisionally
file under seal its opposition brief, declarations,
exhibits, and all other evidence and declarations on which
Plaintiffs rely which contain material designated
Confidential or Highly Confidential-Attorneys' Eyes Only by
Amazon.
2. Pursuant to LCR 5(g)(2), Amazon will provisionally file
under seal its reply brief, declarations, exhibits, and all
other evidence and declarations on which Amazon rely which
may contain material designated Confidential or Highly
Confidential-Attorneys' Eyes Only.
3. Within five business days of the filing of Amazon's Reply
Papers, pursuant to LCR 5(g), the Parties will meet and
confer and, as appropriate, file (1) public versions of the
Opposition Papers and the Reply Papers, with necessary
redactions, and (2) corresponding motion(s) to seal pursuant
to LCR 5(g)(3). The Party seeking to maintain material under
seal (or under redaction) shall be the movant for purposes
of any such motion(s) to seal associated with the Parties'
Supplemental Papers.
Accordingly, in order to ensure that such materials are treated
appropriately under Amazon's request and the applicable protective
order, and to reduce burdens on the Court, the Parties, pursuant to
LCR 7(d)(1) and 10(g), and their respective counsel, stipulate and
agree to the following procedure for filing and sealing in
connection with Plaintiffs' Opposition to Amazon's Motion and
Amazon's Reply, subject to the Court's approval.
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 1, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eS0llq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq.
Anne F. Johnson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
barbaram@hbsslaw.com
annej@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Zina G. Bash, Esq.
Jessica Beringer, Esq.
Shane Kelly, Esq.
Alex Dravillas, Esq.
KELLER POSTMAN LLC
111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500
Austin, TX, 78701
Telephone: (512) 690-0990
E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com
Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com
shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com
ajd@kellerpostman.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John A. Goldmark, Esq.
MaryAnn Almeida, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Telephone: (206) 622-3150
Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com
JohnGoldmark@dwt.com
MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com
- and -
Karen L. Dunn, Esq.
William A. Isaacson, Esq.
Amy J. Mauser, Esq.
Martha L. Goodman, Esq.
Kyle Smith, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1047
Telephone: (202) 223-7300
Facsimile: (202) 223-7420
E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com
wisaacson@paulweiss.com
amauser@paulweiss.com
ksmith@paulweiss.com
mgoodman@paulweiss.com
AMAZON.COM: Vaccarro Bid to Reconsider Class Cert Denial Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANE VACCARRO et al., v.
AMAZON.COM.DEDE, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-11852-GC-TJB (D.N.J.), the
Hon. Judge Georgette Castner denying the Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration of the Court's order and opinion denying her Motion
for Class Certification.
While the Plaintiff is correct that Rule 23 allows for "multiple
bites at the apple," a motion for reconsideration is not the
appropriate vehicle here. Rather, a renewed motion for class
certification is more appropriate.
The case arises out of allegations that Defendant unlawfully
withheld overtime wages owed to workers for time spent in mandatory
security screenings. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Class
Certification on March 22, 2024, seeking to certify the following
class:
"All Defendant's hourly fulfillment center employees who
worked in New Jersey and who, during at least one workweek
from May 11, 2016 through the present, worked at least 40
hours during a workweek according to Defendant's timekeeping
system."
The Plaintiff additionally proposes narrower subclasses of either
(a) all facility employees at which the screenings were implemented
for the period prior to March 2020 excluding the Avenal facility
(Subclass A); or (b) only Robbinsville facility employees for the
same period (Subclass B).
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated April 1, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eyxFWU
at no extra charge.[CC]
AMERICARE SYSTEMS: Phase Discovery in Lyon Suit Amended to July 18
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE LYON, On behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. AMERICARE SYSTEMS,
INC., doing business as AMERICARE SENIOR LIVING, Case No.
6:24-cv-03207-BP (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Beth Phillips entered
an amended scheduling order:
The first phase will include discovery of all issues related to the
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification. Phase II
discovery will involve discovery relating to alleged damages and
completion of any other merits issues.
All Phase I discovery authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure shall be completed on or before July 18, 2025.
Dispositive motions based on Phase I discovery shall be filed on or
before July 31, 2025.
The Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a
collective and/or class action shall be filed on or before July 31,
2025. Defendant's response to plaintiff’s motion to certify a
class shall be due 30 days after the motion for class certification
is filed. The Plaintiff's reply shall be due fourteen dates
thereafter.
The parties shall file a proposed scheduling order for Phase II
discovery at a later date to be determined by future order of the
Court.
Americare provides commercial laundry, warewashing, and
housekeeping equipment repair and maintenance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 1, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MuVUPE at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMPLIFY ENERGY: M&A Probes Proposed Merger with Juniper Capital
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating:
-- Amplify Energy Corp. (NYSE: AMPY), relating to the proposed
merger with Juniper Capital. Under the terms of the agreement,
Amplify shareholders will retain approximately 61% of Amplify's
outstanding equity.
ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for April 14, 2025.
Visit link for more:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/amplify-energy-corp-ampy/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- H&E Equipment Services, Inc. (NASDAQ: HEES), relating to the
proposed merger with Herc Holdings Inc. Under the terms of the
agreement, H&E shareholders will receive $78.75 in cash and 0.1287
shares of Herc common stock for each share they own. H&E's
shareholders will own approximately 14.1% of the combined company.
ACT NOW. The Tender Offer expires on April 15, 2025.
Visit link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/he-equipment-services-inc-hees/. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Aerovate Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: AVTE), relating to a
proposed merger with Jade Biosciences. Under the terms of the
agreement, pre-merger Aerovate stockholders are expected to own
approximately 1.6% of the combined company, while pre-merger Jade
stockholders are expected to own approximately 98.4% of the
combined entity.
ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for April 16, 2025.
Visit link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/aerovate-therapeutics-inc-avte/. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Triumph Group, Inc. (NYSE: TGI), relating to the proposed
merger with Warburg Pincus and Berkshire Partners. Under the terms
of the agreement, shareholders of Triumph will receive $26.00 per
share in cash.
ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for April 16, 2025.
Visit link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/triumph-group-inc-tgi/. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and
we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a
national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
ANCIENT ORGANICS: Effinger Seeks to Move Hearing to April 17
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY EFFINGER,
individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. ANCIENT
ORGANICS, Case No. 3:22-cv-03596-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to
continue date of class certification hearing scheduled for April
17, 2025.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's counsel is unavailable to participate
in the hearing on April 17, 2025, due to scheduling conflicts that
week.
The Plaintiff's counsel has made numerous attempts to contact
defense counsel to determine if they consent to a continuance and
obtain a series of dates where they are available so that a
complete list of available dates for all Parties could be presented
to the Court.
The Plaintiff's counsel is not available on the currently scheduled
date of April 17, 2025, but Plaintiff’s counsel is available on
the following Thursdays at 2:00PM: May 29, June 5, June 12, and
June 26.
The Plaintiff's counsel provides these dates in the event that the
Court -- which according to the scheduling notes is presently
unavailable to hear motions until July 2025 -- becomes available
due to other scheduling modifications in the Court's calendar.
Ancient Organics specializes in making ghee.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 16, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CLUU2X at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Ryan Gustafson, Esq.
GOOD | GUSTAFSON | AUMAIS LLP
2330 Westwood Boulevard, Suite 103
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Telephone: (310) 274-4663
E-mail: jrg@ggallp.com
- and -
Steffan T. Keeton, Esq.
THE KEETON FIRM LLC
100 S Commons, Ste 102
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Telephone: (888) 412-5291
E-mail: stkeeton@keetonfirm.com
APRIA HEALTHCARE: Bid to Strike Class Cert in Tisdale Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Angela Tisdale et al., v.
Apria Healthcare LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-09620-AH-PVC (C.D. Cal.),
the Court entered an order denying Apria's ex parte application and
striking the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Accordingly, Apria does not sufficiently explain how any prejudice
it might face is irreparable. For example, with respect to its
request to strike Plaintiffs' class allegations, Apria claims it
will suffer irreparable harm because it cannot "bring a motion to
strike Plaintiffs' motion and class allegations through a regularly
noticed motion." Apria also claims it will suffer irreparable harm
"because its opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification cannot be heard until after both Defendant's
opposition is due and after the hearing on April 23, 2025 for
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class certification. However, the arguments
raised by Apria could be raised through regular motion procedures.
For these reasons, the Court denies Apria's ex parte request.
The Plaintiffs make an unpersuasive argument that the deadlines set
forth in the Court's Scheduling Order no longer apply based on the
parties' mutual understanding of this Court's preferences. However,
it is the Scheduling Order that controls.
In short, Plaintiffs have not shown that the Court has modified the
Scheduling Order, because it has not.
Accordingly, the Court strikes the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification, without prejudice. If the Plaintiffs seek to file
for Class Certification again, they must first seek leave to amend
the Scheduling Order, or they may enter into a stipulation with
Defendant to revise the Scheduling Order, subject to this Court's
approval.
Apria is a provider of home medical equipment & clinical support.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 1, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mDqErm at no extra
charge.[CC]
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Extends Class Cert Deadlines
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTEN SCHERTZER; et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. BANK
OF AMERICA, N.A.; et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00264-DMS-MSB (S.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dana Sabraw entered an order granting the
parties' joint motion to extend deadlines from the court's class
certification order pending the Court's rulings on the Defendant's
motions.
The deadlines set forth in the Court's Class Certification
Order—to meet and confer on the form of class notice to be
provided for the Court’s approval and contact the assigned
magistrate judge to schedule a case management conference—are
continued to 30 days after the Court’s ruling on the Motions, if
the Court denies the Motion to Stay and the class remains
certified. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Bank of America offers saving and current account, housing and auto
loans, online banking, mortgage, credit and debit cards, investment
planning, and corporate finance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 1, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=udfFJq at no extra
charge.[CC]
BLIND BARBER: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. THE BLIND BARBER, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01764
(E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website,
www.blindbarber.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
people, under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted
multiple times, most recently on October 7, 2024 to access
Defendant's Website from Plaintiff’s home in an effort to shop
for Defendant’s products, but encountered barriers that denied
the full and equal access to Defendant’s online goods, content,
and services.
Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase hair pomade "90
proof". The Plaintiff wished to purchase this product because he
was looking for a hair styling product with a strong hold and a
matte finish. He needed something reliable that could maintain his
hairstyle throughout the day without adding excessive shine or
stiffness, says the suit.
The Plaintiff has been, and in absence of an injunction, will
continue to be injured by the Defendant's failure to provide the
online content and services in a manner that is compatible with
screen-reader technology.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to and enjoyment of
the goods, benefits, and services of the Website, has caused
Plaintiff to suffer an injury in fact due to Plaintiff’s
inability to purchase hair pomade "90 proof", which is a concrete
and particularized injury, and is a direct result of the
Defendant's conduct.
The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website,
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services and by which the Defendant ensures the delivery
of such goods throughout the United States, including New York
State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
CAPITAL ONE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that a
consumer has filed a class action lawsuit against Capital One
Financial Corporation, Capital One N.A. and Capital One Bank (USA)
N.A.
Why: The plaintiff claims Capital One failed to protect the
personal identifiable information (PII) of its customers, leading
to a data breach.
Where: The Capital One class action lawsuit was filed in Virginia
federal court.
A new class action lawsuit alleges that Capital One failed to
protect customers' personal identifiable information from a data
breach that occurred after one of its employees accessed its
inadequately protected computer systems.
Plaintiff Andrew Willoughby filed the class action complaint
against Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One N.A. and
Capital One Bank (USA) N.A., claiming that customers have had their
information exposed due to Capital One's alleged negligence.
According to the lawsuit, between Aug. 11, 2022, and May 22, 2023,
a former employee of Capital One gained unauthorized access to the
company's inadequately protected computer systems. As a result, the
PII of thousands of customers was exposed, the Capital One class
action claims.
Willoughby argues that Capital One failed to protect and safeguard
the PII of its customers, including names, Social Security numbers,
addresses, email addresses, dates of birth, telephone numbers,
credit card numbers, transaction history and other financial
information.
"Due to Defendants' negligence, cybercriminals obtained everything
they need to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial
and personal lives of thousands of individuals," the Capital One
class action alleges.
Capital One delayed notifying customers of data breach, class
action claims
Willoughby claims that Capital One failed to notify affected
customers of the data breach in a timely manner, waiting until
January 2025 to inform them of the breach.
"Defendants were negligent and failed to inform Plaintiff and the
Class Members of the data breach in time for them to protect
themselves from identity theft," the Capital One class action
says.
The Capital One data breach class action lawsuit alleges that for
the rest of their lives, the affected customers will have to deal
with the danger of identity thieves possessing and misusing their
information. Willoughby claims he has already experienced an
unauthorized charge on his Capital One credit account as a result
of the data breach.
The lawsuit seeks to represent anyone whose information may have
been accessed in the data breach. Willoughby demands a jury trial
and requests compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket
costs, injunctive relief, reasonable attorney fees and costs.
In January, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed a
lawsuit against Capital One over claims the company cheated
consumers out of more than $2 billion in potential interest
earnings on their savings accounts.
The plaintiff is represented by Lee A. Floyd and Justin M. Sheldon
of Breit Biniazan P.C. and William B. Federman and Jessica A.
Wilkes of Federman & Sherwood.
The Capital One data breach class action lawsuit is Willoughby v.
Capital One Financial Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00302,
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
Alexandria Division. [GN]
CASEY'S GENERAL: Blalock Sues Over Unfair Insurance Surcharge
-------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH D. BLALOCK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CASEY'S GENERAL STORES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00113-SMR-SBJ (S.D. Iowa, March 28,
2025) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant imposes
unfair tobacco surcharge without providing participants with a
reasonable alternative standard and fails to provide notice of the
availability of a reasonable alternative standard, violating
federal regulations and depriving employees of benefits to which
they are entitled under ERISA.
Casey's General Stores, Inc. operates convenience stores. The
Company offers food, beverages, tobacco products, health and beauty
aids, automotive supplies, and other non-food items, as well as
sells gasoline. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam J. Wachal, Esq.
KOLEY JESSEN P.C., L.L.O.
One Pacific Place, Suite 800
1125 South 103rd Street
Omaha, NE 68124-1079
Telephone: (402) 390-9500
Facsimile: (402) 390-9005
Email: Adam.Wachal@koleyjessen.com
- and -
Oren Faircloth, Esq.
Kimberly Dodson, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
Email: ofaircloth@sirillp.com
kdodson@sirillp.com
CENTRIC WEST: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hernandez Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE HERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CENTRIC WEST, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02643 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 31, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.joesjeans.com, to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired people, under the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted
multiple times, most recently on April 17, 2024, to access the
Defendant's Website from the Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop
for the Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied
the full and equal access to Defendant’s online goods, content,
and services.
Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase a Charlie Camp
Shirt. The Plaintiff wished to purchase this product because he was
looking for a casual yet stylish shirt suitable for both work and
leisure activities. He needed a light shirt that could offer a
relaxed fit suitable for the warm weather.
The Plaintiff came across Defendant's Website via "Google" search.
This Website hold themselves out as an online store renowned for
its premium denim and fashion-forward clothing. The website offers
a diverse range of men's and women's jeans in various fits such as
skinny, straight, and boyfriend, along with tops, jackets, and
other ready-to-wear items.
The company emphasizes quality and style, with collections that
include environmentally conscious materials and innovative fabric
technologies designed to provide both comfort and durability. The
Website also offers free shipping and a discount on a first
purchase. Therefore, Plaintiff desired to buy products from the
Website.
Unfortunately, the Plaintiff was unable to complete the purchase
due to the inaccessibility of the Defendant's Website. Due to the
Defendant's failure to build the Website in a manner that is
compatible with screen access programs, Plaintiff was unable to
understand and properly interact with the Website, and was thus
denied the benefit of purchasing the Charlie Camp Shirt, that
Plaintiff wished to acquire from the Website, says the suit.
The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website,
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of
such goods throughout the United States, including New York State
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
CLARINS USA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hernandez Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE HERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CLARINS U.S.A., INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-02638
(S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website,
www.clarinsusa.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
people, under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted
multiple times, most recently on August 30, 2024, to access
Defendant’s Website from Plaintiff’s home in an effort to shop
for Defendant’s products, but encountered barriers that denied
the full and equal access to Defendant’s online goods, content,
and services.
Specifically, the Pllaintiff wanted to purchase shampoo (ClarinsMen
Shampoo & Shower) and a tonic (Tonic Body-Firming Treatment). The
Plaintiff wished to purchase this product because he was looking
for personal care items suited to his grooming needs. He wanted to
find a product that would provide an efficient solution for both
cleansing and maintaining his skin and hair.
Unfortunately, the Plaintiff was unable to complete the purchase
due to the inaccessibility of the Defendant's Website. Due to the
Defendant's failure to build the Website in a manner that is
compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to
understand and properly interact with the Website, and was thus
denied the benefit of purchasing the Charlie Camp Shirt, that
Plaintiff wished to acquire from the Website, says the suit.
The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website,
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of
such goods throughout the United States, including New York State
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
CLEO COMMUNICATIONS: Doe Suit Sues Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE, on behalf of M.E., a minor, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLEO COMMUNICATIONS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03282 (N.D. Ill., March 27, 2025)
is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to protect
highly sensitive data.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant stores a
litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information about
its current and former customers. But the Defendant lost control
over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently
protected computer systems in a data breach. Cybercriminals were
able to breach the Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to
adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to
maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the
Class's PII. In short, the Defendant's failures placed the Class's
PII in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for
cybercriminals, says the suit.
Cleo Communications, Inc. provides information technology services.
The Company offers software development, cloud management,
application integration, and IT consulting services. Cleo
Communications serves healthcare, manufacturing, power generation,
software and technology, supply chain, logistics, and retail
industries worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
One Magnificent Mile
980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago IL, 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
Email: raina@straussborrelli.com
sam@straussborrelli.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch IV, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Nashville, TN 37203
Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
CLEO COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE, on behalf of M.E., a minor, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLEO COMMUNICATIONS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03284 (N.D. Ill., March 27, 2025)
is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to protect
highly sensitive data.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant stores a
litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information about
its current and former customers. But the Defendant lost control
over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently
protected computer systems in a data breach. Cybercriminals were
able to breach the Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to
adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to
maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the
Class's PII. In short, the Defendant's failures placed the Class's
PII in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for
cybercriminals, says the suit.
Cleo Communications, Inc. provides information technology services.
The Company offers software development, cloud management,
application integration, and IT consulting services. Cleo
Communications serves healthcare, manufacturing, power generation,
software and technology, supply chain, logistics, and retail
industries worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
One Magnificent Mile
980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago IL, 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
Email: raina@straussborrelli.com
sam@straussborrelli.com
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
COHENMALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 597-8694
Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
Email: ltoops@cohenmalad.com
COX AUTOMOTIVE: May 1 Class Cert Hearing in Touch Suit Vacated
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Touch v. Cox Automotive
Corp. Services LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01945 (E.D. Cal.,
Filed Sept 8, 2023), the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an order
vacating the current hearing date on Plaintiff's motion to certify
class for May 1, 2025.
The Court will reset the hearing and briefing on Plaintiff's Motion
to Certify Class, if necessary, after it issues a ruling on
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Employment
Discrimination.
The Defendant is an automotive services and technology
provider.[CC]
CRAIGS BEDS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hernandez Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CRAIGS BEDS, INC., Case No. 1 1:25-cv-01767 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 31, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.craigsbeds.com,
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired people, under the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted
multiple times, most recently on June 25, 2024, to access
Defendant's Website from Plaintiff’s home in an effort to shop
for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the
full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and
services.
Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase bedding accessories
such as printed sheets. The Plaintiff wished to purchase this
product because he intended to find a mattress and printed sheets
for it. As printed bedding accessories are aesthetically appealing
and practical, he wanted to find a local store that would offer a
rich selection of prints.
The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website,
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of
such goods throughout the United States, including New York
State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
DOTDASH MEREDITH: Discloses Users' Info to Facebook, Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ABBY CASPER individually andon behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DOTDASH MEREDITH, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-02613
(S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought on
behalf of all persons who have subscribed to an email newsletter
from ew.com, a website for Entertainment Weekly, which is owned and
operated by DotDash Meredith.
The Plaintiff brings this action in response to the Defendant's
practice of knowingly disclosing its users' personally identifiable
information and video viewing activity to Facebook and other third
parties without their consent.
Specifically, the Website uses code called the Facebook Tracking
Pixel to track what videos its users watch, and to then send that
data to Facebook along with their PII, including their names and
email addresses. The sharing of that data without the consent of
Plaintiff or other consumers constitutes a violation of the Video
Privacy Protection Act, asserts the suit.
The Plaintiff created a Facebook account in approximately 2008. The
Plaintiff has subscribed to newsletters from Entertainment Weekly
since at least 2017 and, since that time, has viewed numerous
videos on the Website.
DotDash owns and operates ew.com, which is used throughout New York
and the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
ARISOHN LLC
94 Blakeslee Rd.
Litchfield, CT 06759
Telephone: (917) 656-0569
E-mail: josh@arisohnllc.com
E.T. BROWNE: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Miller Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. E.T. BROWNE DRUG CO., INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-00276 (W.D.N.Y., March 27, 2025) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.palmers.com/, is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff,
in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
E.T. Browne Drug Company., Inc. manufactures personal care
products. The Company offers skin care, hair care, pregnancy, scar
care, and lip care products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces Butler Class Suit Over Credit Report
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yvette Butler v. Equifax Information Services, LLC. Case No.
3:25-cv-00222-MOC-SCR (W.D.N.C., March 31, 2025) is a class action
complaint against Equifax brought by the Plaintiff, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arising from the
Defendant's violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
On March 2023, the Plaintiff discovered that she could not access
her own credit filed or her Equifax Credit Report. The Plaintiff
had applied for loans and/or credit from multiple lenders and/or
financial institution.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s application was denied due to the
fact that Equifax was reporting Plaintiff's file as unavailable.
The Plaintiff contacted Equifax's technical support team and even
filed a complaint with the Consumer Protection Agency.
The only information that Equifax would provide to Plaintiff was
that Plaintiff’s personal information does not match the
information that Equifax had on file. On March 10, 2023, the
Plaintiff sent a dispute in writing, stating that Equifax blocked
Plaintiff and potential creditors from access to Plaintiff's
Equifax credit report.
The Class consists of:
a. all individuals with addresses in the State of North
Carolina;
b. for whom Equifax blocked access to their Equifax credit
report without the consumers permission;
c. not only to those individuals but also to potential
creditors and/or lenders; and
d. for which these credit reports were being reported as
unavailable within five (5) years prior to the filing of
this action and on or before a date 21 days after the filing
of this action.
The identities of all class members are readily ascertainable
from the records of Defendant.
Excluded from the Plaintiff Class is the Defendant and all
officers, members, partners, managers, directors and employees
of the Defendant and their respective immediate families, and
legal counsel for all parties to this action, and all members
of their immediate families.
Equifax is a consumer reporting agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Randolph Emory, Esq.
THE EMORY LAW FIRM, P.C.
11020 David Taylor Drive, Ste 102
Charlotte, NC 28262
Telephone: (704) 371-4333
E-mail: remory@theemorylawfirm.com
- and -
Joshua Cohen, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201)-282-6501
E-mail: jcohen@steinsakslegal.com
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due July 2
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYLER BAKER, et al., v.
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-04004-VMC-RDC
(N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Regina Cannon entered an order adopting
the following deadlines:
1. The class certification discovery deadline is June 2, 2025.
2. The deadline for the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification is July 2, 2025. The Defendant's opposition
response must be filed by Aug. 1, 2025, and the Plaintiffs'
reply must be filed by Aug. 15, 2025.
After a determination is made on class certification, the
undersigned will enter an order governing the remaining progress of
the case.
Having considered the parties’ joint statement along with the
arguments presented at the teleconference, the undersigned finds
that bifurcation is warranted. Defendant does not identify any
prejudice likely to result from bifurcation or evidence to suggest
Plaintiffs’ claims lack merit. The interests of efficiency and
judicial economy also support bifurcation. Prioritizing
certification-related discovery before addressing merits discovery
permits the Court to issue a timelier ruling on certification.
Moreover, bifurcation serves to narrow merits discovery based on
how a potential class is defined.
The case concerns a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant failed to reasonably
reinvestigate their disputes and, instead, sent a misleading form
letter in an attempt to evade their duties under the FCRA.
Equifax is a subsidiary of the global data, analytics, and
technology company Equifax, offering services like credit reports,
credit monitoring, and identity theft protection.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 1, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cPyCtY at no extra
charge.[CC]
EXQUISITE TIMEPIECES: Battle Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE BATTLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EXQUISITE TIMEPIECES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-03325 (N.D. Ill., March 28, 2025) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://exquisitetimepieces.com, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Exquisite Timepieces, Inc. provides timepieces. The Company offers
watches of different brands. Exquisite Timepieces serves customers
in the State of Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (718) 705-8706
Facsimile: (718) 705-8706
Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
FABRICTECH 2000: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hernandez Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE HERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. FABRICTECH 2000, LLC D/B/A PURECARE, Case No.
1:25-cv-02641 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2024) sues the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website,
www.purecare.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
people, under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted
multiple times, most recently on April 17, 2024 to access
Defendant’s Website from the Plaintiff's home in an effort to
shop for the Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that
denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods,
content, and services.
Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase bedding accessories
(Aromatherapy Pillow Protector). The Plaintiff wished to purchase
this product because he was looking for bedding essentials to
improve his sleep quality. Unfortunately, The Plaintiff was unable
to complete the purchase due to the inaccessibility of the
Defendant's Website, says the suit.
The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website,
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of
such goods throughout the United States, including New York State
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
FAROUK SYSTEMS: Howard Sues Over Unlawful Labeling of Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Howard and Mariana Torres, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. FAROUK SYSTEMS, INC., Case No.
5:25-cv-00795 (C.D. Cal., March 31, 2025), is brought for damages,
injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant
concerning unlawful labeling of Defendant's haircare products,
with: the designation and representation that the products are more
"natural" than they actually are; and the designation and
representation that the products are/were made in the USA without
clear and adequate qualification of the foreign ingredients and
components containted therein, as required by federal rules and
California laws.
These misrepresented products are sold through various channels,
including, but not limited to, direct-to-consumer sales on the
Defendant's website, third-party platforms such as Amazon.com
("Amazon"), professional hair care salons, and third-party
merchants operating brick-and-mortar stores like Marshalls.
Farouk's products are labeled with the express, unqualified
representation that they are "Made in the USA," (or another
synonomous phrase) either on the Principal Display Panel ("PDP") or
another prominent and conspicuous location on the product label.
This claim appears on all or nearly all products manufactured,
sold, or distributed by the Defendant, including the products
purchased by the Plaintiffs. Contrary to Defendant's express
representations and its failure to clearly and adequately qualify
those representations, the products purchased by Plaintiffs are
substantially and materially composed of indispensable foreign
ingredients and components.
The products purchased by Plaintiff Howard are made with numerous
synthentic ingredients despite being represented as 90% (or more)
natural and all are made with numerous ingredients and components,
that are not grown, sourced or otherwise made in the United States,
despite being labeled as "Made in the USA" without qualification.
Defendant's conduct of advertising and selling deceptively labeled
products bearing the representation that such products are 90% or
more natural violates: California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act
("CLRA"), California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), California's
False Advertising Law ("FAL"), and constitutes breach of express
warranty; unjust enrichment; negligent misrepresentation; and
intentional misrepresentation, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased some of Farouk's best know products.
The Defendant is a manufacturer, distributor and seller of hair
care products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
Jonathan Gil, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino Del Rio S., #101
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
Email: ryan@kazlg.com
jonathan@kazlg.com
FLANIGAN'S MANAGEMENT: Gampong Sues to Recover Back Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Al Nawas Gampong, on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated individuals v. Flanigan's Management Services, Inc. and
Richard Eaton, Case No. 1:25-cv-21494-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 31,
2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and
the Florida Minimum Wage Act ("FMWA") to recover back wages,
liquidated damages and other relief against Defendants.
The Defendants willfully committed federal and state minimum wage
and overtime violations because they improperly encouraged,
suffered and/or permitted Gampong and similarly situated employees
to perform non-tipped work "off the clock" at the beginning and end
of their shifts without compensation. Flanigan's managers –
including Defendant Richard Eaton, the General Manager – also
periodically falsified the time records of Gampong and similarly
situated employees to falsely reflect fewer than forty hours worked
in a work week.
As a result of this unrecorded and uncompensated work time,
Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees the full state minimum wage for non-tipped work
accounting for more than 20% of their weekly work-time (Invalid Tip
Credit); the appropriate state minimum wage for the unrecorded
hours-worked (Minimum Wage); and the appropriate overtime wage when
their unrecorded hours-work caused their actual hours-worked to
exceed forty in a work week (Overtime), says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a front-of-the-house tipped server at
a Flanigan's Seafood Bar and Grill restaurant.
Flanigan's Management Services, Inc. is a full-service
restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lydia J. Chastain, Esq.
Alexander Meier
LEE MEIER LAW FIRM
695 Pylant Street NE, Suite 105
Atlanta, GA 30306
Phone: (404) 474-7628
Email: lchastain@leemeier.law
ameier@leemeier.law
- and -
Elliot J. Siegel, Esq.
KING & SIEGEL LLP
724 South Spring Street, Suite 201
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Phone: (213) 465-4802
Fax: (213) 465-4803
Email: elliot@kingsiegel.com
FORD MOTOR: Seeks to Dismiss Silberman Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL SILBERMAN, and
MATTHEW BARKUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, Case No. 2:24-cv-13310-TGB-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Defendant
asks the Court to enter an order dismissing all causes of action in
Plaintiffs' class action complaint ("CAC") pursuant to Rules 8(a),
9(b), 12(b)(1) and (6), and 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Specifically, Ford seeks an order:
(1) Dismissing the entire CAC for lack of standing and under
the primary-jurisdiction doctrine, and dismissing (or
striking) Counts 4, 5, and 8–11 to the extent they include
"nationwide" or "multi-state" claims or are duplicative of
Counts 2, 3, 6, and 7;
(2) Dismissing all claims under the doctrine of
intergovernmental immunity to the extent they seek a recall
by injunction;
(3) Dismissing Counts 1, 4, 5, and 10 for failure to state a
claim for fraudulent concealment or violation of state
consumer-protection laws;
(4) Dismissing Counts 2, 6, and 9 for failure to state a claim
for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability;
(5) Dismissing Counts 3, 7, and 8 for failure to state a claim
for breach of express warranty; and
(6) Dismissing Count 11 for failure to state a claim for unjust
enrichment because Ford’s New Vehicle Limited Warranty
covers the subject matter.
The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action claiming they
overpaid for their vehicles due to an undisclosed defect in their
engines' intake valves.
Ford Motor is an American automotive corporation cofounded in 1903
by Henry Ford.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 14, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=haxWMR at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Stephanie A. Douglas, Esq.
Roger P. Meyers, Esq.
Alexandra Hathaway Tillman, Esq.
BUSH SEYFERTH PLLC
100 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 400
Troy, MI 48084
Telephone: (248) 822-7800
Facsimile: (248) 822-7800
E-mail: douglas@bsplaw.com
meyers@bsplaw.com
tillman@bsplaw.com
FR8 SOLUTIONS: Parties in Husidic Seek Entry of Protective Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDIN HUSIDIC D/B/A AMA
EXPRESS, INC., et al., v. FR8 SOLUTIONS, INC., ALEN KAJDIC, and
AZRA BEGOVIC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00963-WWB-SJH (M.D. Fla.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter confidentiality and protective
order.
The Plaintiffs and the Defendants have conferred with regard to the
protection of relevant confidential information in the possession
of each of them and in the possession of Non-Party(ies) and have
reached agreement on the terms of a proposed order for entry by the
Court in that regard.
FR8 Solutions is a business and transportation support service
company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 12, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=etRQrR at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephanie A. Casey, Esq.
COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A.
255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 476-7400
E-mail: scasey@colson
The Defendants are represented by:
Brittany Borck, Esq.
LIPPES MATHIAS LLP
4420 Beacon Circle
West Palm Beach, FL 33407
Telephone: (561) 842-3000
E-mail: bborck@lippes.com
GREAT AMERICAN: Onyeneho Sues Over Labor Law Breaches
-----------------------------------------------------
LINDA ONYENEHO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE GREAT AMERICAN DREAM, INC. d/b/a PIN
UPS, and ASHLEY FOWLER, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01685-TWT
(N.D. Ga., March 30, 2025), arises from Defendants' compensation
practices violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an entertainer at Pin Ups
from September 2022 to March 2025. Throughout her employment,
Plaintiff was compensated solely through customer tips, and was not
paid minimum wage or overtime by Defendants. In addition, the
Plaintiff was never informed that Defendants intended to take a tip
credit, nor did Defendants keep payroll records or records of the
weekly or monthly amounts of tips received by Plaintiff nor her
hours worked.
The Great American Dream, Inc. operates an adult entertainment club
in Decatur, GA. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory R. Fidlon, Esq.
FIDLON LEGAL, PC
3355 Lenox Road, Suite 750
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone: (844) 529-4967
Facsimile: (844) 529-4329
E-mail: greg@fidlonlegal.com
HENKEL US: Fails to Pay Factory Workers' OT Wages, Carroll Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN CARROLL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. HENKEL US OPERATIONS CORP., Case No.
1:25-cv-00402-MAD-TWD (N.D.N.Y., March 31, 2025) alleges that the
Defendants failed to apply a neutral rounding policy and failed to
pay their non-exempt Geneva employees all their time worked,
including overtime hours pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff defined the Collective as:
"All non-exempt, hourly-paid Factory Workers employed by the
Defendant at any time since March 29, 2022, who worked over 40
hours in a workweek."
Accordingly, the Defendant's time-and-payroll system rounded its
employee's punch-ins and punch-outs down, in its favor.
The Plaintiff worked at Defendant's 650,000 square-foot facility in
Geneva, New York.
The Defendant is an international manufacturer of branded household
and personal care goods, employing about 9,000 employees at nearly
70 sites across the continental U.S., Canada, and Puerto Rico.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
Garrett Kaske, Esq.
KESSLER MATURA P.C.
534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 499-9100
E-mail: tkessler@kesslermatura.com
gkaske@kesslermatura.com
- and -
Raphael Katri, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RAPHAEL A. KATRI
8549 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 940-2034
E-mail: rkatri@gmail.com
JMJ ENTERPRISES: Second Bid for Summary Judgment Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIFFANY WADE,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
JMJ ENTERPRISES, LLC & TRACI JOHNSON MARTIN, Case No.
1:21-cv-00506-LCB-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Loretta Biggs
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
Defendants' second motion for summary judgment:
-- It is granted with respect to the Plaintiff's claim in Count I
of failure to pay wages due for trainings that occurred prior
to the first day of work, and it is denied with respect to all
other claims under Counts I, II, and III.
-- Thus, the Court finds that there is a genuine dispute of
material fact regarding whether Defendants failed to pay
current employees for their yearly recertification trainings.
-- However, Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of
law regarding trainings that were held prior to Plaintiffs
first day of work.
The lack of adequate records of the hours the Plaintiffs worked and
the Defendant Martin's own testimony that she has been made aware
of instances of uncompensated overtime create a genuine dispute of
material fact on this claim.
The Defendants have not shown an absence of any genuine dispute of
material fact as it pertains to their alleged failure to pay wages
due under the NCWHA.
The Plaintiff Wade commenced this action on June 21, 2021. On Jan.
10, 2022, this Court, upon motion of the Plaintiff, conditionally
certified the Plaintiff's action as a Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) with
respect to her claims under the FLSA.
The Plaintiffs subsequently filed an Amended Complaint on June 7,
2022.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated April 1,
2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SMbLGM at no extra charge.[CC]
LAFAYETTE FEDERAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Aviles Says
------------------------------------------------------------
RICARDO AVILES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LAFAYETTE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant,
Case No. 8:25-cv-01035-DLB (D. Md., March 28, 2025) is a class
action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard personally identifiable information including, but not
limited to, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' name, date of birth,
Social Security number, and financial account information.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant
maintained the Private Information in a reckless and negligent
manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on
Defendant's computer system and network in a condition vulnerable
to cyberattack.
The mechanism of the Data Breach and potential for improper
disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information
was a known risk to the Defendant and thus the Defendant was on
notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure Private
Information from those risks left that information in a dangerous
condition.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members
suffered ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of the
benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, and the value of
their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of
the attack and the substantial and imminent risk of identity theft,
says the suit.
Lafayette Federal Credit Union operates as a financial cooperative.
The Union provides financial solutions such as loans, investment,
savings, credit and debit cards, online banking, and other related
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 1010,
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Email: agold@tzlegal.com
- and -
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
LAFAYETTE FEDERAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Darbinyan Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTINE DARBINYAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAFAYETTE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,
Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02692 (C.D. Cal., March 27, 2025) is a
data breach class action arising out of the Defendant's failure to
implement and maintain reasonable security practices to protect
consumers' sensitive personal information. For their business
purposes, Defendant store and transmit personally identifiable
information from customers including, but not limited to, names,
Social Security numbers, financial account numbers, loan account
numbers (collectively "Personal Information").
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant's
failure to timely report and provide Plaintiff and the Class
members with notice of the Data Breach made the victims vulnerable
to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial
accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their
PII.
As a result of the Data Breach, and in light of their Personal
Information now being in the hands of cybercriminals, Plaintiff and
Class members were, and continue to be, at significant risk of
identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and
financial harm. This substantial and imminent risk will remain for
their respective lifetimes, says the suit.
Lafayette Federal Credit Union operates as a financial cooperative.
The Union provides financial solutions such as loans, investment,
savings, credit and debit cards, online banking, and other related
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Mona Amini, Esq.
Gor Antonyan, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
Email: ak@kazlg.com
mona@kazlg.com
gor@kazlg.com
LAS VEGAS, NV: Myers Sues Over Illegal Seizures, False Arrests
--------------------------------------------------------------
DEREK MYERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF LAS VEGAS; JASON BROOKS; and SERGIO
GUZMAN, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00562 (D. Nev., March 27,
2025) alleges that the Defendants are engaged in a systemic pattern
of unconstitutional and unlawful conduct of illegal searches,
seizures, and false arrests.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants have
repeatedly and willfully exceeded their statutory law enforcement
territorial jurisdiction under the Nevada Revised Statutes, and Las
Vegas Municipal Code by conducting traffic stops, detentions,
searches, and arrests on property not owned, leased, or otherwise
under the control of the City of Las Vegas, such as Interstate
11/US Route 95.
The Defendants' actions have subjected Plaintiff and the proposed
class members to hundreds if not thousands of illegal searches and
seizures, false arrests, and subjected them to emotional distress
and other damages, says the suit.
City Las Vegas, colloquially referred to as Vegas, is the most
populous city in the U.S. state of Nevada and the seat of Clark
County. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam J. Breeden, Esq.
BREEDEN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
7432 W. Sahara Ave., Suite 101
Las Vegas, NV 89117
Telephone: (702) 819-7770
Facsimile: (702) 819-7771
Email: Adam@Breedenandassociates.com
LEAFFILTER NORTH: Christian Sues Over Deceptive Sales Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
JUNE CHRISTIAN and MICHAEL SANFORD, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LEAFFILTER NORTH, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-02866 (N.D. Cal., March 27, 2025)
alleges violation of the California's Unfair Competition Law in the
sales and marketing of the gutter protection system called
"LeafFilter."
According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, the Defendant's sales
representatives meticulously follow the Script Book, the sales
techniques and procedures designed to "price condition" homeowners
and instill in them a false sense of "urgency" in order to "close"
the sale immediately before the homeowner has time to price shop or
consider alternatives.
The Defendant requires its sales representatives to employ a
fraudulent pricing scheme that involves offering a series of fake
"discounts" off of an artificially inflated "initial" price at
which few if any LeafFilter systems are ever actually sold, says
the suit.
LeafFilter North, LLC provides gutter protection solutions. The
Company manufactures, sells, and installs gutter guards for
homeowners. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
Todd B. Naylor, Esq.
Robert B. Sherwood, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A.
4445 Lake Forest Dr., Ste. 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (513) 345-8291
Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
tnaylor@gs-legal.com
rsherwood@gs-legal.com
- and -
Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
VARNELL & WARWICK P.A.
400 N. Ashley Dr., Ste. 1900
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (352) 753-8600
Email: jvarnell@vandwlaw.com
bwarwick@vandwlaw.com
- and -
Kristin Kemnitzer, Esq.
Adam J. Mcneile, Esq.
Malachi J. Haswell, Esq.
Katherine Sass, Esq.
KEMNITZER, BARRON & KRIEG, LLP
1120 Mar West St., Ste C2
Tiburon, CA 94920
Telephone: (415) 632-1900
Email: adam@kbklegal.com
kristin@kbklegal.com
kai@kbklegal.com
katie@kbklegal.com
LL BEAN: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Miller Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY MILLER, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. L. L. BEAN, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-00283 (W.D.N.Y., March 29, 2025) accuses the Defendant
of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York
Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law.
The case arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website and physical retail
stores to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
L. L. Bean, Inc. is a retail company that operates the website,
https://www.llbean.com, which offers clothing and outdoor
recreation equipment to customers across the United States. [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
MONRO INC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Dunlap-Smith Says
------------------------------------------------------------
TIASHA DUNLAP-SMITH, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all
other similarly situated individuals v. MONRO, INC., Case No.
6:25-cv-06172 (W.D.N.Y., March 31, 2025) is a class action lawsuit
against Monro for its negligent failure to protect and safeguard
the Plaintiff's and the Class's highly sensitive personally
identifiable information.
According to Monro, in late 2024, Monro became aware of suspicious
activity relating to an employee email inbox. After an
investigation, Monro confirmed that an unknown and unauthorized
actor accessed the employee's email account and accessed files
within the employee's email account for an undisclosed period of
time in late November of 2024. The types of PII accessed and stolen
in the Data Breach included highly sensitive information such as:
names, Social Security numbers, addresses, dates of birth, ID
numbers, and certain health information collected from employees
(such as accident history) (Private Information).
Despite discovering the Breach in 2024, Defendant delayed alerted
victims of the Data Breach until on or around March 21, 2025, when
it began sending out notice of Data Breach Letters to victims of
the Data Breach.
Due to the Defendant's negligence, cybercriminals have stolen and
obtained everything they need to commit identity theft and wreak
havoc on the financial and personal lives of thousands of
individuals.
Plaintiff Tiasha Dunlap-Smith is an individual domiciled in
Charlotte, North Carolina and is a former employee of Monro.
According to Defendant, Monro is "one of the top automotive service
and tire dealers in the United States" and "works on approximately
five million vehicles a year."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randi Kassan, Esq.
MILBERG COLMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530,
Telephone: (516)741-5600
E-mail: rkassan@milberg.com
- and -
William B. Federman, Esq.
Kennedy M. Brian, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
kpb@federmanlaw.com
MONRO INC: Mikels Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
TRAVIS MIKELS, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONRO, INC., Defendant, Case No.
6:25-cv-06170 (W.D.N.Y., March 29, 2025) seeks redress against
Defendant for breach of implied contract, common law negligence,
negligent training and supervision, negligence per se, and unjust
enrichment.
The case arises from Defendant's failure to properly safeguard and
protect Plaintiffs personally identifiable and publicly disclosing
their PII without authorization in violation of New York common
law. Moreover, this class action pertains to Defendant's
unauthorized disclosure of the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII
that occurred on or around November of 2024. The Defendant’s
wrongful actions and/or inaction and the resulting data breach have
also placed Plaintiff and the Class at an imminent, immediate and
continuing increased risk of identity theft, identity fraud and
medical fraud, says the suit.
Monro, Inc. is an automotive services company headquartered in
Fairport, NY. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
MONRO INC: Yanez Sues Over Data Security Failures
-------------------------------------------------
JECELI YANEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONRO, INC., Defendant, Case No.
6:25-cv-06169 (W.D.N.Y., March 29, 2025) arises from Defendant's
failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class
Members' personally identifiable information protected health
information, including names, Social Security numbers, addresses,
dates of birth, ID numbers, and certain health information.
In late November 2024, the Defendant detected unusual activity on
an employee's email account. The ensuing investigation revealed
that during the event an unknown, unidentified hacker accessed and
exfiltrated files containing Plaintiff’s and Class Members'
private information. Although the data breach took place, at
latest, prior to November 2024, the Defendant failed to notify
affected individuals that their private information was compromised
until approximately March 21, 2025. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now
brings claims for negligence/negligence per se, breach of implied
contract, and invasion of privacy, to address Defendant's
inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiff's and Class Members' private
information in its care.
Headquartered in Rochester, NY, Monro, Inc. operates as an
automotive and tire part supplier in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Henry Kelston, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C.
521 5TH Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10175
Telephone: (917) 336-0171
Facsimile: (917) 336-0177
E-mail: hkelston@ahdootwolfson.com
MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Crume Sues Over Drop in Share Price
------------------------------------------------------
CAYDEN CRUME, JAMES LEGRAND, and TODD HOLTON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MULLEN
AUTOMOTIVE INC.; DAVID MICHERY; JONATHAN NEW; and OLEG FIRER,
Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02620 (C.D. Cal., March 26, 2025) is
a class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded Mullen securities between May
2022 and the date of filing this Complaint, inclusive, the
Plaintiffs seek to recover compensable damages caused by the
Defendants' violations of federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that Mullen and Individual
Defendants repeatedly engaged in a scheme to inflate Mullen's stock
price through press releases making false or misleading statements
or material omissions, often before it executed a reverse stock
split.
Throughout the course of Mullen's false and misleading statements
and omissions discussed above, Mullen's stock price fell over $3.25
per share, or 96 percent, to close at approximately $.015 per share
on March 13, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume, damaging
investors including the Plaintiffs and other Class members, says
the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions,
and the decline in the market value of Mullen's securities,
Plaintiffs and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages.
Mullen Automotive Inc. operates as an electric car company. The
Company develops electric vehicles and energy solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Deepali Brahmbhatt, Esq.
Hayden B. Corrales, Esq.
DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
3120 Scott Blvd. #13
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Telephone: (650) 254-9805
Email: dbrahmbhatt@devlinlawfirm.com
hcorrales@devlinlawfirm.com
- and -
Timothy Devlin, Esq.
DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
1526 Gilpin Avenue
Wilmington, DE 19806
Telephone: (302) 449-9010
Email: tdevlin@devlinlawfirm.com
NORTHWESTERN MEDICINE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Andrews Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
CATHERINE ANDREWS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHWESTERN MEDICINE D/B/A
NORTHWESTERN MEDICINE KISHWAUKEE HOSPITAL; NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL; NORTHWESTERN MEDICINE CENTRAL DUPAGE HOSPITAL;
NORTHWESTERN MEDICINE DELNOR HOSPITAL; NORTHWESTERN MEDICINE LAKE
FOREST HOSPITAL; NORTHWESTERN MEDICINE VALLEY WEST HOSPITAL;
NORTHWESTERN MEDICINE MCHENRY HOSPITAL; NORTHWESTERN MEDICINE
HUNTLEY HOSPITAL; NORTHWESTERN MEDICINE WOODSTOCK HOSPITAL;
NORTHWESTERN MEDICINE PALOS HOSPITAL; and NORTHWESTERN MEDICINE
MARIANJOY REHABILITATION HOSPITAL, Defendants, Case No.
1:25-cv-03372 (N.D. Ill., March 28, 2025) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Andrews was employed by the Defendants as a nurse.
Northwestern Medicine d/b/a Northwestern Medicine Kishwaukee
Hospital is a short-term, acute-care community hospital in DeKalb,
Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew Fletcher, Esq.
THE GARFINKEL GROUP, LLC
701 N. Milwaukee Ave.
Chicago, IL 60642
Telephone: (312) 736-7991
Email: matthew@garfinkelgroup.com
NUNA BABY: Faces Pelufo Class Suit Over Defective RAVA Car Seat
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARIANA BERNASCONI PELUFO, ELEISHA SADASEY, BEHNAZ FARIDIAN KADE,
and MIRZA BAIG, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NUNA BABY ESSENTIALS, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-02961
(N.D. Cal., March 31, 2025) is a class action complaint against
Nuna Baby for developing, marketing, and distributing a Defective
"RAVA" Convertible Car Seat throughout the United States.
The Plaintiffs assert that RAVA Car Seats are marketed as
"convertible" car seats, meaning that they are designed to adjust
to accommodate a child from infancy to childhood, beginning as a
rear-facing car seat for infants and children from 5-50 pounds
which can be converted to a forward-facing car seat for children at
least 2 years old. As children continue to grow, the car seat can
be extended to secure children up to 65 pounds. They further
contend that the RAVA Car Seats do not meet minimum standards of
operating with the necessary level of safety.
The Defendant designed over 600,000 RAVA Car Seats, manufactured
between July 16, 2016, and October 25, 2023, without a cover over
the front harness adjuster button, which controls the tightness of
the Car Seat straps. As a result, debris -- whether from snacks,
toys, or any of the endless variety of debris a child can produce
-- that falls into the front harness adjuster area can "impede the
mechanism from properly clamping on the strap," causing the RAVA
Car Seat straps to loosen. As a result of this dangerous Defect,
toddlers and children can—and indeed have -- loosen the straps of
the RAVA Car Seat and even get out of the RAVA Car Seat while their
parent is driving, the Plaintiffs add.
The Defendant is headquartered at 70 Thousand Oak Blvd.,
Morgantown, Pennsylvania 19543-8878. They are owned by Nuna
International B.V., a subsidiary of Wonderland Nurserygoods, a
Taiwanese company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Laurence D. King, Esq.
Matthew B. George, Esq.
Blair E. Reed, Esq.
Clarissa Olivares, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 772-4700
Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
mgeorge@kaplanfox.com
breed@kaplanfox.com
colivares@kaplanfox.com
OBP WEST: Agnone Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
---------------------------------------------------------
PASQUALE AGNONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OBP WEST ISLIP, LLC, d/b/a BESITO MEXICAN
RESTAURANT, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01722 (E.D.N.Y., March 28,
2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's web
site, https://www.besitomexican.com, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
OBP West Islip, LLC, d/b/a Besito Mexican Restaurant is an upscale
restaurant in Tampa known for authentic Mexican food, best
table-side guacamole, and fresh-made margaritas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (718) 705-8706
Facsimile: (718) 705-8706
Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
RADIUS HEALTH: Walton Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
-------------------------------------------------------
MAGGIE WALTON and CHARLES MORRISON, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. G. KELLY MARTIN,
Defendant, Case No. 2025-0330 (Del. Ch.), is a class action
complaint filed by stockholders of global biopharmaceutical venture
Radius Health Inc., against the company's former CEO, G. Kelly
Martin, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty related to the
company's purportedly undervalued, $890 million sale in August
2022.
In an unsworn verification and declaration pursuant to Court of
Chancery Rules 3(aa) and 23(aa), Maggie Walton disclosed that she
held shares of Radius Health common stock continuously throughout
the wrongs alleged in the complaint and until the consummation of
the acquisition. [BN]
S&P GLOBAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Dinosaur Amended to August 14
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DINOSAUR FINANCIAL GROUP,
LLC, HILDENE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, and SWISS LIFE INVESTMENT
MANAGEMENT HOLDING AG on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. S&P GLOBAL, INC., AMERICAN BANKERS
ASSOCIATION, and FACTSET RESEARCH SYSTEMS INC., Case No.
1:22-cv-01860-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla
entered an order that:
1. The remaining 30(b)(1) deposition(s) previously noticed and
agreed between the parties will be completed by April 11,
2025.
2. The remaining 30(b)(6) depositions previously noticed will
be completed by April 18, 2025.
3. By April 25, 2025, the Plaintiffs will provide Defendants
with their amended class definition with the stipulation
that the class definition in their motion to certify will
either be the same or more restricted but shall not be more
expansive.
4. Following receipt of that class definition, the Defendants
will be permitted a 90-day period, until July 24, 2025, to
take fact discovery limited to issues arising from that
amended class definition (i.e., the class of distributors).
5. The schedule set forth in the Case Management Order shall
further be amended as follows:
a. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
supporting expert reports are due Aug. 14, 2025;
b. The Defendants' deadline to depose Plaintiffs' class
certification experts is Sept. 24, 2025;
c. The Defendants' opposition to class certification,
including any motions to exclude expert testimony,
relating to class certification and supporting expert
reports are due Nov. 12, 2025;
d. The Plaintiffs' deadline to depose the Defendants' class
certification experts is Dec. 23, 2025;
e. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of class certification,
including any motions to exclude expert testimony
relating to class certification is due Jan. 12, 2026.
S &P is an American publicly traded corporation headquartered in
Manhattan, New York City. Its primary areas of business are
financial information and analytics.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=l56s2Y at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ronald J. Aranoff, Esq.
Ryan A. Kane, Esq.
Joshua M. Slocum, Esq.
Lyndon M. Tretter, Esq.
WOLLMUTH MAHER & DEUTSCH LLP
500 Fifth Avenue, 12th Floor
New York, NY York 10110
Telephone: (212) 382-3300
E-mail: raranoff@wmd-law.com
ltretter@wmd-law.com
rkane@wmd-law.com
jslocum@wmd-law.com
- and -
Leiv Blad, Esq.
Jeffrey Blumenfeld, Esq.
Meg Slachetka, Esq.
COMPETITION LAW PARTNERS PLLC
1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 742-4300
E-mail: leiv@competitionlawpartners.com
jeff@competitionlawpartners.com
meg@competitionlawpartners.com
- and -
Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
Gregory K. Arenson, Esq.
Elana Katcher, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
850 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 687-1980
E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
garenson@kaplanfox.com
ekatcher@kaplanfox.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Eric Stock, Esq.
Esther Lifshitz, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
200 Park Avenue, 48th Floor
New York, NY 10166
Telephone: (212) 351-3901
E-mail: estock@gibsondunn.com
asouthwell@gibsondunn.com
elifshitz@gibsondunn.com
- and -
David C. Kiernan, Esq.
Alexander V. Maugeri, Esq.
Amanda L. Dollinger, Esq.
Craig E. Stewart, Esq.
Caroline M. Mitchell, Esq.
Paul C. Hines, Esq.
Michelle K. Fischer, Esq.
JONES DAY
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 626-3939
E-mail: dkiernan@jonesday.com
cestewart@jonesday.com
mfischer@jonesday.com
amaugeri@jonesday.com
adollinger@jonesday.com
- and -
Jeffrey I. Shinder, Esq.
Ellison A. Snider, Esq.
14 Penn Plaza, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10122
Telephone: (646) 960-8601
E-mail: jeff@scl-llp.com
esnider@scl-llp.com
- and -
W. Stephen Cannon, Esq.
Seth D. Greenstein, Esq.
CONSTANTINE CANNON LLP
1001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 1300 N
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 204-3500
Facsimile: (202) 204-3501
E-mail: scannon@constantinecannon.com
sgreenstein@constantinecannon.com
SAZERAC CO: Can File Class Cert Opposition Docs Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER McKAY, TERRY
MYERS, and DAWN OUTLAW, as individuals, on behalf of themselves,
the general public, and those similarly situated, v. SAZERAC
COMPANY, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00522-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Edward Chen entered an order granting Defendant's motion to
file materials under seal in support of the Defendant's opposition
to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Based on the evidence presented, if sales and pricing data,
internal and external market research, and confidential client
communications were disclosed to the public rather than sealed, the
Defendant's competitors could obtain an unfair advantage in the
marketplace.
Sazerac is a privately held American alcoholic beverage company.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 1, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N9YE24 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Kent J. Schmidt, Esq.
Creighton R. Magid, Esq.
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 2000
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (714) 800-1400
Facsimile: (714) 800-1499
E-mail: schmidt.kent@dorsey.com
magid.chip@dorsey.com
SEGWAY INC: Sabu Files Suit in D. Delaware
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Segway Inc. The case
is styled as Aaron John Sabu, Christopher Holmes, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. Segway Inc., Case No.
1:25-cv-00394-UNA (D. Del., March 31, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Account
Receivable.
Segway Inc. -- https://www.segway.com/ -- develops, manufactures,
and sells personal electric transportation devices.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Grant Dick, IV, Esq.
COOCH AND TAYLOR
The Brandywine Building
1000 N. West Street, 10th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 984-3867
Email: gdick@coochtaylor.com
SMART ERP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Aguilera Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
RANFIS ESPINAL AGUILERA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SMART ERP SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-02877 (N.D. Cal., March 27, 2025) is an
action arising out of the Defendant's failures to properly secure,
safeguard, encrypt, and timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's
and Class members' sensitive personal identifiable information that
it had acquired and stored for its business purposes.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, due to the Defendant's
data security failures which resulted in the Data Breach,
cybercriminals were able to target Defendant's computer systems and
exfiltrate highly sensitive and Plaintiff's and Class members'
personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private
Information"). As a result of this Data Breach, Plaintiff's and
Class Members' Private Information was compromised and stolen and
remains in the hands of those cybercriminals.
Smart ERP Solutions, Inc. provides information technology services.
The Company offers enterprise application, analytics, application
development, digital services, infrastructure management, and
database management services. Smart ERP Solutions serves in the
State of California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S. State Street, Suite N-300
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (215) 867-2399
Email: elechtzin@edelson-law.com
SOUNDHOUND AI: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against
SoundHound AI, Inc. ("SoundHound" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: SOUN).
The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, and/or failed to disclose material adverse
facts regarding SoundHound's business, operations, and prospects,
including allegations that: (i) the material weaknesses in
SoundHound's internal controls over financial reporting impaired
the Company's ability to effectively account for corporate
acquisitions; (ii) in addition, the Company overstated the extent
to which it had remediated, and/or its ability to remediate, the
material weaknesses in its internal controls over financial
reporting; (iii) as a result of the foregoing material weaknesses,
SoundHound's reported goodwill following the Amelia Acquisition was
inflated and would need to be corrected; (iv) further, SoundHound
would likely require extra time and expense to effectively account
for the SYNQ3 and Amelia Acquisitions; and (v) the foregoing
increased the risk that the Company would be unable to timely file
certain financial reports with the SEC.
If you bought shares of SoundHound between May 10, 2024 and March
3, 2025, and you suffered a significant loss on that investment,
you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey
D. Holzer, Esq. atcholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at
(888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's website at
www.holzerlaw.com/case/soundhound/ to learn more.
The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the
case is May 27, 2025.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law
firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys
have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of
dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate
misconduct. More information about the firm is available through
its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this
promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney
responsible for its content.
CONTACT:
Corey Holzer, Esq.
(888) 508-6832 (toll-free)
cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN]
SOUTHEAST SERIES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Beasley Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Penny Beasley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Southeast Series of Lockton Companies, LLC, Case No.
4:25-cv-00222-BP, Case No. (W.D. Mo., March 311, 2025) alleges that
Sunflower failed to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or
timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members'
sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired
and stored for its business purposes.
The Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information
to Defendant with the reasonable expectation and on the mutual
understanding that Defendant would comply with its obligations to
keep such information confidential and secure from unauthorized
access.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees of
Defendant's clients.
The Defendant is a company that provides insurance, risk
management, and employee benefits.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John F. Garvey, Esq.
Colleen Garvey, Esq.
Ellen Thomas, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
701 Market Street, Suite 1510
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 390-6750
E-mail: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com
cgarvey@stranchlaw.com
ethomas@stranchlaw.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Grayson Wells, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
gwells@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Casondra Turner, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: cturner@milberg.com
SUNFLOWER MEDICAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
LISA COLE; and CHARLESETTA JACKSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SUNFLOWER MEDICAL
GROUP, P.A., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02157 (D. Kan., March 26,
2025) is a class action against the Defendants for its failure to
secure and safeguard approximately 220,968 individuals', including
the Plaintiffs', personally identifying information and personal
health information, including names, addresses, dates of birth,
Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, medical
information, and health insurance information.
According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, the Defendant owed a
duty to Plaintiffs and Class members to implement and maintain
reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and
safeguard their PII/PHI against unauthorized access and disclosure.
SMG breached that duty by, among other things, failing to implement
and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to
protect its clients' customers' PII/PHI from unauthorized access
and disclosure.
As a result of the Defendant's inadequate security and breach of
its duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and the
Plaintiffs' and Class members' PII/PHI was accessed and disclosed,
says the suit.
Sunflower Medical Group, P.A. provides health care services. The
Company offers primary care, laboratory tests, x-rays, ultrasounds,
immunizations, bone density scans, internal medicine, family
practice, pediatrics, gynecology, and other related services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael T. Yonke, Esq.
YONKE LAW LLC
700 W. 47th Street, Suite 550
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 221-6400
Facsimile: (816) 888-5188
Email: myonke@yonke-law.com
- and -
Ben Barnow, Esq.
Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 621-2000
Facsimile: (312) 641-5504
Email: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
aparkhill@barnowlaw.com
ULTRA CLEAN: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set May 23
--------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP reminds stockholders that a class action was filed on
behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Ultra
Clean Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:UCTT) securities between May 6, 2024
and February 24, 2025. Ultra Clean is a developer and supplier of
subsystems, components, parts, and ultra-high purity cleaning and
analytical services primarily for the semiconductor industry.
For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas,
Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003.
The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that
Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc. (UCTT) Misled Investors Regarding Demand
for the Company's Products in China
According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
created the false impression that they possessed reliable
information pertaining to the demand for Ultra Clean's products and
services in the domestic Chinese market. In truth, Ultra Clean's
optimistic reports of significant growth and increased earnings
potential fell short of reality as they failed to incorporate the
impending weaker demand due to issues one of its major customers
was facing, extended qualification timelines, and inventory
absorption, particularly given the volatility of the semiconductor
industry.
On February 24, 2025, Ultra Clean published fourth quarter and full
year 2024 fiscal results and hosted an associated earnings call,
where the Company's executives revealed that Ultra Clean was facing
"demand softness" in China. In particular, Ultra Clean was facing
decreased demand in China due to extended qualification timelines
and inventory absorption. On this news, the price of Ultra Clean's
common stock declined from a closing market price of $36.06 per
share on February 24, 2025 to $25.90 per share on February 25,
2025, a decline of over 28%.
What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc. Shareholders who want to serve
as lead plaintiff for the class must file their papers with the
court by May 23, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be
eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can
remain an absent class member. For more information, click here.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights
litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been
dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate
governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for
their wrongdoing since 2002.
To be notified if a class action against Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc.
settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage
in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact:
Aaron Dumas, Jr.
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Sued Over Data Privacy Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE 1; and JANE DOE 2, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MATTHEW WEISS; REGENTS OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN; UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN; KEFFER
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
5:25-cv-10855-LVP-KGA (E.D. Mich., March 26, 2025) alleges
violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and Stored
Communications Act, by unlawfully accessing the Plaintiffs' private
information without authorization.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that by failing to implement
any policies, procedures, or security measures, the Defendants
breached its duty to protect the private information entrusted to
it by the Plaintiffs and others.
University of Michigan operates as an educational institution. The
University offers undergraduate and graduate degrees in arts and
sciences, business, dentistry, education, engineering, law,
medicine, nursing, pharmacy, and social work. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan R. Marko, Esq.
MARKO LAW, PLLC
220 W. Congress, 4th Floor
Detroit, MI 48226
Telephone: (313) 777-7529
Facsimile: (313) 771-5785
Email: jon@markolaw.com
- and -
Noah S. Hurwitz, Esq.
HURWITZ LAW, PLLC
340 Beakes Street, Suite 125
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Tel: (844) 487-9489
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fundamental Global Reports $0.3MM Loss Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fundamental Global Inc.'s subsidiary is named as a defendant in
personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to
asbestos-containing materials, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "As of December 31, 2024, the Company has a
loss contingency reserve of approximately $0.3 million, which
represents the Company's estimate of its potential losses related
to the settlement of various open proceedings and claims.
Management does not expect the resolution of these proceedings and
claims to have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.
"Majority of the cases involve product liability claims based
principally on allegations of past distribution of commercial
lighting products containing wiring that may have contained
asbestos. Each case names dozens of corporate defendants in
addition to Fundamental Global. In the Company's experience, a
large percentage of these types of claims have never been
substantiated and have been dismissed by the courts. The Company
has not suffered any adverse verdict in a trial court proceeding
related to asbestos claims and intends to continue to defend these
lawsuits
"On July 16, 2024, we received notice that we were named as a
defendant, along with over 500 other companies, in a civil action
filed for cost recovery and contributions related to the release
and/or threatened release of hazardous substances from a facility
known as the BKK Class 1 Landfill in Los Angeles County California
from periods prior to 1987. The action alleges that FGH is a
successor to Pichel Industries, Inc. ("Pichel Industries") and that
Pichel Industries contributed waste to the landfill. We are in the
early stages of evaluating the claim and determining our response.
"The Company is a guarantor of the obligations of an entity that
was previously sold and is no longer part of the consolidated
group. The Company has been notified that the primary obligor has
not met the obligations for which it is liable, and the third party
has requested that the Company satisfy the obligations on behalf of
the buyer under the guaranty. The Company is evaluating its
obligations and determining its response."
full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=z8TJP8
ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Defends Product Liability Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Fuller Company has been named as a defendant in lawsuits in
which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing
asbestos manufactured more than 35 years ago, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "The plaintiffs generally bring these lawsuits
against multiple defendants and seek damages (both actual and
punitive) in very large amounts. In many cases, plaintiffs are
unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable
injuries or that the injuries suffered were the result of exposure
to products manufactured by us. We are typically dismissed as a
defendant in such cases without payment. If the plaintiff presents
evidence indicating that compensable injury occurred as a result of
exposure to our products, the case is generally settled for an
amount that reflects the seriousness of the injury, the length,
intensity and character of exposure to products containing
asbestos, the number and solvency of other defendants in the case,
and the jurisdiction in which the case has been brought.
"In February 2024, the named plaintiffs in Rouse et al. v. H.B.
Fuller Company et al. filed a third amended complaint in their
lawsuit against the Company and one of its subsidiaries, which was
initiated in September 2022. The suit is pending in the federal
District of Minnesota and seeks damages arising from property
damage attributed to alleged defects in grout sold by the Company
or its affiliates. The named plaintiffs seek to represent a class
but have not yet moved for class certification. The Company intends
to vigorously defend itself against the claims outlined in this
lawsuit. As of March 1, 2025, we are unable to estimate any
possible loss or range of possible losses and have not recorded a
loss contingency for this matter."
full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qi4Zwt
*********
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 ***