250430.mbx

250430.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, April 30, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 86 Headlines 14TH & PARK LLC: Mott Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia 1500 BK LLC: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property 1ST LAKE: Court Continues Cass Cert Hearing in Merrell Suit 3M COMPANY: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California AARP: Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal in Markels Suit ABM INDUSTRY: Filing of Reply Brief Adjusted to May 5 ACADEMY SCHOOL: Seeks to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Class Complaint ACADIA PHARMA: A.B. Data Appointed as Third Party Administrator ADAMS VEGETABLE: Avocado Oil's Non-GMO Claims "False," Vanni Says ADM INVESTOR: Nefertiti Appeals Ruling in Kumaran Suit ADOBE INC: Faces Rapak Class Action Suit in N.D. Calif. AETNA LIFE: Discovery Must be Completed by Feb. 27, 2026 AHS MANAGEMENT: Class Settlement in McCool Gets Initial Nod AIR FAYRE CA: Miller Suit Removed to C.D. California ALABAMA: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by April 30 ALDI INC: Frost Bid for Class Certification Due Nov. 10 ALLIED PROPERTY: Oddi Class Cert. Bid Partly OK'd ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Seeks Review of Discovery Ruling ALLY FINANCIAL: Bid to Seal Unredacted Summary Judgment Memo OK'd ALYK INC: Intercepts Customers' Communications, Class Suit Alleges AMAZON.COM INC: Kolotinsky Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks to File Confidential Docs Under Seal AMERICAN FAMILY: Filing for Class Cert in Hacker Due June 5 AMERICAN HONDA: Plaintiff Must File Class Cert Bid by August 7 ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Overby APOLLO JETS LLC: Kaya Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York APPLE INC: Products' Packaging Omits Disclosures, Maxwell Says APPLIED THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suits ASKET INC: Court Stays Further Proceedings in Morris ASPYR MEDIA: Seeks Leave to File Selected Attachments Under Seal ASPYR MEDIA: Seeks to Strike Bid for Class Certification ATKORE INC: Faces Buckingham Suit Over PVC Pipes' Price Conspiracy AUTOZONE PARTS: Reynolds Suit Removed to W.D. Washington BALLY'S MANAGEMENT: Williams Sues Over Illegal Tobacco Surcharges BEE SWEET: Faces Alvarez Employment Suit in Calif. Super. Court BIGBEAR.AI HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set June 10 BOB EVANS: Mitchell Seeks to Certify Class BRICKELL BRANDS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Says BYTEDANCE INC: Armbruster Suit Transferred to C.D. California BYTEDANCE INC: R. W. Suit Transferred to C.D. California CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS': Pocci Sues Over Private Info Disclosure CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Aiello Sues Over Unscrupulous Practice CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Discloses Medical Info to Google, Suit Says CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Discloses Patients' Info, Suit Claims CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Torres Balks at Disclosure of Patients' Info CAMUTO IPCO: Faces Scott Suit Over Route Package Protection Fees CANADA: Court Denies Class Suit Over Mouldy Warships CAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT: Ryan Suit Removed to D. Maryland CARAWAY HOME: Hampton Suit Removed to C.D. California CARAWAY HOME: Hampton Suit Removed to C.D. California CELESTRON ACQUISITION: Hightower Class Settlement Gets Final Nod CHRISWELL HOME: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 10, 2026 CHUNG LLC: Li Sues to Recover Lost Wages CIUNI & PANICHI: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Johnson Says CIUNI & PANICHI: Fails to Secure Private Info, Resendiz Alleges COLORADO WEST: Powers Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Advance Notice CROSSROADS TRADING: Medina Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info DMC CORPORATION: Thorne Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website DONALD TRUMP: Bid to Amend Definition of Certified Class OK'd DRAFTKINGS INC: Solicits Users to Gamble Large Sums, Macek Says EISNER ADVISORY: Niosi Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info EISNER ADVISORY: Ouellette Sues Over Inadequate Data Security ELEVANCE HEALTH: Kneppar Seeks Leave to File Documents Under Seal ELEVANCE HEALTH: Kneppar Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ENTRAVISION COMMUNICATIONS: Mizel Sues Over Incorrect Tax Return EPSILON DATA MANAGEMENT: McGee Files Suit in C.D. California EQUITY PRIME: Brown Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA, NJWHL ETESOR ENTERPRISES: Marcano Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA EVERUS CONSTRUCTION: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit FANDANGO MEDIA: Beer Sues Over Deceptive Advertised Memberships FARIS PROPERTIES: Powell Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation FARMER JON'S: Popcorn Does Not Contain Butter, Corless Alleges FCA US: Mack Suit Seeks to Certify New York Class FISKARS BRANDS: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines FLORIDA: Anderson Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid FORD MOTOR: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to August 11 FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response FUTURE FINTECH: Continues to Defend "LaBelle" Suit G & S PIZZA: Court Certifies Schilling Collective Action GEICO GENERAL: Bid to Compel Appraisal Denied GENESYS CLOUD: Illegally Intercepts Communications, Suit Alleges GIANNELLA'S MODERN: Alarcon Seeks to Certify Settlement Class GLANBIA PERFORMANCE: Banks Suit Removed to C.D. California GOOGLE LLC: Faces Anderson Class Suit Over Retaliatory Termination GREDE HOLDINGS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, McCorvey Says GROUPON INC: Faces Ingber Suit Ove Fraudulent Voucher Sale HARRY'S INC: Thorne Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store HESS CORP: Wagner Seeks Class Certification HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Settles False Advertising Class Suit for $4M HOFFER LLC: Knoche Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida IFCO SYSTEMS: DeAnda-Zavala Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. INDIAN RIVER: Faus Sues Over Illegal Giving of Failing Grades INSPIRATO INC: Faces Koch Shareholder Suit over SEC Filing INTER-CON SECURITY: Rivera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. INTRASYSTEMS LLC: O'Dell Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania JAMES KOUTOULAS: Plaintiffs Seek Approval of Class Notice Plan JOSEPH'S COLLEGE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Dyer Suit Says KEYSTONE REMODELING: Murch Directed to Conduct Class Certification KRISTI NOEM: Parole Grantee Class Gets Certification KYNDRYL HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims LABORATORY SERVICES: Daniels Files Suit in W.D. Washington LARAMAX CORP: Castillo Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages LATCH INC: Settlement in Brennan Suit Gets Initial OK LATCH INC: Settlement of Consolidated Securities Suit for Court Nod LEE UNIVERSITY: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Goodine Says LIFECARE MEDICAL: Nonnulla Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, VOWA LIFELONG ADOPTIONS: E.H. Files Suit in E.D. California LIME ROCK: Chastain Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma LIVE NATION: Faces Holmes Class Suit Over Illegal Drip Pricing LONG BEACH, CA: Guma Seeks to Certify Class Action LVNV FUNDING: Shaw Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid MANAGED CARE: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid ME TOO LLC: Hippe Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users MOBIZ INC: Faces Novia Class TCPA Suit Over Telemarketing Calls MORTGAGE RESEARCH: Warnocks Seek to Certify Class Action MR. THROWBACK: Faces Zhang Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website NATERA INC: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Schneider Suit to 5th Cir. NATIONWIDE RECOVERY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Cooper Alleges NATIONWIDE RECOVERY: Nail Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info NELLIS AUCTION: Schaaf Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Warehouse Staff NET POWER: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Fraud NET POWER: Faces Luciani Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop NEW YORK: Faces Whalen Suit Over Failure to Protect Clients' Info NISSAN NORTH: Seeks More Time to File Writ of Certiorari in Johnson OBI SEAFOODS: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Hamlin Says ONTRAK INC: Dick Appeals Remain Pending in 9th Circuit ONTRAK INC: Intends to Defend "Braun" Securities Suit ORACLE HEALTH: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Blount Says ORACLE HEALTH: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Moore Says PACIFIC MARITIME: Phillips Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. PAYSIGN INC: Settles Yilan Securities Suit for $3.75MM PEAK OUTCOMES: Muza Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Under FLSA, NYLL PEPPER GATE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Henry Alleges PICTSWEET COMPANY: Santos Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. PLAKOS SCRAP: Faces Perez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, J.R. Says PURPLE INNOVATION: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website QR JOY: Faces Amiel Over Vapes' Deceptive Marketing Practices RASTELLI FOODS: Lewis Sues Over Unlawful Telephonic Calls RENT THE RUNWAY: "Sharma" Suit Remains Pending in N.Y. RH: Bleichmar Fonti Investigates Potential Securities Claims RISE BRANDS: Anello Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ROBLOX CORP: Collects Children's Personal Info, Garcia Alleges RODL MANAGEMENT: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Fuchs Says ROYAL CUSTOM: Fails to Provide 60 Days' Notice Under WARN Act RUGSUSA LLC: Faces Preciado Class Suit Over Fake Sales SALIM NATHOO: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Genesee Suit Alleges SCOUT COFFEE: Stracener Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Baristas SHENZHEN SMOORE: Conspires to Fix Vapes' Prices, Redbud Suit Claims SILVER STATE: Quinata EFTA Suit Removed to D. Nevada SKOPOS FINANCIAL: Phillipson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia SOUTHEAST SERIES: Bravo Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI SOUTHEAST SERIES: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Ward Says SOUTHEAST SERIES: Nolley Alleges Unauthorized Personal Info Access SPOONWOOD INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hampton Alleges SSP AMERICA: Cabral Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages STEVENS TRUCKING: Faces Sanders Wage-and-Hour Suit in W.D. Okla. T-MOBILE USA: Castillo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TESLA INC: Quebec High Court OKs Paint Defects' Class Suit TEXAS WESLEYAN: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Chism Suit Alleges THINK SMARTFINANCIAL.COM: Taylor Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio TIRE STAFFING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Aguilar Suit Says TOTAL SAFETY: Maya Suit Removed to N.D. California TRAVELPRO PRODUCTS: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California TRUE RELIGION APPAREL: Nuri Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ULTRAHUMAN HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website UNIFIED DOOR: Vanover Suit Seeks Installers' Unpaid Overtime Wages UNITED STATES: Faces Pasula Over Termination of Students' Status UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Bishop Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website VERMONT'S ORIGINAL: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Thorne Says WALKER FOODS: Casillas Suit Removed to C.D. California WELLBOTS INC: Rubio Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Snipes Suit Removed to N.D. California WYNN MA: Fails to Send Notice of Gambling Wins, Losses, Suit Says ZENAS BIOPHARMA: Buathongsri Sues Over Securities Act Violations ********* 14TH & PARK LLC: Mott Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 14th & Park LLC. The case is styled as William Mott, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. 14th & Park LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02144-ELR (N.D. Ga., April 18, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. 14TH & PARK LLC is a Georgia Domestic Limited-Liability Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Love, Esq. LOVE CONSUMER LAW 2500 Northwinds Parkway, Ste. 330 Alpharetta, GA 30009 Phone: (404) 855-3600 Email: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com 1500 BK LLC: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property -------------------------------------------------- Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. 1500 BK LLC and PHOENIX OF 152 ND ST LLC D/B/A BURGER KING #8296, Case No. 1:25-cv-21862-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 23, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendants' commercial retail plaza (hereinafter the "Commercial Property") being inaccessible to people who are disabled. Although well over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendants' property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and commercial restaurant business within the subject restaurant in violation of the ADA and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial property and commercial restaurant. The barriers to access at Defendants' commercial property and commercial restaurant business have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate. 1500 BK LLC, owns, operates, and oversees the commercial property, with all areas open to the public..[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com 1ST LAKE: Court Continues Cass Cert Hearing in Merrell Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN MERRELL, V. 1ST LAKE PROPERTIES, INC. Case No. 2:23-cv-01450-SSV-DPC (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Sarah Vance entered an order continuing the class certification hearing pending its ruling on the preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Court will set a date for the class certification hearing at a later time if it is necessary to do. 1st Lake designs and develops apartment units. A copy of the Court's order dated April 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=m7Kua6 at no extra charge.[CC] 3M COMPANY: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Mario Hernandez, an individual, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2501364 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, in and for the County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central of California on April 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-00960. The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: Unfair Competition; Failure To Pay Minimum Wages; Failure To Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods; Failure To Provide Accurate Itemized Statements; Failure to Reimburse Employees for Required Expenses; Failure to Provide Wages When Due; and Failure to Pay Sick Pay Wages.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David J. Dow, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101.3577 Phone: 619.232.0441 Fax: 619.232.4302 Email: ddow@littler.com AARP: Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal in Markels Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAN MARKELS, WILLIAM MARTIN, and LYNN SEDA individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AARP, Case No. 4:22-cv-05499-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant will move the Court to consider whether certain portions of documents filed in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification should be sealed, pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5. As outlined in Section 12(b) of the Standing Order, the documents relevant to this sealing Administrative Sealing Motion are set forth in the chart below. All of these documents contain material designated as "Confidential" and/or "Highly Confidential" by AARP, Plaintiffs, and/or non-party Meta. Pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Standing Order, the reasons for sealing will be addressed in a forthcoming omnibus motion. AARP thus requests that the Court consider whether the following documents materials designated as Confidential should be filed under seal: AARP is an interest group in the United States focusing on issues affecting those over the age of fifty. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1cKlDo at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Travis LeBlanc, Esq. Matthew D. Brown, Esq. Bethany Lobo, Esq. Harrison B. Park, Esq. Tiana Demas, Esq. Stephanie J. Schuyler, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4004 Telephone: (415) 693-2000 E-mail: tleblanc@cooley.com brownmd@cooley.com blobo@cooley.com hpark@cooley.com tdemas@cooley.com ansorgejt@cooley.com jsimpsonlagoy@cooley.com sschuyler@cooley.com ABM INDUSTRY: Filing of Reply Brief Adjusted to May 5 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EFREN LINARES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the State of California and aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act, v. ABM INDUSTRY GROUPS, LLC., FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF MODESTO, LLC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive; Case No. 1:22-cv-00816-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an order adjusting the Court's Class Action Scheduling Order issued on Jan. 23, 2024 as follows: The Plaintiff's reply brief in support of class certification is due by May 5, 2025 (previously April 14, 2025). The Plaintiff filed his motion for class certification on Dec. 16, 2024. The Parties previously stipulated to, and this Court approved, two extensions on Defendants' deadline to file their opposition to class certification. ABM provides facility services. A copy of the Court's order dated April 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WlUxak at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stan S. Mallison, Esq. Hector R. Martinez, Esq. Daniel C. Keller, Esq. MALLISON & MARTINEZ 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 832-9999 Facsimile: (510) 832-1101 E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com Dkeller@TheMMLawFirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Alexander M. Chemers, Esq. Paul M. Smith, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINES, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239- 9045 E-mail: Alexander.chemers@ogletree.com Paul.smith@ogletree.com ACADEMY SCHOOL: Seeks to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Class Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Doe, a minor, by and through his next friends, Jack Doe and Jane Doe, v. Academy School District 20, Case No. 1:24-cv-03477-SKC-MDB (D. Colo.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting requests dismissing the Plaintiffs' complaint. The Complaint is an IDEA FAPE matter that has been set for but has yet to proceed to an administrative hearing. Thus, the entire matter should be DISMISSED. J.D. is a student with an IDEA disability. Academy District 20 is a school district located in El Paso County, Colorado. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j9Wa1P at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Igor Raykin, Esq. Kaity Tuohy, Esq. KISHINEVSKY & RAYKIN, LLC 2851 S. Parker Rd., Suite 150 Aurora, CO 80014 Telephone: (720) 748-8888 Facsimile: (720) 748-8894 E-mail: kaity@coloradolawteam.com igor@coloradolawteam.com The Defendant is represented by: John R. Stanek, Esq. ORTEN CAVANAGH HOLMES & HUNT, LLC 111 S. Tejon St., Suite 400 Springs, CO 80903 Telephone: (719) 228-6049 E-mail: jstanek@ochhoalaw.com - and - Tonya J. Thompson, Esq. GENERAL COUNSEL 1110 Chapel Hills Dr. Colorado Springs, CO 80920 Telephone: (719) 234-1216 E-mail: tonya.thompson@asd20.org ACADIA PHARMA: A.B. Data Appointed as Third Party Administrator --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF BIRMINGHAM RELIEF AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM; and OHIO CARPENTERS' PENSION FUND, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; STEPHEN R. DAVIS; and SRDJAN (SERGE) R. STANKOVIC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00762-WQH-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Hayes entered an order as follows: 1. The Court appoints A.B. Data, Ltd. as the third-party administrator who will administer Plaintiffs' Notice Plan; 2. The Court approves, as to form and substance, the proposed forms of the Postcard Notice, the Summary Notice of Pendency of Class Action, and the Notice of Pendency of Class Action. 3. Within 14 days of the date of entry of this Order, Acadia shall provide to, or cause its stock transfer agent to provide to Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Class Counsel") the Certified Class Member List, containing the names and addresses (and email addresses, if possible) of any potential Class Members. On March 11, 2024, the Court issued an Order granting the Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel filed by the Plaintiffs City of Birmingham Relief and Retirement System and Ohio Carpenters' Pension Fund. The Court certified the following class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23: "All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Acadia common stock during the period from Sept. 9, 2019 through April 4, 2021 (inclusive), and were damaged thereby." Excluded from the Class are (i) Defendants; (ii) the past and current officers and directors of Acadia; (iii) the immediate family members, legal representatives, heirs, parents, subsidiaries, predecessors, successors, and assigns of any excluded person or entity; and (iv) any entity in which any excluded person(s) have or had a majority ownership interest, or that is or was controlled by any excluded person or entity. Acadia is a biopharmaceutical company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VRe8OG at no extra charge.[CC] ADAMS VEGETABLE: Avocado Oil's Non-GMO Claims "False," Vanni Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY VANNI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADAMS VEGETABLE OILS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-03233-SK (N.D. Cal., April 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and California's Unfair Competition Law. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of the Marianne's Harvest Brands avocado oil. The Defendant advertised and sold the product to consumers as "non-GMO" and/or "non-GMO Project Verified." However, the avocado oil is non-genetically modified organism (non-GMO), no GMO version of avocado oil is present on the market today. Had the Plaintiff and other consumers similarly situated known the truth, they would not have purchased the product. Adams Vegetable Oils, Inc. is a manufacturer of specialty vegetable oils, with its principal place of business in Arbuckle, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig W. Straub, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 Email: craig@crosnerlegal.com ADM INVESTOR: Nefertiti Appeals Ruling in Kumaran Suit ------------------------------------------------------ NEFERTITI RISK CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC is taking an appeal from court orders in the lawsuit entitled Samantha Siva Kumaran, et al., individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ADM Investor Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-3873, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, common law fraud, fraud and deceptive business practices, fraudulent inducement of contract, aiding and abetting in fraud, civil conspiracy, misappropriation of trade secrets, interference in economic advantage, unjust enrichment, recission, breach of contract, gross negligence, and breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing. On June 20, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to confirm arbitration award. On July 5, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a cross motion to stay. On Oct. 24, 2024, Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron entered a Report and Recommendation (R&R) to grant the Defendant's motion to confirm arbitration award and deny the Plaintiffs' cross motion to stay. On Jan. 17, 2025, Judge Gregory H. Woods entered an Order adopting the R&R in full. On Jan. 31, 2025, Plaintiff Kumaran filed a motion for reconsideration of the Jan. 17 Order, which Judge Woods denied on Apr. 1, 2025. The appellate case is captioned Kumaran v. ADM Investor Services, Inc., Case No. 25-805, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 7, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant NEFERTITI RISK CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, is represented by: Aaron H. Pierce, Esq. PIERCE & KWOK LLP 299 Broadway, Suite 1405 New York, NY 10007 ADOBE INC: Faces Rapak Class Action Suit in N.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adobe Inc. The case is captioned as Nicholas Rapak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Adobe Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-03032-NW (N.D. Cal., April 2, 2025). The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge Noel Wise. The suit demands $5,000,000 in damages. Adobe Inc. is a multinational computer software company headquartered in San Jose, California, known for its creative software products, including Photoshop, Illustrator, and Premiere Pro. The company was founded in 1982 and is the global leader in digital media and digital marketing solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amber Love Schubert, Esq. Robert C. Schubert, Esq. Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union St Ste 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 E-mail: aschubert@sjk.law rschubert@sjk.law wjonckheer@sjk.law - and - Christian Levis, Esq. Amanda Grace Fiorilla, Esq. Rachel Isabel Kesten, Esq. Yuanchen Lu, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: clevis@lowey.com afiorilla@lowey.com rkesten@lowey.com ylu@lowey.com AETNA LIFE: Discovery Must be Completed by Feb. 27, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BINAH GORDON, ET AL., v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:24-cv-01447-VAB (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Victor A. Bolden entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Depositions of fact witnesses shall be completed by Oct. 31, 2025. -- Designation of expert witnesses on issues which the parties bear the burden of proof due by Nov. 7, 2025. -- Depositions of expert witnesses on issues which the parties bear the burden of proof due by Dec. 19, 2025. -- Designation of expert witnesses on issues which the parties do not bear the burden of proof due by Jan. 23, 2026. -- Depositions of expert witnesses on issues which the parties do not bear the burden of proof due by Feb. 27, 2026. -- All discovery shall close by Feb. 27, 2026. -- If, after the close of discovery, the parties wish to meet with a Magistrate Judge to discuss settlement, the parties may jointly file such a request by March 6, 2026. -- Motion for class certification due by April 24, 2026. -- Proposed dispositive motion and trial schedule due ten (10) days after the Court rules on the motion for class certification. Aetna offers a variety of health insurance plans. A copy of the Court's order dated April 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dJOB22 at no extra charge.[CC] AHS MANAGEMENT: Class Settlement in McCool Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK MCCOOL, SHAWN MACDONALD, and WARREN HARLAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AHS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF AHS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., and ARDENT HEALTH SERVICES BENEFITS PLAN ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE, Case No. 3:19-cv-01158 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge William Campbell, Jr. entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement, maintaining class certification for settlement purposes, approving form and manner of settlement notice, preliminarily approving plan of allocation, and scheduling a date for a final approval hearing 1. For purposes of settlement, and pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court modifies the previously certified Class Period as follows. The Court makes no other modifications to the certified class. The "Settlement Class" shall be defined as: "All persons, including any Beneficiary of a deceased Person who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period (Dec. 24, 2013 through the date of this Order), and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a QDRO who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period." Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants and their immediate family members who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan at any time during the Class Period. 2. The Court appoints the Plaintiffs Mark McCool, Shawn Macdonald, and Warren Harlan as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class, and Capozzi Adler, P.C. as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. 3. The Settlement Agreement is preliminarily approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court preliminarily finds that: (a) The amount of the Settlement ($475,000) is fair, reasonable, and adequate, taking into account the costs, risks, and delay of litigation, trial, and appeal. 4. A hearing is scheduled for August 13, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. AHS Management is an investment company that invests in healthcare sectors. A copy of the Court's order dated April 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gmmVs2 at no extra charge.[CC] AIR FAYRE CA: Miller Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Wendy Miller, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AIR FAYRE CA, INC., a California Stock Corporation; SMX, LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV02465 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 17, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-03423. In her Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following claims for relief against the Defendants: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages, Failure to Pay All Wages and Minimum Wages, Failure to Provide Compliant Meal Periods, Failure to Provide Complaint Rest Periods, Failure to Provide Suitable Seating, Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses, Failure to Pay All Wages Owed at Termination, Failure to Furnish Accurate, Itemized Wage Statements and Failure to Maintain Accurate Records, and Violations of Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David R. Ongaro, Esq. Cara R. Sherman, Esq. Christine Lee, Esq. ONGARO PC 1604 Union Street San Francisco, CA 94123 Phone: (415) 433-3900 Facsimile: (415) 433-3950 Email: dongaro@ongaropc.com csherman@ongaropc.com clee@ongaropc.com ALABAMA: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by April 30 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.C., et al., v. NANCY T. BUCKNER, Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Human Resources, in her official capacity, Case No. 2:21-cv-00367-ECM-CWB (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Emily C. Marks entered an order adopting the parties' joint proposed schedule as follows: 1. On or before April 30, 2025, the Plaintiffs shall file their renewed motion for class certification; 2. On or before May 14, 2025, the Defendant shall respond to the Plaintiffs' motion; and 3. On or before May 28, 2025, the Plaintiffs shall reply to the Defendant's response. A copy of the Court's order dated April 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ijH7Nw at no extra charge.[CC] ALDI INC: Frost Bid for Class Certification Due Nov. 10 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAGGIE FROST, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ALDI INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-07095-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered a case management plan and scheduling order. -- Any motions to amend or to join additional parties shall be filed by June 20, 2025, without leave of the Court. -- All fact discovery shall be completed no later than Oct. 15, 2025. -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification: Nov. 10, 2025. -- The Defendant's opposition to class certification: Jan. 9, 2026. -- The Plaintiff's reply in support of motion for class certification: Jan. 30, 2026. -- The parties must file a joint letter proposing a plan for ADR by Aug. 4, 2025. ALDI offers groceries, meat, fresh produce, wine, beer, beverages, and other home products. A copy of the Court's order dated April 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bYf5dx at no extra charge.[CC] ALLIED PROPERTY: Oddi Class Cert. Bid Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Oddi et al., v. Allied Property and Casualty Insurance Company et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-09871-JAK-BFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Kronstadt entered an order granting in part and deferring in part the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. The proposed class is certified as to Defendants' liability on the Plaintiffs' UCL and breach of contract claims. On Oct. 27, 2020, the Plaintiffs brought this putative class action against the Defendants. The Complaint advances five causes of action: violation of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); breach of contract; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; unjust enrichment; and declaratory relief. The proposed class is defined as follows: "All Allied policyholders who owned real property in California insured by Allied Property and Casualty Insurance Co. with "Ordinance or Law" coverage, and who suffered a total loss and did not receive payment for benefits due under Ordinance or Law coverage when they decided to replace their insured structure at a new location, during the period from four years prior to the filing of the initial complaint through the date of certification." Allied Property provides property and casualty insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated April 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=whTUWd at no extra charge.[CC] ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Seeks Review of Discovery Ruling ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASIBEL CANCHOLA, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 8:23-cv-00734-FWS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Defendant, on May 15, 2025, will move the Court for an order granting review of the Magistrate Judge's non-dispositive discovery ruling. Allstate's motion for review of Magistrate Judge's non-dispositive discovery ruling is based on this Notice, the supporting memorandum of points and authorities, the Proposed Order, the record in this matter, and other evidence or argument that may be presented at the hearing on this Motion. On Oct. 31, 2024, the Plaintiffs served on Allstate their Sixth Set of Requests for Production. On March 28, 2025, this Court issued an order granting the the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Several hours later that same day, the Magistrate Judge issued the Discovery Order granting the Motion to Compel in full. In its order granting the Motion to Compel, the Magistrate Judge focused on the third argument (which had been mooted several hours before the Discovery Order by this Court's order granting class certification). By waiting until a class was certified and then eschewing Allstate's two still-viable arguments, the Magistrate Judge failed to provide a reasoned basis for its decision, necessitating that this Court address the issue de novo with "particular, even painstaking, care." Allstate offers home, auto, commercial, farm, life, health, recreational vehicle, and other personal insurance services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IQmVAu at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Neal Marder, Esq. Joshua A. Rubin, Esq. Robert G. Lian, Jr., Esq. Katherine I. Heise, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 229-1000 Facsimile: (310) 229-1001 E-mail: nmarder@akingump.com rubinj@akingump.com blian@akingump.com kheise@akingump.com - and - Keith A. Jacoby, Esq. Robert S. Blumberg, Esq. Jaime B. Laurent, Esq. Emily J. Atherton, Esq. Jamar D. Davis, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 553-0308 Facsimile: (310) 553-5583 ALLY FINANCIAL: Bid to Seal Unredacted Summary Judgment Memo OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL C. SHERIDAN, on behalf of Himself and all others similarly situated, v. ALLY FINANCIAL, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00616 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Frank Volk entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to seal unredacted memorandum in support of the motion for summary judgment, unredacted declaration of Chris Howell, and Exhibits F, G, & H to Howell Declaration. After careful review, the Court finds that the potential risk posed by public disclosure of the confidential, proprietary, and commercially sensitive information Ally seeks to protect outweighs the public's interest in access to the information. The Clerk is directed to file the unredacted Memorandum in Support for Summary Judgement, unredacted Declaration of Chris Howell, and Exhibits F, G, and H to the Declaration of Chris Howell under seal. Mr. Sheridan has not demonstrated with controlling precedent that a sealing order is authorized by law for certain exhibits attached to his motion for partial summary judgment and motion for class certification. As mentioned above, the Court will not seal a document simply because the parties have previously designated that document as "Confidential" during discovery. For this reason, the Court GRANTS AS MOULDED Mr. Sheridan's Motions to the same extent Ally Financial, Inc.'s Motion to Seal is granted. Inasmuch as Mr. Sheridan filed his motion for partial summary judgment and motion for class certification with attached placeholder exhibits, the Court strikes Mr. Sheridan's noncompliant motions and exhibits attached to the motions to seal. Mr. Sheridan shall have until April 18, 2025, to file the motions with accompanying exhibits in compliance with this Order. Defendant shall have leave to seek additional time to file its response, if necessary, in accordance with the Court’s revised briefing schedule. To the extent Ally desires to be heard on the matter of unsealing the subject exhibits identified by Mr. Sheridan, it may show cause in opposition of this unsealing directive on or before April 15, 2025. Ally Financial is an American bank holding company. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated April 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AnoEyC at no extra charge.[CC] ALYK INC: Intercepts Customers' Communications, Class Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALYK INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-03305 (S.D.N.Y., April 21, 2025), is a class action suit brought against ALYK for breaching its customers' trust and allowing companies scattered around Silicon Valley to invade its customers' privacy through its website, mylola.com (the Website) in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. Allegedly, ALYK helped Google LLC and Wingify Software Pvt. Ltd. (collectively the "Third Parties"), collect and intercept customers' communications with ALYK as consumers either searched for products on the Website by typing search terms into the search bar or adding particular items to their carts to purchase. ALYK is a business specialized in providing "clean feminine care products," which include menstrual, vaginal, and sexual care products.1 Given the highly personal and sensitive nature of ALYK's business, consumer's communications with the Website are confidential. Whichever tampons, condoms, or vibrators a person is looking to buy is no one else's business. Except for Google and Wingify. As it turns out, the shopkeeper, ALYK, has allowed these Third Parties to snoop on shopper's electronic communications through its Website, the suit contends. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all California residents who conducted searches for products on the Website while in California or browsed for products on the website, and whose electronic communications were intercepted or recorded by Google and Wingify. The Plaintiff is an adult citizen of the state of California and resides in Los Angeles, California. In February of 2025, the Plaintiff visited Defendant's Website while in California. On the Website, Plaintiff searched for "organic tampons" on the Website's search bar. The Plaintiff's communications with Defendant -- including the search terms she entered into the Website's search bar were intercepted in transit by the Third Parties as enabled by Defendant. Neither Defendant nor the Third Parties procured Plaintiff Doe's prior consent to this interception on the Website. Plaintiff Doe did not discover and could not have discovered this violation until her retention of counsel. Google offers a range of advertising software, one of which is called Google Analytics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com sbogdanovich@bursor.com idiaz@bursor.com AMAZON.COM INC: Kolotinsky Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Felix Kolotinsky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Amazon.com Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00931 was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on April 18, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00700-RSM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Amazon.com, Inc., doing business as Amazon -- https://www.amazon.com/ -- is an American multinational technology company engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rafey Sarkis Balabanian, Esq. Jared Lucky, Esq. EDELSON PC 150 California Street, 18th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 212-9300 Fax: (415) 373-9435 Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com jlucky@edelson.com The Defendant is represented by: Emily Johnson Henn, Esq. Kathryn Elizabeth Cahoy, Esq. Hannah Kirsten Nelson, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP (PALO ALTO) 3000 EL CAMINO REAL 5 Palo Alto Square Palo Alto, CA 94306 Phone: (650) 632-4700 Email: ehenn@cov.com kcahoy@cov.com hnelson@cov.com AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks to File Confidential Docs Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER CAIN, KIMBERLY HALO, KELLY KIMMEY, JUMA LAWSON, and PHILIP SULLIVAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00204-BJR (W.D. Wash.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting requests to File "Confidential" Documents in Support of Their Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification Under Seal. Accordingly, these documents contain competitively-sensitive business, financial, or commercial information designated as "CONFIDENTIAL" under the Protective Order. Disclosing this material would harm Amazon's competitive business standing, and less restrictive alternatives to redaction (for Exhibit 5, the Class Certification Opposition, the Kulick Declaration, and the Brown Declaration) and sealing (for Exhibits 1, 3, 25, and 26) would not be sufficient to prevent that harm. Separately, at the request of Plaintiffs, Amazon will file versions of Exhibits 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 19 that redact the personally identifiable information of named plaintiffs, including physical addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, and dates of birth. The Defendants have conferred with Plaintiffs and have narrowed as much as possible the number of documents sought to be permanently redacted or permanently sealed. Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of products. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=T8hCLq at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Andrew DeCarlow, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 274-6400 E-mail: andrew.decarlow@morganlewis.com - and - Walter F. Brown, Esq. Shawn M. Estrada, Esq. Marco A. Torres, Esq. Amy L. Barton, Esq. Matthew P. Merlo, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 535 Mission Street, 24th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (628) 432-5100 Facsimile: (628) 232-3101 E-mail: wbrown@paulweiss.com sestrada@paulweiss.com mtorres@paulweiss.com abarton@paulweiss.com mmerlo@paulweiss.com AMERICAN FAMILY: Filing for Class Cert in Hacker Due June 5 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Craig Hacker, v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company SI, Case No. 2:22-cv-01936-DLR (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Douglas Rayes entered an order granting the parties' joint stipulated request to amend case schedule as follows: Event New Deadline Fact Discovery Cutoff: May 16, 2025 Disclose all persons providing expert June 5, 2025 Testimony: Motion for Class Certification: June 5, 2025 Motion for Class Certification response: Aug. 4, 2025 Motion for Class Certification reply: Sept. 2, 2025 Expert depositions: Sept. 2, 2025 American Family is an American private mutual company that focuses on property, casualty, and auto insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated April 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kaOud9 at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN HONDA: Plaintiff Must File Class Cert Bid by August 7 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as QUINTIN SHAMMAM, Individually and on behalf of others, v. AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION, Case No. 3:24-cv-00648-H-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Valerie Torres entered an order granting the motion to seal, granting the joint motion regarding production of class data, granting, in part, joint motion to narrow issues for class certification, and granting joint motion to continue dates: 1. Plaintiff(s) must file a motion for class certification by Aug. 7, 2025. 2. All parties must complete all fact discovery by Sept. 23, 2025. 3. A Mandatory Settlement Conference ("MSC") shall be conducted by Zoom video conferencing on Oct. 2, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Valerie E. Torres. 4. All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by Jan. 22, 2026. The parties shall comply with the same procedures set forth in the paragraph governing fact discovery. 5. All pre-trial motions must be filed by Feb. 20, 2026. 6. The final Pretrial Conference is scheduled on the calendar of the Honorable Marylin L. Huff on May 26, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. The Plaintiff brings this class action for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"). American Honda offers a range of leasing and financing solutions for automobiles. A copy of the Court's order dated April 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MTMvUx at no extra charge.[CC] ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Overby ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS E. OVERBY, JR., and ABBY GEARHART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-00141-AWA-DEM (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Arenda Wright Allen entered an order approving the Parties' Joint Motion to Modify Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order and Stay All District Court Proceedings Until Final Resolution of Class Certification Following the Defendant's Forthcoming Rule 23(f) Petition. The deadline for filing dispositive motions shall be 45 days after the close of expert discovery. The deadline for any response brief to a dispositive motion shall be twenty-one (21) days after the deadline for dispositive motions. The deadline for any reply brief to a dispositive motion shall be 14 days after the deadline for response briefs. See id. Anheuser-Busch is an American brewing company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4kUEO7 at no extra charge.[CC] APOLLO JETS LLC: Kaya Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apollo Jets, LLC. The case is styled as Ekim Kaya, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Apollo Jets, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03193 (S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Apollo Jets LLC -- https://apollojets.com/ -- is an Air Charter Broker and not a direct air carrier or direct foreign air carrier.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com APPLE INC: Products' Packaging Omits Disclosures, Maxwell Says -------------------------------------------------------------- CASSAUNDRA MAXWELL, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-03315-SVK (N.D. Cal., April 14, 2025) is a consumer class action against the Defendant for violations of Washington's Telephone Buyers' Protection Act and Washington's Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures, distributes, advertises, markets, and sells iPhone brand cell phone products. The packaging for the Products omits certain disclosures that are required under Washington's TBPA, including, the person responsible for the repair of the equipment, Apple's standard repair charges, and the terms of the warranty for the Products. The Defendant's non-disclosures mislead consumers and are a per se violation of Washington's CPA, says the suit. The Plaintiff, who purchased an iPhone in Washington, was allegedly deceived by Defendant's unlawful conduct and brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of Washington consumers to remedy Defendant's unlawful acts. Apple Inc. is an American multinational corporation and technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael T. Houchin, Esq. Craig W. Straub, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com craig@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com APPLIED THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- Following receipt of the Complete Response Letter and Warning Letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or FDA in November 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Applied Therapeutics, Inc., and certain of our current and former officers and directors on December 17, 2024, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and is captioned Alexandru v. Applied Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 24-cv-09715. The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and/or misleading statements between January 3, 2024 to December 2, 2024 in connection with the Company's NDA to the FDA for govorestat for the treatment of Classic Galactosemia, and seeks unspecified damages. On December 27, 2024, another purported stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and a former officer and director in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Ikram v. Applied Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 1:24-cv-09973). On March 11, 2025 the court consolidated the actions (In re Applied Therapeutics Securities Litigation, No. 1:24-cv-9715). In addition, on January 31, 2025, certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors were named as defendants in a shareholder derivative action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Hassine v. Shendelman, et al., No. 1:25-cv-00935). The complaint seeks to implement reforms to the Company's corporate governance and internal procedures and to recover on behalf of the Company for any liability the Company might incur as a result of the individual defendants' alleged misconduct, as well as declaratory, equitable, and monetary relief, including attorneys' fees and other costs. The derivative action is based substantially on the same facts alleged in the consolidated action described above. The Company said in a Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that outcome of litigation is necessarily uncertain, and it cannot predict the outcome of these pending legal proceedings. ASKET INC: Court Stays Further Proceedings in Morris ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZACHARY MORRIS, v. ASKET INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00319-WED (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge William Duffin entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings. -- The parties are relieved from the automatic briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c). -- Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the Clerk terminate the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. -- However, the motion will be regarded as pending to serve its protective purpose under Damasco. On March 4, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint. At the same time, the plaintiff filed what the court commonly refers to as a "protective" motion for class certification. A copy of the Court's order dated April 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x0hWYD at no extra charge.[CC] ASPYR MEDIA: Seeks Leave to File Selected Attachments Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MALACHI MICKELONIS, JOSEPH ALFILANI, JACOB ALVAMELVILLE, MICAIAH, FLORES, MATTHEW GORKA, JARED HILLIARD, CHARLES KIRK, DAVID KIRKLAND, YALE LIEBOWITZ, JACOB MUELLER, KEVIN MUNOZ, COLEBIE NIEDERMEIER, JOSHUA PALMER, BRYCE PHILLIPS, CHRISTOPHER SOUSA, ROLANDO VAZQUEZ, ADRIAN VILLA, and NICHOLAS YEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ASPYR MEDIA, INC. and DOES 1-5, Case No. 8:23-cv-01220-MWC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting application for leave to file under seal selected attachments to declaration of Michael Rogers in support of opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Aspyr is an American video game developer and publisher. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sqBeUP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ray Kim, Esq. RAY KIM LAW, APC 112 E. Amerige Avenue, Suite 240 Fullerton, CA 9283 E-mail: ray@raykimlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Nathaniel Durrance, Esq. Keith Scully, Esq. Gregory M. Scialabba, Esq. Steven R. Gray, Esq. Newman LLP 100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 700 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 359-8200 Facsimile: (310) 359-8190 E-mail: nate@newmanlaw.com keith@newmanlaw.com gs@newmanlaw.com steve@newmanlaw.com ASPYR MEDIA: Seeks to Strike Bid for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MALACHI MICKELONIS, JOSEPH ALFILANI, JACOB ALVA-MELVILLE, MICAIAH, FLORES, MATTHEW GORKA, JARED HILLIARD, CHARLES KIRK, DAVID KIRKLAND, YALE LIEBOWITZ, JACOB MUELLER, KEVIN MUNOZ, COLEBIE NIEDERMEIER, JOSHUA PALMER, BRYCE PHILLIPS, CHRISTOPHER SOUSA, ROLANDO VAZQUEZ, ADRIAN VILLA, and NICHOLAS YEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ASPYR MEDIA, INC. and DOES 1-5, Case No. 8:23-cv-01220-MWC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants, on May 16, 2025, will move for an order striking the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On March 21, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Certify Class. On April 4, 2025, the Parties met and conferred on this matter but were unable to reach a resolution because Plaintiffs were not able to offer any relief that would mitigate the prejudice already caused. Aspyr is an American video game developer and publisher. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RYVmEU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ray Kim, Esq. RAY KIM LAW, APC 112 E. Amerige Avenue, Suite 240 Fullerton, CA 9283 E-mail: ray@raykimlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Nathaniel Durrance, Esq. Keith Scully, Esq. Gregory M. Scialabba, Esq. Steven R. Gray, Esq. NEWMAN LLP 100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 700 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 359-8200 Facsimile: (310) 359-8190 E-mail: nate@newmanlaw.com keith@newmanlaw.com gs@newmanlaw.com steve@newmanlaw.com ATKORE INC: Faces Buckingham Suit Over PVC Pipes' Price Conspiracy ------------------------------------------------------------------ GREGORY BUCKINGHAM, JACK CRUCE, MICHAEL GRAVES, JOHN MICHAUD, CHRISTIAN SOWERS AND GEOFFREY WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ATKORE INC.; CANTEX INC.; DIAMOND PLASTICS CORPORATION; IPEX USA LLC; PIPELIFE JETSTREAM, INC.; J-M MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. D/B/A JM EAGLE; NATIONAL PIPE & PLASTICS, INC.; NORTHERN PIPE PRODUCTS, INC.; OTTER TAIL CORPORATION; PRIME CONDUIT, INC.; SANDERSON PIPE CORPORATION; SOUTHERN PIPE, INC.; WESTLAKE CORPORATION; WESTLAKE PIPE & FITTINGS CORPORATION; VINYLTECH CORPORATION and OIL PRICE INFORMATION SERVICE, LLC, Case No. : 1:25-cv-04317 (N.D. Ill., April 21, 2025) is a class action on behalf of a nationwide class of end users against the Defendants for injunctive relief under the antitrust laws of the United States, and on behalf of a single multistate class of end users for damages under the various state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment laws. According to the complaint, the Defendants and their Co-Conspirators conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of PVC Pipe in the United States. Defendants did so by communicating through an information-exchange firm called Oil Price Information Service, LLC (OPIS), which enabled the Defendants to discuss and signal their pricing activities, gain access to standardized pricing data from their competitors, and collectively extract artificially inflated profits from their customers. OPIS went far beyond just facilitating the private and non-public sharing of information: OPIS repeatedly served as a conduit between the Converter Defendants, allowing them to communicate their intentions on pricing in furtherance of their antitrust conspiracy, asserts the suit. The United States Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division has launched an investigation into the alleged price-fixing in the PVC Pipe industry in August 2024. In a SEC filing, Otter Tail Corporation, a PVC Pipe manufacturer and named defendant, disclosed that it had received a grand jury subpoena from the DOJ on August 27, 2024. The Defendants' anticompetitive actions widened the spread between the price that the Converter Defendants pay to manufacture PVC Pipe and the price at which they sold PVC Pipe, injuring Plaintiffs and the Classes, the suit adds. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and as a class action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2), seeking injunctive and equitable relief on behalf of the following class (the Nationwide Class): "All persons or entities that, during the Class Period, purchased for end-use PVC Pipe manufactured by Defendants and sold through resellers or distributors in the United States." The Plaintiffs also bring this action on behalf of themselves and as a class action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), seeking damages pursuant to antitrust, unfair competition, and consumer protection laws as well as common law unjust enrichment on behalf of the following class (the "Statewide Damages Class"): "All persons or entities that, during the Class Period, purchased for end-use PVC Pipe manufactured by Defendants and sold through resellers or distributors in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin." The Nationwide Class and the Statewide Damages Class are referred to collectively as the "Classes" unless otherwise indicated. Specifically excluded from the Classes are the Defendants, their parent companies, subsidiaries and affiliates, co-conspirators, federal government entities and instrumentalities of the federal government, states and their subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities, the Court, and persons who purchased PVC Pipe directly from Defendants. The manufacturers of PVC Pipe are called converters. The Converter Defendants in this case are the leading manufacturers of PVC Pipe in the United States: Atkore Inc.; Cantex Inc.; Diamond Plastics Corporation; IPEX USA LLC; PipeLife Jetstream, Inc.; J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. d/b/a JM Eagle; National Pipe & Plastics, Inc.; Northern Pipe Products, Inc.; Otter Tail Corporation; Prime Conduit, Inc.; Sanderson Pipe Corporation; Southern Pipe, Inc.; Westlake Corporation; Westlake Pipe & Fittings Corporation; and Vinyltech Corporation. The Converter Defendants control approximately 90% of the PVC Pipe municipal water application category and approximately 95% of the PVC electrical conduit application category in the United States. PVC is an acronym for polyvinyl chloride, which is a polymer of plastic. Considered commodity products, PVC Pipe is comprised of tubular sections or hollow cylinders made from PVC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Terry Rose Saunders, Esq. THE SAUNDERS LAW FIRM 120 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 444-9656 E-mail: tsaunders@saunders-lawfirm.com - and - Christopher T. Micheletti, Esq. Qianwei Fu, Esq. ZELLE LLP 555 12th Street, Suite 1230 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (415) 693-0700 E-mail: cmicheletti@zellelaw.com qfu@zellelaw.com AUTOZONE PARTS: Reynolds Suit Removed to W.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kyle Reynolds, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AUTOZONE PARTS, INC., a Nevada Corporation; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 25-2-05163-9 was removed from the Pierce County Superior Court for the State of Washington, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on April 17, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-05328. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges 6 causes of action against Defendant: Implied Cause of Action pursuant to RCW 49.12 - Failure to Compensate for Missed Meal and Rest Periods in Violation of WAC 296-126-092; Double Damages for Willful and Intentional Withholding of Wages pursuant to RCW 49.52.050.070 - flowing from the First Cause of Action on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class Members; Minimum Wage Violations - Washington Minimum Wage Act; RCW 49.46 et seq. on behalf of Plaintiff and Class Members; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages on behalf of Plaintiff and Class Members; Record Keeping Violations on behalf of Plaintiff and Class Members; and Wage Theft under Seattle Municipal Code 14.20, et seq. on behalf of Plaintiff and the Seattle Subclass Members.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason A. Rittereiser, Esq. Rachel N. Emens, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 600 Stewart Street, Suite 902 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 838-2504 Facsimile: (206) 260-3055 Email: jrittereiser@hkm.com remens@hkm.com - and - Jamie K. Serb, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 92 Lenora Street, #179 Seattle, WA 98121 Phone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 Email: jamie@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Adam T. Pankratz, Esq. Kristofer T. Noneman, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 693-7057 Facsimile: (206) 693-7058 Email: adam.pankratz@ogletree.com kristofer.noneman@ogletree.com BALLY'S MANAGEMENT: Williams Sues Over Illegal Tobacco Surcharges ----------------------------------------------------------------- TRACY A. WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BALLY'S MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00147 (D.R.I., April 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and breach of fiduciary duty. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of charging a tobacco surcharge that unjustly forces certain employees to pay higher premiums for its health insurance. The Bally's Welfare Benefit Plan does not provide the required reasonable alternative standard, and even if it did, it has failed to adequately notify employees about the availability of such an alternative in all its Plan communications. Consequently, the Defendant's tobacco surcharge violates ERISA's anti-discrimination provisions by imposing additional costs on employees who use tobacco products without meeting the legal requirements for a wellness program. As a result of the imposition of the unlawful and discriminatory tobacco surcharge, the Defendant enriched themselves at the expense of the Plan, resulting in it receiving a windfall. Bally's Management Group, LLC is a management company, headquartered in Providence, Rhode Island. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 - and - Mark B. Morse, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK B. MORSE, LLC 420 Angell Street Providence, RI 02906 Telephone: (401) 831-0555 Facsimile: (401) 273-0937 Email: mark@morselawoffice.com BEE SWEET: Faces Alvarez Employment Suit in Calif. Super. Court --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bee Sweet Citrus Inc. The case is captioned as Jose Alfredo Alvarez Alaniz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bee Sweet Citrus, INC., a California Corporation, Case No. 25CECG01567 (Cal. Super., Fresno Cty., April 2, 2025). The nature of states employment related issues. The Defendant is a grower, packer and shipper of premium California citrus.[BN] BIGBEAR.AI HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set June 10 ----------------------------------------------------------------- If you suffered a loss on your BigBear.ai Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:BBAI) investment and want to learn about a potential recovery under the federal securities laws, visit the link below for more information: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/bigbear-ai-holdings-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=143947&wire=1 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team of experienced shareholder advocates. THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against BigBear.ai Holdings, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between March 31, 2022 and March 25, 2025. CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (i) BigBear maintained deficient accounting review policies related to the reporting and disclosure of certain non-routine, unusual, or complex transactions; (ii) as a result, the Company incorrectly determined that the conversion option within the 2026 Convertible Notes qualified for the derivative scope exception under ASC 815-40 and failed to bifurcate the conversion option as required by ASC 815-15; (iii) accordingly, BigBear had improperly accounted for the 2026 Convertible Notes; (iv) the foregoing error caused BigBear to misstate various items in several of the Company's previously issued financial statements; (v) as a result, these financial statements were inaccurate and would likely need to be restated; (vi) BigBear would require extra time and expense to correct the inaccurate financial statements, thereby increasing the risk that the Company would be unable to timely file certain financial reports with the SEC; and (vii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in BigBear.ai Holdings stock during the relevant time frame -- even if you still hold your shares -- go to https://zlk.com/pslra-1/bigbear-ai-holdings-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=143947&wire=1 to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 https://zlk.com/ [GN] BOB EVANS: Mitchell Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODNEY MITCHELL AND RHONDA THOMAS, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, v. BOB EVANS RESTAURANTS, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02123-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following class defined as: "All employees of Bob Evans who worked in any store in the Kentucky portion of Region 2 Area 6, after May 9, 2017, or in the Indiana portion of Region 2 Area 6, after May 9, 2019, to whom Bob Evans paid a wage of less than $7.25 per hour, and who (1) spent more than 20 percent of work time or more than 30 consecutive minutes performing non-tipped work that was directly supporting tipped work, or (2) who spent any time performing work that was not part of a tipped occupation, or both; and any other tipped employee during the same period whose hourly wage for any shift was reduced from the hourly wage represented at the time the employee clocked in for a shift, and who have not previously released their claims against Bob Evans Restaurants, LLC." The Plaintiffs further request that the Court to certify each of the following subclasses: "All class members who worked in any Kentucky restaurant included in the class during the class period (the Kentucky subclass)"; and "All class members who worked in any Indiana restaurant included in the class during the class period (the Indiana subclass)." Bob Evans is a chain of family style restaurants founded and headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rXzAng at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert E. Derose, Esq. Anna Caplan, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com - and - Andrew Clarke Weeks, Esq. LAWRENCE & LAWRENCE, PLLC 440 South Seventh Street, Suite 200 Louisville, KY 40203 Telephone: (502) 589-5855 Facsimile: (502) 589-9472 E-mail: acweeks@reallawky.com - and - Jerome P. Prather, Esq. J. Conner Niceley, Esq. GARMER & PRATHER, PLLC 141 North Broadway Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (859) 254-9352 Facsimile: (859) 233-9769 E-mail: jprather@garmerprather.com cniceley@garmerprather.com - and - D. Todd Varellas, Esq. James J. Varellas III, Esq. VARELLAS & VARELLAS PLLC 360 East Vine Street, Suite 320 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (859) 252-4473 Facsimile: (859) 252-4476 E-mail: tvarellas@varellaslaw.com jayvarellas@varellaslaw.com BRICKELL BRANDS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Says ------------------------------------------------------------- HARON COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Brickell Brands, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03719 (N.D. Ill., April 7, 2025) sues the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Pangaea Holdings provides to their non-disabled customers through https://brickellmensproducts.com, the suit contends. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, seeks certification of the following nationwide class pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "All legally blind individuals in the United States who have attempted to access Brickellmensproducts.com and as a result have been denied access to the enjoyment of goods and services offered by Brickellmensproducts.com, during the relevant statutory period." The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Pangaea Holdings' policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to the blind and visually-impaired consumers. The complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Mr. Cole is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. The Defendant controls and operates Brickellmensproducts.com in the State of Illinois and throughout the United States. Brickellmensproducts.com is a commercial website that offers products and services for online sale. The online store allows the user to view skincare and grooming products for men, make purchases, and perform a variety of other functions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law BYTEDANCE INC: Armbruster Suit Transferred to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ryan Armbruster, as parent and guardian of his minor child, C.A.; Yolanda Berry, as parent and guardian of her minor child C.C.; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bytedance Inc., Bytedance Ltd., Tiktok Ltd., TikTok Inc., TikTok LLC, TikTok Pte. Ltd., TikTok U.S. Data Security Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-02239 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April 16, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-03338-GW-RAO to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. ByteDance -- https://www.bytedance.com/en/ -- is a global incubator of platforms at the cutting edge of commerce, content, entertainment and enterprise services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Francis J. Flynn, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR. 6057 Metropolitan Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90036 Phone: (314) 662-2836 Email: casey@lawofficeflynn.com The Defendants are represented by: Daniel M. Petrocelli, Esq. O'MELVENY AND MYERS LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles, CA 90067-6035 Phone: (310) 553-6700 Fax: (310) 246-6779 Email: dpetrocelli@omm.com - and - Matthew David Powers, Esq. O'MELVENY AND MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 984-8700 Fax: (415) 984-8701 Email: mpowers@omm.com - and - Stephen D Brody, Esq. O'MELVENY AND MYERS LLP 1625 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 383-5167 Email: sbrody@omm.com BYTEDANCE INC: R. W. Suit Transferred to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as R. W., a minor by and through their guardian ad litem, Pamela Hancock, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bytedance Inc., Bytedance Ltd., Tiktok Ltd., TikTok Inc., TikTok LLC, TikTok Pte. Ltd., TikTok U.S. Data Security Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-02239 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April 16, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-03338-GW-RAO to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. ByteDance -- https://www.bytedance.com/en/ -- is a global incubator of platforms at the cutting edge of commerce, content, entertainment and enterprise services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Heather Lopez, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN 148 Dolphin Court American Canyon, CA 94589 Phone: (707) 334-3727 Email: hlopez@milberg.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 280 South Beverly Drive, Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (868) 209-6941 Fax: (707) 334-3727 Email: jnelson@milberg.com The Defendants are represented by: Daniel M. Petrocelli, Esq. O'MELVENY AND MYERS LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles, CA 90067-6035 Phone: (310) 553-6700 Fax: (310) 246-6779 Email: dpetrocelli@omm.com - and - Matthew David Powers, Esq. O'MELVENY AND MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 984-8700 Fax: (415) 984-8701 Email: mpowers@omm.com - and - Stephen D Brody, Esq. O'MELVENY AND MYERS LLP 1625 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 383-5167 Email: sbrody@omm.com CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS': Pocci Sues Over Private Info Disclosure --------------------------------------------------------------- DERRON POCCI, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. California Physicians' Service d/b/a Blue Shield of California, Defendant, Case No. 25CV118750 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., April 14, 2025) is a class action lawsuit to address Defendant's outrageous, illegal, and widespread practice of disclosing its patients' confidential personally identifiable information and protected health information to unauthorized third parties, including Google LLC and additional unknown persons. The Plaintiff and Class members, who used Defendant's Tech Properties such as webpages and mobile app, expected that their personal and sensitive medical information would remain private and confidential. The Plaintiff and Class members had a reasonable expectation that their interactions and communications with and through Defendant's website would not be shared with any third parties, let alone to undisclosed third parties. Unbeknownst to individuals, and as recently admitted by Defendant in an email to its customers, Google Analytics code is embedded into the Blue Shield website. Through that embedded tracking technology, while Plaintiff and Class members were interacting with the Blue Shield website, Google, in real time, intercepted, eavesdropped upon, and collected Blue Shield's website users' sensitive information, including their protected health information. All of this happened without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice or consent, says the suit. California Physicians' Service, d/b/a Blue Shield of California, operates as a non-profit organization. The Organization provides group and individual term life, accidental death and dismemberment, vision, and stop loss insurance products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq. IJH LAW 1100 Town & Country Road Suite 1250 Orange, CA 92868 Telephone: (657) 200-1403 E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW P.A. 515 E Las Olas Blvd., Ste 120 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 533-4092 E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Aiello Sues Over Unscrupulous Practice ------------------------------------------------------------- John Aiello, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE D/B/A BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, Case No. 4:25-cv-03386-JD (N.D. Cal., April 16, 2025), is brought to address the Defendant's uniform, unscrupulous and unlawful practice of releasing and allowing the contemporaneous interception of its patients' and customers' Private Information to unauthorized third parties, including Google LLC and additional unknown data brokers. The Defendant is a sophisticated medical provider and insurance company that is governed by the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), as well as by federal and state laws protecting privacy and governing the use and disclosure of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and Protected Health Information (PHI) (collectively, "Private Information"). At all times relevant to this complaint, the Defendant knew and understood that it was obligated to secure the PII and PHI that it required patients and customers to provide to it and the other medical records that it maintained concerning its patients and customers. Despite this knowledge, and in violation of state and federal law, the Defendant entered business relationships with third parties, including Google Analytics, through which it disclosed the PII and PHI of its patients and customers without the knowledge or authorization of its patients and customers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been insured by the Defendant and has used the Defendant's services since 2017. BLUE SHIELD is one of the largest health care insurers in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. Nanci E. Nishimura, Esq. Brian Danitz, Esq. Vasti S. Montiel, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 Email: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com nnishimura@cpmlegal.com bdanitz@cpmlegal.com vmontiel@cpmlegal.com - and - Karin B. Swope, Esq. Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. Vara G. Lyons, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 1809 7th Avenue, Suite 1610 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 802-1272 Facsimile: (206)-299-4184 Email: kswope@cpmlegal.com tloeser@cpmlegal.com vlyons@cpmlegal.com CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Discloses Medical Info to Google, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ LISA REINGOLD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE d/b/a BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA (BSCA), Case No. 4:25-cv-03442 (N.D. Cal., April 18, 2025) is a class action for damages and injunctive relief against the Defendant's systematic, ongoing practice of unlawfully disclosing Plaintiff's and proposed Class Members' personal, sensitive medical information to unauthorized third parties including Google, LLC and additional unknown data collectors. According to the complaint, Blue Shield provides a variety of care including PPO, HMO, dental, and vision networks to its members with over 75,000 physicians over 380 hospitals. The Defendant owns and controls blueshieldca.com and related webpages and also owns and controls a mobile app (collectively Website and App). Blue Shield's Website and App allow Plaintiff and Class Members to access a digital copy of their medical ID card; pay bills including premiums using secure payment options; file insurance claims and track their status; manage their healthcare needs including scheduling telehealth appointments, accessing their health plans; and navigating resources to find urgent care facilities; compare costs, and prepare for non-emergent medical needs. Blue Shield's Website and App contain a Google Analytics tracking pixel, Google Ads tool, and other related tracking tools that secretly enable the unauthorized transmission and disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information to Google, says the suit. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE d/b/a BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA (BSCA) is one of the largest health care insurers in California with nearly 6 million members and over 7,500 employees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael McShane, Esq. Ling Y. Kuang, Esq. AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 568-2555 Facsimile: (415) 568-2556 E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com lkuang@audetlaw.com - and - Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Discloses Patients' Info, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Y.W., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE D/B/A BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-03225 (N.D. Cal., April 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of implied contract, negligence, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful practice of disclosing the private and confidential information of its patients to third parties, including Google LLC, without consent. The Defendant installed tracking technologies, including, but not limited to Google Analytics, and Google Ads, on its website to collect and disclose the said information. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered numerous injuries, including invasion of privacy, loss of benefit of the bargain, diminution of value of the private information, statutory damages, and the continued and ongoing risk to their private information. California Physicians' Service, doing business as Blue Shield of California, is a mutual benefit corporation and health plan, headquartered in Oakland, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Israel David, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 17 State Street, Suite 4010 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 739-0622 Email: israel.david@davidllc.com - and - Mario A. Moya, Esq. Rebecca M. Hoberg, Esq. MOYA LAW FIRM 1300 Clay Street, Suite 600 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 926-6521 Facsimile: (510) 340-9055 Email: mmoya@moyalawfirm.com rhoberg@moyalawfirm.com CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Torres Balks at Disclosure of Patients' Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- ELLEN RENTAS TORRES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE D/B/A BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-03228 (N.D. Cal., April 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California Penal Code, California Business and Professions Code, California Constitution, and the Electronic Privacy Act, intrusion upon seclusion, publication of private facts, and breach of confidence. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful practice of disclosing the private and confidential information of its patients to third parties, including Google LLC, without consent. The Defendant installed tracking technologies, including, but not limited to Google Analytics, and Google Ads, on its website to collect and disclose the said information. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered numerous injuries, including invasion of privacy, loss of benefit of the bargain, diminution of value of the private information, statutory damages, and the continued and ongoing risk to their private information. California Physicians' Service, doing business as Blue Shield of California, is a mutual benefit corporation and health plan, headquartered in Oakland, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: cardoso@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com CAMUTO IPCO: Faces Scott Suit Over Route Package Protection Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- RACHEL SCOTT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CAMUTO IPCO, LLC d/b/a Vince Camuto, Case No. 2:25-cv-03446 (C.D. Cal., April 18, 2025) is a class action seeking monetary damages, restitution, and injunctive and declaratory relief from Defendant arising from its use of surreptitiously tacking on a "Route Package Protection" Fee on all orders placed on its website without consumers' consent. According to the complaint, when consumers make a purchase through Vince Camuto's website, they browse products, select items from the online store, add them to their cart, enter their billing and shipping information. Up until this point, this is all standard for an online purchasing experience. However, Vince Camuto vastly diverts from the standard experience on the final payment screen by secretly tacking on a so-called "Route Package Protection" Fee, which is a percentage of the transaction that is automatically added to all orders. Never do consumers affirmatively choose to add the "Shipping Protection" to their shopping cart. Instead, Vince Camuto secretly adds this fee without consumers' consent right before the purchase is complete, says the suit. Automatically sneaking in this fee is what the FTC has deemed as a "Digital Dark Pattern" designed to trick or manipulate consumers into making choices that they might not otherwise have made, the suit asserts. Camuto is an online retailer that sells customizable bags and accessories. Defendant is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park E, No. 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com CANADA: Court Denies Class Suit Over Mouldy Warships ---------------------------------------------------- Todd Coyne, writing for CTV News, reports that a Federal Court judge has struck down a proposed class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of current and former Canadian military members alleging exposure to "dangerous levels of toxic mould" on Canada's warships. Plaintiff Felix Dunn claimed the Canadian Armed Forces was aware, or should have been aware, of the presence of harmful mould on its naval vessels, and was therefore negligent in maintaining the ships and preventing foreseeable harm in the workplace. Dunn was stationed aboard HMCS Vancouver, a Halifax-class frigate and one of the largest vessels in the Royal Canadian Navy, from June to December 2016, when he started complaining of chills, fever, fatigue and a "burning and tightness in his chest" accompanied by a cough, the court heard. He later "discovered what he believed to be black mould growing from the fittings in the pipes on the ship," Justice Cecily Strickland wrote in her summary of the case. "Shortly thereafter he was diagnosed with exercise-induced asthma, sleep apnea, and chronic rhinitis." Dunn, who was released from the military in 2022, told the court that although he was treated with antibiotics while serving on the frigate, he never fully recovered. He continues to suffer "violent swings in temperature," breathing troubles and a compromised quality of life, he said. Dunn would go on to claim various disability benefits through Veterans Affairs Canada, while also filing the claim for a proposed class-action case on behalf of all current and former CAF members who served on naval vessels from January 2000 onwards. In early 2021, Veterans Affairs awarded Dunn partial disability benefits for his cough and chronic rhinitis, confirming these injuries arose out of his service to the country. He also won a medical release from the CAF for his duty-related injuries, and by the following year had collected more than $150,000 in additional payments for pain and suffering, according to the court. The Attorney General of Canada, however, in moving to strike the class-action claim, argued that Dunn had already been sufficiently compensated for his injuries through Veterans Affairs. The judge agreed. "In my view, the plaintiff's claim in this case relies on the same factual basis that led to compensation being paid to him by VAC (Veterans Affairs Canada). That is, the presence of mould on a CAF ship to which the plaintiff was exposed in the course of his CAF duties causing him injury," Strickland wrote in her April 9 decision. "Thus, the compensation paid or payable to him is a bar to the action against the Crown because it is made on the same factual basis as the plaintiff's action. More specifically, the compensation was given in respect of the identical injury or disease which forms the basis of the claim." 'Double recovery' The federal Crown Liability and Proceedings Act prevents the co-called "double recovery" of compensation from the federal government for claims arising form a previously compensated misconduct, according to a 2002 Supreme Court of Canada decision cited by the judge. Another barrier to the success of Dunn's claim was that he didn't file grievances about the presence of mould or other toxins while still in uniform, the judge noted. The attorney general argued Dunn's complaints were essentially workplace grievances that should have been raised through the military's dispute resolution system to be investigated and resolved before resorting to a class-action proposal. Here again the judge sided with the federal government. "I agree with the AGC (Attorney General of Canada) that the court should decline jurisdiction given the comprehensive CAF dispute resolution scheme," Strickland wrote. "There is also no evidence that the plaintiff sought to grieve any matter related to workplace safety, injury or illness while serving in the CAF, and he does not assert otherwise." In granting the federal government's motion to strike down the class action proposal, the judge ruled Ottawa was entitled to recover its costs for the proceedings, which the attorney general declined. [GN] CAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT: Ryan Suit Removed to D. Maryland ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ellen Ryan, an individual, on behalf of herself all others similarly situated v. Capital Asset Management Group, Inc. Case No. C-15-CV-25-000986 was removed from the Circuit Court of Maryland for Montgomery County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on April 16, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-01244-GLS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Capital Asset Management Group, Inc. -- https://capitalamg.com/ -- are financial planners and investment advisors offering investment management, life insurance, retirement planning, personal finance planning, and more.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Arnold Abraham, Esq. THE CYBERLAW GROUP 220 North Liberty Street Baltimore, MD 21201 Phone: (443) 406-0134 Email: abraham@thecyberlawteam.com - and - Eric J. Menhart, Esq. LEXERO LAW 80 M St SE Ste 100 Washington, DC 20003 Phone: (855) 453-9376 Fax: (855) 453-9376 Email: Eric.Menhart@Lexero.com The Defendants are represented by: Elizabeth Anne Scully, Esq. BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP 1050 Connecticut Ave NW Ste 1100 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 861-1698 Fax: (202) 861-1783 Email: escully@bakerlaw.com CARAWAY HOME: Hampton Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Erica Hampton, Vanessa Trevino, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Caraway Home Inc., Case No. 25STCV06824 was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April 16, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-03489-CBM-MAR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Caraway Home, Inc. -- https://www.carawayhome.com/ -- design non-toxic ceramic-coated home goods that have raised the standards of what you cook and bake with.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park East, No 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Jacob Ayres, Esq. Alessandro Nolfo, Esq. GUPTA EVANS AND AYRES, PC 5353 Mission Center Rd., Ste. 215 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (619) 866-3444 Fax: (619) 330-2055 Email: ja@socal.law CARAWAY HOME: Hampton Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Erica Hampton and Vanessa Trevino, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CARAWAY HOME, INC., Case No. 25STCV06824 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 16, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-00939. On March 10, 2025, Plaintiffs commenced the state court putative class action for claims of, inter alia, violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jacob A. Ayres, Esq. Alessandro Nolfo, Esq. GUPTA EVANS & AYRES, PC 5353 Mission Center Rd., Ste. 215 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (619) 866-3444 Facsimile: (619) 330-2055 Email: ja@SoCal.law CELESTRON ACQUISITION: Hightower Class Settlement Gets Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hightower v. Celestron Acquisition, LLC et al. (RE TELESCOPES ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No. 5:20-cv-03639-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward Davila entered an order: -- granting motion for final approval of settlement, and -- granting motion for attorneys' fees, expenses, and service awards The Court finds that the terms of the Settlement Agreement are fair, adequate, and reasonable; that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) and the fairness and adequacy factors are satisfied; and that the Settlement Agreement should be approved and implemented. Class Counsel's motion for Attorneys' fees, expenses, and service awards is also granted. Class Counsel is awarded $10,666,667 in attorneys' fees and $771,461 in litigation expenses. Class Representatives are granted a service award of $3,000 each. Without affecting the finality of this Order in any way, the Court retains jurisdiction of all matters relating to the interpretation, administration, implementation, effectuation, and enforcement of this Order and the Settlement Agreement. The parties shall file a post-distribution accounting in accordance with this District's Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements no later than Jan. 12, 2026. The parties' statement shall include information regarding the number of claims Verita found fraudulent as of that date. The Court sets a compliance deadline on Jan. 22, 2026, on the Court's 9:00 a.m. calendar to verify timely filing of the post-distribution accounting. IPPs allege that Defendants and related individuals conspired to unlawfully fix or stabilize prices for consumer telescopes, resulting in IPPs paying more than they would have in the absence of Defendants' alleged conduct. On Nov. 4, 2024, the Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement and approved the proposed Notice Plan. Under the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement Class is defined as: "all persons and entities in the Indirect Purchaser States who, during the period from Jan. 1, 2005 to Sept. 6, 2023, purchased one or more Telescopes from a distributor (or from an entity other than a Defendant) that a Defendant or alleged co-conspirator manufactured." Excluded from the Class are Defendants; their parent companies, subsidiaries and Affiliates; any co-conspirators; Defendants' attorneys in this Action; federal government entities and instrumentalities, states and their subdivisions; all judges assigned to this Action; all jurors in this Action; and all Persons who directly purchased Telescopes from Defendants but only for those direct purchases of Telescopes. A copy of the Court's order dated April 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=38ph3m at no extra charge.[CC] CHRISWELL HOME: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 10, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLAS MCELHANEY, v. CHRISWELL HOME IMPROVEMENTS, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00175-DJC-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel Calabretta entered a scheduling order as follows: Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures If not already completed, all parties appearing shall make initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(a)(1) no later than Apr. 18, 2025. All fact discovery as it pertains to class certification shall be completed1 no later than Jan. 16, 2026. All expert discovery as it pertains to class certification shall be completed no later than Mar. 27, 2026. By Sept. 12, 2025, all parties shall file with the Court a brief Joint Mid-Discovery Statement summarizing the current status of discovery proceedings. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification, shall be filed on or before April 10, 2026 and shall be noticed for hearing before Judge Calabretta on June 25, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. Chriswell is a veteran-owned home improvement company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V7XGhW at no extra charge.[CC] CHUNG LLC: Li Sues to Recover Lost Wages ---------------------------------------- Jianxin Li and Man Xiu Xiong a/k/a Jenny Xiong, and other similarly situated v. CHUNG LLC d/b/a Chung's Barber Shop, STANLEY CHUNG, and JOHN DOE, Case No. 3:25-cv-00022-JHY-JCH (W.D. Va., April 16, 2025), is brought against Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), prohibiting retaliatory action against employees, arising from Defendants' willful and unlawful retaliation against Plaintiffs for their engaging in protected activity and to recover from Defendants: lost wages, benefits, and other remuneration, together with interest thereon (and, under the FLSA, an equal amount as liquidated damages), reasonable attorney fees, costs. The Plaintiff Li sued Defendants CBS and Chung in Li I on April 23, 2024. In Li I, Plaintiff Li sought, among other things, recovery of unpaid overtime wages owed to him under Section 207 of the Fair Labor Standards Act and recovery of unpaid minimum wages owed to him. In support of his motion for conditional collective certification in Li I, Plaintiff Li relied on, among other things, his affidavit setting forth his terms and conditions of employment and those of other barbers and hairdressers (including Plaintiff Xiong); and an affidavit of Plaintiff Xiong setting forth her terms and conditions of employment and those of other barbers and hairdressers. As of April 8, 2025, Plaintiff Xiong was still employed by and working for Defendants as a barber and hairdresser, and had not opted into Li I. Plaintiff Xiong had not opted into or otherwise joined Li I because she feared that Defendants would retaliate against her for doing so. On Friday, April 11, 2025, at about 9:19 PM, Plaintiff Xiong received a telephone call from the telephone number (804) 400-0276. Plaintiff Li and Plaintiff Xiong heard the caller, Defendant Doe, speak to Plaintiff Xiong in English, but neither could not understand what he was saying. That call lasted approximately two (2) minutes. From the foregoing, it is apparent that Defendants were targeting Plaintiff Xiong in order to retaliate against Plaintiff Li for having the temerity to bring Li I against them in an attempt to enforce his rights. However, Defendants only terminated Plaintiff Xiong, and threatened Plaintiffs Xiong and Li with arrest, detention, prosecution, and/or deportation, beginning on or about April 10, 2025, two days after Plaintiff Li moved to conditionally certify a collective in Li I and Plaintiff Xiong submitted an affidavit in support of that motion., says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as barbers. The Defendant CBS operated two barber shops.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Phone: (718) 762-1324 Email: troylaw@troypllc.com CIUNI & PANICHI: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Johnson Says ------------------------------------------------------------- RISHAW JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CIUNI & PANICHI, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00793 (N.D. Ohio, April 21, 2025) seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the harms it caused the Plaintiff and similarly situated persons in the preventable data breach of Defendant's inadequately protected computer network. According to the complaint, the Defendant obtained and stored the personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and Class members. By taking possession and control of Plaintiff's and Class members' PII, Defendant assumed a duty to securely store and protect it. Accordingly, the Defendant breached this duty and betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and Class members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their PII, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view it. On Nov. 3, 2024, the Defendant became aware of unauthorized activity in an employee email account. Based on a subsequent forensic investigation, and following the completion of that review on Jan. 21, 2025, the Defendant determined information related to clients it provides account services to was impacted (the Data Breach). The Defendant purported to begin notifying impacted client data owners of the Data Breach on or about March 27, 2025. The PII accessed by cybercriminals included names and Social Security numbers, which is some of the most sensitive and valuable PII. 9. Defendant's misconduct -- failing to implement adequate and reasonable measures to protect Plaintiff's and Class members' PII, failing to timely detect the Data Breach, failing to take adequate steps to prevent and stop the Data Breach, failing to disclose the material facts that it did not have adequate security practices in place to safeguard the PII, and failing to provide timely and adequate notice of the Data Breach -- caused substantial harm and injuries to Plaintiff and Class members across the United States. Due to Defendant's negligence and failures, cyber criminals obtained and now possess everything they need to commit personal identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of affected individuals, for decades to come the Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of New Orleans, Louisiana, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff was a prospective customer of Defendant who provided his PII to Defendant approximately one and a half years before the Data Breach. In this complaint, the Plaintiff defines the proposed nationwide Class as: "All persons residing in the United States whose PII was compromised during Defendant's Data Breach in our around November, 2024. CIUNI & PANICHI, INC. is of the largest certified accounting firms in Northeastern Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave, Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com CIUNI & PANICHI: Fails to Secure Private Info, Resendiz Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- EDDIE RESENDIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CIUNI & PANICHI, INC. CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS, Case No. 1:25-cv-00687-PAG (N.D. Ohio, April 7, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including Plaintiff’s and Class Members' names and Social Security numbers. The case arises out of the recent data breach involving the Defendant, a company that provides accounting services to its clients. Accordingly, current and former customers are required to entrust Defendant with sensitive, non-public Private Information for themselves and their current and former employees, without which Defendant could not perform its regular business activities. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose Private Information was compromised as a result of the Defendant's failure to adequately protect the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former customers of Defendant, and/or current and former employees of the Defendant's customers. The Defendant provides accounting services to individuals and various companies, who then entrust their and their employees’ Private Information to Defendant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com COLORADO WEST: Powers Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Advance Notice ------------------------------------------------------------------ HANNA POWERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COLORADO WEST, INC. d/b/a WEST SPRINGS HOSPITAL, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01116-PAB (D. Colo., April 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act. The case arises from the Defendant's action of terminating the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees as part of a mass layoff on or around February 24, 2025 without giving the notice required under the WARN Act. Colorado West, Inc., doing business as West Springs Hospital, is a hospital operator, located in Grand Junction, Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Michael C. Iadevaia, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa Parks Ave, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com miadevaia@stranchlaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Ian Bensberg, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenmalad.com ibensberg@cohenmalad.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, LLP 613 Williamson St., Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com CROSSROADS TRADING: Medina Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info -------------------------------------------------------------- JUANITA MEDINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CROSSROADS TRADING CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-03309 (N.D. Cal., April 14, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to secure the personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Class, where Plaintiff provided her PII directly to Defendant as a condition of receiving employment with Defendant. On or around February 26, the Defendant first notified Plaintiff and Class Members about the suspicious activity on its network. The Defendant determined that an unauthorized actor acquired data off its network, which contained the PII of individuals that was being stored on Defendant's network. On March 18, 2025, the Defendant sent an email notice to Plaintiff and Class Members, informing them about the data breach. As a result of the data breach, which Defendant failed to prevent, the PII of individuals including Plaintiff (and Class Members) was stolen. Through this lawsuit, the Plaintiff seek to hold Defendant responsible for the injuries they inflicted on Plaintiff and Class Members due to their impermissibly inadequate data security measures, and to seek injunctive relief to ensure the implementation of security measures to protect the PII that remains in Defendant's possession. Crossroads Trading Co., Inc. buys, sells, and trades a wide variety of clothes, accessories, shoes, and other products across the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: cardoso@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com DMC CORPORATION: Thorne Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRAULIO THORNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE DMC CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02998 (S.D.N.Y., April 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.dmc.com/US/en, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. The DMC Corporation is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [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 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal DONALD TRUMP: Bid to Amend Definition of Certified Class OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.G.G., et al, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-02886-AKH (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Alvin Hellerstein entered an order granting Petitioners motion to amend the definition of the certified class. Accordingly, the class is defined as: "All noncitizens in federal, state, or local custody in the Southern District of New York who were, are, or will be subject to the March 2025 Presidential Proclamation entitled 'Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren De Aragua' and/or its implementation, who have not been given notice following the Supreme Court's decision of April 7, 2025, Trump v. J.G.G., No. 24A931, 2025 WL 1024097, and granted a hearing." The notice to be provided shall be written in English and Spanish, the language of those sought to be expelled, and if needed, Spanish-to-English interpreters shall be provided for hearings. An amended temporary restraining order will be filed contemporaneously. The Court also granted Petitioners' motion to strike attorneys from Democracy Forward as class counsel, and to add attorneys from the New York Civil Liberties Union as class counsel. A copy of the Court's order dated April 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1UAlIo at no extra charge.[CC] DRAFTKINGS INC: Solicits Users to Gamble Large Sums, Macek Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Macek, Matthew Harner, Avi Setton, Lionel Alicea, and Robert Walker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DraftKings, Inc.; Crown PA Gaming Inc. d/b/a DraftKings; Golden Nugget Online Gaming LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01995 (E.D. Pa., April 18, 2025) is a class action suit because DraftKings is earning enormous amounts of revenue by misleading and addicting its users. According to the complaint, DraftKings's business model has long involved pushing the boundaries of the law, misleading consumers, and luring naïve gamblers into developing addictions. DraftKings uses these tactics to identify and cultivate the people it wants on its platform: those who are most susceptible to these sorts of promotions and most likely to lose a lot of money betting. DraftKings uses its copious user data to create profiles of users based on their demographic and financial information as well as their betting behavior. DraftKings then deploys sophisticated targeted marketing to its users to maximize the amount of money they deposit and lose on its platforms, says the suit. DraftKings goes even further than this in knowingly targeting addicted gamblers. The company frequently targets users that are on state self-exclusion lists for addicted gamblers or users who have directly asked the company to suspend or close their accounts to prevent them from continuing to gamble. DraftKings, nevertheless allows and actively solicits these users to gamble large sums of money despite knowing they are struggling to control their gambling addictions, the suit adds. DraftKings is a Nevada gambling and entertainment corporation headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Amelia Maxfield, Esq. Michael Kanovitz, Esq. Jon Loevy, Esq. Isaac Green, Esq. Aaron Tucek, Esq. LOEVY & LOEVY 1712 N Street NW Ste. 401 Washington DC 20011 Telephone: (312) 243-5900 E-mail: mike@loevy.com EISNER ADVISORY: Niosi Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER NIOSI, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EISNER ADVISORY GROUP LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-01409 (D. Minn., April 14, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to undertake appropriate and adequate measures to protect the sensitive personal information (SPI) of approximately 85,000 individuals. On or about April 8, 2025, Eisner announced publicly that in or around September 2023, it had been the recipient of a hack and exfiltration of sensitive personal information. The Plaintiff and Class members now face a present and imminent lifetime risk of identity theft, which is heightened here by the loss of Social Security numbers. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose SPI was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to: (i) adequately protect individuals' SPI, (ii) adequately warn these individuals of its inadequate information security practices, and (iii) effectively monitor its platforms for security vulnerabilities and incidents. The Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence and violates federal and state statutes, says the suit. Eisner Advisory Group LLC is a full-service accounting firm and auditor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 984-0000 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com EISNER ADVISORY: Ouellette Sues Over Inadequate Data Security ------------------------------------------------------------- CHRIS OUELLETTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EISNER ADVISORY GROUP LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03069-LAK (S.D.N.Y., April 14, 2025) seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused Plaintiff and similarly situated persons in the preventable data breach of Defendant's inadequately protected computer network. In September 2023, Eisner detected suspicious activity on its computer network, indicating a data breach. Based on a subsequent forensic investigation, Eisner determined that cybercriminals infiltrated its inadequately secured computer systems and thereby gained access to its data files between September 4, 2023 and September 9, 2023. By taking possession and control of Plaintiff's and Class members' personal information, the Defendant assumed a duty to securely store and protect it. The Defendant breached this duty and betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and Class members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their personal information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view it, says the suit. Due to Defendant's negligence and failures, cyber criminals obtained and now possess everything they need to commit personal identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of thousands of individuals, for decades to come, the suit alleges. Eisner Advisory Group LLC is a full-service accounting firm and auditor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Tanner R. Hilton, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com trh@federmanlaw.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com ELEVANCE HEALTH: Kneppar Seeks Leave to File Documents Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEAH KNEPPAR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. THE ELEVANCE HEALTH COMPANIES, INC. f/k/a THE ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC., Case No. 8:23-cv-00863-MJM (D. Md.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting leave to file certain exhibits in support of her Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification under seal. The Plaintiff seeks leave to file the following documents, which are all exhibits to the Declaration of Rachhana T. Srey in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification, under seal given Defendant's designation of the documents as "Confidential": -- Exhibit Nos. 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34, and 35. Because the entirety of each of these documents was designated by Defendant as "Confidential," redaction is impracticable. Elevance is an American-managed healthcare insurance company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=M890MV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott E. Nevin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL 36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore, MD 02120 Telephone: (410) 260-0183 Facsimile: (410) 244-1047 E-mail: snevin@nicholllaw.com - and - Rachhana T. Srey, Esq. Caitlin L. Opperman, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: srey@nka.com copperman@nka.com ELEVANCE HEALTH: Kneppar Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEAH KNEPPAR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. THE ELEVANCE HEALTH COMPANIES, INC. f/k/a THE ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC., Case No. 8:23-cv-00863-MJM (D. Md.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Elevance is an American-managed healthcare insurance company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qRCsfs at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott E. Nevin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL 36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore, MD 02120 Telephone: (410) 260-0183 Facsimile: (410) 244-1047 E-mail: snevin@nicholllaw.com - and - Rachhana T. Srey, Esq. Caitlin L. Opperman, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: srey@nka.com copperman@nka.com ENTRAVISION COMMUNICATIONS: Mizel Sues Over Incorrect Tax Return ---------------------------------------------------------------- DEBBI MIZEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENTRAVISION COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-03136 (C.D. Cal., April 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of 26 U.S.C. Section 7434 and negligent representation. According to the complaint, Entravision violated Section 7434 by knowingly or recklessly reporting its stockholder distributions as taxable dividends in specified amounts, while in fact such amounts should have been designated non-taxable, and the amounts reported thus should have been zero. Moreover, Entravision has breached its duty of due care and made a negligent misrepresentation by improperly characterizing its distributions pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) rules and regulations. The Plaintiff and the Class members have and will be damaged by paying taxes on what should properly be characterized as a tax-free or tax-deferred Return of Capital, and incurring needless accounting costs. Entravision Communications Corporation is a media company with its headquarters in Burbank, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David N. Lake, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID N. LAKE 16130 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 650 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 788-5100 Facsimile: (818) 479-9990 Email: david@lakelawpc.com - and - Laurence D. Paskowitz, Esq. THE PASKOWITZ LAW FIRM P.C. The Contour 97-45 Queens Boulevard, Ste. 1202 Rego Park, NY 11374 Telephone: (212) 685-0969 Email: lpaskowitz@pasklaw.com - and - Emily Komlossy, Esq. KOMLOSSY LAW P.A. 3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Ste. 415 Hollywood, FL 33021 Telephone: (954) 842-2021 Facsimile: (954) 416-6223 Email: eck@komlossylaw.com EPSILON DATA MANAGEMENT: McGee Files Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Epsilon Data Management, LLC. The case is styled as Nitaya McGee, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Epsilon Data Management, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-00928 (C.D. Cal., April 16, 2025). The nature of suit is state as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Epsilon -- https://www.epsilon.com/us -- is a global data, technology and services company that powers the marketing and advertising ecosystem.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Heather Marie Lopez, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 148 Dolphin Ct. American Canyon, CA 94589 Phone: (707) 334-3727 Email: hlopez@milberg.com EQUITY PRIME: Brown Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA, NJWHL ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHAMEEN BROWN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. EQUITY PRIME MORTGAGE, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01832-MLB (N.D. Ga., April 7, 2025) seeks for recovery of unpaid overtime relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law. Accordingly, the Defendant classified Plaintiff, along with all other retail and wholesale Underwriters, as exempt from overtime and therefore failed to pay any overtime to Plaintiff and the similarly situated Underwriters. The Plaintiff and all other similarly situated Underwriters were required to work more than 40 hours in a workweek while employed by Equity Prime in order to complete their job duties. However, as a result of Equity Prime’s policies and/or practices, Equity Prime failed to pay Plaintiff and the similarly situated Underwriters overtime at the required rate of time-and-one-half for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a work week. Equity Prime's systematic failure and refusal to pay Plaintiff and all other similarly situated Underwriters for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek violates the FLSA and NJWHL, says the suit. The Plaintiff was employed by Equity Prime as an Underwriter. Equity is national mortgage lender.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Berlin Benjamin, Esq. BEAL SUTHERLAND BERLIN & BROWN LLC 2200 Century Parkway NE, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30345 Telephone: (404) 476-5305 - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Paolo Meireles, Esq. Tamra Givens, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com ETESOR ENTERPRISES: Marcano Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL MARCANO, NATASHA AYURANI GUZMAN, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) v. ETESOR ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a AZUCAR NIGHT CLUB and MANUEL FRANCOS, Case No. 1:25-cv-21782-WPD (S.D. Fla., April 18, 2025) alleges that the Defendants have employed several other similarly situated employees like Plaintiffs who have not been paid Federal minimum wages for work performed under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Plaintiff Marcano worked for Defendants as a server, barback and busboy from April 2023 through April 11, 2025. Plaintiff Guzman worked for Defendants as a bottle server from April 2023 through April 3, 2025. The Defendant operates Azucar Nightclub.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM EVERUS CONSTRUCTION: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- If you suffered a loss on your Everus Construction Group, Inc. (NYSE:ECG) investment and want to learn about a potential recovery under the federal securities laws, visit the link for more information: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/everus-construction-group-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=143972&wire=1 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team of experienced shareholder advocates. THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against Everus Construction Group, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between October 31, 2024 and February 11, 2025. CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (1) the Company's backlog conversion cycle had become elongated due to larger, more complex projects; (2) as a result, the Company's revenue recognition would be delayed; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Everus Construction stock during the relevant time frame -- even if you still hold your shares -- go to https://zlk.com/pslra-1/everus-construction-group-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=143972&wire=1 to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 https://zlk.com/ [GN] FANDANGO MEDIA: Beer Sues Over Deceptive Advertised Memberships --------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Beer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FANDANGO MEDIA, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-03375 (C.D. Cal., April 16, 2025), is brought against the Defendant's who deceptively advertised Fandango FanClub memberships that included credits that illegally expired after 30 days The Defendant operates the Fandango mobile app and website, Fandango.com, where customers can purchase movie tickets and stream content. It also sells a "Fandango FanClub" membership. According to Fandango, a Fandango FanClub membership offers several benefits. This includes "$10 toward a movie ticket each month – any movie, any showtime, any format." Customers see these ads and purchase Fandango FanClub memberships believing that they will receive these $10 monthly credits, which can be used for "any movie" at "any showtime" in the future. In truth, however, the credits expire 30 days after issuance. So, customers cannot use the $10 credits they receive each month for "any movie" at "any showtime" in the future. They can only use them for movies playing within the next 30 days after the credits are issued. Fandango's ads are misleading. In addition, by selling credits that expire 30 days after they issue, Fandango violates California's Gift Card Law, which prohibits expiring gift certificates such as Fandango's movie credits. When Plaintiff bought the membership, Fandango advertised that the membership included "$10 toward a movie ticket each month – any movie, any showtime, any format." The credits Plaintiff received as part of his membership, however, expired 30 days after issuance. And, his credit did expire before he could use it, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased a 3-month Fandango FanClub membership. Fandango Media, LLC is an online company that sells movie tickets and streaming content.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christin Cho, Esq. Vivek Kothari, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 Email: christin@dovel.com vivek@dovel.com FARIS PROPERTIES: Powell Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation --------------------------------------------------------------- BILLY D. POWELL, individually and on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FARIS PROPERTIES, LLC, D/B/A MCDONALDS RESTAURANTS, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00154 (E.D. Tenn., April 14, 2025) seeks to recover overtime compensation and retaliatory damages owed to Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and former hourly-paid employees of Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant failed to pay him and those similarly situated the applicable FLSA overtime compensation rates of pay owed them within weekly pay periods for such unpaid "off the clock" work time. Moreover, he was unlawfully discharged from his employment in retaliation for complaining to Defendant about not being compensated for his "off the clock" compensable time, says the Plaintiff. Plaintiff Powell has been employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid employee within this district during the applicable statutory limitations period of this action. Faris Properties, LLC owns and operates 60 McDonald's franchised restaurants in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. Joshua Autry, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com jautry@jsyc.com FARMER JON'S: Popcorn Does Not Contain Butter, Corless Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY CORLESS and JASON GOLDSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FARMER JON'S POPCORN, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03304 (S.D.N.Y., April 21, 2025) is a putative class action against the Defendant for its false and misleading advertising of its Farmer Jon's popcorn products featuring the prominent misrepresentation that they contain butter, when they do not, which is deceptive and misleading to reasonable consumers According to the complaint, the Defendant prominently misrepresents to consumers in large, black bolded print on the front label of its product packaging that its Butter Popcorn Products contain "Butter." Defendant's use of the term "Butter" is designed to induce consumers to pay a premium price and buy the Butter Popcorn Products. In reality, however, Defendant's Butter Popcorn Products contain no butter at all. Indeed, in conflict with Defendant's explicit labeling, the miniscule ingredient list displayed on the back of the packaging discloses that the Butter Popcorn Products contain four ingredients: popcorn, corn oil, popcorn salt and beta carotene—but no butter, says the suit. Through false, misleading and deceptive advertisements, Defendant violated New York, Florida and the common law by representing that its Butter Popcorn Products contain butter when they do not. Specifically, Plaintiffs assert claims for relief and restitution under New York's Consumer Protection from Deceptive Acts and Practices statutes, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law as well as Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, the suit asserts. Farmer Jon's is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of New York with its corporate office located in Rochester, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah M. Levine, Esq. Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Sophia G. Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street, NW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: slevine@kalielgold.com jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgold@kalielgold.com FCA US: Mack Suit Seeks to Certify New York Class ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANELLA MACK and JOHN LYND, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02990-SJB-SIL (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: a. altering or amending the class definition pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(C); and b. certifying the proposed New York Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)- (4) and (b)(3) consisting of: "All persons or entities who purchased or leased a "Class Vehicle" between Jan. 1, 2011 until April 22, 2016 in New York." Excluded from the class would be: (i) FCA; (ii) any entity in which FCA has a controlling interest; (iii) FCA's officers, directors, and employees; (iv) FCA's legal representatives, successors, and assigns; (v) governmental entities; (vi) this Court; and (vii) every person who has brought a claim against FCA US LLC alleging recovery for bodily injuries caused by the Class Vehicles under any legal theory; and c. appointing E. Powell Miller of the Miller Law Firm, P.C. and Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP as Co- lead Counsel and Chairs of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee; and d. appointing Joseph Meltzer, Gregory Coleman, Daniel Gustafson, and Robert Shelquist as members of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee; and e. appointing Janella Mack and John Lynd as class representatives pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g) with opposition papers to be filed by March 17, 2025, and reply papers to be filed by March 31, 2025. The Plaintiffs seek certification of the New York Class for claims of: Count LXVIII (Violations of New York General Business Law section 349) and Count LXIX (Violations of New York General Business Law section 350). FCA US designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=L05QOs at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 West University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 Facsimile: (248) 652-2852 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com dal@millerlawpc.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Ave., Ste. 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com christopherp@hbsslaw.com - and - Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. Melissa Yeates, Esq. Tyler S. Graden, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com myeates@ktmc.com tgraden@ktmc.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Jason S. Kilene, Esq. David A. Goodwin, Esq. GUSTAFSON GULEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com jkilene@gustafsongluek.com dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com - and - Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: rkshelquist@loclaw.com rapeterson@locklaw.com - and - Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Mark E. Silvey, Esq. Adam E. Edwards, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gcoleman@milberg.com msilvey@milberg.com aedwards@milberg.com - and - D. Greg Blankinship, Esq. Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREIPEARSON & GARBER, LLP 445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3281 Facsimile: (914) 824-1561 E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com FISKARS BRANDS: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brock v. Fiskars Brands, Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-00645 (M.D. Fla., Filed April 11, 2025), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an endorsed order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery - class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification The nature of suit states torts -- personal property -- other fraud. Fiskars is a Finnish consumer goods company founded in 1649 in Fiskars, a locality in the town of Raseborg, Finland, about 100 kilometers west of Helsinki.[CC] FLORIDA: Anderson Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KARIMA ANDERSON, ANDREW BECKER, SHANNA BROWN, WAYNE NEWELL, REZA KUSANI, STUART REESE, ROBIN REESE, ZACK THOMPSON, and VICTOR KHOURY, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (FDOC) and J. ALEX KELLY, in his official capacity as Florida Secretary of Commerce, Case No. 4:25-cv-00016-AW-MAF (N.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for filing their motion for class certification 45 days to May 29, 2025. The 90-day deadline to file a motion to certify the class is Monday, April 14, 2025. In light of the recent waiver of service and due to the press of business in other matters of counsel for both sides, the Parties jointly stipulated to a 45-day extension of time to file a motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs filed a putative class action lawsuit in this Court raising claims under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in connection with the Defendants' administration of the Florida Homeowner Assistance Fund. The Defendants agreed to waive service, and Plaintiffs filed the waiver of service form on April 11, 2025. Florida Department of Commerce is a state agency responsible for community, economic, and workforce development in Florida. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QdwW4A at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William T. Thompson, Esq. Jonathan F. Cohn, Esq. Jared B. Magnuson, Esq. Mark M. Rothrock, Esq. LEHOTSKY KELLER COHN LLP 408 W. 11th Street, 5th Floor Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 693-8350 E-mail: will@lkcfirm.com jon@lkcfirm.com jared@lkcfirm.com mark@lkcfirm.com FORD MOTOR: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to August 11 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARGARET BARNES, ERIC SENKYRIK, MICHAEL HOGAN, SHARON JACKSON, SCOTT KAHLER, and MARK PANNULLO individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 2:22-cv-06147-AB-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order approving the Parties' stipulation and modifying the scheduling order as follows: Event New Deadline Close of fact discovery: June 13, 2025 Motion for Class Certification and Aug. 11, 2025 expert reports: Opposition to motion for class Oct. 7, 2025 certification, expert reports: Reply brief re: Motion for Class Dec. 1, 2025 Certification: Close of Expert Discovery: Jan. 13, 2026 Last Date to Hear Motions: Feb. 27, 2026 Deadline to Complete Settlement Feb. 27, 2026 Conference: Ford is an American multinational automaker. A copy of the Court's order dated April 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IszMNW at no extra charge.[CC] FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TREY SMITH-JOURNIGAN, Individually and on behalf of a Class of others similarly situated, et al., v. FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO, Case No. 2:18-cv-00328-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting it an additional 30 days, until May 16, 2025, within which to file its response to the Plaintiffs' renewed motion to certify class. Franklin County is a county in the U.S. state of Ohio. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OvaZGs at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Aaron M. Glasgow, Esq. Michael S. Loughry, Esq. Scott O. Sheets, Esq. ISAAC WILES & BURKHOLDER, LLC Two Miranova Place, Suite 700 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-2121 Facsimile: (614) 365-9516 E-mail: aglasgow@isaacwiles.com mloughry@isaacwiles.com ssheets@isaacwiles.com - and - Amy L. Hiers, Esq. Jesse W. Armstrong, Esq. FRANKLIN COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE 373 South High Street, 13th Floor Columbus, OH 43215-6318 Telephone: (614) 525-3520 Facsimile: (614) 525-6013 E-mail: ahiers@frankincountyohio.gov jarmstrong@franklincountyohio.gov FUTURE FINTECH: Continues to Defend "LaBelle" Suit -------------------------------------------------- The LaBelle case is a putative securities class action filed in January 2024 and is pending in the District of New Jersey. Denise LaBelle alleges that the Company and certain of its officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act by making materially false or misleading statements in the company's public filings and disclosures relating to the former Chief Executive Officer of Future FinTech Group Inc. Mr. Shanchun Huang and charges filed by the SEC against Mr. Shanchun Huang with manipulative trading in the stock of the Company using an offshore account shortly before he became the Company's CEO in 2020 and failing to disclose his beneficial ownership. Mr. Huang has denied the allegations of trading before he became CEO. Plaintiff claims that these alleged misstatements caused the Company's stock to trade at artificially inflated prices, harming investors when the truth was revealed. The lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed in September 2024. The Company was served in September 2024, and the Plaintiff is currently seeking substituted service on the individual defendants. Once service is resolved, the Plaintiff is expected to file an amended complaint, which the Company and other defendants intend to move to dismiss, the Company disclosed in a Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. About Future FinTech Group New York, N.Y.-based Future FinTech Group Inc. is a holding company incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida. The Company historically engaged in the production and sale of fruit juice concentrates (including fruit purees and fruit juices) and fruit beverages (including fruit juice beverages and fruit cider beverages) in the PRC. Due to drastically increased production costs and tightened environmental laws in China, the Company transformed its business from fruit juice manufacturing and distribution to financial technology-related service businesses. The main business of the Company includes supply chain financing services and trading in China, asset management business in Hong Kong, and cross-border money transfer service in the UK. Orange, Calif.-based Fortune CPA, Inc., the Company's auditor since 2023, issued a "going concern" qualification in its report dated April 16, 2024, citing that the Company has suffered losses from operations, which raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. As of Sept. 30, 2024, Future FinTech Group had $53.40 million in total assets, $17.65 million in total liabilities, and $35.75 million in total stockholders' equity. G & S PIZZA: Court Certifies Schilling Collective Action -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JALYN SCHILLING, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. G & S PIZZA, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00410-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge James Peterson entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class action, as follows (1) Finally certifies the collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for settlement purposes only; (2) Grants the motion for the final approval of the Agreement, and finds its terms to be fair, reasonable, and adequate, except as those terms are inconsistent with this order; (3) Approves distribution on less than $1,136.85 to the FLSA collective to be divided in accordance with each member's pro-rata share; (4) Approves distribution of no less than $1,695 to be divided equally among the state-law class members; (5) Approves a service award payment in amount of $1,000 to Jalyn Schilling; (6) Approves payment of no more than $6,500 to the settlement claims administrator; (7) approves $10,000 in attorney fees and costs to class counsel; (8) Dismisses the case with prejudice; (9) Directs the clerk of court to enter judgement and close the case. G&S Pizza is a family-owned restaurant offering a variety of pizzas, subs, and specialty items. A copy of the Court's order dated April 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j8RPhA at no extra charge.[CC] GEICO GENERAL: Bid to Compel Appraisal Denied --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN MARCELLETTI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 6:23-cv-06211-EAW-CDH (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Colleen Holland entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to compel appraisal. Because the Court's decision is based on timeliness and procedural grounds, it need not and does not reach any of the other issues raised by the parties in their motion papers. Because the Plaintiff filed proof of loss on or before Oct. 11, 2019, any future demand for appraisal by the Defendant will be untimely, and its motion to compel appraisal must be denied. The Plaintiff was involved in an accident while driving a leased vehicle that was insured under a policy issued by GEICO. The Plaintiff subsequently filed a claim, and his vehicle was determined to be a total loss. The Plaintiff asserts that GEICO breached its policy with Plaintiff and other members of the putative class by failing to pay sales tax as part of the ACV for total loss vehicles. The Plaintiff filed his claim with GEICO on Sept. 27, 2019, and GEICO issued payment to the Plaintiff's leaseholder to settle the Plaintiff's claim on Oct. 11, 2019. GEICO offers a variety of additional insurance such as life, umbrella, travel, overseas, pet, and more. A copy of the Court's decision and order dated April 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q6qw6F at no extra charge.[CC] GENESYS CLOUD: Illegally Intercepts Communications, Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- PLAINTIFF A.B., PLAINTIFF C.D., and PLAINTIFF E.F., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GENESYS CLOUD SERVICES, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-03276 (N.D. Cal., April 11, 2025) is a class action suit about Genesys's far-reaching violation of California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the complaint, Genesys is liable to the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated under CIPA for illegally intercepting and reading their communications without consent. Genesys's powerful suite of products record and analyze customer interactions using artificial intelligence (AI) in real time. As a result, businesses can outsource routine tasks like call-routing and customer intake to Genesys' AI-bot. Genesys boasts that is able to overhear, record, and analyze "100% of interactions" between companies and their customers, says the suit. Genesys's powerful technologies come at a steep cost to individual privacy. When customers use an organization's chat or call features powered by Genesys, there's no indication that they are not only interacting with the organization, but also an undisclosed third party -- Genesys. Genesys also fails to alert customers that during these interactions, it is recording their calls, texts, and chats, and analyzing and using their information for its own purposes. As a result, Genesys regularly intercepts, records, and uses communications without consent, the suit alleges. The Plaintiffs bring this action and seek all civil remedies, including compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. Genesys is technology company that provides recording and monitoring services for businesses' client-facing communications. Genesys's services are used by many organizations to manage voice and text-based interactions with clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan Weir, Esq. CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC 1600 Wilson Boulevard, Ste. 700 Arlington, VA 22209 Telephone: (703) 243-9423 Facsimile: (703) 243-8696 E-mail: bryan@consovoymccarthy.com GIANNELLA'S MODERN: Alarcon Seeks to Certify Settlement Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA SARAVIA ALARCON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. GIANNELLA'S MODERN BAKERY LLC and JOHN IMPARATO, Case No. 2:23-cv-00447-JSA (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an order pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure preliminarily approving the Parties' settlement on a class basis. Giannella's Modern is a bakery in Paterson, NJ known for its high-quality freshly baked goods. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BDoZLK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Pechman, Esq. Galen C. Baynes, Esq. Camille A. Sanchez, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC 488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 583-9500 E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com baynes@pechmanlaw.com sanchez@pechmanlaw.com GLANBIA PERFORMANCE: Banks Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Dezella Banks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GLANBIA PERFORMANCE NUTRITION (NA), INC., a Florida corporation doing business in California; WORLDPANTRY.COM, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company doing business in California and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV07670 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 16, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-03356. In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants falsely and misleadingly market seven specific think! brand products (the "Products") as being nutritious food products when their erythritol content supposedly causes health risks to consumers. The Complaint asserts claims against Defendants for violation of California's False Advertising Law and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: William P. Cole, Esq. Matthew R. Orr, Esq. AMIN WASSERMAN GURNANI, LLP 515 South Flower St., 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 933-2330 Fax: (312) 884-7352 Email: wcole@awglaw.com morr@awglaw.com - and - Manon Burns, Esq. AMIN WASSERMAN GURNANI, LLP 230 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1405 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 466-1033 Fax: (312) 884-7352 Email: mburns@awglaw.com GOOGLE LLC: Faces Anderson Class Suit Over Retaliatory Termination ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHEYNE ANDERSON, JESUS CASTELLANO, HANNAH MIRZA, KATHLEEN O'BEIRNE, SETH TAYLOR, WILLIAM VAN DER LAAR, MARK WESLEY DUDLEY, RACHEL WESTRICK, JIAJUN XU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-03268 (N.D. Cal., April 11, 2025) is a class action suit to remedy the retaliatory termination of the Plaintiffs' employment by Google for their engaging in protected activity on April 16, 2024 at or around Defendant's offices located in Sunnyvale, California and New York, New York. On April 16, 2024, the Plaintiffs participated in a Day of Action at Google campuses in Sunnyvale, California and New York, New York. The Action was organized by a group of technology industry workers, including Google employees, called No Tech for Apartheid. The Plaintiffs participated in the Action in part to oppose Google's discrimination and discriminatory harassment against Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim Google employees, the suit says. Plaintiffs Cheyne Anderson, Hannah Mirza, Kathleen O'Beirne, William Van Der Laar, Mark Wesley Dudley, Rachel Westrick, and Jiajun Xu and other Class Members participated in the April 16 Action taking place in and around the "MP4" building, a Google office at 1190 Bordeaux Drive in Sunnyvale, California. The Action in NYC occurred on the 10th floor "Commons" area in Google's office building at 111 8th Avenue, New York, NY. The Commons is a three-floor open area, spanning the 8th through 10th floors. Google is in the business of marketing, selling, developing, and providing technology, search and advertising, internet services, software and operating systems, and enterprise and hardware products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Aleksandr L. Felstiner, Esq. LEVY RATNER, P.C. 80 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 627-8100 Facsimile: (212) 627-8182 E-mail: afelstiner@levyratner.com GREDE HOLDINGS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, McCorvey Says ------------------------------------------------------------- CALVIN MCCORVEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREDE HOLDINGS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-11069-SJM-APP (E.D. Mich., April 14, 2025) is a class action seeking to hold Defendant responsible for disclosing Plaintiff's and thousands of similarly situated employees' sensitive, confidential personally identifiable information to cybercriminals in a foreseeable, preventable data breach. From January 27-28, 2025, hackers targeted and accessed Defendant's network servers without authorization and stole Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive, confidential PII stored therein, including, upon information and belief, full names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license or state identification numbers, medical information, health insurance information, and other sensitive data, causing widespread injuries to Plaintiff and Class Members. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information, and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive data. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect its students' sensitive data. To recover from Defendant for these harms, Plaintiff, on his own behalf and on behalf of the Class, brings claims for negligence/negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment, to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information in its care. Grede Holdings LLC is a component parts manufacturer specializing in ductile, gray, and specialty iron castings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com GROUPON INC: Faces Ingber Suit Ove Fraudulent Voucher Sale ---------------------------------------------------------- ALIZA INGBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GROUPON, INC., a Delaware corporation and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-02880-MAA (C.D. Cal., April 2, 2025) is a class action against Groupon for allegedly engaging in unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices in connection with the sale of vouchers for entertainment and attraction tickets. The Plaintiff and Class Members purchased vouchers from Groupon's marketplace for admission to theme parks and attractions, including Universal Studios Hollywood. However, due to Groupon's defective platform design, the Plaintiff and Class Members were unable to redeem their vouchers when they attempted to use them, asserts the suit. Specifically, Groupon's platform has a critical design flaw that allows consumers to open vouchers only one time. If the voucher fails to display properly during that single opportunity, consumers have no recourse to retrieve their voucher and are unable to access the tickets they purchased, the suit adds. Groupon operates an e-commerce marketplace that connects subscribers with local merchants by offering goods and services at a discount. Groupon markets itself as offering "the best deals" that allow consumers to "discover local experiences" while saving money. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason M. Ingber, Esq. INGBER LAW GROUP 3580 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1260 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 805-8373 E-mail: ji@jasoningber.com HARRY'S INC: Thorne Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store ------------------------------------------------------------------- BRAULIO THORNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARRY'S, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02953 (S.D.N.Y., April 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.harrys.com/en/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Harry's, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [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 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal HESS CORP: Wagner Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA WAGNER, individually and on behalf of the HESS CORPORATION EMPLOYEES' SAVINGS PLAN, and all others similarly situated, v. HESS CORPORATION and HESS CORPORATION INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, Case No. 6:24-cv-00004-H (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification and appointing class counsel. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated as participants in the Hess Corporation Employees’ Savings Plan, moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, Northern District of Texas Local Rule 23.2, and this Court’s Scheduling Order for class certification and appointment of class counsel. The Plaintiff requests that the Court certify the following class: "All participants and beneficiaries of the Hess Corporation Employees' Savings Plan from Feb. 12, 2018, through the date of judgment, with the exception of Plan fiduciaries, their beneficiaries, and their families." The Plaintiff further requests that the Court appoint the Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, "as fiduciaries of the Plan, breached the duties they owed to the plan . . . by failing to adequately monitor and control fees, expenses, and costs" that the Plan incurred. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant Hess Corporation and was a participant in the Plan during the class period. Hess Corporation is an American global independent energy company involved in the exploration and production of crude oil and natural gas. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o2RdO1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Boyd A. Byers, Esq. Teresa Shulda, Esq. Samuel J. Walenz, Esq. Scott Nehrbass, Esq. Rachel N. Gonzales, Esq. FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP 1551 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 100 Wichita, KS 67206 Telephone: (316) 291-9716 Facsimile: (316) 771-6011 E-mail: bbyers@foulston.com tshulda@foulston.com swalenz@foulston.com snehrbass@foulston.com rgonzales@foulston.com - and - Andrew C. Whitaker, Esq. Parker D. Young, Esq. FIGARI + DAVENPORT, LLP 901 Main Street, Suite 3400 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 939-2000 Facsimile: (214) 939-2090 E-mail: andrew.whitaker@figdav.com parker.young@figdav.com HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Settles False Advertising Class Suit for $4M ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Crider, writing for PC World, accounts that gosh, it's getting hard to figure out the real price of stuff. And I'm not even talking about the madness surrounding tariffs, taxes, and international trade wars -- I mean that companies will just straight-up lie about their real prices to make "discounts" look good. That's what HP did, allegedly, and it's paying a cool $4 million to affected customers. That's the end of a class-action lawsuit that started over four years ago, when two American plaintiffs complained that HP displayed "strike-through prices" on its store that weren't actually real, thus inflating the discount that it looked like they were receiving. According to the report on Ars Technica, the plaintiffs allege that HP lied about how much quantity was available, in the familiar "only one left at this price" sense. I say allegedly, because this is a civil suit, not a criminal case of false advertising, and HP has admitted no wrongdoing or liability as a condition of the settlement. It's basically a $4 million "leave me alone" check. Though the plaintiffs did accuse HP of violating the US FTC's deceptive pricing laws, it doesn't appear that any actual law enforcement is involved. And it's not as if these practices are isolated. The "FOMO" and time pressure sales tactic is omnipresent online, new variations of sales techniques that I remember from the infomercial days and before. One personal bugbear of mine is a little company called Lenovo, the largest seller of laptops on the planet by volume. Whenever it announces a new ThinkPad model I truly, genuinely don't know how much it costs, despite covering its products for over a decade. This is because the "manufacturer's suggested retail price" often has zero relationship to the price that actually appears on Lenovo's own shop and third-party sellers. It's madenning. That's why you should look very closely at any deal that claims a Lenovo laptop is $1000+ off. But back to HP. You're eligible to join the class-action settlement if you bought a laptop, desktop, mouse or keyboard from HP's US online store, and it was marked as "on sale" for more than 75 percent of the time between June 5th, 2021 and October 28th, 2024. Products include generic HP, Envy, Spectre, Pavilion, AllinOne, Chromebook, Chromebase, Slim, Victus, and Omen lines, with very specific product numbers. You can get $10-100 back if your purchase qualifies. For reference, HP posted 56.3 billion dollars in revenue in 2024. [GN] HOFFER LLC: Knoche Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hoffer LLC. The case is styled as Norman Knoche, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hoffer LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00314 (M.D. Fla., April 16, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Hoffer LLC -- https://hoffergroup.com/ -- are the premier source for economic consulting, research, and education in western Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com IFCO SYSTEMS: DeAnda-Zavala Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JOSHUA DEANDA-ZAVALA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IFCO SYSTEMS US, LLC, MTNA, INC., PEOPLEREADY, INC., TRUEBLUE, INC., and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 25CECG00957, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Fresno to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on April 9, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 1:25-at-00285 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to provide rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements, failure to timely pay all wages due upon separation of employment, failure to reimburse business expenses, and unfair competition. IFCO Systems US, LLC is a producer of reusable plastic container products based in Florida. MTNA, Inc. is an innovative solutions provider based in California. PeopleReady, Inc. is a staffing company based in Washington. TrueBlue, Inc. is an employment agency company based in Washington. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: David R. Ongaro, Esq. Cara R. Sherman, Esq. Christine Lee, Esq. ONGARO PC 1604 Union Street San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 433-3900 Facsimile: (415) 433-3950 Email: dongaro@ongaropc.com csherman@ongaropc.com clee@ongaropc.com INDIAN RIVER: Faus Sues Over Illegal Giving of Failing Grades ------------------------------------------------------------- Kristen Faus, on behalf of her minor daughter E.F., Betsy Eiss, on behalf of her minor daughter J.E., and all others similarly situated; v. Indian River Central School District (IRCSD); Indian River Central School District Board of Education; Troy Decker; Angela Green; Meghan Caddick, Case No. 5:25-cv-00453-DNH-ML (N.D.N.Y., April 11, 2025) is class action lawsuit to stop IRCSD from illegally giving failing grades to middle school students who cannot participate in swim class while menstruating. Accordingly, students at Indian River Middle School have mandatory swim classes as part of their physical education instruction. When students are menstruating during swim class and are uncomfortable using a period product that allows them to enter the water, they sit on a bench next to the pool, watch their peers swim, and receive a zero grade for the day, asserts the suit. No alternative activity is provided, nor are they excused. They are failed because they have their period. The discrimination that these students face regularly at IRMS fills them with shame and humiliation, since they are stigmatized for having their period, the suit contends. IRCSD is a public school district in New York State. IRMS is a school in the District. The IRCSD Board is a public education corporation governing IRCSD pursuant to the laws of New York State.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kyla Magun, Esq. Alanna Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN LIEB LEBOWITZ & FRICK LLP 18 East 48th Street, Suite 802 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 660-2332 INSPIRATO INC: Faces Koch Shareholder Suit over SEC Filing ---------------------------------------------------------- Inspirato Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2025, that a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in the District of Colorado on February 16, 2023 captioned "Keith Koch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Inspirato Incorporated, Brent Handler, and R. Webster Neighbor" is currently ongoing. The complaint alleges violations the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. The complaint generally alleges that certain of the company's prior public statements about its results of operations and financial condition were materially false and misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose adverse facts pertaining to the restatement of the company's consolidated financial statements as of and for the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2022 and June 30, 2022. On July 16, 2024, the magistrate recommended the case be dismissed and the plaintiff filed a motion objecting to these recommendations on July 30, 2024. The company responded to these objections and on September 23, 2024, the court granted the motion to dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice. On October 23, 2024, plaintiff filed an amended motion for the court's review and on November 6, 2024, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The company then filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on December 11, 2024. Inspirato Incorporated and its subsidiaries is a subscription-based luxury travel company that provides exclusive access to branded luxury vacation homes, accommodations at five-star hotel and resort partners, and custom travel experiences. INTER-CON SECURITY: Rivera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Ana Rivera, an individual, and on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc., Case No. 25STCV11251 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 16, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc. -- https://www.icsecurity.com/ -- is a US-based multinational security services company headquartered in Pasadena, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jose Garay, Esq. JOSE GARAY APLC 249 E Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814 Long Beach, CA 90802-4899 Phone: 949-208-3400 Fax: 562-590-8400 Email: jose@garaylaw.com INTRASYSTEMS LLC: O'Dell Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Linda O'Dell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INTRASYSTEMS, LLC, ALLEGHENY HEALTH NETWORK, Case No. 1:25-cv-10491 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on April 15, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00519-NR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. INTRASYSTEMS -- https://www.intrasystems.com/ -- provides a wide range of comprehensive services for the full lifecycle of IT projects subject to international standards.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward F. Haber, Esq. Ian J. McLoughlin, Esq. Patrick J. Vallely, Esq. SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP One Boston Place, Suite 2600 Boston, MA 02108 Phone: (617) 439-3939 Fax: (617) 439-0134 Email: ehaber@shulaw.com imcloughlin@shulaw.com pvallely@shulaw.com - and - Amber L. Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Phone: (415) 788-4220 Fax: (415) 788-0161 Email: aschubert@sjk.law The Defendants are represented by: Jennifer R. O'Shea, Esq. WINGET, SPADAFORA & SCHWARTZBERG, LLP 45 Broadway New York, NY 10006 Phone: (617) 943-3919 Email: oshea.j@wssllp.com JAMES KOUTOULAS: Plaintiffs Seek Approval of Class Notice Plan -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC DE FORD, et al., v. JAMES KOUTOULAS, et al., Case No. 6:22-cv-00652-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for approval of the proposed class notice plan. In the Class Certification Order, the Court certified the following class: "All persons who, between Nov. 2, 2021, and Mar. 15, 2022, purchased LGBCoin." The Court excluded from the Class "Defendants; Defendants' affiliates, agents, employees, officers, and directors; Plaintiffs' counsel and Defendants' counsel; and Judge Byron, his staff, and any member of his immediate family." A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=m4uR7x at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Aaron M. Zigler, Esq. Mary Jane Fait, Esq. Nidya S. Gutierrez, Esq. ZIGLER LAW GROUP, LLC 308 S. Jefferson Street | Suite 333 Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 673-8427 E-mail: aaron@ziglerlawgroup.com maryjane@ziglerlawgroup.com nidya@ziglerlawgroup.com - and - John T. Jasnoch, Esq. Sean T. Masson, Esq. Mollie Chadwick, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com smasson@scott-scott.com mchadwich@scott-scott.com JOSEPH'S COLLEGE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Dyer Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER DYER, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. TRUSTEES OF ST. JOSEPH'S COLLEGE d/b/a SAINT JOSEPH’S COLLEGE OF MAINE, Case No. 2:25-cv-00134-KFW (D. Maine, April 7, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address the Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' personally identifiable information that Defendant collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access by an unknown third party. Accordingly, between December 15, 2023, and January 24, 2024, an unknown and unauthorized criminal actor gained access to Defendant's network and exfiltrated, at a minimum, names and Social Security numbers. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members suffered injury and ascertainable losses in the form of the present and imminent threat of fraud and identity theft, loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, and the loss of, and diminution in, value of their personal information, says the suit. In addition, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive PII -- which was entrusted to Defendant -- was compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David E. Bauer, Esq. 443 Saint John Street Portland, Maine 04102 Telephone: (207) 804-6296 E-mail: david.edward.bauer@gmail.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com KEYSTONE REMODELING: Murch Directed to Conduct Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Murch v. Keystone Remodeling, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00064 (D. Or., Filed Jan. 13, 2025), the Hon. Judge Jolie A. Russo entered an order that the Plaintiff's motion is granted insofar as the Plaintiff shall have 90 days from the date of the Order to conduct class certification and damages related discovery. -- Any motion for class certification or default judgment must be filed within 30 days of the completion of that discovery. The Plaintiff initiated this putative class action in January 2025, seeking statutory damages and injunctive relief pursuant to the TCPA for defendant's unsolicited telemarketing calls to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. On March 11, 2025, default was entered against the Defendant. On April 10, 2025, the plaintiff filed the present Motion to Commence Discovery , in order to allow the plaintiff to obtain information surrounding the proposed class (and potentially certification) prior to seeking a default judgment. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Keystone remodeling is a family-owned and operated general contractor company that specializes in complete outdoor remodeling & renovation.[CC] KRISTI NOEM: Parole Grantee Class Gets Certification ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SVITLANA DOE, et al., v. KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-10495-IT (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Indira Talwani entered an order granting class certification: "All individuals who have received a grant of parole that is subject to the Termination of Parole Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, 90 Fed. Reg. 13611 (Mar. 25, 2025), rescinding individual grants of parole on a categorical and en masse basis, except: (1) those individuals who voluntarily left, and remain outside, the United States prior to the issuance of that Notice; and (2) those individuals who choose to opt out of the class in order to seek relief in separate litigation." The court also entered an order appointing Armando Doe, Ana Doe, Carlos Doe, Andrea Doe, Lucia Doe, Miguel Doe, and Daniel Doe as Class Representatives1 and John A. Freedman, Daniel B. Asimow, and Laura Scott Shores of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Karen C. Tumlin of Justice Action Center, and Anwen Hughes of Human Rights First as class counsel. Accordingly, certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is appropriate. The Rule 23(g) requirements are satisfied by the appointment of class counsel. A copy of the Court's order dated April 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2WJmcZ at no extra charge.[CC] KYNDRYL HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Kyndryl Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: KD) resulting from allegations that Kyndryl may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Kyndryl securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=38139 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On March 27, 2025, during market hours, Reuters published an article entitled "Kyndryl shares slump after Gotham City alleges it manipulated metrics." This article stated that Kyndryl shares had fallen after "a research report from short-seller Gotham City alleged the IT services provider has manipulated certain financial metrics. Gotham City said Kyndryl manipulated its reported adjusted EBITDA and adjusted free cash flow to give the appearance of profits and cash flow while in reality it generated losses and burned cash." On this news, the price of Kyndryl Holdings stock fell 5% on March 27, 2025. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] LABORATORY SERVICES: Daniels Files Suit in W.D. Washington ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Laboratory Services Cooperative. The case is styled as Keyonna Daniels, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Laboratory Services Cooperative, Case No. 2:25-cv-00684 (W.D. Wash., April 16, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. Laboratory Services Cooperative is a cooperative organization focused on providing laboratory services, often with a charitable or scientific purpose, and operating on a centralized basis.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. LARAMAX CORP: Castillo Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Rorban J. Castillo, and other similarly situated individuals v. Laramax Corp, and Miguel A. Alvarado, individually, Case No. 8:25-cv-00935 (M.D. Fla., April 15, 2025), is brought to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages and retaliatory constructive discharge under United States laws the Fair Labor Standards Act ("the FLSA"). While employed by Defendants, Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours every week, but he was not paid for overtime hours. Plaintiff did not clock in and out, but Defendants could track the number of days and hours worked by Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals by texts. Defendants knew the hours worked by Plaintiff. Therefore, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages at the rate of time and a half his regular rate for every hour that he worked in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff had duties as a janitor and cleaning employee, cleaning offices. Laramax is a commercial cleaning contractor serving the Pinellas area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com LATCH INC: Settlement in Brennan Suit Gets Initial OK ----------------------------------------------------- Latch, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2025, that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York preliminarily approved the settlement of an August 31, 2022 purported securities class action complaint by an alleged stockholder of Latch stock captioned "Brennan v. Latch, Inc, et al.," Case No. 1:22-cv-07473. Case was filed on November 12, 2024. The company and lead plaintiff filed with the court a settlement agreement pursuant to which the company agreed to pay the settlement class in the amount of $1.95 million in exchange for the dismissal of all claims against the defendants. The court preliminarily approved the settlement on January 17, 2025, and a final hearing has been set for May 28, 2025. The company paid the settlement amount in March 2025. The complaint alleges that the company and certain of its former officers violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making false or misleading statements regarding its business, operations and prospects. The complaint includes claims for damages, including interest, and an award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees and expert fees to the putative class. Latch is a technology company primarily serving the multifamily rental home market segment of the smart building industry deploying hardware and software technology to digitize otherwise manual processes, including building and unit access and in-unit device control. LATCH INC: Settlement of Consolidated Securities Suit for Court Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------- Latch, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2025, that on December 2, 2024, the defendants and lead plaintiffs of consolidated fiduciary lawsuit "In re: TS Innovation Acquisitions (TSIA) Sponsor LLC Stockholder Litigation," No. 2023-0509-LWW (Del. Ch.) filed with the court a settlement pursuant to which the defendants agreed to pay the settlement class in the amount of $29.75 million in exchange for the dismissal of all claims against the defendants and the company. While the settlement remains subject to approval by the court, in accordance with the settlement agreement, the full settlement amount of $29.75 million was paid in January 2025. On May 10, 2023, alleged stockholders of Latch stock filed purported class action complaints in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware captioned "Subramanian v. TS Innovation Acquisitions Sponsor, LLC, et al.," C.A. No. 2023-0514. On July 6, 2023, the court consolidated the lawsuits and appointed Phanindra Kilari, Subash Subramanian, and Robert Garfield as co-lead plaintiffs. Suits allege that TSIA and certain of its former members and directors breached their fiduciary duties by making false or misleading statements in connection with the merger between Latch and TSIA. They include claims for unjust enrichment, damages, and an award of costs and attorneys' fees to the putative class. Pursuant to the January 24, 2021 Merger Agreement between the Sponsor and Legacy Latch, Latch has agreed to indemnify and hold harmless, to the fullest extent permitted by law, TSIA and each of its directors and officers (present and former) named as defendants in the lawsuits against any costs or expenses, reasonable attorneys' fees, losses, damages, or liabilities incurred in connection with these actions. Latch is a technology company primarily serving the multifamily rental home market segment of the smart building industry deploying hardware and software technology to digitize otherwise manual processes, including building and unit access and in-unit device control. LEE UNIVERSITY: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Goodine Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS GOODINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LEE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:25-cv-00125 (E.D. Tenn., April 11, 2025) alleges the Lee University failed to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information, personally identifiable information (PII), and financial information stored within the Defendant's information network. Accordingly, the Defendant knew or should have known, that Plaintiff and Class Members would use Defendant's services to store and/or share sensitive data, including highly confidential PII and financial information. On March 2024, unauthorized third-party cybercriminals gained access to the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and financial information as hosted with Defendant, with the intent of engaging in the misuse of the PII and financial information, including marketing and selling Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and financial information. The total number of individuals who have had their data exposed due to Defendant’s failure to implement appropriate security safeguards is unknown at this time but is estimated to be in the tens/hundreds of thousands based on the Defendant's clientele. PII generally incorporates information that can be used to distinguish or trace an individual's identity, and is generally defined to include certain identifiers that do not on their face name an individual, but that is considered to be particularly sensitive and/or valuable if in the wrong hands (for example, Social Security numbers, passport numbers, driver's license numbers, financial account numbers), says the suit. The Defendant is a private undergraduate and graduate university. The Defendant acquired, collected, and stored Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII financial information.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue Freedom Building, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, No. 10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com LIFECARE MEDICAL: Nonnulla Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, VOWA -------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID NONNULLA, individually and for others similarly situated v. LIFECARE MEDICAL TRANSPORTS, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00303-JAG (E.D. Va., April 18, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages from LifeCare under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Virginia Overtime Wage Act. LifeCare employed Nonnulla as one of its Hourly Employees. Nonnulla and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek. Accordingly, LifeCare pays them by the hour. But LifeCare does not pay Nonnulla and the other Hourly Employees at least one and a half times their regular rates of pay -- based on all remuneration -- for all hours they work in excess of 40 a workweek. Instead, LifeCare pays Nonnulla and the other Hourly Employees non-discretionary bonuses that it fails to include in their regular rates of pay for overtime purposes (bonus pay scheme), asserts the suit. LifeCare has employed Nonnulla as a paramedic in Virginia since approximately July 2021. LifeCare bills itself as "a leading medical provider for the Commonwealth of Virginia [and] one of Virginia's largest health care transportation providers."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harris D. Butler, III, Esq. Craig J. Curwood, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 237-0413 E-mail: harris@butlercurwood.com craig@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com LIFELONG ADOPTIONS: E.H. Files Suit in E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lifelong Adoptions, Inc. The case is styled as E.H., V.P., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Lifelong Adoptions, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00441-JLT-BAM (E.D. Cal., April 16, 2025). The nature of suit is state as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. LifeLong Adoptions -- https://www.lifelongadoptions.com/ -- provides marketing and advertising services that assist biological parents considering adoption and prospective adoptive parents to connect with each other, and provides support and referral services throughout the process.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catherine Elizabeth Ybarra, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 S Flower Street Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 297-3807 Fax: (646) 417-5967 Email: cybarra@sirillp.com LIME ROCK: Chastain Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as David A. Chastain, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. LIME ROCK RESOURCES OPERATING COMPANY, INC., Case No. CV-2025-14 was removed from the District Court of McClain County, State of Oklahoma, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on April 16, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-00443-R. This notice of removal is made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, 1441 and 1446, and is made on the basis of original federal subject matter jurisdiction under the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), codified in relevant part at 29 U.S.C. Section 185; and supplemental jurisdiction.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Fred R. Gipson, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF FRED R. GIPSON, PLLC 104 McSha Place Norman, OK 73072 Phone: (405) 417-8008 Email: fred.gipsongicloud.com - and - Travis P. Brown, Esq. R. John Berry, Esq. MAHAFFEY & GORE, P.C. 300 N.E. 1st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73104-4004 Phone: (405) 236-0478 Facsimile: (405) 236-1840 Email: tbrown@mahaffeygore.com jberry@mahaffeygore.com LIVE NATION: Faces Holmes Class Suit Over Illegal Drip Pricing -------------------------------------------------------------- NADINE HOLMES, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC. and TICKETMASTER LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01138-JRR (D. Md., April 7, 2025) alleges that the Defendants deceptively displays low prices to sell more tickets at higher prices. The case is a class action lawsuit brought against the Defendants for its deceptive and manipulative use of a bait-and-switch scheme commonly known as "drip pricing" -- a practice of advertising only part of a product's price and then revealing other charges in a non-initial step in the transaction as the consumer goes through the buying process. On average, the "drip pricing" model increases the cost of a Ticketmaster ticket between 25% - 50% and in some instances can increase the cost by more than 100% of the face value of the ticket after a non-initial step in the ticket purchase transaction, the suit says. Ticketmaster is an online marketplace where consumers can buy and sell tickets for sports, concerts, and other live entertainment events.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cory L. Zajdel, Esq. David M. Trojanowski, Esq. Z LAW, LLC 2345 York Road, Suite B-13 Timonium, MD 21093 Telephone: (443) 213-1977 E-mail: clz@zlawmaryland.com dmt@zlawmaryland.com - and - Oren Giskan, Esq. GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 847-8315 E-mail: ogiskan@gslawny.com LONG BEACH, CA: Guma Seeks to Certify Class Action -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Daniel Guma, Michael D' Antoni, Kevin Horn, and Timothy Lyons, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. The City of Long Beach, All County Hook Up Towing, Inc. d/b/a All County Towing & Recovery, Joseph Calvagno, individually, Case No. 2:23-cv-04529-GRB-JMW (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) certifying a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), with the class defined as: "All vehicle owners whose vehicle license plates, and/or whose names are listed on the record of the U.S.D.C. E.D.N.Y. Case No. 23-cv-4529, filed on June 20, 2023, whose vehicles were seized by the City of Long Beach for tickets issued by the City of Long Beach for unpaid parking violations, including tickets issued for parking without a permit, parking with an expired permit, parking beyond a permitted parking time, parking too close to a driveway, or the parking of a car which is otherwise unlawful, for being parked on a public street with an expired inspection sticker, registration or insurance, without having been provided any pre-seizure or post seizure hearing"; (2) appointing the Plaintiffs are class representatives of the proposed class; and (3) appointing Campanelli & Associates, P.C. as lead counsel for the class. Long Beach is an oceanfront city in Nassau County, New York. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z8AgDV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew J. Campanelli, Esq. CAMPANELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1757 Merrick Avenue, Suite 204 Merrick, NY 11566 Telephone: (516)746-1600 Facsimile: (516) 746-2611 LVNV FUNDING: Shaw Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETSY SHAW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LVNV FUNDING LLC, a foreign limited liability co., and LLOYD & MCDANIEL, PLLC d/b/a LLOYD & MCDANIEL, PLC, a foreign limited liability co., Case No. 4:24-cv-00205-MW-MAF (N.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her an extension up to and including June 18, 2025, to file her motion for class certification. On March 27, 2024, the Plaintiff Betsy Shaw initiated this action with the filing of her Class Action Complaint in state court. On June 28, 2024, the parties filed their Report of the Parties’ Planning Meeting. The Report proposed deadlines for the prompt progression of this case, including a May 19, 2025, deadline for Plaintiff to move for class certification. The Plaintiff has diligently prosecuted her claims, taken fact-witness depositions, served multiple rounds of discovery, and twice moved to compel supplemental productions by Defendants. To that end, Plaintiff first served 30(b)(6) deposition notices on January 17, 2025. ECF No. 35, at 1. The parties thereafter cooperated in good faith to schedule the 30(b)(6) deposition dates and ultimately scheduled the depositions for April 10 and 11, 2025. On March 27, 2025, the Court entered its order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel, and ordered Defendants make a supplemental production on or before April 7, 2025. The Plaintiff's counsel intends to question Defendants’ corporate representatives regarding, inter alia, the material compelled by the Court. On April 4, 2025, the Defendant filed a Motion to Extend Time to Comply with the Order compelling production, which Plaintiff did not oppose. That motion was granted, and Defendants' supplemental production is now due on April 28, 2025. LVNV Funding is a company that buys charged-off accounts from companies like credit card issuers and personal loan lenders. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7TBTeE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Jacobson, Esq. JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC 2277 Lee Road, Suite B Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (321) 447-6461 E-mail: joshua@jacobsonphillips.com jacob@jacobsonphillips.com MANAGED CARE: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA CROWE, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. MANAGED CARE OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., d/b/a MCNA DENTAL, MCNA INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a MCNA DENTAL, and HEALTHPLEX, INC., Case No. 0:23-cv-61065-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the Plaintiffs' deadline to move for class certification by two weeks, through and including June 2, 2025. The Parties attended their first mediation in this case on July 10, 2024, which did not result in a settlement. See D.E. 157. On Jan. 17, 2025, the Court denied Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint. Since that time, the Parties have been fully engaged in discovery, including, inter alia, engaging in ESI production, taking fact witness depositions, preparing for 30(b)(6) depositions, working with experts, and doing third-party discovery. On March 20, 2025, the Court granted Defendants’ Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time for Plaintiffs to File Their Motion for Class Certification and extended the deadline by three weeks to May 19, 2025. The other deadlines in the Amended Joint Scheduling Order remained the same. Managed Care provides dental plans. The Company offers medicare, long term, and commercial plans. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RUc9fk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Peter Prieto, Esq. PODHURST ORSECK P.A. 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 500 Coral Gables, FL 33146 Telephone: (305) 358-2800 E-mail: pprieto@podhurst.com - and - 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.com The Defendants are represented by: Allen P. Pegg, Esq. Mark R. Cheskin, Esq. Allison Holt Ryan, Esq. Alicia J. Paller, Esq. Abby W. Gray, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 459-6500 Facsimile: (305) 459-6550 E-mail: allen.pegg@hoganlovells.com allison.holt-ryan@hoganlovells.com alicia.paller@hoganlovells.com abby.waltergray@hoganlovells.com ME TOO LLC: Hippe Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ------------------------------------------------------------ XINYUE HIPPE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Me Too LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-535 (E.D. Wis., April 14, 2025) is a civil rights action against Me Too for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://metooshoes.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On April 7, 2025, the Plaintiff was looking for a pair of ballet pumps to complement her wardrobe. While browsing online for a retailer offering footwear designed for modern and active women, she discovered Metooshoes.com. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, hidden elements on the web page, inadequate focus order, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Me Too's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Me Too LLC operates the website that offers an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view boots, flats, loafers, sandals, wedges, and heels.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630)-478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law MOBIZ INC: Faces Novia Class TCPA Suit Over Telemarketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN NOVIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MOBIZ INC., AND HARRIS BROTHERS OF MICHIGAN, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-11036-AK (D. Mass., April 18, 2025) seeks to enforce the consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 alleging that MoBiz and Harris Brothers violated the TCPA by making telemarketing calls to Plaintiff and other putative class members listed on the National Do Not Call Registry without their written consent, as well as by failing to include the required caller ID information. Accordingly, Mr. Novia uses the number for personal, residential, and household reasons. Mr. Novia does not use the number for business reasons or business use. The number is a residential telephone line because it is assigned to a residential telephone exchange service for consumers and is not assigned to a telephone exchange service for businesses, says the suit. Plaintiff Novia is an individual residing in the District of Massachusetts. Mobiz is a corporation that sends marketing text messages with its headquarters and principal place of business in Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 738-7080 Facsimile: (617) 830-0327 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com MORTGAGE RESEARCH: Warnocks Seek to Certify Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN and HILARY WARNOCK, v. MORTGAGE RESEARCH CENTER LLC d/b/a VETERANS UNITED HOME LOANS and NATIONSTAR LLC d/b/a MR. COOPER, Case No. 8:23-cv-00914-CEH-LSG (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying class action on behalf of: a. A Class consisting of all homeowners within the state of Florida who, within the one year before the filing of this cause of action, have timely made their mortgage payments to MORTGAGE RESEARCH CENTER L.L.C d\b\a VETERANS UNITED HOME LOANS, which included amounts escrowed to be paid to third- party insurance providers, such as WRIGHT NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE, and those payments were not made to the third- party insurance provider timely, which caused the class member damages including increased premiums, a loss of coverage, or requiring the sale of the home secured by the mortgage." b. A Class consisting of all homeowners within the state of Florida who, within the one year before the filing of this cause of action, have timely made their mortgage payments to NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC d\b\a MR. COOPER, which included amounts escrowed to be paid to third-party insurance providers, such as WRIGHT NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE, and those payments were not made to the third-party insurance provider timely, which caused the class member damages, including increased premiums, a loss of coverage, or requiring the sale of the home secured by the mortgage. c. A Class consisting of all homeowners within the United States of America who, within the one year before the filing of this cause of action, have timely made their mortgage payments to MORTGAGE RESEARCH CENTER L.L.C d\b\a VETERANS UNITED HOME LOANS, which included amounts escrowed to be paid to third-party insurance providers, such as WRIGHT NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE, and those payments were not made to the third-party insurance provider timely, which caused the class member damages including increased premiums, a loss of coverage, or requiring the sale of the home secured by the mortgage. d. A Class consisting of all homeowners within the United States of America who, within the one year before the filing of this cause of action, have timely made their mortgage payments to NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC d\b\a MR. COOPER, which included amounts escrowed to be paid to thirdparty insurance providers, such as WRIGHT NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE, and those payments were not made to the third-party insurance provider timely, which caused the class member damages, including increased premiums, a loss of coverage, or requiring the sale of the home secured by the mortgage. e. A Class consisting of all homeowners within the state of Florida who, within the five years before the filing of this cause of action, have timely made their mortgage payments to MORTGAGE RESEARCH CENTER L.L.C d\b\a VETERANS UNITED HOME LOANS, which included amounts escrowed to be paid to third- party insurance providers, such as WRIGHT NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE, and those payments were not made to the third- party insurance provider timely, which caused the class member damages including increased premiums, a loss of coverage, or requiring the sale of the home secured by the mortgage. f. A Class consisting of all homeowners within the state of Florida who, within the five years before the filing of this cause of action, have timely made their mortgage payments to NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC d\b\a MR. COOPER, which included amounts escrowed to be paid to third-party insurance providers, such as WRIGHT NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE, and those payments were not made to the third-party insurance provider timely, which caused the class member damages, including increased premiums, a loss of coverage, or requiring the sale of the home secured by the mortgage. Veterans United is a mortgage loan servicer. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5WBFgO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bryant H. Dunivan Jr., Esq. DUNIVAN LAW, PA 5668 Fishhawk Crossing Blvd., Ste. 333, Lithia, FL 33547 Telephone: (813) 252-0239 E-mail: bryant@dunivanlaw.com eservice@dunivanlaw.com MR. THROWBACK: Faces Zhang Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW ZHANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MR. THROWBACK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02984 (S.D.N.Y., April 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.mrthrowback.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccessible contact information, lack of alt-text on graphics, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Mr. Throwback, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com NATERA INC: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Schneider Suit to 5th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- NATERA, INCORPORATED, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled John Harvey Schneider, et al., individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Natera, Incorporated, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-398, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this is a class action lawsuit on behalf of a class of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Natera common stock between February 26, 2020, and April 19, 2022, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On June 4, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class. On Jan. 28, 2025, Judge Dustin M. Howell filed a Report and Recommendation (R&R) to grant the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. On Mar. 21, 2025, Judge David A. Ezra entered an Order adopting the R&R. The Plaintiffs' motion to certify class was granted. The appellate case is entitled Schneider v. Natera, Incorporated, Case No. 25-90009, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on April 7, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents JOHN HARVEY SCHNEIDER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Barbara A. Schwartz, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, L.L.P. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 - and – Jessica Elaine Underwood, Esq. NIX PATTERSON, L.L.P. 8701 Bee Cave Road Building 1 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 328-5333 - and – Johnny Sutton, Esq. ASHCROFT SUTTON REYES, L.L.C. 919 Congress Avenue Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 585-9988 Defendants-Petitioners NATERA, INCORPORATED, et al. are represented by: Bruce G. Vanyo, Esq. KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN, L.L.P. 2121 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles, CA 90067 - and – Danny Scot Ashby, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS, L.L.P. 2801 N. Harwood Street Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (972) 360-1900 NATIONWIDE RECOVERY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Cooper Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ FELICIA COOPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NATIONWIDE RECOVERY SERVICES, INC. and HAMILTON HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, INC. d/b/a VITRUVIAN HEALTH, Case No. 1:25-cv-00131 (E.D. Tenn., April 21, 2025) arises out of the public exposure of the confidential, personal information of Defendants Hamilton Health's current and former patients, including Personally Identifying Information and Protected Health Information, including of Plaintiff and the Class Members, which was in Defendants' possession during a cyberattack on NRS's systems beginning on or around July 2024, and which attack was caused by Defendants' collective failures to adequately safeguard that Personal Information (the Data Breach). The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included certain personal and protected health information of Defendants' current and former employees, including Plaintiff. This Private Information included but is not limited to "names, addresses, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, financial account information, and other medical information." The Private Information was removed from Defendants' network by cybercriminals who perpetrated the attack and remains in the hands of those cybercriminals. The Data Breach resulted from the Defendants' failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which they were entrusted for employment. The Plaintiff proposes the following Class definition, subject to amendment as appropriate: "All persons whose Private Information was compromised because of the July 2024 Data Breach." Excluded from the Class are the Defendants' officers and directors, and any entity in which Defendants has a controlling interest; and the affiliates, legal representatives, attorneys, successors, heirs, and assigns of Defendants. Excluded also from the Class are Members of the judiciary to whom this case is assigned, their families and Members of their staff." Hamilton Health is a healthcare provider serving patients in northwest Georgia and southeast Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Ste. 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com - and - Leigh Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP lmontgomery@eksm.com service@eksm.com 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 NATIONWIDE RECOVERY: Nail Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------- LISA NAIL, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NATIONWIDE RECOVERY SERVICE, INC. and RHEA COUNTY HOSPITAL d/b/a RHEA MEDICAL CENTER, Case No. 1:25-cv-00130 (E.D. Tenn., April 18, 2025) arises out of the public exposure of the confidential, private information of the Defendant's current and former patients, Personally Identifying Information and Protected Health Information, including of Plaintiff and the Class Members, which was in the possession of the Defendants in a cyberattack on NRS's systems, beginning on or around July 2024, caused by the Defendants' collective failures to adequately safeguard that Personal Information (the Data Breach). According to the complaint, the Personal Information unauthorizedly disclosed in the Data Breach includes patients' name, address, date of birth, Social Security number, financial account information, and medical information. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' failures to protect current and former patients' sensitive Personal Information and warn them promptly and fully about the Data Breach, Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members have suffered widespread injury and damages necessitating Plaintiff seeking relief on a class wide basis, says the suit. NRS specializes in customer service, collections, and recovery management experience, supporting all areas of financial servicing across industries. Rhea Medical is a county-owned, non-profit healthcare provider. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com NELLIS AUCTION: Schaaf Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Warehouse Staff ------------------------------------------------------------------ STEPHEN SCHAAF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NELLIS AUCTION HOLDINGS, LLC; CRET LLC a/k/a NELLIS AUCTION; NELLIS AUCTION ARIZONA LLC; NELLIS AUCTION COLORADO, LLC; NELLIS AUCTION NEW JERSEY, LLC; NELLIS AUCTION TEXAS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00647 (D. Nev., April 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages and all wages due and owing in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada Revised Statutes. Mr. Schaaf was employed by the Defendants as a picker at North Las Vegas warehouse from approximately April 14, 2022, until approximately April 28, 2023. Nellis Auction Holdings, LLC is an online auction platform operator doing business in Nevada. Cret LLC, also known as Nellis Auction, is an online auction platform operator doing business in Nevada. Nellis Auction Arizona LLC is an online auction platform operator based in Arizona. Nellis Auction Colorado, LLC is an online auction platform operator based in Colorado. Nellis Auction New Jersey, LLC is an online auction platform operator based in New Jersey. Nellis Auction Texas, LLC is an online auction platform operator based in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Kuller, Esq. Rachel Mariner, Esq. RAFII & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1120 N. Town Center Dr., Ste. 130 Las Vegas, NV 89144 Telephone: (725) 245-6056 Facsimile: (725) 220-1802 Email: jason@rafiilaw.com rachel@rafiilaw.com NET POWER: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Fraud ----------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against NET Power Inc. ("Net Power" or the "Company") (NYSE:NPWR) and certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, and docketed under 25-cv-00296, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Net Power securities between June 9, 2023 and March 7, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired Net Power securities during the Class Period, you have until June 17, 2025, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Net Power is a clean energy technology company. Its business is centered around its so-called "Net Power Cycle" technology, which is a purported novel power generation system designed to produce reliable and affordable electricity from natural gas while capturing virtually all atmospheric emissions. Net Power has a facility located in La Porte, Texas, which it uses to demonstrate the viability of the NET Power Cycle, referred to as "La Porte" or the "Demonstration Plant." Net Power conducts research and equipment validation testing campaigns at the Demonstration Plant as part of its efforts to develop its first utility-scale plant, which it variably refers to as "SN1" or "Project Permian." Project Permian is located at a site in the Permian Basin of West Texas. Since before the start of the Class Period, Defendants had represented that they anticipated SN1 to be operational in 2026. In 2023, Net Power's cost estimate for Project Permian was roughly $950 million, which increased to $1.1 billion in 2024. Net Power's commencement of commercial operations and, accordingly, its business and financial prospects, rely on its completion of Project Permian. As such, Defendants' projected timelines and cost estimates for Project Permian are of particular importance to investors and analysts. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Net Power was unlikely to complete Project Permian on schedule, and the project was likely to be significantly more expensive than Defendants had represented, because of, inter alia, supply chain issues and numerous site- and region-specific challenges; (ii) accordingly, Defendants' projections regarding the time and capital needed to complete Project Permian were unrealistic; (iii) the increased time and capital needed to complete Project Permian were likely to have a significant negative impact on the Company's business and financial results; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On November 14, 2023, during pre-market hours, Net Power issued a press release announcing its third quarter 2023 results and providing a business update. Therein, the Company disclosed that "[d]ue to . . . tightness in the global supply chain, we are incorporating a 12-month cushion into our expected schedule for Project Permian" with Defendants "now expecting to achieve initial power generation sometime between the second half of 2027 and first half of 2028." This represented a significant delay from Defendants' initial schedule to have the plant operational by 2026. On this news, Net Power's stock price fell $2.47 per share, or 18.54%, to close at $10.85 per share on November 14, 2023. On March 10, 2025, during pre-market hours, Net Power issued a press release announcing its fourth quarter and full year 2024 results and providing a business update. Therein, Net Power disclosed that it "now estimates Project Permian's total installed cost to be between $1.7 billion and $2.0 billion"-significantly higher than its last estimate of $1.1 billion -- "which is inclusive of non-recurring first-of-a-kind, Project Permian site-specific and owner costs[,]" advising that "there are a number of site- and region-specific challenges which impact cost." The Company further advised that Project Permian "would come online no earlier than 2029[,]" representing a significant delay from its prior timeline of sometime between the second half of 2027 and first half of 2028. In addition, Net Power reported that it ended 2024 "with $533 million in cash, cash equivalents, and investments, down from $580 million last quarter, primarily due to $13 million in operating cash outflows and $29 million in capital expenditures for La Porte upgrades and SN1 development." On this news, Net Power's stock price fell $2.18 per share, or 31.46%, to close at $4.75 per share on March 10, 2025. Then, on April 15, 2025, Net Power issued a press release announcing that its President and Chief Operating Officer ("COO") and Chief Financial Officer would depart the Company on May 1, 2025, and that the Company had appointed a new COO, effective immediately. On this news, Net Power's stock price fell $0.13 per share, or 5.75%, to close at $2.13 per share on April 16, 2025. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. [GN] NET POWER: Faces Luciani Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop -------------------------------------------------------------- TED LUCIANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NET POWER INC., DANIEL J. RICE IV, AKASH PATEL, and BRIAN ALLEN, Case No. 1:25-cv-00296 (M.D.N.C., April 18, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Net Power securities between June 9, 2023 and March 7, 2025, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, against the Company and certain of its top officials. Net Power conducts research and equipment validation testing campaigns at the Demonstration Plant as part of its efforts to develop its first utility-scale plant, which it variably refers to as "SN1" or "Project Permian." Project Permian is located at a site in the Permian Basin of West Texas. Since before the start of the Class Period, Defendants had represented that they anticipated SN1 to be operational in 2026. In 2023, Net Power's cost estimate for Project Permian was roughly $950 million, which increased to $1.1 billion in 2024. Net Power's commencement of commercial operations and, accordingly, its business and financial prospects, rely on its completion of Project Permian. As such, the Defendants' projected timelines and cost estimates for Project Permian are of particular importance to investors and analysts. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Net Power was unlikely to complete Project Permian on schedule, and the project was likely to be significantly more expensive than Defendants had represented, because of, inter alia, supply chain issues and numerous site- and region-specific challenges. On Nov. 14, 2023, during pre-market hours, Net Power issued a press release announcing its third quarter 2023 results and providing a business update. On this news, Net Power's stock price fell $2.47 per share, or 18.54%, to close at $10.85 per share on November 14, 2023. 10. On March 10, 2025, during pre-market hours, Net Power issued a press release announcing its fourth quarter and full year 2024 results and providing a business update, says the suit. Then, on April 15, 2025, Net Power issued a press release announcing that its President and Chief Operating Officer (COO) and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) would depart the Company on May 1, 2025, and that the Company had appointed a new COO, effective immediately. On this news, Net Power's stock price fell $0.13 per share, or 5.75%, to close at $2.13 per share on April 16, 202514. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the suit added. Net Power is a clean energy technology company. Its business is centered around its so-called "Net Power Cycle" technology, which is a purported novel power generation system designed to produce reliable and affordable electricity from natural gas while capturing virtually all atmospheric emissions. Net Power has a facility located in La Porte, Texas, which it uses to demonstrate the viability of the NET Power Cycle, referred to as "La Porte" or the "Demonstration Plant."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David G. Schiller, Esq. SCHILLER & SCHILLER, PLLC 304 East Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 Telephone: (919) 789-4677 Facsimile: (919) 789-4469 E-mail: david@schillerfirm.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com NEW YORK: Faces Whalen Suit Over Failure to Protect Clients' Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIE WHALEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02926 (S.D.N.Y., April 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on March 22, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. New York University is a university with its headquarters in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian P. Murray, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Avenue, Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Email: bmurray@glancylaw.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. Antonio Arzola, Jr., Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Facsimile: (813) 222-4736 Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com ararzola@forthepeople.com NISSAN NORTH: Seeks More Time to File Writ of Certiorari in Johnson ------------------------------------------------------------------- NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. filed on April 7, 2025, a request to extend time to file for a petition of writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, under Case No. 24-950, seeking a review of a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case captioned Nissan North America, Inc., Applicant vs. Sherida Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., Case No. 22-16644. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs' claims are based upon Nissan's refusal to acknowledge and address a dangerous safety defect in its tempered glass panoramic sunroofs which exists in all class vehicles at the point of sale. Panoramic sunroofs ("PSR") manufactured for Nissan use tempered glass panels that are unable to withstand the stresses and environmental factors present under ordinary driving conditions (the "Sunroof Defect"). The Sunroof Defect causes the Class Vehicles' PSRs to suffer from a propensity to shatter -- suddenly, violently, and without warning -- creating a loud noise and raining glass fragments down on the vehicle's occupants, which in turn creates a serious safety hazard. Having experienced a manifestation of the Sunroof Defect firsthand, the Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all others who purchased or leased a Nissan vehicle with a Nissan factory-installed PSR manufactured by either that incorporate tempered glass panels. The Plaintiffs seek damages and equitable relief. [BN] Defendant-Petitioner NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. is represented by: Christopher Robert Wray, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP 2555 Grand Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64108 Email: cwray@shb.com OBI SEAFOODS: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Hamlin Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tara Hamlin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OBI Seafoods, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00618 (W.D. Wash., April 7, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard the sensitive information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including the Plaintiff's and Class Members' names and medical and health insurance information, which is protected health information as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Accordingly, current and former OBI Seafoods employees are required to entrust the Defendant with sensitive, non-public Private Information, without which the Defendant could not perform its regular business activities, in order to obtain employment or certain employment benefits at Defendant. The Defendant retains this information for at least many years and even after the employee-employer relationship has ended. 5. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. In breaching its duties to properly safeguard employees’ Private Information and give employees timely, adequate notice of the Data Breach’s occurrence, Defendant’s conduct amounts to negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state statutes, the suit contends. The Defendant is a leading producer of fresh, frozen and canned wild Alaska seafood, operating 10 processing plants in all major seafood-producing areas of the state.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kaleigh N. Boyd, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, Washington 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 E-mail: kboyd@tousley.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 879-8200 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com ONTRAK INC: Dick Appeals Remain Pending in 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------ On March 3, 2021, a purported securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, entitled Farhar v. Ontrak, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01987. On March 19, 2021, another similar lawsuit was filed in the same court, entitled Yildrim v. Ontrak, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-02460. On July 14, 2021, the Court consolidated the two actions under the Farhar case, appointed Ibinabo Dick as lead plaintiff, and the Rosen Law Firm as lead counsel. On August 13, 2021, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. In the Consolidated Amended Complaint, lead plaintiff, purportedly on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Ontrak Inc. securities from August 5, 2020 through February 26, 2021, alleged that the Company and Terren S. Peizer, Brandon H. LaVerne and Curtis Medeiros, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b), 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder, by intentionally or recklessly making false and misleading statements and omissions in various press releases, SEC filings and conference calls with investors on August 5, 2020 and November 5, 2020. Specifically, the Consolidated Amended Complaint alleged that the Company was inappropriately billing its largest customer, Aetna, causing Aetna to, in May 2020, shut off its data feed to Ontrak, and, in July 2020, require Ontrak to complete a Corrective Action Plan. Lead plaintiff alleged that defendants: (1) misrepresented to investors that the data feed was shut off in July 2020, and that it was part of Aetna’s standard compliance review of all of its vendors; (2) failed to disclose to investors that Aetna had issued the CAP; and (3) failed to disclose to investors that Ontrak was engaging in inappropriate billing practices. Lead plaintiff sought certification of a class and monetary damages in an indeterminate amount. On September 13, 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78u-4, et seq. The motion was taken under submission, with no oral argument. Prior to any ruling being issued on the motion to dismiss, on March 29, 2023, lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint (1) added Jonathan Mayhew as a defendant; (2) expanded the purported class period to August 5, 2020 through August 19, 2021; and (3) included allegations that the defendants additionally intentionally or recklessly made false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's relationship with its then-second largest customer, Cigna, in various press releases, SEC filings and conference calls with investors on May 6, 2021 and August 5, 2021. On May 15, 2023, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On February 2, 2024, the Court issued an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss in its entirety and providing lead plaintiff leave to amend. On March 5, 2024, lead plaintiff filed its Third Amended Complaint, which asserted the same claims, against the same defendants for the same purported class period. On March 19, 2024, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. On September 3, 2024, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint and dismissed the Third Amended Complaint with prejudice. On September 30, 2024, lead plaintiff filed his Notice of Appeal. On January 31, 2025, lead plaintiff filed his Opening Brief; the Company filed its Answering Brief on April 2, 2025. The Company believes that the allegations lack merit and intends to defend against any appeal vigorously, the Company said in a Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. ONTRAK INC: Intends to Defend "Braun" Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Ontrak Inc. offered and sold shares of its Series A Preferred Stock in offerings registered under the Securities Act. In February 2022, a purported securities class action was filed in the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County, entitled Braun v. Ontrak, Inc., et al., Case No. 22STCV07174, on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of the Company's Series A Preferred Stock in such offerings. The action was brought against the Company, its officers and directors, and the investment banking firms that acted as underwriters for the offerings. The plaintiff asserted causes of actions alleging that the Company violated the federal securities laws in connection with the offerings based upon allegations that statements made regarding the growth of its customer base and expansion of its program with health plan customers were false or misleading. The Company believes that the allegations of falsity lack merit and that it has meritorious defenses, and it intends to defend against the action vigorously, according to a Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. ORACLE HEALTH: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Blount Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- REBECCA BLOUNT and CHERYL MCCULLEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ORACLE HEALTH, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00259-BP (W.D. Mo., April 11, 2025) alleges that Oracle failed to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' personally identifiable information and protected health information from cybercriminals. The Defendant is a healthcare software-as-a-service (SaaS) company offering electronic health record (EHR) and business operations systems to hospitals and healthcare organizations. Accordingly, in the course of doing business, Defendant is entrusted with the Private Information that patients provide to Defendant's customers. Oracle's security failures led to cyberattack that compromised its legacy Cerner data migration servers that store patient data for multiple US healthcare organizations and hospitals, says the suit. According to a notice sent to Oracle customers, on or about February 20, 2025, Oracle Health learned that cybercriminals had gained access to patient information that was "on an old legacy Cerner server that was not yet migrated to the Oracle Cloud." Ms. Blount is an individual citizen of the State of Arizona residing in Pinal County, Arizona. Ms. McCulley resides in Lassen County, California. Oracle, formerly known as Cerner Corporation, is a US-based, multinational provider of various health information technology platforms and services, including EHR systems and software.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon M. Wise, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP Brandon M. Wise - MO Bar # 67242 One US Bank Plaza, Suite 1950 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 833-4825 E-mail: bwise@peifferwolf.com - and - David S. Almeida, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (312) 576-3024 E-mail: david@almeidalawgroup.com ORACLE HEALTH: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Moore Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- GEOFFREY MOORE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ORACLE HEALTH, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00281-BP (W.D. Mo., April 18, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and Class Members' personally identifiable information and protected health information from cybercriminals. According to a notice sent to impacted Oracle customers, on or about Feb. 20, 2025, Oracle learned that cybercriminals had gained access to patient information that was "on an old legacy Cerner server that was not yet migrated to the Oracle Cloud." Oracle revealed that a cybercriminal used compromised customer credentials to breach the server sometime after January 22, 2025, and copied data including patient Private Information, to a remote server (the Data Breach). Furthermore, impacted hospitals are now being extorted by a threat actor named "Andrew," who is demanding millions of dollars in cryptocurrency not to leak or sell the stolen data and who has created websites about the Data Breach to pressure the hospitals into paying the ransom. The massive Data Breach has been revealed just a few days after it became known that another cybercriminal known as "rose87168" has accessed Oracle Cloud's "federated login infrastructure" and allegedly stolen approximately 6 million sensitive records potentially affecting more than 140,000 Oracle Cloud tenants worldwide, asserts the suit. Oracle, formerly known as Cerner Corporation, is a healthcare software-as-a-service (SaaS) company offering electronic health record (EHR) and business operations systems to hospitals and healthcare organizations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon M. Wise, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE One US Bank Plaza, Suite 1950 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 833-4825 E-mail: bwise@peifferwolf.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: croman@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com PACIFIC MARITIME: Phillips Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled JASMINE PHILLIPS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION, SSA Terminals, LLC; TRAPAC, LLC; APM TERMINALS PACIFIC LLC; APS STEVEDORING, LLC; BENICIA PORT TERMINAL COMPANY; CERES MARINE TERMINALS, INC.; CRESCENT CITY MARINE WAYS & DRY DOCK CO., INC., FENIX MARINE SERVICES, LTD.; EVERPORT TERMINAL SERVICES INC.; HARBOR INDUSTRIAL SERVICES CORPORATION; INNOVATIVE TERMINAL SERVICES, INC.; INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, LLC; KINDER MORGAN BULK TERMINALS LLC; LBCT LLC; MARINE TERMINALS CORPORATION; MARINE TERMINALS CORPORATION - EAST; MATSON NAVIGATION COMPANY, INC.; METROPOLITAN STEVEDORE COMPANY; OCEAN TERMINAL SERVICES, INC.; PACIFIC CRANE MAINTENANCE COMPANY, LLC; PACIFIC RO-RO STEVEDORING, LLC; PASHA STEVEDORING & TERMINALS L.P.; PORT MAINTENANCE GROUP, INC.; TERMINAL EQUIPMENT SERVICES INC.; TOTAL TERMINALS INTERNATIONAL, LLC; TRANSPAC TERMINAL SERVICES, LLC; YUSEN TERMINALS LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC25622431, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on April 10, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-03241 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders including unfair competition, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide required meal periods, failure to provide required rest periods, failure to provide accurate itemized statements, failure to reimburse employees for required expenses, and failure to pay sick pay wages. Pacific Maritime Association is a non-profit organization based in San Francisco, California. SSA Terminals, LLC is a trucking solution company doing business in California. TraPac, LLC is a container terminal operator doing business in California. APM Terminals Pacific LLC is a container terminal operator doing business in California. APS Stevedoring, LLC is a container terminal operator doing business in California. Benicia Port Terminal Company is a container terminal operator doing business in California. Ceres Marine Terminals, Inc. is a container terminal operator doing business in California. Crescent City Marine Ways & Dry Dock Co., Inc. is a container terminal operator doing business in California. Fenix Marine Services, Ltd. is a container terminal operator doing business in California. Everport Terminal Services Inc. is a container terminal operator doing business in California. Harbor Industrial Services Corporation is a container terminal operator doing business in California. Innovative Terminal Services, Inc. is a container terminal operator doing business in California. International Transportation Service, LLC is a container terminal operator doing business in California. Kinder Morgan Bulk Terminals LLC is a container terminal operator doing business in California. LBCT LLC is a container terminal operator doing business in California. Marine Terminals Corporation is a container terminal operator doing business in California. Marine Terminals Corporation - East is a container terminal operator doing business in California. Matson Navigation Company, Inc. is a container terminal operator doing business in California. Metropolitan Stevedore Company is a container terminal operator doing business in California. Ocean Terminal Services, Inc. is a container terminal operator doing business in California. Pacific Crane Maintenance Company, LLC is a container terminal operator doing business in California. Pacific Ro-Ro Stevedoring, LLC is a container terminal operator doing business in California. Pasha Stevedoring & Terminals L.P. is a container terminal operator doing business in California. Port Maintenance Group, Inc. is a container terminal operator doing business in California. Terminal Equipment Services Inc. is a container terminal operator doing business in California. Total Terminals International, LLC is a container terminal operator doing business in California. Transpac Terminal Services, LLC is a container terminal operator doing business in California. Yusen Terminals LLC is a container terminal operator doing business in California. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Clifford D. Sethness, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 270-9600 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 Email: csethness@seyfarth.com - and - Kent M. Roger, Esq. Jesse L. Miller, Esq. Taylor D. Horn, Esq. Afshin Najafi, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 Email: kroger@seyfarth.com jmiller@seyfarth.com thorn@seyfarth.com anajafi@seyfarth.com PAYSIGN INC: Settles Yilan Securities Suit for $3.75MM ------------------------------------------------------ Paysign, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2025, that on January 4, 2024, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada preliminarily approved a settlement of a consolidated securities suit in the amount of $3,750,000. It conducted the final approval hearing and approved the settlement and, on April 18, 2024, issued an order and final judgment thereon. The company has been named as a defendant in "Yilan Shi v. Paysign, Inc. et. al.," filed on March 19, 2020. The complaint generally alleged that the company, its CEO Mark R. Newcomer and its former Chief Financial Officer Mark Attinger violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and that they violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making materially false or misleading statements, or failing to disclose material facts, regarding the company's internal control over financial reporting and its financial statements. It sought class action certification, compensatory damages, and attorney's fees and costs. On May 18, 2020, this was consolidated. The complaint was filed on behalf of a class of persons who acquired the company's common stock from March 19, 2019 through March 31, 2020, inclusive. On February 9, 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' Motion to Dismiss a consolidated case captioned "In re Paysign, Inc. Securities Litigation." On December 15, 2023, the parties agreed in principle to a proposed settlement of the Securities Class Action and Plaintiffs filed a Consented Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement. On January 4, 2024, the court preliminarily approved a settlement in the amount of $3,750,000, the entirety of which came from the Company’s directors-and-officers insurance policy, for the referenced class of purchasers, and scheduled a final approval hearing for April 17, 2024. On April 17, 2024, the Court conducted the final approval hearing and approved the settlement and, on April 18, 2024, issued an order and final judgment thereon. Paysign, Inc. is a provider of prepaid card programs, comprehensive patient affordability offerings, digital banking services and integrated payment processing designed for businesses, consumers and government institutions. PEAK OUTCOMES: Muza Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Under FLSA, NYLL ----------------------------------------------------------- Sacha Peet and Renee Muza on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated v. Peak Outcomes, LLC d/b/a Duet Care at Home Kyle Budinscak in his individual and official capacities, jointly and/or severally Lauren Gerndt, Kayla Noone, and Denise Bauer, Case No. 1:25-cv-03262 (S.D.N.Y., April 18, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, overtime, unlawfully withheld overtime premium, and statutory penalties for notice-and-recordkeeping violations for the Plaintiffs Peet and Muza all others similarly situated pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs are former hourly employees who worked at Defendants’ companion care agency until their wrongful terminations for reporting sexual harassment. The Defendant is a privately owned home care and companion provider with offices in New York County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ria Julien, Esq. Jeanne Mirer, Esq. Heather Ramirez, Esq. JULIEN MIRER & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th floor New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 231-2235 E-mail: rjulien@julienmirer.com jmirer@julienmirer.com hramirez@julienmirer.com PEPPER GATE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Henry Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- CONSTANCE HENRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Pepper Gate Footwear, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-03706 (N.D. Ill., April 7, 2025) alleges that the Cedarville failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, Alegriashoes.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, prohibiting discrimination against the blind. Because of the Defendant's denial of full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of the website, Plaintiff and the class have suffered an injury-in-fact which is concrete and particularized and actual and is a direct result of Defendant's conduct. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services -- all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals -- thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the suit. Pepper Gate Footwear provides to the public a website known as Alegriashoes.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view comfortable and stylish footwear, including boots, sandals, sneakers, heeled shoes, footbeds and socks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Reyes, Esq. Equal Access Law Group PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law PICTSWEET COMPANY: Santos Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ELEAZAR SANTOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE PICTSWEET COMPANY, EXPRESS SERVICES, INC. DBA EXPRESS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24CV00158, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Barbara to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 10, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-03181 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum and straight time wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to timely pay wages at termination, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to indemnify employees for expenditures, failure to produce requested employment records, and unfair business practices. The Pictsweet Company is a family-owned frozen vegetable business in California. Express Services, Inc., doing business as Express Professional Services, is a human resource services provider doing business in California. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher J. Archibald, Esq. Amelia Alvarez, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 1920 Main Street, Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 223-7000 Facsimile: (949) 223-7100 Email: christopher.archibald@bclplaw.com amelia.alvarez@bclplaw.com - and - Robert E. Boone III, Esq. Quincy J. Chuck, Esq. MASCHOFF BRENNAN GILMORE ISRAELSEN & MAURIEL LLP 100 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 202-1900 Facsimile: (949) 453-1104 Email: rboone@mabr.com qchuck@mabr.com PLAKOS SCRAP: Faces Perez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------- JOSE GAVINO PEREZ, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PLAKOS SCRAP PROCESSING, INC., and ESTATE OF ALEXANDER PLAGIANAKOS, individually, and ARISTOTLE PLAGIANAKOS, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02064 (E.D.N.Y., April 14, 2025) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. This is a civil action for damages and other redress based upon willful violations that Defendants committed of Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by: (i) the overtime provisions of the FLSA; (ii) the overtime provisions of the NYLL; (iii) the NYLL's requirement that employers pay their employees one hour's pay at the minimum wage rate for any day worked in which the spread of hours exceeds 10; (iv) the NYLL's requirement that employers furnish employees with a wage statement containing specific categories of accurate information on each payday; and (v) any other claim(s) that can be inferred from the facts set forth herein. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-managerial laborer from 1995 through December 2022. Plakos Scrap Processing, Inc. is a New York corporation that operates a scrap metal recycling facility in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Danielle Filacouris, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, J.R. Says --------------------------------------------------------------- J.R. and B.R., by and through their parent and guardian Stephanie Moreno, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc.; PowerSchool Group LLC; and Bain Capital, L.P., Case No. 3:25-cv-00932-BEN-MSB (S.D. Cal., April 18, 2025) alleges that PowerSchool repeatedly and systematically failed to implement reasonable, industry-standard data security practices, maintaining the Private Information under its control in a negligent and/or reckless manner. According to the complaint, unbeknownst to its customers or to millions of end users like Plaintiffs and Class members, PowerSchool failed to implement even the most basic online security protocols, including multi-factor authentication and adequate data encryption.3 4. Between December 19 and December 28, 2024, cybercriminals deliberately accessed PowerSchool's vulnerable systems and intentionally exfiltrated valuable, private, and sensitive Private Information belonging to Plaintiffs and Class members (the "Data Breach"). PowerSchool's data security measures failed again, as the company did not detect the infiltration of its systems -- or the exfiltration of data belonging to Plaintiffs and Class members -- becoming aware of the Data Breach only when the hackers responsible contacted PowerSchool to demand a ransom. PowerSchool is a leading provider of cloud-based education software. Most of PowerSchool's 18,000 customers are K-12 educators who support over 60 million students worldwide. PowerSchool's extensive range of software solutions is designed to help teachers, administrators, and school board officials manage students and staff, and communicate with minor students and parents about topics as varied as attendance, behavior problems, grades, individualized education plans, and college preparation. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. Shauna Itri, Esq. Alana K. Bevan, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road, Suite 600 Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (973) 639-9100 Facsimile: (973) 639-9393 E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com sitri@seegerweiss.com PURPLE INNOVATION: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Purple Innovation, LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-01449 (D. Minn., April 15, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.purple.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers furniture and accessories for sale including, but not limited to mattresses, bed frames, bedding, seat cushions and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Gustafson, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC Jason Gustafson (#0403297) 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com QR JOY: Faces Amiel Over Vapes' Deceptive Marketing Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- HAYLEY AMIEL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. QR JOY, INC., and QR JOY FUME, LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-60710-WPD (S.D. Fla., April 11, 2025) alleges that Defendants have marketed and advertised e-cigarettes containing nicotine, sold under the brand name of Fume, in a misleading and deceptive manner. The Plaintiff brought the action on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated who purchased Fume electronic cigarettes (vapes) during the class period The action challenges the deceptive marketing practices employed by QR Joy regarding the nicotine strength of Fume vapes. QR Joy's misleading use of "5%" nicotine labels are intentionally ambiguous and lack transparency, causing consumers to underestimate the nicotine potency of these vape products and believe that their use is unlikely to result in addiction. QR Joy deliberately targets its marketing toward young people, a group particularly vulnerable to targeted advertising. This conduct is deceptive, as individuals under the age of 21 are prohibited from purchasing e-cigarettes. Despite this legal restriction, young consumers can easily purchase the product online due to QR Joy's failure to implement meaningful age verification measures. Many young users, once exposed, become addicted to nicotine and face substantial difficulty quitting due to its highly addictive nature, asserts the suit. QR Joy is a manufacturer of retail vaping products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kim E. Richman, Esq. RICHMAN LAW & POLICY 1 Bridge Street, Suite 83 Irvington, NY 10533 Telephone: (914) 693-2018 E-mail: krichman@richmanlawpolicy.com - and - Christopher Leung, Esq. LEUNG LAW PLLC 1 Dock 72 Way, 7th Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11205 Telephone: (212) 498-8991 E-mail: chris@impact-lit.com - and - Eric S. Medina, Esq. MEDINA LAW FIRM LLC 1200 N. Federal Highway, Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33142 Telephone: (954) 859-2000 Facsimile: (888) 833-9534 E-mail: emedina@medinafirm.com RASTELLI FOODS: Lewis Sues Over Unlawful Telephonic Calls --------------------------------------------------------- Adam Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RASTELLI FOODS GROUP, LLC, Case No. CACE-25-005569 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., April 16, 2025), is brought for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations Of the Caller ID Rules, Fla. Stat. Of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA"). In direct contravention of the Caller ID Rules, however, many callers, such as Defendant, make Telephonic Sales Calls a central part of their marketing strategy, and in doing so, intentionally transmit telephone numbers to recipient's Caller ID services that are not capable of receiving telephone calls. As such, Plaintiff, brings this action alleging that Defendant violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number that was not capable of receiving phone calls when it made Telephonic Sales Calls by text message ("Text Message Sales Calls"). Specifically, Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that promoted Rastelli's ("Rastelli's Text Message Sales Calls") and violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is the regular user of a cellular telephone number that receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls. Rastelli Foods Group, LLC, is registered as a Foreign Limited Liability Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Phone: (202) 709-5744 Fax: (866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com RENT THE RUNWAY: "Sharma" Suit Remains Pending in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------ On November 14, 2022, a purported stockholder of Rent the Runway, Inc., filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of its IPO, entitled Rajat Sharma v. Rent the Runway, Inc., et al. 22-cv-6935. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by making allegedly materially misleading statements, and by omitting material facts necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading concerning, inter alia, the Company's growth at the time of the IPO. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, an award of attorneys' fees and costs and such other relief as deemed just and proper by the court. On June 8, 2023, the court appointed Delaware Public Employees' Retirement System and Denver Employees Retirement Plan as lead plaintiffs. On August 21, 2023, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of its IPO. The amended complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act by allegedly making certain false and misleading statements, and by omitting material facts necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading, concerning, among other things, the Company's growth prospects and fulfillment costs at the time of the IPO. The lawsuit seeks an award of damages, attorney's fees and costs, and such other relief as the court deems just and proper. All defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, with the motion fully briefed as of February 23, 2024. On September 25, 2024, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing the claims based on the Company's growth prospects statements but allowing certain other claims to proceed. On October 9, 2024, defendants moved for reconsideration of the September 25, 2024 order and/or for certification under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b), which motion was fully submitted as of October 30, 2024. In response to an application filed by defendants on November 19, 2024, on November 20, the Court issued an order adjourning defendants' deadline to file an answer to the amended complaint sine die. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted in the amended complaint and any liability for such claims is not currently probable and the potential loss or range of loss is not reasonably estimable, the Company said in a Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Rent the Runway, Inc. is a shared designer closet with thousands of styles by hundreds of brand partners that gives customers access to its "unlimited closet" through its subscription offering or the ability to rent a-la-carte through its reserve offering. The company's corporate headquarters is located in Brooklyn, New York and its operational facilities are located in Secaucus, New Jersey, and Arlington, Texas. RH: Bleichmar Fonti Investigates Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces an investigation into RH (NYSE: RH) for potential violations of the federal securities laws. If you invested in RH, you are encouraged to obtain additional information by visiting https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/rh. Why is RH being Investigated? RH is a retailer and luxury lifestyle brand operating primarily in the home furnishings market that offers merchandise assortments across a number of categories, including furniture, lighting, textiles, bathware, décor, outdoor and garden, and baby, child and teen furnishings. During the relevant period, RH announced accelerated demand "despite operating in the most challenging housing market in 3 decades," and "a higher level of inventory" to be used as "downside protection." The Company also announced "additional new collections and an expanded assortment," and stated that due to its "new collections and improved in-stocks, our demand should continue to build throughout the second half of 2024." In truth, RH was facing softening demand and macroeconomic factors that would require the company to delay its new collections. The Stock Declines as the Truth is Revealed On April 2, 2025, RH reported disappointing earnings for FY 2024, citing "softening demand" in the housing market, an "uncertain macroeconomic environment," and "excess inventory of $200 to $300 million at cost." The Company also announced that it would be delaying "a higher amount of new collections . . . due to the rapidly changing economic outlook." This news caused the price of RH stock to fall nearly 40%, from $249.35 per share on April 2, 2025 to $149.39 per share on April 3, 2025. Visit website for more information: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/rh. What Can You Do? If you invested in RH you may have legal options and are encouraged to submit your information to the firm. All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any potential fees and expenses. Submit your information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/rh Or contact: Ross Shikowitz ross@bfalaw.com (212) 789-3619 Why Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP? Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP is a leading international law firm representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder litigation. It was named among the Top 5 plaintiff law firms by ISS SCAS in 2023 and its attorneys have been named Titans of the Plaintiffs' Bar by Law360 and SuperLawyers by Thompson Reuters. Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million in value from Tesla, Inc.'s Board of Directors, as well as $420 million from Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. [GN] RISE BRANDS: Anello Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Nicholas W. Anello and Alexis Motsinger, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. RISE BRANDS, INC., PINS MECHANICAL CO, LLC and PINS MECHANICAL CO - EASTON, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00402-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, April 15, 2025), is brought against Defendants, who are their employers, in order to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, unlawfully retained tips, liquidated damages, restitution, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other damages available under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (the "Ohio Wage Act"), the Ohio Pay Act ("OPPA"), and the Ohio Constitution, ("Ohio Constitution") (collectively referred to herein as the "Ohio Wage Laws'). By paying the Plaintiffs and the other Tip Credit Employees the requisite minimum wages for these Deep Cleaning Shifts, Defendants acknowledge that the work performed during these duties is worthy of minimum wage compensation- Therefore, the same duties performed during regular shifts should also be compensated at the federally and state mandated minimum wage. By failing to pay the Plaintiffs and the other Tip Credit Employees minimum wage for the time spent performing cleaning tasks during opening and closing, Defendants willfully engaged in illegal pay practices in violation of the FLSA and applicable state wage laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as bartenders. Rise Brands, Inc. is a domestic for-profit limited liability company registered and is doing business in the State of Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Anna R. Caplan, Esq. BARLAN MEILLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Phone: (614) 221-4221 Fax 614-744-2300 Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com acaplan@barkanmeizlish.com ROBLOX CORP: Collects Children's Personal Info, Garcia Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL GARCIA, SALENA GARCIA, AND R.G., a minor by and through her guardians Michael Garcia and Salena Garcia, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, Case No. 2:25-cv-03476 (C.D. Cal., April 18, 2025) is a class action suit on behalf of a nationwide class of Roblox users to remedy systemic privacy violations by Roblox in violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Stored Communications Act as well as enjoins Roblox's ongoing collection of children's personal information in violation of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. Accordingly, unbeknownst to these users (or their parents), Roblox has been surreptitiously intercepting their electronic communications and harvesting detailed personal data through covert tracking code embedded in its website and apps. The data surveillance begins the moment a user visits or launches Roblox, even before account login or consent, and continues across platforms (web, iOS, Android, macOS, Windows) via persistent identifiers and fingerprinting techniques, says the suit. Roblox operates a massively popular online gaming platform frequented by millions of users—including a large percentage of children under 18.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Morgan D. Ross, Esq. Robert B. Salgado, Esq. COUNTERPOINT LEGAL 600 B Street, Ste 1550 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 780-3303 Facsimile: (619) 344-0332 E-mail: morgan@counterpointfirm.com rsalgado@counterpointfirm.com RODL MANAGEMENT: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Fuchs Says ---------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS FUCHS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. RODL MANAGEMENT, INC. D/B/A RÖDL & PARTNER, Case No. 1:25-cv-01980-MLB (N.D. Ga., April 11, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its clients' customers and employees. As part of its work, Defendant receives information from its clients in its normal course of business, including Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information -- which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that the Defendant would protect it against disclosure -- was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. The Defendant collected and maintained certain personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and the putative Class Members, who are (or were) customers and/or employees at Defendant's clients. The PII compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff's and Class Members' full names, dates of birth, financial account information, and Social Security numbers, says the suit. The Defendant is a professional services firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 ROYAL CUSTOM: Fails to Provide 60 Days' Notice Under WARN Act ------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS DE ALVA GAMINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ROYAL CUSTOM DESIGNS, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-00854 (C.D. Cal., April 7, 2025) is a class action complaint brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and the California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the other similarly situated persons, against Royal Custom, the employer for purposes of the WARN Acts. The Defendant operates a facility located at 13951 Monte Vista Ave, Chino, California ("Facility"), where Plaintiff and the putative class worked. On or within 90 days of Feb. 16, 2025, the Defendant made a mass layoff by, unilaterally and without notice, permanently terminating over 142 employees at the Facility, without 60 days' advance written notice to employees, including Plaintiff, as required by the WARN Acts, says the suit. Accordingly, on Feb. 7, 2025, the Defendant informed the affected employees that they would be terminated on or around February 22, 2025.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vess A. Miller, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 vmiller@cohenmalad.com - and - Carly M. Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORELLI, PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (972) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: carly@straussborellli.com RUGSUSA LLC: Faces Preciado Class Suit Over Fake Sales ------------------------------------------------------ Evelin Preciado, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RugsUSA, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01243 (D. Colo., April 18, 2025) alleges that RugsUSA uses fake sales despite knowing that this is illegal and misleading. According to the complaint, RugsUSA was already sued for using fake sales in other states. It settled those cases, but continued using fake sales. Today, RugsUSA continues to use illegal fake sales. It continues to mislead consumers into believing that they are getting a sale price -- when in fact consumers are paying full price. RugsUSA sells and markets rugs and home accessory products online through the RugsUSA brand and website, www.rugsusa.com. It sells its products using fake sales, and has used fake sales for years. Consumers buy RugsUSA products believing that they are getting a discount, when in fact they are not, asserts the suit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent Boos, Esq. KING & SIEGEL LLP 4793 Tantra Dr. Boulder, CO 80305 Telephone: (909) 287-4641 E-mail: brent@kingsiegel.com - and - Christin Cho, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: christin@dovel.com simon@dovel.com - and - Neal Deckant, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, Floor 32 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 E-mail: deckant@bursor.com SALIM NATHOO: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Genesee Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Salim Nathoo. The case is captioned as Genesee County Employees Retirement System, et al. v. Salim Nathoo, et al., Case No. 2025-0346-BWD (Del. Ch., April 2, 2025). The case is assigned to the Hon. Bonnie W. David. The nature of suit states Breach of Fiduciary Duties.[BN] Petitioner Alpine Partners (BVI), L.P. is represented by: Elizabeth A. Sloan, Esq. Telephone: (302) 252-4432 Facsimile: (215) 864-8999 - and - Alan Cardenas-Moreno, Esq. Telephone: (302) 252-4432 Facsimile: (215) 864-8999 Petitioner Quadre Investments, L.P. is represented by: Mary Thomas, Esq. Telephone: (302) 647-1203 Petitioner Think India Opportunities Master Fund LP; TIMF LP; and Think Investments LP are represented by: Andrew Blumberg, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP-WILMINGTON 500 Delaware Ave Ste 901 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 364-3603 E-mail: Andrew.Blumberg@blbglaw.com Respondent Thoughtworks Holding, Inc., is represented by: Rudolf Koch, Esq. Telephone: (302) 651-7700 Facsimile: (302) 651-7701 - and - Matthew W. Murphy. Esq. Telephone: (302) 651-7700 Facsimile: (302) 651-7701 - and - John M Otoole, Esq. Telephone: (302) 651-7700 Facsimile: (302) 651-7701 SCOUT COFFEE: Stracener Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Baristas ------------------------------------------------------------ HANNA STRACENER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCOUT COFFEE HOUSE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00256-FJG (W.D. Mo., April 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for wrongfully withheld tips and failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Missouri's Minimum Wage Law, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a barista or server between August 2022 and December 2024. Scout Coffee House, LLC is a coffee shop operator, located in Blue Springs, Missouri and Grain Valley, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Garrett M. Hodes, Esq. HODES LAW FIRM, LLC 6 Victory Lane, Suite 6 Liberty, MO 64068 Telephone: (816) 222-4338 Facsimile: (816) 931-1718 Email: garrett@hodeslawfirm.com SHENZHEN SMOORE: Conspires to Fix Vapes' Prices, Redbud Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- REDBUD ROOTS INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHENZHEN SMOORE TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD.; JUPITER RESEARCH LLC; GREENLANE HOLDINGS, LLC; 3WIN CORP.; and CB SOLUTIONS d/b/a CANNA BRAND SOLUTIONS, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-03221 (N.D. Cal., April 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants entered into a continuing horizontal contract, combination and conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade and commerce by artificially reducing or eliminating competition for the pricing of closed cannabis oil vaporizer systems and components ("Vapes") directly sold to purchasers in the United States and its territories. Specifically, Shenzhen Smoore Technology Co. ("Smoore") and each of its authorized distributors entered into written and signed agreements to (a) not charge their customers below minimum prices agreed to by all of the Defendants and (b) not compete for other Defendants' (including Smoore's) customers. As a result of the Defendants' conduct, the Plaintiff and the Class paid more for Smoore's Vapes than they would have absent the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct. Redbud Roots Inc. is a cannabis producer, with its principal place of business in Buchanan, Michigan. Shenzhen Smoore Technology Co. Ltd. is a producer of closed cannabis oil vaporizer systems and components based in China. Jupiter Research LLC is a distributor based in Arizona. Greenlane Holdings, LLC is a distributor based in Florida. 3Win Corp. is a distributor doing business in Arizona. CB Solutions, doing business as Canna Brand Solutions, is a distributor based in Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 580 California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94101 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 Facsimile: (415) 358-4980 Email: clebsock@hausfeld.com - and - Nathaniel C. Giddings, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1200 17th Street NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Facsimile: (202) 540-7201 Email: ngiddings@hausfeld.com - and - Joshua H. Grabar, Esq. Julia C. Varano, Esq. Grabar Law Office One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 507-6085 Facsimile: (267) 507-6048 Email: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com jvarano@grabarlaw.com SILVER STATE: Quinata EFTA Suit Removed to D. Nevada ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled AGATHA CRUZ QUINATA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SILVER STATE SCHOOLS CREDIT UNION, Case No. A-23-871844-B, was removed from the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County, Nevada, to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on April 9, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the District of Nevada assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00640 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendant for alleged violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. Silver State Schools Credit Union is a state-chartered financial cooperative in Nevada. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Marisa A. Pocci, Esq. LITCHFIELD CAVO LLP 3993 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89169 Telephone: (702) 949-3100 Facsimile: (702) 916-1776 Email: Pocci@litchfieldcavo.com - and - Bryan E. Curry, Esq. Scott R. Sinson, Esq. Jennifer N. Abdo, Esq. LITCHFIELD CAVO LLP 303 W. Madison St., Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 781-6677 Facsimile: (312) 781-6630 Email: Curry@LitchfieldCavo.com Sinson@LitchfieldCavo.com Abdo@LitchfieldCavo.com SKOPOS FINANCIAL: Phillipson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Skopos Financial, LLC. The case is styled as Alexander Phillipson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Skopos Financial, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02105-WMR (N.D. Ga., April 16, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Skopos Financial, LLC -- https://www.skoposfinancial.com/ -- provides consumer finance services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 26 Grand Georgian Court Cartersville, GA 30121 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com SOUTHEAST SERIES: Bravo Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI ------------------------------------------------------------- Alicia Bravo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Southeast Series of Lockton Companies, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00270-WBG (W.D. Mo., April 15, 2025), is brought arising out of the recent data breach ("Data Breach") involving Defendant and its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including Plaintiff's and Class Members' names and dates of birth (collectively defined herein as "PII") and health insurance information, which is protected health information ("PHI", and collectively with PII, "Private Information") as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"). Current and former employees at Defendant's clients are required to entrust Defendant with sensitive, non-public Private Information, without which Defendant could not perform its regular business activities, in order to obtain employment or certain employment benefits at Defendant's clients. Defendant retains this information for at least many years and even after the employee-employer relationship has ended. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members Private Information––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect its clients' employees' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk of identity theft and fraud to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes. In breaching its duties to properly safeguard its clients' employees' Private Information and give employees timely, adequate notice of the Data Breach's occurrence, Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state statutes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees of the 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. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 701 Market Street, Suite 1510 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 390-6750 Email: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com cgarvey@stranchlaw.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: 615/254-8801 Facsimile: 615/255-5419 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com - and - Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN, P.C. 2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 322-8880 Fax: (205) 328-2711 Email: jonm@pittmandutton.com SOUTHEAST SERIES: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Ward Says ------------------------------------------------------------- BRITTANY WARD and DEVIN CARRASQUILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SOUTHEAST SERIES OF LOCKTON COMPANIES, LLC and DOLLAR TREE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00255-RK (W.D. Mo., April 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence/negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, declaratory judgment, and negligent selection, hiring, or retention. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals stored within Southeast Series of Lockton Companies' computer systems following a data breach on or around November 20, 2024. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Southeast Series of Lockton Companies, LLC is an insurance brokerage firm, headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri. Dollar Tree, Inc. is a discount store company, with its principal place of business located in Chesapeake, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Maureen M. Brady, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 888-8010 Facsimile: (816) 332-6295 Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.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 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com SOUTHEAST SERIES: Nolley Alleges Unauthorized Personal Info Access ------------------------------------------------------------------ STACEY NOLLEY & DANNY NGUYEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SOUTHEAST SERIES OF LOCKTON COMPANIES, LLC and DOLLAR TREE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00254-FJG (W.D. Mo., April 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, breach of fiduciary duty, invasion of privacy/intrusion upon seclusion, unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals stored within Southeast Series of Lockton Companies' computer systems following a data breach on or around November 20, 2024. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Southeast Series of Lockton Companies, LLC is an insurance brokerage firm, headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri. Dollar Tree, Inc. is a discount store company, with its principal place of business located in Chesapeake, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John F. Garvey, Esq. Colleen Garvey, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 701 Market Street, Suite 1510 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 390-6750 Email: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com cgarvey@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 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose, Ste. 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com SPOONWOOD INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hampton Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- PHYLLIS HAMPTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Spoonwood, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-03734 (N.D. Ill., April 7, 2025) alleges that the Cedarville failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, woodspoon.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, prohibiting discrimination against the blind. Because of the Defendant's denial of full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of the website, Plaintiff and the class have suffered an injury-in-fact which is concrete and particularized and actual and is a direct result of Defendant's conduct. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services -- all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals -- thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the suit. Spoonwood provides to the public a website known as Woodspoon.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a variety of handcrafted cherry wood products, including spoons, spatulas, tongs, salad servers, ladles, spreaders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Reyes, Esq. Equal Access Law Group PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law SSP AMERICA: Cabral Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Heriberto Cabral, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. SSP AMERICA LGA, LLC, and SSP AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-02118 (S.D.N.Y, April 16, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), alleges that she is entitled to recover from Defendants, jointly and severally: compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory minimum wage; unpaid wages for overtime work for which she did not receive overtime premium pay as required by law; and liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA, because the Defendants' violations were willful lacked a good faith basis. The Plaintiff was working 60 hours per week for Defendants during that period of his employment by Defendants. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff for all of the hours he worked during his employment by Defendants. Instead, Plaintiff received approximately the same weekly salary every week, for only 40 hours or fewer, regardless of the exact number of hours Plaintiff worked in a given week. The Plaintiff never received any overtime pay for any of the hours he worked in excess of forty hours each week. The Defendants frequently failed to pay Plaintiff for work he performed before he clocked in, and for work Plaintiff performed after he clocked out, work he had been instructed to do by his supervisor, Rigo Simon. As a result of his not being paid for all of hours worked during his employment by Defendants, Plaintiff's effective rate of pay was sometimes below the statutory minimum wage in effect at relevant times, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed at Saba Live Poultry from January 2021 to October 2021, and again from March 2023 to September 2024. SSP AMERICA, INC. is a California corporation registered as a foreign corporation in the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Samuel, Esq. THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM 1441 Broadway, Suite 6085 New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 563-9884 Email: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com STEVENS TRUCKING: Faces Sanders Wage-and-Hour Suit in W.D. Okla. ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY SANDERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STEVENS TRUCKING COMPANY, KWS LEASING LLC, and KENNEY STEVENS, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-00410-SLP (W.D. Okla., April 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to reimburse business expenses in violation of Oklahoma Wage Payment Statute, excessive wage deductions in violation of Truth-in-Leasing Regulations, and failure to pay proper minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a delivery driver from approximately February 2023 and November 2024. Stevens Trucking Company is a trucking company, headquartered in El Reno, Oklahoma. KWS Leasing LLC is a rental and leasing services provider, headquartered in El Reno, Oklahoma. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew N. Herrmann, Esq. Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq. HERRMANN LAW, PLLC 801 Cherry St., Suite 2365 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 479-9229 Email: drew@herrmannlaw.com pamela@herrmannlaw.com - and - Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Olena Savytska, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Ste. 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com osavytska@llrlaw.com T-MOBILE USA: Castillo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against T-Moble USA, Inc. The case is styled as Aaron Castillo, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated v. T-Moble USA, Inc. dba T-Mobile, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0005489 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April 16, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." T-Mobile US, Inc. -- https://www.t-mobile.com/ -- is an American wireless network operator headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Shkodnik, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 880 E. Broadway Glendale, CA 91205-1218 Phone: 818-962-6465 Fax: 818-962-6469 Email: r.shkodnik@d.law TESLA INC: Quebec High Court OKs Paint Defects' Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of Quebec has authorized a class action lawsuit against Tesla to proceed, potentially opening the door for thousands of Model 3 and Model Y owners in the province to receive compensation for paint quality issues that have plagued their vehicles. The lawsuit was first filed in May 2020 by Jean-François Bellerose, a Tesla Model 3 owner from Quebec who noticed the black paint on the rocker panels of his vehicle began chipping and peeling within just six months of ownership. After raising the issue with Tesla and being told the repairs would not be covered under warranty, Bellerose paid out-of-pocket to fix the damage—nearly $5,000, according to court documents. In a ruling issued on September 13, 2023, Judge Lukasz Granosik granted authorization for the case to proceed as a class action. The approved class includes all individuals and businesses in Quebec who purchased or leased a new Tesla Model 3 or Model Y between January 1, 2018 and the date the court notice is published, and who experienced paint deterioration within the first 48 months of ownership. Now a subsequent ruling issued on April 15, 2025, which can be found at the end of this article, finally allows the case to move forward to trial, where Tesla could be ordered to reimburse owners for repair costs and pay additional damages. Specifically, the lawsuit seeks reimbursement for the cost of paint repairs or preventive measures like protective film or mud flaps. Additionally, the suit demands $500 per claimant for moral damages -- covering the stress and inconvenience caused -- as well as another $500 for Tesla's alleged failure to disclose the risk of premature paint degradation. The legal filing also alleges that Tesla was aware of the problem when the vehicles were first marketed and sold, but failed to take proactive steps to notify or compensate affected customers. The court has not yet made a ruling on the merits of these allegations, and a trial date has yet to be scheduled. While the individual compensation amounts vary, the financial implications for Tesla could be significant. According to the suit, more than 13,000 Model 3s and over 2,300 Model Ys had been sold in Quebec as of mid-2021. If Tesla is found liable, the total payout could reach into the millions. Tesla, while not admitting liability, appeared to acknowledge the issue in late 2020 by beginning to offer free mud flaps and paint protection film (PPF) kits to Canadian owners after Bellerose filed his lawsuit. The case will be heard in Montreal, with Services Concilia appointed by the court to manage the notification process and opt-out procedures for class members. Those who do not wish to participate in the lawsuit will be required to submit a formal opt-out request by a deadline to be set by the court. [GN] TEXAS WESLEYAN: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Chism Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brightstar Chism individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Texas Wesleyan University, Case No. 4:25-cv-00431-P (N.D. Tex., April 21, 2025) is a data breach class action against the Defendant for its failure to adequately secure and safeguard confidential and sensitive information held throughout the typical course of business of Plaintiff and the Class. On Oct. 6, 2023, an unauthorized actor gained access to the Defendant’s network and computer systems and obtained unauthorized access to Defendant's files (the Data Breach). Accordingly, over 1,000 individuals' information was affected by the Data Breach. The information exposed or otherwise accessed by an authorized third-party in the Data Breach included the Plaintiff's and the Class's names, address, date of birth, Social Security number, financial account number, limited medical information, passport information, and enrollment data. The Defendant learned of the Data Breach on or about October 6, 2023. After learning of the incident, Defendant conducted an investigation and engaged outside cybersecurity professionals and data privacy counsel. The Defendant, so far, has yet to inform affected individuals when it completed its investigation or when it completely learned of the extent of the Data Breach. 7. On or about January 24, 2024, Defendant notified affected individuals that their Private Information was impacted in the Data Breach, the suit says. Plaintiff Chism is a citizen of Fort Worth, Texas. He received Defendant’s Notice of Data Breach letter on or about Jan. 24, 2024 from the Defendant. Texas Wesleyan University is a private Methodist University located in Forth Worth, Texas. It was formed in 1890. In order to operate as a higher educational institution, Texas Wesleyan University obtains and maintains the Private Information, including the PHI, of Plaintiff and the Class. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. Paul D. Stickney, Esq. STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (972) 387-4040 Facsimile: (972) 387-4041 - and - Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Facsimile: (612) 336-2940 E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com THINK SMARTFINANCIAL.COM: Taylor Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sara Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Think SmartFinancial.com Insurance Agency, LLC. Case No. 8:25-cv-00264 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on April 16, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00408-SDM-CMV to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Think SmartFinancial.com Insurance Agency, LLC -- https://smartfinancial.com/ -- offers a wide range of insurance quotes, including auto, home, health, life, commercial, renters, and Medicare.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 400 NW 26th St. Miami, FL 33127 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com The Defendants are represented by: Jenna Schneider, Esq. THOMPSON HINE LLP Two Alliance Center 3560 Lenox Road NE, Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30326 Phone: (404) 541-2900 Fax: (404) 541-2905 Email: jenna.schneider@thompsonhine.com - and - Malcolm Scott Young THOMPSON HINE LLP 312 Walnut Street Suite 2000 Cincinnati, OH 45202-4024 Phone: (513) 352-6617 Fax: (513) 241-4771 Email: scott.young@thompsonhine.com - and - Zachary T Page THOMPSON HINE, LLP 3130 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Phone: (310) 998-9100 Fax: (310) 998-9109 Email: zach.page@thompsonhine.com TIRE STAFFING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Aguilar Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- OZNI OTOMAN MEMBRENO AGUILAR, an individual, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees v. TIRE STAFFING, a Wyoming corporation; NATIONAL RETAIL TRANSPORTATION, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation; LEXMONT LOGISTICS INC., a New Jersey corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, Inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-03483 (C.D. Cal., April 18, 2025) is a class action brought on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class because of the Defendants' systematic mistreatment of their employees, in violation of California's wage and hour laws. The Defendants employ over 100 employees at one distribution warehouse -- Claimant's former worksite. The Defendants required Plaintiff and Class members to work without pay for hours or partial hours in several ways, including but not limited to refusing to approve and pay for work outside the scheduled 8-hour work shifts, even though a minimum of 15 minutes was required of each employee before their shift, asserts the suit. The Defendants operate a service offering transportation of merchandise and other goods for various businesses across California. Tire Staffing hires staff for NRT and Lexmont, which operate the front-end operations of the enterprise.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Hewgill, Esq. EMPLOYEE JUSTICE LEGAL GROUP PC 1001 Wilshire Blvd 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 382-2222; Facsimile: (213) 382-2230 E-mail: jhewgill@ejlglaw.com TOTAL SAFETY: Maya Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Horacio Maya, Jr., an individual v. TOTAL SAFETY U.S., INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CV460080 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on April 17, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-03437. The Complaint alleges 8 causes of action against Defendant in connection with the core allegation (which Defendant denies) that, under California law, Plaintiff was not paid for all hours he worked. The causes of action are as follows: failure to pay minimum and straight time wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and permit rest periods; failure to timely pay wages at termination; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to indemnify employees for expenditures; and, unfair business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Sumy Kim, Esq. William H. Bohannon, Esq. O'HAGAN MEYER LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415.604.0124 Email: SKim@ohaganmeyer.com WBohannon@ohaganmeyer.com TRAVELPRO PRODUCTS: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Silvia Garcia, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. TRAVELPRO PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 25-ST-CV-06905 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 17, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-03421. The Plaintiff alleges that Travelpro "advertises fictitious prices (and corresponding phantom discounts) on products" that "allows Travelpro to fabricate a fake 'reference' price, and present the actual price as 'discounted,' when it is not." The Plaintiff further alleges that Travelpro's sales tactics "are intended to mislead customers into believing that they are getting a bargain by buying products from Travelpro on sale and at a substantial and deep discount." The Plaintiff alleges Travelpro "knows that the prices for the Product are fake and artificially inflated and intentionally uses them in its deceptive pricing scheme on its Website to increase sales and profits by misleading consumers to believe that they are buying products at a substantial discount."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ellen S. Robbins, Esq. AKERMAN LLP 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 6400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 688-9500 Facsimile: (213) 627-6342 Email: ellen.robbins@akerman.com TRUE RELIGION APPAREL: Nuri Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Tamana Nuri, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. TRUE RELIGION APPAREL, INC. and TRUE RELIGION SALES, LLC, Case No. 25-2-07593-1 SEA was removed from the King County Superior Court, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on April 16, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00690. The Plaintiff alleges that True Religion violated Washington's Consumer Protection Act ("CPA") and Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA") by sending marketing emails to Washington consumers with allegedly false and misleading subject lines. The Plaintiff seeks statutory and exemplary damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Rachael E. Clark, Esq. Patricia Brum, Esq. SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. 600 University Street, Suite 310 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206.741.1420 Email: reclark@swlaw.com pbrum@swlaw.com ULTRAHUMAN HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN BULLOCK, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. ULTRAHUMAN HEALTHCARE LLC, ALPHA WAVE GLOBAL, LP, STEADVIEW CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC, and NEXUS VENTURES MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02864 (S.D.N.Y., April 7, 2025) contends that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, www.ultrahuman.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Accordingly, the Defendants are denying blind and visually-impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Ultrahuman provides to their non-disabled customers through www.ultrahuman.com. The Defendants' denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Dos Hombres policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Mr. Bullock is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Ultrahuman.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials, employment opportunities and other programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Telephone: (917) 373-9128 E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com UNIFIED DOOR: Vanover Suit Seeks Installers' Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ SHANE VANOVER and AUSTEN ROBERTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNIFIED DOOR COMPANIES, L.L.C., and UNIFIED DOOR COMPANIES, L.L.C. D/B/A HICKLIN DOOR SERVICES, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00133-SHL-SBJ (S.D. Iowa, April 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs have been employed by the Defendants as installers. Unified Door Companies, L.L.C. is a company that provides garage door repair, installation, and maintenance, with its principal office out of Sioux City, Iowa. Unified Door Companies, L.L.C., doing business as Hicklin Door Services, is a company that provides garage door repair, installation, and maintenance, located in Des Moines, Iowa. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Emily Schott Hood, Esq. RUSH & NICHOLSON, P.L.C. P.O. Box 637 Cedar Rapids, IA 52406 Telephone (319) 363-5209 Facsimile (319) 363-6664 Email: emily@rushnicholson.com UNITED STATES: Faces Pasula Over Termination of Students' Status ---------------------------------------------------------------- MANIKANTA PASULA, LIKHITH BABU GORRELA, THANUJ KUMAR GUMMADAVELLI, HANGRUI ZHANG, and HAOYANG AN, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, BOSTON FIELD OFFICE; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, MANCHESTER SUB-FIELD OFFICE; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; TODD LYONS, Acting Director of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Case No. 1:25-cv-00156-JL-TSM (D.N.H., April 18, 2025) challenges the Defendants' termination of student status. The suit alleges that the Defendants unilaterally terminating the F-1 student status of hundreds, if not thousands, of international students and Optional Practical Training (OPT) participants throughout the United States and then reflecting that termination in the SEVIS [Student and Exchange Visitor Information System] system. As of April 10, 2025, NAFSA: Association of International Educators estimated that more than 800 international students' and scholars’ status in the SEVIS system had been terminated nationwide. This number has grown rapidly since then. Inside Higher Ed estimates that, as of April 17, 2025, over 240 colleges and universities have identified 1,480-plus international students and recent graduates who have had their legal status changed, asserts the Court. Accordingly, while the Defendants' reasons for these mass terminations of student status are unclear, what is clear is that, these terminations—across the board—flout the applicable regulations governing student status termination (see 8 C.F.R. § 214.1(d)) and the regulations governing failure to maintain student status. Plaintiffs Manikanta Pasula, Likhith Babu Gorrela, Thanuj Kumar Gummadavelli, Hangrui Zhang, Haoyang An, and the proposed class members are students affiliated with educational institutions in New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico affected by Defendants’ unilateral and unlawful termination of F-1 student status. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is the federal agency responsible for F-1 student status management and is an agency within the meaning of the APA. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the federal agency responsible for F-1 student status management and is an agency within the meaning of the APA 5 U.S.C. section 551(1).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald L. Abramson, Esq. SHAHEEN & GORDON P.A. 180 Bridge Street Manchester, NH 03104 Telephone: (603) 792-8472 E-mail: rabramson@shaheengordon.com - and - Carol Garvan, Esq. Zachary L. Heiden, Esq. Heather Zimmerman, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MAINE FOUNDATION P.O. Box 7860 Portland, Maine 04112 Telephone: (207) 619-8687 E-mail: cgarvan@aclumaine.org heiden@aclumaine.org hzimmerman@aclumaine.org - and - Lynette Labinger, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF RHODE ISLAND 128 Dorrance Street, Box 710 Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 465-9565 E-mail: LL@labingerlaw.com - and - Henry Klementowicz, Esq. SangYeob Kim, Esq. Chelsea Eddy, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE FOUNDATION 18 Low Avenue Concord, NH 03301 Telephone: (603) 227-6678 E-mail: gilles@aclu-nh.org henry@aclu-nh.org sangyeob@aclu-nh.org chelsea@aclu-nh.org - and - Fermin L. Arraiza-Navas, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION PUERTO RICO CHAPTER Union Plaza, Suite 1105 416 Avenida Ponce de Leon San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918 Telephone: (787) 753-9493 E-mail: farraiza@aclu.org UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Bishop Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- CEDRIC BISHOP, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, Case No. 1 e 1:25-cv-03001 (S.D.N.Y., April 11, 2025) contends that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://athletics.uchicago.edu, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has visited the Website on separate occasions using the JAWS screen-reader. During the Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on February 4, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a UC Short Sleeve T Shirt, from Defendant, and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping and recreational experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the Website by being unable to purchase a UC Short Sleeve T Shirt, as well as other products available online and to ascertain information relating to Defendant's: athletics, sports teams, schedule of team games, roster of team participants, game statistics, team news, purchasing admission tickets for team sporting events, viewing videos of team sporting events, website terms and conditions, and the sale of online retail goods like college and team merchandise such as T shirts, sweat shirts, hats and other apparel, as well as other type of goods, pricing, return, privacy and shipping terms. Mr. Bishop is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. The Defendant operates the UChicago online interactive Website and retail store across the United States.[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 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal VERMONT'S ORIGINAL: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Thorne Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRAULIO THORNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VERMONT'S ORIGINAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02999 (S.D.N.Y., April 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://bagbalm.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Vermont's Original, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [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 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal WALKER FOODS: Casillas Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Diego Casillas, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WALKER FOODS, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV07211 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 16, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-03345. This notice of removal is made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, 1441 and 1446, and is made on the basis of original federal subject matter jurisdiction under the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), codified in relevant part at 29 U.S.C. Section 185; and supplemental jurisdiction.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Renee N. Noy, Esq. Gian A. Ryan, Esq. George P. Albutt, Esq. WORKWISE LAW, PC 23945 Calabasas Road, Suite 200 Calabasas, CA 91302 Phone: (818) 591-6724 Facsimile: (818) 564-6900 Email: renee@workwiselaw.com gian@workwiselaw.com george@workwiselaw.com WELLBOTS INC: Rubio Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wellbots Inc. The case is styled as Abel Rubio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wellbots Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-03110 (S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Wellbots -- https://www.wellbots.com/ -- is the leading online retailer of Smart Products in the US.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 1515 NE 26th St. Fort Lauderdale, FL 33305 Phone: (813) 340-8838 Email: zane@jibraellaw.com WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Snipes Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Terry Snipes, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. WORLDWIDE FLIGHT SERVICES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; WFS EXPRESS, INC., a Delaware Corporation and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC-25-622515 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on April 17, 2025, and assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-03412-DMR. The Complaint purports to state causes of action for: failure to pay minimum and/or regular wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to furnish timely and accurate wage statements; failure to reimburse business expenses; failure to pay all wages due upon termination; and violation of California' Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: James C. Fessenden, Esq. Lauren M. Guggisberg, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92121 Phone: (415)597-9600 Facsimile: (415)597-9601 Email: jfessenden@fisherphillips.com lguggisberg@fisherphillips.com - and - Landon R. Schwob, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 330-4500 Facsimile: (213) 330-4501 Email: lschwob@fisherphillips.com - and - Lirit A. King, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 650 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 hone: (818) 230-4250 Facsimile: (818) 230-4251 Email: lking@fisherphillips.com WYNN MA: Fails to Send Notice of Gambling Wins, Losses, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Gregory Katopodis, Alan Casso, and Kim Joyal on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Wynn MA, LLC, d/b/a Wynn Resorts, Defendant, Case No. _________ (Mass. Super., Suffolk Cty., April 14, 2025) is a class action brought on behalf of named Plaintiffs and all persons similarly situated seeking redress for the unfair and deceptive acts and practices of the Defendant in violation of Section 9 of Chapter 93A of the Massachusetts General Laws. According to the complaint, the Defendant has willfully and knowingly refused to send Plaintiffs and other reward cardholders notice of their gambling wins and losses in a manner that satisfies its obligations under Massachusetts laws and regulations enacted pursuant thereto. As a result, those patrons -- the Class -- have never received the information they are entitled to receive and gambled after having been deprived of the ability to make informed decisions thereby causing them injury independent of the violation of the law. The injury has resulted in damage to the Plaintiffs and the Class. The Defendant's conduct has deliberately thwarted the legislative and regulatory framework that was designed to protect the patrons of Commonwealth casinos from becoming compulsive gamblers, says the suit. Wynn MA, LLC, d/b/a Wynn Resorts, is the entity that owns and operates the Encore Boston Harbor property. This subsidiary is part of the larger Wynn Resorts, Limited, a public company that develops and operates high-end hotels and casinos.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathon D. Friedmann, Esq. Eric J. Walz, Esq. Casey A. Sack, Esq. RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP 92 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 723-7700 Facsimile: (617) 227-0313 E-mail: jfriedmann@rflawyers.com ewalz@rflawyers.com csack@rflawyers.com ZENAS BIOPHARMA: Buathongsri Sues Over Securities Act Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nopphol Buathongsri, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ZENAS BIOPHARMA, INC. LEON O. MOULDER, JR., JENNIFER FOX, PATRICIA ALLEN, JAMES BOYLAN, PATRICK ENRIGHT, TOMAS KISELAK, HONGBU LU, PH.D, JAKE NUNN, JOHN ORLOFF, M.D., TING XIAO, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, JEFFERIES LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC., GUGGENHEIM SECURITIES, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-10988 (D. Mass., April 16, 2025), is brought as a securities class action on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Zenas BioPharma securities pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with Zenas BioPharma's September 2024 initial public offering (the "IPO" or "Offering") and suffered compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"). On September 13, 2024, Defendants held the IPO, offering 13,235,294 million shares to the investing public at $17.00 per share By the commencement of this action, Zenas BioPharma's shares trade below its IPO price. As a result, investors were damaged. On August 22, 2024, Zenas BioPharma filed with the SEC a Registration Statement on Form S-1, which in combination with a subsequent amendment on Form S-1/A, and which was declared effective by the SEC on September 12, 2024, would be used for the IPO. On September 13, 2024, Zenas BioPharma filed with the SEC its final prospectus for the IPO on Form 424B4 (the "Prospectus"), which forms part of the Registration Statement. In the IPO, Zenas BioPharma sold 13,235,294 shares at $17.00 per share. The Registration Statement was negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material facts or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading, and was not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing its preparation. The statement was materially false and/or misleading because it misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operational and financial results. Specifically, the Registration Statement contained false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Zenas BioPharma materially overstated the amount of time that it would be able to fund its operations using existing cash and expected net proceeds from the IPO; and (2) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times and negligently prepared. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Company's securities pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO and was damaged thereby. Zenas BioPharma purports to be a "clinical stage global biopharmaceutical company committed to being a leader in the development and commercialization of transformative immunology-based therapies for patients in need."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Baker, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 101 Greenwood Ave., Suite 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Phone: (215) 600-2817 Fax: (212) 202-3827 - and - Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com philkim@rosenlegal.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***