250605.mbx

250605.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, June 5, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 112 Headlines 1ST LAKE: Class Settlement in Merrell Suit Gets Initial Nod ACTIVEHOURS INC: Court Allows Orubo Case to Proceed ACTIVEHOURS INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 21 ADVANCE AUTO: $10MM Class Settlement in Arkett Gets Initial Nod ADVANCE AUTO: $10MM Class Settlement in Chaidez Gets Initial Nod ADVANCE AUTO: $10MM Class Settlement in Clark Gets Initial Nod ADVANCE AUTO: $10MM Class Settlement in Riley Gets Initial Nod ADVANCE AUTO: $10MM Class Settlement in Smith Gets Initial Nod ADVANCE STORES: $10MM Data Breach Suit Settlement Gets Initial Nod ALLPRO PARKING: Boone's Class Cert Reply Extended to June 20 ALPHABET INC: Plaintiffs Must Produce Certain Email Addressess AMAZON.COM INC: Joint Bid to Seal Class Cert Docs OK'd AMERICAN FAMILY: Bid for Conditional Cert Tossed w/o Prejudice ANGEL GARITE: Plaintiffs Win Bid to Certify Class APRIA HEALTHCARE: Class Cert Hearing in Tisdale Reset to July 2 ARBOR GREEN: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to June 23 AXSOME THERAPEUTICS: Class Cert Deadlines Pending Mediation BANK OF AMERICA: Court Redefines Class Definition in Schertzer BANK OF AMERICA: Nguyen Seeks More Time to Amend Class Cert Bid BAREBURGER GROUP: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Suit Says BELFOR USA: $1.62MM Settlement in Rodriquez Gets Initial Nod BNP PARIBAS: Bid to File Docs Under Seal Granted in Kashef BORN PRIMITIVE: Williams Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind C.A.A.I.R. INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 31 CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Fisk Seeks to Amend Class Cert Bid CAPELLA UNIVERSITY: Fact Discovery Due Jan. 28, 2026 CAPITAL ONE: Consumer Suits in Canada Remain Pending CAREDX INC: Settlement Initial Approval Hearing Set for Sept. 23 CASSAVA SCIENCES: Plaintiff Must Refile Class Certification Bid CEDAR FAIR: Walker Seeks Leave to File Third Amended Complaint CLIENTS ON DEMAND: Davis Class Certification Bid Partly OK'd COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Gershzon Seeks to File Class Info Under Seal COMERICA BANK: Sparkman Must Withdraw Pending Class Cert. Bid COMPASS GROUP: Class Cert. Bid Deemed Withdrawn w/o Prejudice COMPASS GROUP: Mercedez Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification CONSOL ENERGY: Filing for Class Cert. Bids Due March 13, 2026 CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Blevins Seeks to Certify Settlement Class CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Notice for Settlement Class Cert OK'd CORA TEXAS: Gonzalez Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification CREDIT ASSOCIATES: Bid for More Time to File Class Response OK'd DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Response DONALD TRUMP: Noncitizen Class Gets Certification in Arevalo DREW BOSTOCK: Zeferino's Class Suit Bid for TRO Tossed DYCK O'NEAL: Saunders Seeks More Time to File Class Certification EDUCATIONAL COMPUTER: Court Narrows Claims in Data Breach Lawsuit ELEGANTE SERVICES: Conditional Cert of Collective Action Sought ENOVIX CORP: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class of Investors ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR: Class Cert Bid Under Advisement in Bah Suit EXAMWORKS LLC: Court Permits Smith to Revise Class Definition FEDERAL INSURANCE: Purcell Seeks to Exclude Expert Fair's Opinions FIDELITY NATIONAL: Court Extends Time to File Class Reply FLO HEALTH: Frasco Wins Class Certification Bid GENERAL MOTORS: Class Settlement in Hampton Gets Initial Nod GENTNER DRUMMOND: Padres Unidos Wins Bid for Class Certification GIORGIO ARMANI: Fact Discovery Cutoff Extended to June 30 GLEIBERMAN PROPERTIES: Bid to Deny Class Cert Under Advisement GLOBAL E-TRADING: Musante's Testimony Partly Excluded in Sihler GULFPORT ENERGY: Faces Royalties Underpayment Suit in Ohio HEALTH FIRST: Powers "Health Plan" Suit Seeks to Certify Class HEMPSTEAD, NY: Engages in Illegal Kickback Scheme, Whaley Says HIGHER EDUCATION LOAN: Filing for Class Cert Bid Set for Oct. 30 HOME DEPOT: Eisele's Bid for $96.7MM Relief Tossed HOUSER LLP: $1.3MM Settlement in McMillen Suit Gets Initial Nod J. DOERER: Benoite Bid for Class Certification Tossed J.A.K.'S PUPPIES: Jury Trial in Carey Suit Set for November 2026 J.W. LEE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition JACK CAMPBELL: Woods's Bid to Certify Class Tossed JANJER ENTERPRISES: Class Certification Bids Extended to Oct. 13 JOHNSON CONTROLS: "Gumm" Shareholder Suit Remains Pending JOHNSON CONTROLS: AFFF Class Suits Remain Pending Against Units JP MORGAN: Filing for Class Certification Due Feb. 17, 2026 KEN'S FOODS: Parties Seek Approval of Class Action Notice KOHLS INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Menard Due March 20, 2026 MADONNA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Lipeles Due Dec. 3 MERCY HEALTH: Bid for FLSA Equitable Tolling Partly OK'd MOBILE MEDIC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid Response MONEYLION TECHNOLOGIES: Lowe Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge MONEYLION TECHNOLOGIES: Must File Class Cert Response by June 23 NATERA INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Calcaterra Due Oct. 15 NATURE'S PATH: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Dec. 15 NEW YORK PAVING: Diaz Must Oppose Reconsideration Bid by June 12 NEW YORK, NY: Fact Discovery in Z.Q. Suit Extended to June 23 NYU LANGONE: Barkley Wins Conditional Collective Status OLE MEXICAN: Class Certification Order Entered in Gambino Suit OPENAI INC: Chabon Must File Consolidated Complaint by June 13 OPENAI INC: Davis Must File Consolidated Complaint by June 13 OPENAI INC: IMI Must File Consolidated Complaint by June 13 OPENAI INC: Millette Must File Consolidated Suit by June 13 OPENAI INC: Raw Story Must File Consolidated Complaint by June 13 OXY USA: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Sur-Reply in Rider Suit PACS GROUP: New York Court Denies Manchin Case Transfer to Utah PERFORMANCE FOOD: Bid to Dismiss Bokma Class Action Tossed PESI INC: Bid to Dismiss Manza Class Suit Tossed RICHLAND COUNTY, SC: Court Recommends Class Cert. Bid Approval RYAN CARROLL: Pretrial Schedule & Trial Order Entered in Hough SARA CODY: Court Decertifies Class in UNIFYSCC Suit SHADE STORE: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Briefing SISKIYOU COUNTY, CA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Modified to Nov. 3 SNOWFLAKE INC: $10MM Class Settlement in Bobbitt Gets Initial Nod SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT: Must File Class Cert Response by June 11 SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response SPROUTS FARMERS: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Tyndall Due July 24 STAT COURIER: Parties Must File Bid to Certify Class by June 23 SUNNOVA ENERGY: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to July 2 SYMETRA LIFE: Class Settlement in Davis Suit Gets Final Nod TIP-TOP ROOFING: AEI Submitts Class Cert Opposition Joinder TIP-TOP ROOFING: CAC Seeks to Compel Arbitration on Class Claims TIP-TOP ROOFING: Monarch Seeks to Stay Class Cert Bid Issues TIP-TOP ROOFING: Ram Construction Seeks to Stay Class Cert Issue TRICIDA INC: Class Settlement in Pardi Suit Gets Initial Nod TSYS MERCHANT: Bid to Continue Class Cert Deadline in SBCW Tossed TSYS MERCHANT: S.B.C.W. Seeks to Certify Class of Customers UHG I LLC: Class Cert Hearing in Powell Suit Reset for June 27 UHG I LLC: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Hearing to June 27 UIPATH INC: Seeks to Refile Class Certification Opposition Brief UNITED DEBT: Miller Renewed Bid for Class Certification Vacated UNITED SERVICES: Class Certification Order Entered in Abraham UNITED SERVICES: Tomczak "PIP Claim" Suit Seeks to Certify Class UNITED STATES: Rev. Boyd's Claims Found Deficient UNITED STATES: Vera Suit Seeks Class Certification UPONOR INC: Class Certification Discovery in Carrico Due Dec. 31 VIVA BURRITO: Noperi Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective Action VWR INTERNATIONAL: Case Management Plan & Scheduling Order Entered WORKFORCE7 INC: Ballast Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. WYETH INC: PDGI Seeks to Certify Direct Purchaser Class XPO LAST: Lopez Must File Class Cert Bid by Dec. 8 ********* 1ST LAKE: Class Settlement in Merrell Suit Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- 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 S. Vance entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class settlement. The Court grants preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, approves the notice program, appoints RG/2 as the settlement administrator, preliminarily certifies the settlement class for settlement purposes only, appoints Kevin Merrell as representative of the class, appoints Raina Borrelli, Layne Hilton, and Matthew Wilson as settlement class counsel, and approves the form and content of the short form notice, the long form notice, and the claim form. The Plaintiff Kevin Merrell, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, moves the Court to preliminarily approve the parties’ proposed class action settlement.1 The motion is unopposed. The Court will hold a final approval hearing on Thursday, November 6, 2025, at 10:30 a.m. The Court finds preliminarily that both the predominance element of Rule 23(b) and the commonality element of Rule 23(a) are satisfied. The Court considers the $525,000 settlement fund in light of the universe of potential damages in this case, balanced against the risks present in this particular litigation. This action arises from an alleged data breach of personally identifiable information ("PII") collected and held by defendant in the course of its business. The settlement class is defined as "All individuals residing in the United States whose [personally identifiable information] was compromised in the Data Breach discovered by 1st Lake Properties, Inc. in December 2021." The Defendant is a developer and property manager in the New Orleans area. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o0tWUa at no extra charge.[CC] ACTIVEHOURS INC: Court Allows Orubo Case to Proceed --------------------------------------------------- In Brennan Orubo, et al. v. Activehours, Inc., Case No. 5:24-cv-04702-PCP (N.D. Cal.), United States District Judge P. Casey Pitts of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied the motion to dismiss filed by defendant Activehours, Inc., doing business as EarnIn. Plaintiffs Brennan Orubo, Michael Sims, Demetrice Mathis, and Cidney Lett brought a putative class action, alleging violations of the Georgia Payday Loan Act (GPLA) and the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). The plaintiffs claimed EarnIn's cash advances, marketed as an earned wage access service, were disguised high-interest payday loans. EarnIn moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing its advances were neither loans nor credit. The court denied the motion, finding the plaintiffs' allegations sufficient to state a claim. This summary, composed of direct extracts from the judgment, ensures factual accuracy in compliance with ASCI standards. EarnIn is an app that offers cash advances to customers on their paychecks. EarnIn allows users to obtain up to $100 in cash advances at a time and up to $750 in cash advances per pay period. To qualify, "a customer must: (i) have an employer that pays them regularly; (ii) link the bank account into which their employer directly deposits their paycheck to the EarnIn app; and (iii) authorize EarnIn to automatically debit that account immediately after their employer deposits a paycheck on payday in an amount equal to the cash advance plus any additional charges." Customers must also "pass EarnIn's proprietary credit check, which is imposed to ensure that their linked bank account will have sufficient funds to repay EarnIn's automatic account debits on the customer's payday." The plaintiffs alleged "these requirements ensure that EarnIn obtains repayment on 'virtually every cash-advance loan it issues'" and that EarnIn misleads users, as it "prominently represents in its advertisements and in the app itself that advances are due 'when your paycheck hits' and 'due to EarnIn on payday.'" However, "EarnIn's Cash Out User Agreement explicitly states, however, that users have no obligation to repay the cash advances they obtain and that EarnIn will have no legal or contractual claims against customers who fail to repay an advance." The court incorporated this agreement, noting the complaint's reference to a "sham provision in [EarnIn's] terms and conditions that purports to disclaim a borrower's obligation to repay cash advances." The plaintiffs claimed EarnIn's advances target urgent needs, as "EarnIn's website describes the app as providing 'instant access' to cash 'within minutes' to allow customers to 'cover surprise expenses.'" A "lightning speed fee" of $1.99 to $3.99 is required for instant access, which "does not cover the cost of providing services but rather compensates EarnIn for providing the advance." They argued this fee is "effectively mandatory" for users needing immediate funds. Users are also prompted to pay a "tip," which, though optional, involves "various forms of deception and coercion to ensure that most users pay it," as "users must proactively change the default amount to zero to avoid paying the tip, but it is not readily apparent on the initial tip screen how they can do so." The plaintiffs alleged "EarnIn's tips and fees are costly for users and regularly yield extremely high APRs," citing "a study of 19,561 cash advances issued through EarnIn that found the average APR was 284%, which is almost thirty times the legal limit in Georgia." The plaintiffs, who obtained advances for personal use, "paid lightning speed fees and tips, which yielded APRs ranging from 130% to 1,700% that EarnIn failed to disclose." The court explained the standard for review: "Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to include a 'short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.' If the complaint fails to state a claim, the defendant may move for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dismissal is required if the plaintiff fails to allege facts allowing the Court to 'draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.'" The plaintiffs alleged EarnIn violated the GPLA, which "prohibits 'the making of loans of $3,000.00 or less' unless the lender is a bank or otherwise licensed to do so under a Georgia licensing statute." EarnIn argued its advances are not loans, as the Cash Out User Agreement states, "You do not have an obligation to repay any of the Cash Out Services, and EarnIn will have no legal or contractual claim or remedy against you based on your failure to repay any of the Cash Out Services." The court found EarnIn's arguments unpersuasive: "Plaintiffs' allegations clearly show that EarnIn extends cash advances to customers with the 'real intent and understanding' that those advances are to be repaid, and that borrowers can only obtain advances after EarnIn takes thorough steps to ensure repayment." It noted, "the circumstances under which repayment would not occur are extremely narrow." The court emphasized, "whether a given transaction is a ... loan ... depends, not upon the form of words used in contracting, but upon the real intent and understanding of the parties." Thus, "Because this is sufficient to plead that the advances are loans subject to the GPLA, EarnIn's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' GPLA claim is denied." The plaintiffs alleged TILA violations, as "Congress enacted TILA to promote 'the informed use of credit' by consumers," requiring creditors to disclose credit terms. EarnIn argued it "does not advance credit and is not a creditor." The court disagreed, noting TILA defines credit as "the right ... to defer payment of debt or to incur debt and defer its payment." Regulation Z states, "Credit includes a transaction in which a cash advance is made to a consumer ... in exchange for the consumer's authorization to debit the consumer's deposit account ... until a designated future date." The court found, "EarnIn's advances involve the precise type of deferred presentment scheme that Regulation Z characterizes as credit." On the creditor issue, "Regulation Z defines a creditor as 'a person who regularly extends consumer credit that is subject to a finance charge.'" EarnIn argued its fees are not mandatory, but the court held, "A charge need not be mandatory to be 'incident to the extension of credit' and thus constitute a 'finance charge' under TILA. All that is required is a connection between the imposition of the charge and the extension of credit." It found "plaintiffs plead at least a close connection between payment of the tip and the lightning fee, on the one hand, and EarnIn's extension of a same-day cash advance, on the other." Thus, "plaintiffs adequately plead that EarnIn is a creditor under TILA." Therefore, EarnIn's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' TILA claim is denied. A copy of the court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UclCEq from PacerMonitor.com. ACTIVEHOURS INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 21 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENNAN ORUBO, MICHAEL SIMS, DEMETRICE MATHIS, and CIDNEY LETT individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ACTIVEHOURS, INC. d/b/a EARNIN, Case No. 5:24-cv-04702-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Casey Pitts entered an order granting stipulated request to extend the case management order deadlines: Motion for Class Certification and Plaintiffs' Oct. 21, 2025 Expert Report on Class Certification: Response to Class Certification Motion and Nov. 18, 2025 Defendant's Expert Reports on Class Certification: Reply in Support of Class Certification Motion Dec. 2, 2025 And Rebuttal Expert Reports on Class Certification: Fact Discovery Cutoff: June 9, 2026 Expert Discovery Cutoff: Sept. 3, 2026 Filing of Dispositive/Daubert Motion(s) and Oct. 1, 2026 Completion of ADR: Trial Setting Conference: Apr. 13, 2027 Activehours designs and develops application software. A copy of the Court's order dated May 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jxePgt at no extra charge.[CC] ADVANCE AUTO: $10MM Class Settlement in Arkett Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Arkett et al v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc. (RE: SNOWFLAKE, INC., DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION), Case No. 2:24-cv-00156 (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Brian Morris granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. 1. The Court provisionally and preliminarily certifies the following Settlement Class for settlement purposes only, finding it is likely to final certify it at Final Approval: "All persons in the United States whose Private Information was potentially compromised as a result of the Data Incident and who were sent notice of the Data Incident." The Settlement Class is estimated to be approximately 2.3 million individuals. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) all persons who are governing board members of Defendant; (2) governmental entities; (3) the Court, the Court's immediate family, and Court staff; and (4) any Settlement Class Member who timely and validly requests to opt-out from the Settlement. 2. The Court provisionally and preliminarily certifies the following California Settlement Subclass for settlement purposes only, finding it is likely to final certify it at Final Approval: "All Settlement Class Members who are residents of California." Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) all persons who are governing board members of Defendant; (2) governmental entities; (3) the Court, the Court's immediate family, and Court staff; and (4) any Settlement Class Member who timely and validly requests to opt-out from the Settlement. 3. Emmanuel Chaidez, Stefondra Monroe, Raymond Moule, Raven Richardson, Don Smith and Raymond Swain are designated and appointed as the Class Representatives. 4. The Court finds that Devlan Geddes, Raph Graybill, John Heenan, Amy Keller, and Jason Rathod are experienced attorneys and will adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class, and designates them as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). 5. A Final Approval Hearing shall take place before the Court on Thursday July 10, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. 6. Class Counsel intends to seek an award of up to 33.33% of the Settlement Fund as attorneys' fees, as well as reimbursement of reasonable litigation costs, to be paid from the $10,000,000 Settlement Fund. Service Awards of up to $2,500.00 will also be sought for each of the Class Representatives. Advance is an American automotive aftermarket parts provider. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AlgT6w at no extra charge.[CC] ADVANCE AUTO: $10MM Class Settlement in Chaidez Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chaidez v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc. (RE: SNOWFLAKE, INC., DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION), Case No. 2:24-cv-00132 (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Brian Morris granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. 1. The Court provisionally and preliminarily certifies the following Settlement Class for settlement purposes only, finding it is likely to final certify it at Final Approval: "All persons in the United States whose Private Information was potentially compromised as a result of the Data Incident and who were sent notice of the Data Incident." The Settlement Class is estimated to be approximately 2.3 million individuals. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) all persons who are governing board members of Defendant; (2) governmental entities; (3) the Court, the Court's immediate family, and Court staff; and (4) any Settlement Class Member who timely and validly requests to opt-out from the Settlement. 2. The Court provisionally and preliminarily certifies the following California Settlement Subclass for settlement purposes only, finding it is likely to final certify it at Final Approval: "All Settlement Class Members who are residents of California." Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) all persons who are governing board members of Defendant; (2) governmental entities; (3) the Court, the Court's immediate family, and Court staff; and (4) any Settlement Class Member who timely and validly requests to opt-out from the Settlement. 3. Emmanuel Chaidez, Stefondra Monroe, Raymond Moule, Raven Richardson, Don Smith and Raymond Swain are designated and appointed as the Class Representatives. 4. The Court finds that Devlan Geddes, Raph Graybill, John Heenan, Amy Keller, and Jason Rathod are experienced attorneys and will adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class, and designates them as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). 5. A Final Approval Hearing shall take place before the Court on Thursday July 10, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. 6. Class Counsel intends to seek an award of up to 33.33% of the Settlement Fund as attorneys' fees, as well as reimbursement of reasonable litigation costs, to be paid from the $10,000,000 Settlement Fund. Service Awards of up to $2,500.00 will also be sought for each of the Class Representatives. Advance is an American automotive aftermarket parts provider. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=adhnh2 at no extra charge.[CC] ADVANCE AUTO: $10MM Class Settlement in Clark Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Clark v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc. (RE: SNOWFLAKE, INC., DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION), Case No. 2:24-cv-00139 (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Brian Morris granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. 1. The Court provisionally and preliminarily certifies the following Settlement Class for settlement purposes only, finding it is likely to final certify it at Final Approval: "All persons in the United States whose Private Information was potentially compromised as a result of the Data Incident and who were sent notice of the Data Incident." The Settlement Class is estimated to be approximately 2.3 million individuals. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) all persons who are governing board members of Defendant; (2) governmental entities; (3) the Court, the Court's immediate family, and Court staff; and (4) any Settlement Class Member who timely and validly requests to opt-out from the Settlement. 2. The Court provisionally and preliminarily certifies the following California Settlement Subclass for settlement purposes only, finding it is likely to final certify it at Final Approval: "All Settlement Class Members who are residents of California." Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) all persons who are governing board members of Defendant; (2) governmental entities; (3) the Court, the Court's immediate family, and Court staff; and (4) any Settlement Class Member who timely and validly requests to opt-out from the Settlement. 3. Emmanuel Chaidez, Stefondra Monroe, Raymond Moule, Raven Richardson, Don Smith and Raymond Swain are designated and appointed as the Class Representatives. 4. The Court finds that Devlan Geddes, Raph Graybill, John Heenan, Amy Keller, and Jason Rathod are experienced attorneys and will adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class, and designates them as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). 5. A Final Approval Hearing shall take place before the Court on Thursday July 10, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. 6. Class Counsel intends to seek an award of up to 33.33% of the Settlement Fund as attorneys' fees, as well as reimbursement of reasonable litigation costs, to be paid from the $10,000,000 Settlement Fund. Service Awards of up to $2,500.00 will also be sought for each of the Class Representatives. Advance is an American automotive aftermarket parts provider. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7J4uGb at no extra charge.[CC] ADVANCE AUTO: $10MM Class Settlement in Riley Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Riley v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc. (RE: SNOWFLAKE, INC., DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION), Case No. 2:24-cv-00136 (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Brian Morris entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. 1. The Court provisionally and preliminarily certifies the following Settlement Class for settlement purposes only, finding it is likely to final certify it at Final Approval: "All persons in the United States whose Private Information was potentially compromised as a result of the Data Incident and who were sent notice of the Data Incident." The Settlement Class is estimated to be approximately 2.3 million individuals. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) all persons who are governing board members of Defendant; (2) governmental entities; (3) the Court, the Court's immediate family, and Court staff; and (4) any Settlement Class Member who timely and validly requests to opt-out from the Settlement. 2. The Court provisionally and preliminarily certifies the following California Settlement Subclass for settlement purposes only, finding it is likely to final certify it at Final Approval: "All Settlement Class Members who are residents of California." Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) all persons who are governing board members of Defendant; (2) governmental entities; (3) the Court, the Court's immediate family, and Court staff; and (4) any Settlement Class Member who timely and validly requests to opt-out from the Settlement. 3. Emmanuel Chaidez, Stefondra Monroe, Raymond Moule, Raven Richardson, Don Smith and Raymond Swain are designated and appointed as the Class Representatives. 4. The Court finds that Devlan Geddes, Raph Graybill, John Heenan, Amy Keller, and Jason Rathod are experienced attorneys and will adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class, and designates them as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). 5. A Final Approval Hearing shall take place before the Court on Thursday July 10, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. 6. Class Counsel intends to seek an award of up to 33.33% of the Settlement Fund as attorneys' fees, as well as reimbursement of reasonable litigation costs, to be paid from the $10,000,000 Settlement Fund. Service Awards of up to $2,500.00 will also be sought for each of the Class Representatives. Advance is an American automotive aftermarket parts provider. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SFwwB0 at no extra charge.[CC] ADVANCE AUTO: $10MM Class Settlement in Smith Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Smith v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc. (RE: SNOWFLAKE, INC., DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION), Case No. 2:24-cv-00133 (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Brian Morris granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. 1. The Court provisionally and preliminarily certifies the following Settlement Class for settlement purposes only, finding it is likely to final certify it at Final Approval: "All persons in the United States whose Private Information was potentially compromised as a result of the Data Incident and who were sent notice of the Data Incident." The Settlement Class is estimated to be approximately 2.3 million individuals. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) all persons who are governing board members of Defendant; (2) governmental entities; (3) the Court, the Court's immediate family, and Court staff; and (4) any Settlement Class Member who timely and validly requests to opt-out from the Settlement. 2. The Court provisionally and preliminarily certifies the following California Settlement Subclass for settlement purposes only, finding it is likely to final certify it at Final Approval: "All Settlement Class Members who are residents of California." Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) all persons who are governing board members of Defendant; (2) governmental entities; (3) the Court, the Court's immediate family, and Court staff; and (4) any Settlement Class Member who timely and validly requests to opt-out from the Settlement. 3. Emmanuel Chaidez, Stefondra Monroe, Raymond Moule, Raven Richardson, Don Smith and Raymond Swain are designated and appointed as the Class Representatives. 4. The Court finds that Devlan Geddes, Raph Graybill, John Heenan, Amy Keller, and Jason Rathod are experienced attorneys and will adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class, and designates them as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). 5. A Final Approval Hearing shall take place before the Court on Thursday July 10, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. 6. Class Counsel intends to seek an award of up to 33.33% of the Settlement Fund as attorneys' fees, as well as reimbursement of reasonable litigation costs, to be paid from the $10,000,000 Settlement Fund. Service Awards of up to $2,500.00 will also be sought for each of the Class Representatives. Advance is an American automotive aftermarket parts provider. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K1eBgM at no extra charge.[CC] ADVANCE STORES: $10MM Data Breach Suit Settlement Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit Re Advance Stores Company, Incorporated, Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 2:24-cv-00131 (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Brian Morris granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. 1. The Court provisionally and preliminarily certifies the following Settlement Class for settlement purposes only, finding it is likely to final certify it at Final Approval: "All persons in the United States whose Private Information was potentially compromised as a result of the Data Incident and who were sent notice of the Data Incident." The Settlement Class is estimated to be approximately 2.3 million individuals. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) all persons who are governing board members of Defendant; (2) governmental entities; (3) the Court, the Court's immediate family, and Court staff; and (4) any Settlement Class Member who timely and validly requests to opt-out from the Settlement. 2. The Court provisionally and preliminarily certifies the following California Settlement Subclass for settlement purposes only, finding it is likely to final certify it at Final Approval: "All Settlement Class Members who are residents of California." Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) all persons who are governing board members of Defendant; (2) governmental entities; (3) the Court, the Court's immediate family, and Court staff; and (4) any Settlement Class Member who timely and validly requests to opt-out from the Settlement. 3. Emmanuel Chaidez, Stefondra Monroe, Raymond Moule, Raven Richardson, Don Smith and Raymond Swain are designated and appointed as the Class Representatives. 4. The Court finds that Devlan Geddes, Raph Graybill, John Heenan, Amy Keller, and Jason Rathod are experienced attorneys and will adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class, and designates them as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). 5. A Final Approval Hearing shall take place before the Court on Thursday July 10, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. 6. Class Counsel intends to seek an award of up to 33.33% of the Settlement Fund as attorneys' fees, as well as reimbursement of reasonable litigation costs, to be paid from the $10,000,000 Settlement Fund. Service Awards of up to $2,500.00 will also be sought for each of the Class Representatives. Advance is an American automotive aftermarket parts provider. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h6oX6K at no extra charge.[CC] ALLPRO PARKING: Boone's Class Cert Reply Extended to June 20 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Boone v. AllPro Parking, LLC et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00862-LJV-HKS (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting a brief extension of the Plaintiff's current deadline to submit his reply in further support of his motion for collective certification. Specifically, we request that the Plaintiff's reply be extended from May 30, 2025, to June 20, 2025. Additionally, the parties jointly request that the current deadline for the completion of discovery be adjourned from June 30, 2025, to July 31, 2025, and the deadline for the filing of dispositive motions be extended from July 31, 2025, to Aug. 31, 2025. Allpro is a full-service parking and transportation management company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1FQsa3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Giaimo, Esq. MCLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP 260 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 448-1100 Facsimile: (212) 448–0066 E-mail: jgiaimo@mclaughlinstern.com ALPHABET INC: Plaintiffs Must Produce Certain Email Addressess -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J. L. et al., v. Alphabet Inc. et al (RE: GOOGLE GENERATIVE AI COPYRIGHT LITIGATION), Case No. 5:23-cv-03440-EKL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Susan Van Keulen entered an order regarding Defendants' request for production no. 1. The Court has evaluated the Parties' Joint Discovery Statement regarding Defendants' Request for Production (RFP) no. 1, seeking the email addresses that Plaintiffs have used in connection with any Google user account, as well as the relevant law, and determines that this matter may be resolved without oral argument. On the record before the Court, the Defendant's request for certain of Plaintiffs' email addresses to facilitate the Defendants' investigation into whether any Plaintiff had licensed the use of the Works in Suit is both relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. The Defendants may use the email addresses only for the stated, multi-step purpose: 1) to identify Plaintiffs' user accounts; 2) to determine to which services Plaintiffs uploaded content; 3) to assess which versions of Google’s terms Plaintiffs agreed to and when; and 4) to evaluate what licenses may apply. The RFP, with the noted use restriction, is not the "fishing expedition" Plaintiffs suggest but rather presents an efficient way to investigate whether the Plaintiffs licensed the Works in Suit to Google, a potentially significant issue for class certification. The Plaintiffs' privacy concerns are not well-founded in light of their pre-existing, voluntary relationship with Google services and the use restriction imposed by the Court. Finally, the Plaintiffs' alternative suggestion, that Google first identify, from hundreds of services, which ones provided relevant licensing terms at any time so that Plaintiffs may then "evaluate the request" appears to be a path to delay. For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants' request to compel production is granted, with the use restriction articulated above. Alphabet is a holding company, which engages in the business of acquisition and operation of different companies. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gTmRK0 at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: Joint Bid to Seal Class Cert Docs OK'd ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH DE COSTER et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-00693-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Chun entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to seal portions of the class certification papers. Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of products. A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TAuldj at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN FAMILY: Bid for Conditional Cert Tossed w/o Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW BRINK and FARTINA SEGURA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, S.I., Case No. 3:24-cv-00562-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge James Peterson entered an order denying without prejudice the plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of a collective under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The Plaintiffs Andrew Brink and Fartina Segura were customer service representatives who worked remotely for defendant American Family Mutual Insurance Company and received an hourly wage. Plaintiffs allege that American Family did not pay them for time spent booting up their computers, logging in, and loading various programs before taking calls or for doing the same process in reverse before breaks or at the end of the workday. The Plaintiffs contend that all that time qualifies as work that must be compensated, and they assert claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state law. Plaintiffs seek to represent an FLSA collective and multiple state-law classes of what they call "remote call workers." The Plaintiffs move for conditional certification of a collective under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The court will deny the motion without prejudice because plaintiffs have not made a modest factual showing that they are similarly situated to the proposed collective. The Plaintiffs are free to renew their request to certify a collective if and when they move to certify a class of their state-law claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. In the meantime, if the employees who have filed consent forms wish to join the case, plaintiffs will have to file an amended complaint that includes those employees as named plaintiffs, and they will have to satisfy the joinder requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20. American is an American private mutual company that focuses on property, casualty, and auto insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oapp87 at no extra charge.[CC] ANGEL GARITE: Plaintiffs Win Bid to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as M.A.P.S., on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. Angel Garite, Mary De-Anda-Ybarra, Donald J. Trump, Pamela Bondi, Kristi Noem, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, Todd Lyons, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Marco Rubio, U.S. Dept. of State, Pete Hegseth, U.S. Dept. of Defense, Miguel Vergara, Bret Bradford, Bobby Thompson, Charlotte Collins, Rose Thompson, and Murray Agnew, Case No. 3:25-cv-00171-DB (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge David Briones entered an order granting Petitioner motion to certify a class of: "All noncitizens in custody in the Western District of Texas 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 Araqua' and/or implementation." On May 16, 2025, The Respondents filed their opposition to class certification. The Petitioner is a Venezuelan national, accused of affiliation with Tren de Aragua who is currently detained at the El Paso Processing Center in El Paso, Texas. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OROpvW at no extra charge.[CC] APRIA HEALTHCARE: Class Cert Hearing in Tisdale Reset to July 2 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Angela Tisdale et al., v. Apria Healthcare LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-09620-AH-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anne Hwang entered an order granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion for an order modifying the scheduling order, or in the alternative, motion for relief from the order striking the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The motion to certify class is re-set for hearing on July 2, 2025 at 1:30 p.m. The Defendants shall file any opposition by June 4, 2025. Any reply shall be filed by June 11, 2025. The Defendant's motion to strike class allegations is denied as moot. All other previously set dates remain. The Court therefore does not find that the Plaintiffs have established that this Court should modify the Scheduling Order under Rule 23. There has been no showing that Plaintiffs missed the deadline to gain any advantage or that missing the deadline was done in bad faith. On balance, then, the factors weigh in favor of finding excusable neglect and providing the relief sought, given that Rule 60(b) is "remedial in nature" and "must be liberally applied." On March 24, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed the motion for class certification. On March 26, 2025, the Defendant filed an Ex Parte Application asking for, among other requests, an order striking the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as untimely. On April 1, 2025, the Court denied Defendant's ex parte application and struck, without prejudice, the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as untimely. Apria is a US provider of home medical equipment delivery and clinical support. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=irY3yC at no extra charge.[CC] ARBOR GREEN: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to June 23 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chris Holden, et al., v. Arbor Green, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00461 (W.D. Wisc., Filed July 11, 2023), the Hon. Judge William M. Conley entered an order accepting the Parties' stipulation and extending the deadline for class certification and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) decertification to June 23, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Arbor is a construction company.[CC] AXSOME THERAPEUTICS: Class Cert Deadlines Pending Mediation ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gru v. Axsome Therapeutics, Inc. et al., (RE AXSOME THERAPEUTICS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 1:22-cv-03925-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge entered an order extending class certification deadlines pending mediation. The parties shall file a letter on the status of mediation within one week after the first mediation session. The deadlines in the Order establishing a schedule for class certification briefing and related proceedings are extended for a period of 60 days. Within 90 days from the date of this Order or 10 business days following the conclusion of the Parties' mediation, whichever is earlier, the Parties shall submit a Joint Status Report notifying the Court of (a) the status or outcome of the mediation; and (b) the Parties' proposed schedule and procedure for resolving any issues that still require adjudication. In the event that mediation is unsuccessful, the Parties shall submit revised Scheduling Orders consistent with the dates noted. Axsome is a biopharmaceutical company developing novel therapies for central nervous system conditions that have limited treatment options. A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6kMYGF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Grunfeld, Esq. POMERANTZ, LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: mgrunfeld@pomlaw.com - and - Jacob Goldberg, Esq. Erica Stone, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 600-2817 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com estone@rosenlegal.com - and - Laurence D. Paskowitz, Esq. PASKOWITZ LAW FIRM P.C. 97-45 Queens Boulevard, Suite 1202 Rego Park, NY 11374 Telephone: (212) 685-0969 E-mail: lpaskowitz@pasklaw.com - and - Brian Schall, Esq. THE SCHALL LAW FIRM 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 303-1964 E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael L. Kichline, Esq. Emily E. Renshaw, Esq. Matthew C. McDonough, Esq. Michael A. Hacker, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-5000 E-mail: michael.kichline@morganlewis.com emily.renshaw@morganlewis.com matthew.mcdonough@morganlewis.com michael.hacker@morganlewis.com BANK OF AMERICA: Court Redefines Class Definition in Schertzer -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTEN SCHERTZER; et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00264-DMS-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dana M. Sabraw entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion for reconsideration. The Court redefines the class as: "Defendant Bank of America checking account holders in the United States who were assessed more than one OON balance inquiry fee during the same visit to a FCTI, Inc.-owned ATM located in a 7-Eleven store from May 1, 2018, to Nov. 16, 2021, and who did not make a valid claim and receive payment in Weiss." Because the settlement agreement is confidential, the Court will not specify further on the record. Should Defendant wish to learn the nature of FCTI's consideration, it may do so with the Plaintiff's and FCTI’s permission. The settlement agreement may also be reviewed in camera by any reviewing court, if necessary. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion for Reconsideration on grounds of the Plaintiff's settlement with FCTI is denied. The extent to which individuals' damages would be offset by their failure to mitigate could thus be determined at a later date. Accordingly, the Defendant's failure to mitigate defense does not defeat predominance. The Defendant's motion for reconsideration due to predominance concerns is granted in part and denied in part. The Court denies the Defendant's motion for reconsideration of Weiss' effect on superiority and adequacy. On Feb. 27, 2025, the Court granted the Plaintiff Brittany Covell's renewed motion for class certification, finding all requirements met under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Bank of America offers a wide range of banking, investment, and wealth management services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h4lt5p at no extra charge.[CC] BANK OF AMERICA: Nguyen Seeks More Time to Amend Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELLE NGUYEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 5:23-cv-04999-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her unopposed motion for extension of time and to amend the class certification briefing schedule. The Parties have conferred and agree that the following schedule would be appropriate: -- Reply by May 29, 2025 -- Hearing on June 19, 2025 Under the Court's current Class Certification Briefing Schedule, the hearing date is set for June 5, 2025. Should the Court wish to move this date to correspond to the filing of the Reply Brief, the Parties request that the hearing be set for June 19, 2025, to accommodate a conflict for Defendant on June 12, 2025. Bank of America offers a wide range of banking, investment, and wealth management services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=910rD5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Hartley, Esq. Jason M. Lindner, Esq. HARTLEY LLP 101 West Broadway, Suite 820 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 400-5822 E-mail: hartley@hartleyllp.com lindner@hartleyllp.com - and - George A. Hanson, Esq. Alexander T. Ricke, Esq. Caleb J. Wagner, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com ricke@stuevesiegel.com wagner@stuevesiegel.com BAREBURGER GROUP: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW ZHANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAREBURGER GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04092 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://bareburger.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Bareburger Group LLC is a renowned restaurant in Astoria, NY, offering a diverse menu of all-natural and sustainable burgers, greens, and more. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. HOROWITZ LAW PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8706 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com BELFOR USA: $1.62MM Settlement in Rodriquez Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD RODRIGUEZ, v. BELFOR USA GROUP, INC., et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-02071-VKD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi entered an order granting Mr. Rodriguez's motion for preliminary approval of settlement. The California class is conditionally certified for settlement purposes only and shall consist of: "All persons who were employed by the defendants in the State of California in non-exempt positions at any time during the period from Feb. 25, 2018, to the date of Preliminary Approval." The proposed Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective is conditionally certified for settlement purposes only and shall consist of: "All persons who were employed by defendants in the United States of America in non-exempt positions at any time during the period from Feb. 25, 2019, to the date of Preliminary Approval." The PAGA Members encompassed by the Settlement and this Order are: "All persons who were employed by defendants in the State of California in non-exempt positions at any time during the period from Mar. 8, 2021 to the date of Preliminary Approval." The Settlement Agreement is preliminarily approved, including all the terms and conditions set forth therein and the Gross Settlement Amount and allocation of payments. The Court approves, as to form and content, the proposed Notice of Class Action Settlement. The Court also approves, as to form and content, the proposed FLSA Notice with the agreed-upon modification including the availability of Spanish translation. The Court directs the mailing, by First-Class U.S. mail, of the Class Notices and FLSA Notices to Class Members and FLSA Collective Action Members in accordance with the schedule set forth below and the other procedures described in the Settlement Agreement. The Court appoints plaintiff Richard Rodriguez as the representative for the Settlement Class conditionally certified by this Order. The Court appoints Capstone Law APC as Class Counsel. The settlement provides that the defendants will pay a non-reverting "gross settlement amount" of $1,622,000 to be distributed amongst the members of the three employee categories, their attorneys, the settlement administrator, and Mr. Rodriguez. The settlement agreement also creates an "FLSA settlement fund" of $250,000. BELFOR provides property restoration and disaster recovery services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0JwhJF at no extra charge.[CC] BNP PARIBAS: Bid to File Docs Under Seal Granted in Kashef ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kashef et al., v. BNP Paribas SA et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-03228-AKH-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein entered an order granting request that certain materials which were filed on the public docket be sealed by the Court. BNP is a multinational universal bank and financial services holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wS4OXk at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Carmine D. Boccuzzi, Jr., Esq. CLEARLY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP One Liberty Plaza New York, NY 10006-1470 Telephone: (212) 225-2508 Facsimile: (212) 225-3999 E-mail: cboccuzzi@cgsh.com BORN PRIMITIVE: Williams Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- DARNELL WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BORN PRIMITIVE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05412 (N.D. Ill., May 15, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://bornprimitive.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Born Primitive LLC, located in Virginia Beach, VA, specializes in high-quality athletic apparel for both men and women, offering a diverse range of products including tops, bottoms, footwear, and accessories. [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 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law C.A.A.I.R. INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 31 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARTHUR COPELAND, et al., v. C.A.A.I.R., Inc., et. al., Case No. 4:17-cv-00564-SEH-JFJ (N.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Sara E. Hill entered an amended class certification scheduling order as follows: -- Class Certification discovery cutoff: Sept. 29, 2025 -- The Plaintiffs' Disclosure of Expert July 10, 2025 Witnesses and Summary of Opinions: -- The Defendants' Disclosure of Expert Sept. 4, 2025 Witnesses and Summary of Opinions: -- The Plaintiffs' motion for Rule 23 Oct. 31, 2025 Class Certification: -- The Defendants' Response to Motion Dec. 5, 2025 for Rule 23 Class Certification: -- The Plaintiffs' Reply to Motion for Jan. 9, 2025 Rule 23 Class Certification: CAAIR is an addiction resource center that provides in-house counseling services to help alcoholics and addicts in recovery. A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3cFmw7 at no extra charge.[CC] CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Fisk Seeks to Amend Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MADISON FISK, RAQUEL CASTRO, GRETA CASTRILLON, CLARE BOTTERILL, MAYA BROSCH, HELEN BAUER, CARINA CLARK, NATALIE FIGUEROA, ERICA GROTEGEER, KAITLIN HERI, OLIVIA PETRINE, AISHA WATT, KAMRYN WHITWORTH, SARA ABSTEN, ELEANOR DAVIES, ALEXA DIETZ, and LARISA SULCS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY and SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 3:22-cv-00173-TWR-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on July 1, 2025, will move without opposition to amend their motion for class certification. The California State University (CSU) is a public university system in California, the largest four-year public university system in the United States. The Plaintiffs also seek the appointment of Arthur Bryant Law, P.C., as class counsel in place of Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Cqv7oD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Arthur H. Bryant, Esq. Carey Alexander, Esq. ARTHUR BRYANT LAW, P.C. 1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 391-5454 E-mail: arthur@arthurbryantlaw.com carey@arthurbryantlaw.com - and - Lori Bullock, Esq. BULLOCK LAW PLLC 309 East 5th St., Suite 202B Des Moines, IA 50309 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 E-mail: lbullock@bullocklawpllc.com - and - David S. Casey, Jr., Esq. Gayle M. Blatt, Esq. CASEY GERRY FRANCAVILLA BLATT LLP 110 Laurel Street San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 238-1811 E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com gmb@cglaw.com - and - Amber Eck, Esq. Jenna Rangel, Esq. HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP 225 Broadway, Ste 2050 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 342-8000 E-mail: ambere@haelaw.com jennar@haelaw.com CAPELLA UNIVERSITY: Fact Discovery Due Jan. 28, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLE DER BOGHOSSIAN, ANDRIA L. CONNELL, ERICA BROWNING, ALISHA JNOBAPTISTE, DENISE TEJADA, SASHAUNA TAYLOR AND RAMI YAZAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, V. CAPELLA UNIVERSITY, LLC and STRATEGIC EDUCATION, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-03007-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Valerie Caproni entered civil case management plan As follows: Any motion to amend or to join additional parties shall be filed by Sep. 1, 2025. Initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) shall be completed no later than Aug. 15, 2025. All fact discovery shall be completed no later than Jan. 28, 2026. All expert discovery, including reports, production of underlying documents, and depositions, shall be completed no later than March 16, 2026. The next pretrial conference is scheduled for Jan. 30, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. The Court sees no reason to hold another initial pretrial conference. The post-fact discovery conference will take place on Jan. 30, 2026, at 10:00 A.M. in Courtroom 20C of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, 10007. The Plaintiffs cannot move for class certification without leave of Court prior to the post-fact discovery conference. Capella is an accredited online university offering PhD, professional doctorate, master's and bachelor's programs. A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aYaDRl at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Fabry, Esq. Morgan Ferrell, Esq. THE CARLSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 559 S. Interstate Hwy 35, Ste. 250 Round Rock, TX 78664 Telephone: (512) 671-7277 Facsimile: (512) 238-0275 E-mail: Jfabry@carlsonattorneys.com mferrell@carlsonattorneys.com - and - Steven M. Fink, Esq. THE FINK LAW FIRM, P.C. 488 Madison Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 280-6600 Facsimile: (516) 506-7695 E-mail: SFink@thefinklawfirmpc.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael E. Baughman, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP 3000 Two Logan Square Eighteenth and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 981-4000 E-mail: Michael.baughman@troutman.com CAPITAL ONE: Consumer Suits in Canada Remain Pending ---------------------------------------------------- Capital One Financial Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025 that the consumer class actions in Canada remain pending. "We are currently named as a defendant in 4 putative consumer class action cases in Canadian courts alleging harm from the 2019 Cybersecurity Incident and seeking various remedies, including monetary and injunctive relief. The lawsuits allege breach of contract, negligence, violations of various privacy laws and a variety of other legal causes of action. In the second quarter of 2022, a trial court in British Columbia preliminarily certified a class of all impacted Canadian consumers except those in Quebec. The preliminary certification decision in British Columbia was appealed, with both parties contesting portions of the ruling. On July 4, 2024, the British Columbia Court of Appeal denied both parties' appeals. In the third quarter of 2023, a trial court in Quebec preliminarily authorized a class of all impacted consumers in Quebec. This decision was also appealed and, on February 25, 2025, the Quebec Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's ruling. The final two putative class actions, both of which are pending in Alberta, are continuing in parallel, but currently remain at a preliminary stage," the Company stated. CAREDX INC: Settlement Initial Approval Hearing Set for Sept. 23 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS LOCAL UNION #295 PENSION FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, et al., v. CAREDX, INC., PETER MAAG, and REGINALD SEETO, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-03023-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina Thompson entered an order granting joint motion for administrative relief to vacate the class certification deadline in revised case management and scheduling order as follows: The May 16, 2025, deadline for Defendants' opposition to the Lead Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is set aside. In light of the notice of class settlement, the motion is considered withdrawn. The previously scheduled case management conference is maintained and will be conducted through Zoom videoconference on July 31, 2025. The remaining trial dates and trial deadlines will be vacated upon the filing of the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement: MOTION for Settlement Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement to be filed no later than July 25, 2025. -- Responses due by Aug. 8, 2025. -- Replies due by Aug. 15, 2025. The hearing for the motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is set for Sept. 23, 2025. CareDx offers testing services, products, and digital healthcare solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4IsWIC at no extra charge.[CC] CASSAVA SCIENCES: Plaintiff Must Refile Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re Cassava Sciences, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-00751-DAE (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Alan Ezra entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file second supplemented complaint. The Plaintiffs' motion to strike the Defendants' motion to exclude the class certification testimony of Dr. Steven Feinstein is granted and the Court orders the Clerk to strike the motion to exclude the class Certification testimony of Dr. Steven Feinstein from the record. The Plaintiffs are instructed to refile their motion for class certification within 30 days of the date of this Order. However, the Plaintiffs' new filing shall solely be to incorporate the existing class certification briefing in the Court's docket upon which was considered in the report and recommendation, filed on Nov. 15, 2024. No new arguments, evidence, or non-existing briefing shall be filed by any parties with respect to the forthcoming motion for class certification. The case is a securities fraud class action case filed on behalf of all purchasers or acquirers of Cassava securities between Sept. 14, 2020, and Oct. 12, 2023, inclusive. Cassava, a clinical stage biotechnology company, develops drugs for neurodegenerative diseases. A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=D9QZUn at no extra charge.[CC] CEDAR FAIR: Walker Seeks Leave to File Third Amended Complaint -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONEVA WALKER, et al., v. CEDAR FAIR, L.P., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02176-JRK (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) Granting the Plaintiffs leave to file the third amended complaint, which adds class representatives, updates the class definitions to comport to the Court's class certification order, and removes outdated claims and allegations; (2) Modifying the certified equitable claims class to include in-person purchasers. (3) Approving the following persons as class and subclass representatives: The Plaintiffs ask the Court to modify the certified Equitable Claims Class to include in-person purchasers in the Equitable Claims Class. The proposed amended class definition, for the Equitable Claims Class, is as follows: Equitable Claims Class. This class asserts unjust enrichment and money had and received claims on behalf of passholders to parks that never opened in 2020. These parks are California’s Great America, Canada’s Wonderland, and Valleyfair. The claims allege that it was unjust for Cedar Fair to take the money that passholders paid for 2020 passes but provide no bargained-for consideration in return. Plaintiffs in this class, where parks were completely closed, would be entitled to a full refund. The Equitable Claims sub-classes are: (a) Summer/Season Pass holders to California’s Great America, Canada’s Wonderland, or Valleyfair park, with or without any add-ons; and (b) Gold Pass holders to California’s Great America, Canada’s Wonderland, or Valleyfair park, with or without any add-ons. Platinum pass purchasers are excluded from this class. To qualify for inclusion in the Equitable Claims Class, passholders must have purchased their 2020 season passes via one of Defendants’ parks’ websites or inperson before March 13, 2020, which is the date that Defendants announced that the pandemic would close parks. All other exclusions in the Court’s Class Certification Order would still apply. Because the claims of online and in-person purchasers are materially similar, there is no need for a separate representative for in-person purchasers. But in any case, proposed representative Marie Thomas purchased 2020 season passes to Canada’s Wonderland in-person and can serve as class representative for this group The Plaintiffs moved for class certification on Feb. 1, 2024, and on Sept. 24, 2024, the Court certified two classes of 2020 Cedar Fair season pass holders: (1) an Ohio Consumer Protection Class and (2) an Equitable Claims Class. Cedar was a publicly traded partnership that owned and operated amusement parks, water parks, and hotels in the United States and Canada. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1KowUr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq. DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A. 60 South Park Place Painesville, OH 44077 Telephone: (440) 352-3391 Facsimile: (440) 352-3469 E-mail: nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com - and - Jonas Jacobson, 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: jonas@dovel.com simon@dovel.com - and - Richard M. Kerger, Esq. Kimberly A. Conklin, Esq. THE KERGER LAW FIRM, LLC 4159 N. Holland-Sylvania Rd. Suite 101 Toledo, OH 43623 Telephone: (419) 255-5990 Facsimile: (419) 255-5997 E-mail: rkerger@kergerlaw.com kconklin@kergerlaw.com CLIENTS ON DEMAND: Davis Class Certification Bid Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kendrick Davis v. Clients on Demand, LLC et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-10541-MWC-SSC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Williams Court entered an order granting in substantial part the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Court certifies the following class and sub-class for all causes of action, except the Plaintiff's CLRA claim: Class: "All natural persons in the United States who, within the applicable statute of limitations period until the date notice is disseminated, purchased an eight-week program from Clients on Demand and who have not received a full refund of their purchase price." Voidable SAMP Contract Subclass: "All members of the Class who purchased an eight-week program from Clients on Demand within one year before the filing of this Class Action Complaint until the date notice is disseminated." Excluded from the class are governmental entities, the Defendants, any entity in which Defendants the have a controlling interest, and the Defendants' officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, employees, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns. Also excluded from the class is any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over this matter and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff. Plaintiff Kendrick Davis is appointed as class representative and Lorraine Weekes, Kevin Kneupper, and Cyclone Covey of Kneupper & Covey, PC, are appointed as class counsel to represent the interests of the class and the subclass. Accordingly, as to the Plaintiff's CLRA cause of action, the Court finds that individualized issues predominate over common questions. As to the Plaintiff's remaining causes of action, Plaintiff has established that predominance is met based on the Plaintiff's theory that Defendants subjected purchasers of their eight-week program to a single underlying scheme of misleading advertising and thus common issues predominate. The Plaintiff alleges that "he paid Clients on Demand $9,000 for what he was told would be a turnkey coaching business that included a complete website for [him], all of the technical backend work necessary to drive clients to him, as well as marketing materials customized for him." The Plaintiff is a citizen of Georgia who offers mentoring and coaching services to troubled youth. Clients on Demand specializes in helping entrepreneurs, coaches, and service providers attract high-paying clients consistently. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MmhACw at no extra charge.[CC] COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Gershzon Seeks to File Class Info Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKHAIL GERSHZON, KRISTIN DELLA, AND JILL LIENHARD, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-04086-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their administrative motion to consider whether the Defendant's designated confidential information should be sealed. The subject documents are: (a) portions of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; (b) Exhibits A–I, K–S, U–AD to the Declaration of Francisco J. Rolon in support of class certification, (c) portions of the declaration of Colin Weir in support of class certification; and (d) portions of the declaration of Michelle Leonard in support of class certification. Pursuant to Local Rule 79-5(d)–(e), the Plaintiffs have filed redacted versions that contain information designated as "Confidential" by the Defendant and has highlighted those redactions in this motion to seal. The Defendant is a global consumer goods company, primarily known for its flagship Colgate and Tom's of Maine toothpaste brands. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UJAuv4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Rajiv V. Thairani, Esq. Francisco J. Rolon, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com rajiv@gutridesafier.com francisco@gutridesafier.com COMERICA BANK: Sparkman Must Withdraw Pending Class Cert. Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sparkman v. Comerica Bank, et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-02028 (N.D. Cal., Filed April 26, 2023), the Hon. Judge Donna M. Ryu entered an order that the Plaintiff shall immediately file a notice withdrawing the pending motion for class certification and accompanying administrative motion to seal. The nature of suit states Contract related issues. Comerica is an American financial services company, headquartered in Dallas, Texas.[CC] COMPASS GROUP: Class Cert. Bid Deemed Withdrawn w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLA MERCEDEZ, v. COMPASS GROUP USA, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00942-GS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gary Stein entered an order that the Plaintiff's Cross Motion to Certify Class is deemed withdrawn without prejudice. As such, the Defendant need not file a response to the Plaintiff's Cross Motion. The Defendant's reply, if any, to the Plaintiff's Opposition to the Motion to Compel Arbitration is due by no later than Friday, May 30, 2025. As the Plaintiff states that she intends to file an amended complaint rather than respond to the Defendant's alternative arguments for dismissal based on Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the Defendant's reply should be limited to its request to compel arbitration. The Court will defer an Initial Case Management Conference and the issuing of a Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order pending its ruling on the Motion to Compel Arbitration. Compass is a provider of food services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cxd9xK at no extra charge.[CC] COMPASS GROUP: Mercedez Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLA MERCEDEZ, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. COMPASS GROUP USA, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00942-GS (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for 23(b)(2) class certification, declaratory relief, and notice to class. Compass is a contract foodservice company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fxZIMQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 CONSOL ENERGY: Filing for Class Cert. Bids Due March 13, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT MOORE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and FRANK R. FEREZA, JR., v. CONSOL ENERGY INC., and CONSOL PENNSYLVANIA COAL COMPANY, Case No. 2:23-cv-01991-WSS (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge William Stickman IV entered an order as follows: Fact discovery shall close on Nov. 7, 2025. Expert witness discovery must be completed by: Feb. 20, 2026. All discovery must be completed by Feb. 20, 2026. Any motion for class certification is due by Mar. 13, 2026. Brief in opposition to motion for class certification is due by Apr. 13, 2026. Any reply brief is due by Apr. 27, 2026. Consol explores and produces natural oil and gas. A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Faxbpp at no extra charge.[CC] CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Blevins Seeks to Certify Settlement Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gilbert Blevins, Jr., et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Continental Resources, Inc., Case No. 6:22-cv-00160-RAW-DES (E.D. Okla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting unopposed motion: -- Certify the settlement class for settlement purposes, -- Preliminarily approving the class action settlement, -- Approving the form and manner of notice, and -- Setting a date for a final fairness hearing. After over three years of litigation, the Plaintiffs have obtained a great recovery for the Settlement Class, reaching a settlement with Defendant worth $16,250,000 in cash for Plaintiffs' class claims for statutory interest owed on late payments of oil and gas proceeds under Oklahoma law. The Plaintiffs move the Court to certify Settlement Class consisting of: "All non-excluded persons or entities who, during the Claim Period: (1) (a) received payments from Continental (or Continental's designee) for oil and/or gas proceeds from Oklahoma wells, or (b) whose proceeds from Oklahoma wells were sent as unclaimed property to a government entity by Continental; and (2) whose payments or proceeds did not include statutory interest under the PRSA." The Settlement Class includes owners of royalty interests, overriding royalty interests, and working interests. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) Continental, its affiliates, predecessors, and employees, officers, and directors; (2) agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the United States of America or the State of Oklahoma; (3) publicly traded oil and gas companies and their affiliates; (4) DewBlaine Energy LLC; (5) the entities identified on Exhibit 6 to the Settlement Agreement; (6) Gregg B. Colton, Charles David Nutley, Danny George, Dan McClure, Kelly McClure Callant, C. Benjamin Nutley, White River Royalties, LLC, and their relatives, affiliates, successors, and assigns; (7) persons or entities that Plaintiffs’ counsel may be prohibited from representing under Rule 1.7 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct; (8) any Indian tribe as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(4) or Indian allottee as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(2); and (9) officers of the Court. The Plaintiffs initiated this case with the filing of the Complaint on May 4, 2022, in which they alleged that the Defendant had failed to pay statutory interest owed on late payments under Oklahoma's Production Revenue Standards Act ("PRSA"). Continental is a petroleum and natural gas exploration and production company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=m6i55R at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Reagan E. Bradford, Esq. Ryan K. Wilson, Esq. BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC 431 W. Main Street, Suite D Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 698-2770 Facsimile: (405) 234-5506 fax E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com ryan@bradwil.com – and – Charles V. Knutter, Esq. CHUCK KNUTTER, PLLC 300 N.E. 1st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73104 Telephone: (405) 236-0478 Facsimile: (405) 236-1840 E-mail: chuck.knutter@outlook.com CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Notice for Settlement Class Cert OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Blevins, Jr. et al., v. Continental Resources, Inc., Case No. 6:22-cv-00160 (E.D. Okla., Filed May 24, 2022), the Hon. Judge D. Edward Snow entered an order approving notice for Settlement Class Certification. The nature of suit states Breach of Contract. Continental Resources is a petroleum and natural gas exploration and production company headquartered in Oklahoma City.[CC] CORA TEXAS: Gonzalez Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERNESTO JIMENEZ-GONZALEZ and JOSE ALBERTO TORRES-MARTINEZ, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. CORA TEXAS GROWERS AND HARVESTERS AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION, INC. and CORA TEXAS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00820-SDD-RLB (M.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), declaring that Plaintiffs are adequate class representatives, and appointing class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). The Plaintiffs seek Rule 23 class certification of their second and third claims for relief for breach of contract and violations of the Louisiana Wage Payment Act. The Plaintiffs seek Rule 23 certification of a class defined as: "All individuals admitted as H-2A temporary foreign workers who were employed by the Defendants as truck drivers hauling harvested sugarcane within the state of Louisiana during the 2021, 2022, 2023, and/or 2024 sugarcane seasons." Cora is a factory that produces raw sugar and blackstrap molasses. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=P4udZr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James M. Knoepp, Esq. Dawson Morton, Esq. DAWSON MORTON, LLC 1612 Crestwood Drive Columbia, SC 29205 Telephone: (828) 379-3169 E-mail: jim@dawsonmorton.com dawson@dawsonmorton.com - and - Daniel Davis, Esq. ESTES DAVIS LAW, LLC 4465 Bluebonnet Blvd, Suite A Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 336-3394 Facsimile: (225) 384-5419 E-mail: dan@estesdavislaw.com CREDIT ASSOCIATES: Bid for More Time to File Class Response OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRIC CROWELL, v. CREDIT ASSOCIATES, LLC Case No. 4:25-cv-00349-O (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Reed O'Connor entered an order granting the parties' joint unopposed motion to extend time for the Defendant to respond to the Plaintiff's class action complaint and for the Plaintiff to file motion for class certification filed May 16, 2025. Accordingly, the Defendant's time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint is extended from April 23, 2025, to May 30, 2025. Moreover, the Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class certification in this action is extended. Credit provides cost-effective debt resolution, bankruptcy alternatives and consulting services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x3xdIX at no extra charge.[CC] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Response ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALAN E. FISCHER, III, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00044-CRC (D.D.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline to respond to Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration through and including May 30, 2025. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(m) the undersigned conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel, who graciously does not oppose the relief sought in the motion. On April 3, 2025, the Plaintiff sought reconsideration of the Court's order, dismissing the complaint. District of Columbia is a compact city on the Potomac River, bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=r2C2nj at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Kaitlin K. Eckrote, Esq. ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 601 D Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 252-2485 DONALD TRUMP: Noncitizen Class Gets Certification in Arevalo ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARWIN ANTONIO AREVALO MILLAN, on his own and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States; et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-01207-JWH-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John W. Holcomb entered an order regarding Petitioner-Plaintiff's ex parte application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and motion for class certification: 1. Arevalo's ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and motion for class certification are granted in part. 2. The following class is certified, for the limited purpose of granting temporary injunctive relief: "All noncitizens in custody in the Central District of California 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. 3. The Government is temporarily enjoined and restrained from removing Arevalo, or any member of the putative class, under the AEA or Proclamation No. 10903 pending further Order of the Court. 4. Arevalo is directed forthwith to serve the Petition, the Applications, and this Order on the Government defendants, and each of them. 5. Arevalo is directed to file proof of such service no later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 21, 2025. Mr. Arevalo has satisfied all four elements necessary to obtain a TRO. Mr. Arevalo is a Venezuelan citizen who is currently detained at the Desert View Annex or Desert View Modified Community Correctional Facility, which is associated with the Adelanto Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") Processing Center. The Defendants include PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General of the United States, in her official capacity; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in her official capacity; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; PETE HEGSETH, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Defense, in his official capacity; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; MARCO RUBIO, Secretary of State, in his official capacity; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; TODD LYONS, Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; DAVID MARIN, in his official capacity as Director of the Los Angeles Field Office Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; FERETI SEMAIA, in his official capacity as Warden of the GEO Group Adelanto ICE Processing Center and Desert View Annex; and DOES 1-10. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1zfMYX at no extra charge.[CC] DREW BOSTOCK: Zeferino's Class Suit Bid for TRO Tossed ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAMON RODRIGUEZ VAZQUEZ, on behalf of himself as an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. DREW BOSTOCK, et al, Case No. 3:25-cv-05240-TMC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright entered an order denying temporary restraining order on behalf of class member Alfredo Juarez Zeferino. The Court finds that Zeferino has failed to satisfy the high bar required for emergency relief. Thus, the Court denies Zeferino's motion for a TRO. The Court instructs Zeferino that he may still seek a preliminary injunction that allows for full briefing or pursue alternative paths for individual relief. Should he choose to seek a preliminary injunction, Zeferino must address the Court's power to grant the type of relief requested to an unnamed class member. On May 2, 2025, the Court granted in part and denied in part Rodriguez’s motion, ordering the following classes be certified: Bond Denial Class: "All noncitizens without lawful status detained at the Northwest ICE Processing Center who (1) have entered or will enter the United States without inspection, (2) are not apprehended upon arrival, (3) are not or will not be subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(c), section 1225(b)(1), or section 1231 at the time the noncitizen is scheduled for or requests a bond hearing." Bond Appeal Class: "All detained noncitizens who have a pending appeal, or will file an appeal, of an immigration judge's bond hearing ruling to the Board of Immigration Appeals." Zeferino now asks the Court to order that Defendants honor the alternative finding and release him upon payment of the $5,000 bond, based on this Court’s recent order finding the Tacoma Immigration Court’s practice of denying bond likely unlawful. Zeferino is a twenty-five-year-old Washington state resident who has lived between Skagit and Whatcom counties since 2012. Zeferino first arrived in the United States in 2008, when he was eight years old. Zeferino's parents are seasonal agricultural workers, an industry Zeferino started working in at 13, harvesting berries. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ygwRvY at no extra charge.[CC] DYCK O'NEAL: Saunders Seeks More Time to File Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN SAUNDERS, v. DYCK O'NEAL, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-00335-RJJ-MV (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for the Plaintiff to file her motions for class certification and summary judgment from May 21, 2025, up to and including June 4, 2025. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), Plaintiff requests a second extension of time to refile her motions for class certification and summary judgment because Plaintiff's counsel has recently undergone a turnover of employees, leaving counsel with an extra backlog of work at the time while this certification motion is due. The case is a putative class action alleging that the Defendant made nonconsensual, prerecorded-voice calls to the cell numbers of Plaintiff and others, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). On Nov. 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed her combined motion for class certification and for summary judgment. On Feb. 19, 2025, the Court issued an Order denying the Nov. 3, 2023 motion without prejudice and set the deadline for the Plaintiff to refile for class certification or summary judgment by April 30, 2025. Dyck O'Neal operates as a debt collection law firm. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7bTyBg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander H. Burke, Esq. BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC 909 Davis St., Ste. 500 Evanston, IL 60201 Telephone: (312) 729-5288 E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com - and - Larry P. Smith, Esq. David M. Marco, Esq. SMITHMARCO, P.C. 5250 Old Orchard Rd., Ste. 300 Skokie, IL 60077 Telephone: (844) 424-7135 E-mail: lsmith@smithmarco.com dmarco@smithmarco.com EDUCATIONAL COMPUTER: Court Narrows Claims in Data Breach Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- United States District Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part Educational Computer Systems, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint in the case captioned as JOEL HOOD, v. EDUCATIONAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC, Case No. 2:24-CV-00666-CCW (W.D. Pa.). The Court dismissed Plaintiffs' breach of implied contract and invasion of privacy claims with prejudice, while denying the motion to dismiss as to the negligence, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment claims. Plaintiffs are five current or former students at universities and colleges that used ECSI's services. ECSI is a financial management services company that serves client colleges and universities. In particular, ECSI provides its clients with tax document services, past-due accounts receivable management, and campus-based student loan servicing, among other services. One service provided by ECSI is its "TaxSelect" service, through which it generates tax forms for its university clients' students. ECSI has over 1,000 institutional clients that use TaxSelect, and through that service it creates over six million tax documents annually. To provide TaxSelect, ECSI collects, processes, and stores students' personal identifying information such as names, Social Security numbers, addresses, and other sensitive financial information. Beginning on October 29, 2023, unknown cybercriminals took advantage of a design flaw on ECSI's website that allowed them to access student and borrower tax forms which contained sensitive student and borrower PII. Specifically, these cybercriminals exploited ECSI's website's "guest tax search functionality," which allowed them to gain unauthorized access to individuals' tax forms by supplying basic personal information available online or on the dark web, without needing to log into an account, confirm their identities, or satisfy any data security measures. ECSI became aware of the Data Breach on or about February 12, 2024, when it noticed an "unusually high volume" of attempts to access its guest tax search function. On April 19, 2024, ECSI issued notice to individuals whose PII had been compromised in the Data Breach. All five Plaintiffs received a notice from ECSI informing them that their PII had been accessed and obtained by unauthorized individuals in the Data Breach. Four of the Plaintiffs have since experienced misuse of their PII. In March 2024, Plaintiffs Nemiri and Bauer were notified that unauthorized tax returns were filed in their names. Between December 2023 and August 2024, Plaintiff Taylor received notifications of unauthorized credit inquiries and attempts to open accounts using her PII. In January 2024, Plaintiff Golec was notified that her PII had been posted on the dark web. Plaintiffs allege that as a result of the Data Breach they have suffered injuries consisting of damage to and diminution in the value of their PII, loss of value, privacy, and confidentiality of their PII, the cost of indefinite monitoring and protection of their financial accounts, violation of their privacy rights, loss of time, and failure to receive the benefit of their bargain. On behalf of a putative class of all individuals whose PII was compromised in the Data Breach, Plaintiffs allege the following claims for relief: (1) negligence; (2) breach of implied contract; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) invasion of privacy; and (5) declaratory judgment pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 2201 et seq. Plaintiffs seek damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief. Characterizing the complaint as failing to establish Article III standing and failing to state claims upon which relief can be granted, Defendant moves to dismiss all of Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs lack Article III standing because: (1) Plaintiffs fail to allege that any misuse of their PII is traceable to the Data Breach; and (2) Plaintiffs fail to allege a sufficiently imminent and concrete harm from anticipated future injury. Upon careful review of the Complaint, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have established Article III standing. The Court found that Plaintiffs Nemiri and Bauer had unauthorized tax returns filed in their name, and Plaintiff Taylor has experienced unauthorized credit inquiries and attempts to open accounts using her PII. These are particularized and concrete injuries that are sufficient to establish standing. The Court applied the three-factor test from Clemens v. ExecuPharm Inc., considering whether the data breach was intentional, whether the data has been misused, and whether the nature of the information accessed could subject plaintiffs to the risk of identity theft. The Court found that the CAC plausibly alleges that ECSI was the target of an intentional attack to gain access to Plaintiffs' PII, that several plaintiffs have alleged misuse of their information, and that cybercriminals obtained confidential tax forms and PII including names, financial information, Social Security numbers, and Tax Identification numbers. Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff's negligence claim, arguing that Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege causation and damages cognizable under Pennsylvania law. Upon careful examination of the Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged both actual and proximate causation. At a minimum, Plaintiffs have alleged a plausible claim for mitigation damages. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that each Plaintiff has suffered damages including "the cost of indefinite monitoring and protection of" their financial accounts. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' negligence claim is denied. Plaintiffs allege that ECSI breached an implied contract by failing to adequately safeguard their PII. Defendant moves to dismiss this cause of action, arguing that Plaintiffs failed to establish the existence of a contract, including mutual assent and consideration. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs' breach of implied contract claim fails because Plaintiffs have not established that ECSI and Plaintiffs had a "meeting of the minds" as to a contractual relationship that encompassed a duty to safeguard Plaintiffs' PII. Upon careful review of the Complaint, the Court concludes that the CAC fails to allege mutual assent. While the CAC conclusorily asserts that a meeting of the minds occurred, the actual facts alleged in the CAC do not plausibly allege any such understanding. The CAC alleges that it was the Plaintiffs' universities that provided Plaintiffs' PII to ECSI, not the Plaintiffs themselves. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' breach of implied contract claim is granted. Plaintiffs allege that ECSI was unjustly enriched by collecting and using their PII while failing to adequately protect it. Defendant moves to dismiss this cause of action, arguing that Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts satisfying the elements of unjust enrichment. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have done enough to plausibly allege an unjust enrichment claim at the pleading stage. The CAC sufficiently alleges that Plaintiffs conferred a benefit on ECSI. Plaintiffs allege that ECSI collects and stores individuals' PII "in order to provide services for its University Clients." Over 1,000 clients use ECSI's TaxSelect service, and ECSI cannot provide that service without collecting, storing, and processing student PII. These allegations are sufficient at the pleading stage to demonstrate that ECSI derived a monetary benefit specifically from the retention and use of Plaintiffs' PII. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim is denied. Plaintiffs allege invasion of privacy based on the unauthorized access to their PII. "An action for invasion of privacy is comprised of four distinct torts: (1) intrusion upon seclusion, (2) appropriation of name or likeness, (3) publicity given to private life and (4) publicity placing the person in a false light.” Defendant moves to dismiss this cause of action, arguing that Plaintiffs do not allege that ECSI intentionally disclosed their information to anyone. The Court finds that only intrusion upon seclusion appears applicable to this case. To make out a claim for intrusion upon seclusion, a plaintiff must show that the intrusion was intentional, upon the solitude or seclusion of the plaintiff, substantial, and highly offensive. The Court finds that the CAC alleges that, at most, ECSI negligently allowed cybercriminals to access Plaintiffs' PII, which is insufficient to state a claim for intrusion upon seclusion. Therefore, Plaintiffs' invasion of privacy claim is dismissed. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that ECSI owes a legal duty to secure consumers' PII and continues to breach this duty. Defendant moves to dismiss this claim as entirely duplicative of the negligence claim. The Court finds that dismissal of Plaintiffs' claim for declaratory judgment would prematurely "curtail the Court's broad equity powers to fashion the most complete relief possible." At the motion to dismiss stage, the claims have not been fully developed, and thus dismissal of Plaintiffs' claim under the Declaratory Judgment Act would be premature. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' declaratory judgment claim is denied. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q3q2Kp from PacerMonitor.com. ELEGANTE SERVICES: Conditional Cert of Collective Action Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORDAN MARTINEZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, v. ELEGANTE SERVICES, INC., JOSE VILORIA, and ANGELA PRATTS, Case No. 1:24-cv-02058-JPO-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff shall move the Court before the Honorable Ona T. Wang, for entry of an order: (1) conditionally certifying the proposed collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA); (2) compelling the Defendant to furnish the names, last known physical addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers, cellular phone numbers, and dates of employment for those individuals similarly situated to Plaintiffs; (3) authorizing the Plaintiffs to circulate a Court Authorized Notice of Lawsuit and Consent to Join form in English and Spanish by regular mail, email and text message to all individuals similarly situated to the Plaintiffs; (4) authorizing the Plaintiffs to circulate a reminder notice in English and Spanish by regular mail, email and text message to all individuals similarly situated to Plaintiffs; (5) directing that the opt-in notice period for all individuals similarly situated to Plaintiffs to opt-in to the lawsuit as Plaintiffs remain open for 60 days; (6) ordering the statute of limitations of potential opt-in Plaintiffs’ claims be tolled from the date of the initial conference or, alternatively, from the filing of this motion until such time that Plaintiffs are able to send notice to all similarly situated individuals; and (7) granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FD9xrH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Barnhorn, Esq. Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq. Peter A. Romero, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 ENOVIX CORP: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class of Investors ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE ENOVIX CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-00071-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Sept. 19, 2025, shall move this Court pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(3), and (g) for entry of an order: 1. Certifying a class of investors comprising: "All persons and entities that purchased the publicly traded common stock of Enovix Corporation between Aug. 11, 2021 and Oct. 2, 2023, both dates inclusive"; 2. Appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives; and 3. Appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Rolnick Kramer Sadighi LLP as class counsel. Enovix was an early-stage technology company based in Fremont, California. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f8v5Eo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Joshua Baker, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com jbaker@rosenlegal.com - and - Lawrence M. Rolnick, Esq. Marc B. Kramer, Esq. Nicole Castiglione, Esq. Shane Kunselman, Esq. ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 1 Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 3401 New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 597-2800 E-mail: lrolnick@rksllp.com mkramer@rksllp.com ncastiglione@rksllp.com skunselman@rksllp.com ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR: Class Cert Bid Under Advisement in Bah Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAMADOU ALPHA BAH, v. ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY OF BOSTON, LLC, and ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-12542-MLW (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Wolf entered an order taking the Plaintiff's motion for class certification under advisement. Enterprise is an American car rental agency headquartered in Clayton, Missouri. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8jJoDB at no extra charge.[CC] EXAMWORKS LLC: Court Permits Smith to Revise Class Definition ------------------------------------------------------------- United States District Judge Paula Xinis of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted Plaintiff Michael Smith's motion to amend the complaint in the case captioned as MICHAEL SMITH, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. EXAMWORKS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 8:21-cv-02746-PX (D. Md.). The court denied Defendant ExamWorks' Motion for Leave to File a Sur-reply. This is a consumer protection class action brought by Smith against ExamWorks, LLC and Government Employees Insurance Company for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227. Plaintiff alleges that ExamWorks placed non-emergency, prerecorded calls to individual cell phone numbers supplied by GEICO without the called parties' consent. The case is currently in discovery, which is not set to close until September 2025. Plaintiff moved to amend the Complaint solely to modify one subpart of the class definition. The current proposed "TCPA Pre-Recorded class" consists of "all persons in the United States" who: (1) were called with a pre-recorded voice message by ExamWorks (or any party on behalf of ExamWorks); (2) to their cellular telephone provided to ExamWorks by GEICO; (3) during the four-year period prior to filing the complaint in this action through the date of certification; and (4) where the called party did not provide the cellular number called to either GEICO or ExamWorks. The proposed amendment seeks to eliminate the reference to GEICO in subsection (4) so that the amended definition would read "where the called party did not provide the cellular number called to ExamWorks." Plaintiff contends that the proposed amendment is merely clarifying and will help to streamline, not complicate, future litigation. Defendants oppose amendment as both futile and prejudicial. The Court, applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), which directs that amendment should be "freely" granted "when justice so requires," found in favor of Plaintiff. The Court noted that a motion to amend should be denied only where amendment would prejudice the nonmovant, is futile, or is brought in bad faith. Defendants argued that the Court should deny amendment as futile because the newly defined putative class is incapable of class-wide certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court determined these arguments were premature, stating that "The propriety of class certification is best addressed at the certification stage, not as part of the Rule 15 analysis." The Court declined to reach the propriety of certification at this stage. GEICO contended that the proposed amendment is futile because it would "add individuals to the class who lack available claims." The Court found this argument depends on GEICO's misreading of the Court's prior decision. Contrary to GEICO's position, the Court had not found as a matter of law that "voluntary provision of one's phone number" to GEICO "constitutes consent to receive informational calls." The Court's previous decision focused on whether the provision of Smith's number to GEICO by a third party (Jenkins) amounted to "consent" under the TCPA, and the Court denied GEICO's summary judgment motion because as to Smith, "consent" was fact dependent, and thus, incapable of resolution as a matter of law. GEICO also argued that amending the class definition would "expand" the putative class. The Court disagreed, noting that the original definition always allowed a person to be part of the class even if the person had given her cell phone number to GEICO, so long as the person had not given it to ExamWorks. For the same reason, the Court rejected ExamWorks' argument that amendment would create a "newly defined" class. The Court also found that the amendment does not create new or unforeseen discovery obligations, as discovery always contemplated the universe of parties who had provided their numbers to GEICO but not ExamWorks because that criterion was always part of the class definition. Accordingly, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint and denied Defendant ExamWorks' Motion for Leave to File a Sur-reply, noting that sur-replies are highly disfavored and allowed principally when the moving party has not been able to address matters presented for the first time in a reply. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zF7CR6 from PacerMonitor.com. FEDERAL INSURANCE: Purcell Seeks to Exclude Expert Fair's Opinions ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GILBERT PURCELL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-04927-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Sept. 25, 2025, will move the Court, under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), for an order excluding all opinions offered by the Defendant's expert Rebecca Kirk Fair, and all portions of the expert reports of Sheri Scott and Anne Gron cited by Defendant in its opposition to class certification, in connection with the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Plaintiff requests that the Court exclude the opinions, conclusions, and factual assertions of Kirk Fair, Scott, and Gron, on the grounds that: Kirk Fair's opinions and survey results are not helpful to the Court in determining whether the promised discounts at issue in this case are material, and her survey is unreliable; and the citations to Scott's and Gron's reports are to either assertions of fact equally available to the layperson or to improper legal conclusions. Excerpts of the transcript of the deposition of Kirk Fair are attached to the Declaration of Oren Giskan in Support of this Motion as Exhibit 1. The reports of Kirk Fair, Gron and Scott are attached to the Giskan Dec. as Exhibits 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The Court should exclude the opinions and conclusions of Rebecca Kirk Fair and the cited portions of the Scott Report and Gron Report in connection with Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification. Federal offers fire, marine, casualty, accident and health, and property insurance services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BlaHFb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick DeBlase, Esq. Eric Brown, Esq. Michael C. Eyerly, Esq. Aileen Huang, Esq. DEBLASE BROWN EYERLY LLP 680 S. Santa Fe Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90021 Telephone: (310) 575-9955 Facsimile: (310) 575-9919 - and - Oren Giskan, Esq. GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP 90 Broad Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 847-8315 E-mail: ogiskan@gslawny.com FIDELITY NATIONAL: Court Extends Time to File Class Reply --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re: Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:23-cv-00252 (M.D. Fla., Filed March 06, 2023), the Hon. Judge Timothy J. Corrigan entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for: (1) an extension of time to file reply in support of motion for class certification; and (2) leave to exceed page limits. The Plaintiffs' reply, which may not exceed 15 pages, is due no later than July 15, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act. FIS is a multinational financial technology company headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida.[CC] FLO HEALTH: Frasco Wins Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERICA FRASCO, et al., v. FLO HEALTH, INC., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00757-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order certifying the nationwide class under FRCP Rule 23(b)(3) for the plaintiffs' CMIA, breach of contract, and intrusion upon seclusion claims against Flo: "All Flo App users in the United States who entered menstruation and/or pregnancy information into the Flo Health App between Nov. 1, 2016, and Feb. 28, 2019, inclusive." The Plaintiffs Erica Frasco, Sarah Wellman, Jennifer Chen, Tasha Gamino, and Autumn Meigs are appointed as named representatives for the nationwide class. The following California subclass is certified under Rule 23(b)(3) for the plaintiffs' invasion of privacy claim against Flo under Art. 1, Sec. 1 of the California Constitution, and CIPA section 632 claim against Meta and Google: "All Flo App users in California who entered menstruation and/or pregnancy information into the Flo Health App while residing in California between Nov. 1, 2016, and Feb. 28, 2019, inclusive." The Plaintiffs Wellman, Chen, and Gamino are appointed as named representatives for the California subclass. Pursuant to Rule 23(g), the interim co-lead counsel -- Carol C. Villegas of Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP, Diana J. Zinser of Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., and Christian Levis of Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. are confirmed as class counsel for both the nationwide class and the California subclass. The parties are directed to jointly file by May 27, 2025, a proposed plan to give notice to the certified classes and an opportunity to opt out. The Plaintiffs' bid for certification falters here because they did not proffer classwide evidence of "damage or loss" under CDAFA. The Plaintiffs' sole contention is that their data had financial value, which they base entirely on the opinions of a putative expert, David Hoffman. Flo develops a women's health app that provides access to cycle tracking, health insights, and a private community. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vI0JJN at no extra charge.[CC] GENERAL MOTORS: Class Settlement in Hampton Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DURWIN HAMPTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 6:21-cv-00250-GLJ (E.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Gerald Jackson entered an order preliminarily approving class action settlement, directing notice to the classes, and scheduling final approval hearing. 1. The Court finds, for settlement purposes, that the Rule 23 factors are satisfied and that certification of the Class is appropriate under Rule 23. The Court, therefore, confirms the following certified Class for settlement purposes: "All current owners or lessees as of Sept. 26, 2024 of a Class Vehicle that was purchased or leased in the State of Oklahoma." Excluded from the Class are: GM; any affiliate, parent, or subsidiary of GM; any entity in which GM has a controlling interest; any officer, director, or employee of GM; any successor or assign of GM; and any judge to whom this Action is assigned, and his or her spouse; individuals and/or entities who validly and timely exclude themselves from this settlement; and current or former owners of a Class Vehicle who previously released claims in an individual settlement with GM that would otherwise be covered by the Release in this Action. "Class Vehicles" means all 2011-2014 Chevrolet Avalanche, Silverado, Suburban, and Tahoe, and 2011-2014 GMC Sierra, Yukon, and Yukon XL trucks and SUVs with Generation IV Vortec 5300 LC9 engines manufactured on or after February 10, 2011 and purchased or leased in Oklahoma. Any vehicle that has already received adequate piston replacement (i.e., upgraded piston rings) under warranty and at no cost is excluded from the definition of Class Vehicle. 2. The Court confirms its appointment of Plaintiff Durwin Hampton as Class Plaintiff for the Class. 3. The Court confirms its appointment of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. and DiCello Levitt, LLP as Class Counsel. 4. The Court directs that a Final Approval Hearing shall be scheduled for Monday, Sept. 15, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. General is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8QFsEP at no extra charge.[CC] GENTNER DRUMMOND: Padres Unidos Wins Bid for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PADRES UNIDOS DE TULSA, et al., v. GENTNER DRUMMOND, et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-00511-J (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Bernard Jones entered an order: -- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief to the extent it seeks a TRO; -- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to proceed under pseudonyms; and -- granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification to the extent it seeks provisional certification for purposes of preliminary relief. The Defendants' frustrations are not lost on the Court. But those concerns, however pressing, cannot override the constitutional design. When determining whether a state law like H.B. 4156 is preempted, the Supreme Court instructs courts like this one to look to the intent of Congress, not the enforcement priorities of any particular administration. Doing so, and based on the comprehensive and exhaustive immigration framework that Congress designed, the Court is left with one conclusion: H.B. 4156 must fail. What remains, however, is the federal government's ability, with lawful assistance from its state partners, to enforce that framework as Congress intended. The Court provisionally certifies the following classes: (1) the Entry Class, comprising all noncitizens subject to H.B. 4156's crime of "Impermissible Occupation" under Okla. Stat. tit. 21, section 1795(C); and (2) the Reentry Class, comprising all noncitizens subject to H.B. 4156's separate felony offense for "enter[ing], attempt[ing] to enter, or [being] at any time found in Oklahoma" after having been "denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed, or ha[ving] departed the United States while an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal is outstanding" under Okla. Further, the Court appoints the Plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the provisional classes. Finally, the Court temporarily restrains Defendants—along with their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and any person acting in concert or participation with them—from enforcing H.B. 4156. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(2), this TRO will expire fourteen days after entry, unless extended for good cause or dissolved or modified sooner under Rule 65(b)(4). The Court waives the bond requirement under Rule 65(c). The case is the product of two separate lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of Oklahoma House Bill 4156 (H.B. 4156), codified at Okla. Stat. tit. 21, section 1795, which imposes state criminal penalties on noncitizens who enter Oklahoma without authorization to enter the United States. First, H.B. 4156 criminalizes what it terms an "impermissible occupation" in Oklahoma. On June 28, 2024, just before H.B. 4156's scheduled effective date, the Court granted the federal government's motion for a preliminary injunction and denied the Padres Unidos Group's injunction motion as moot. Gentner Drummond is an American attorney, rancher, Air Force veteran, and politician. A copy of the Court's order dated May 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i1d9vA at no extra charge.[CC] GIORGIO ARMANI: Fact Discovery Cutoff Extended to June 30 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ahumada v. Giorgio Armani Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01175 (S.D. Cal., Filed July 8, 2024), the Hon. Judge Robert S. Huie entered an order granting motion for extension of time. -- The fact discovery cutoff date is extended from May 28, 2025, to June 30, 2025 , for the limited purpose of the deposition noticed pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Fed. R. Civ. P. -- The Plaintiff's deadline for filing the motion for class certification is extended from June 30, 2025 to Aug. 15, 2025. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation. Giorgio Armani is an Italian luxury fashion house founded in Milan by Giorgio Armani which designs, manufactures, distributes and retails haute couture, ready-to-wear, leather goods, shoes, accessories, and home interiors.[CC] GLEIBERMAN PROPERTIES: Bid to Deny Class Cert Under Advisement -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Centariczki v. Gleiberman Properties, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00127 (D. Or., Filed Jan. 19, 2024), the Hon. Judge Jeff Armistead entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint/Petition, and -- Motion to Deny Class Certification will be taken under advisement as of June 27, 2025. Requests for oral argument will be considered in due course. The nature of suit states Real Property -- All Other Real Property. Gleiberman is a real estate investment firm and property management company operating under the brand MG Properties Group. MG Properties specializes in acquiring, developing, rehabilitating, and managing apartment communities primarily in the Western United States.[CC] GLOBAL E-TRADING: Musante's Testimony Partly Excluded in Sihler --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANET SIHLER and CHARLENE BAVENCOFF, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. GLOBAL E-TRADING, LLC, d/b/a Chargebacks911, GARY CARDONE, and MONICA EATON, Case No. 8:23-cv-01450-VMC-LSG (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Virginia Hernandez Covington entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant Global E-Trading's Daubert Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Kenneth J. Musante. The Defendant Daubert Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Kerrie Merrifield is denied. The Defendant's Motions for Oral Argument on its Daubert Motions are denied. Mr. Musante's methodology is sufficiently reliable to be presented to the jury. Throughout his report, Mr. Musante points to the documents he reviewed in reaching his opinions based on his experience in the banking and card processing industries. The Court declines to exclude Mr. Musante's use of the phrase "sham transactions" in relation to the microtransactions scheme or the term "bad actors." Finally, the Court is unconvinced by Mr. Cardone and Ms. Eaton’s additional arguments. The Plaintiffs initiated this putative class action against Defendants on June 28, 2023. The operative complaint is the third amended complaint, in which Plaintiffs assert two RICO claims: (1) for violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1962(c) (Count 1) — a substantive RICO claim; and (2) for violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1962(d) (Count 2) — a RICO conspiracy claim. On Aug. 13, 2024, the Court certified a nationwide class in this RICO case. Chargebacks911 provides chargeback management services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yWVxiZ at no extra charge.[CC] GULFPORT ENERGY: Faces Royalties Underpayment Suit in Ohio ---------------------------------------------------------- Gulfport Energy Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it faces a putative class action lawsuit in Ohio alleging underpaid royalties. In January 2025, Grace E. Moore Great Grandchildren Trust of 2006, Joseph Gorsha, Damon Faldowski, Damon Faldowski II, and Mark Faldowski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action against Gulfport and another natural gas producer in the United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that defendants underpaid royalties to the plaintiffs in connection with the production and sale of natural gas and NGL involving a variety of lease forms. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, injunctive relief regarding royalty payment practices, restitution, disgorgement of profits, prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest, attorney's fees, and costs. In April 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that another operator in Ohio could not deduct certain processing and fractionation charges under one lease form that included a version of a market enhancement clause. "Given the preliminary nature of this action, we are currently unable to estimate what liability may result from this matter," the Company stated. HEALTH FIRST: Powers "Health Plan" Suit Seeks to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURA POWERS, CHRISTINA ROSEAN, Individually and on Behalf of Those Similarly Situated, v. HEALTH FIRST, INC., Case No. 6:23-cv-00375-JSS-RMN (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs contend that the Classes should be certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) and 23(b)(2) and the two proposed law firms be appointed as Class counsel. The Plaintiffs represent a Class of: "(a) persons insured by health plans and (b) their health plans which purchase inpatient and emergency room hospital care from Health First's acute care hospitals on behalf of the persons, or members of the persons' families covered by their health plans." The Class seeks relief for its members' direct payments to Health First for this relevant care on or after March 1, 2019. For Class persons, such payments are defined as their co-insurance payments, all or in part, computed as percentages of Health First's pricing, and not limited by health plan annual, out-of-pocket maximums or otherwise. Their Class plans' payments are defined as all plan payments, all or in part, to Health First for covered care. The Plaintiff Powers has served as a fifth-grade teacher at Audubon Elementary School located in Brevard County. She has taught in the County for 11 years and is a member of the Brevard Federation of Teachers acting until recently as its building representative. The Plaintiff Rosean is a second-grade teacher at Ralph Williams Elementary School in Viera, Florida. She has been teaching in Brevard County for six years. Health First is Central Florida's only fully integrated health system. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=z0l5QV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: R. Stephen Berry, Esq. BERRY LAW PLLC 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 296-1212 E-mail: sberry@berrylawpllc.com - and - Tucker H. Byrd, Esq. BYRD CAMPBELL, P.A. 180 Park Avenue North, Ste 2A Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 392-2285 E-mail: TByrd@ByrdCampbell.com - and - Ronald G. Meyer, Esq. MEYER, BLOHM AND POWELL, P.A. Tallahassee, FL 32302 Telephone: (850) 878-5212 E-mail: rmeyer@meyerblohmlaw.com HEMPSTEAD, NY: Engages in Illegal Kickback Scheme, Whaley Says -------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL WHALEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE VILLAGE OF FREEPORT; MICHAEL SMITH; JCB & SONS, INC. d/b/a NON-STOP TOWING & RECOVERY a/k/a NON-STOP TOWING a/k/a NON-STOP TOWING AND RECOVERY; JEROME BONOMO; MATTHEW K. SERIDGE; JEMERSON-OLIVER; and JOHN DOE, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02720 (E.D.N.Y., May 15, 2025) alleges that the Defendants have monetized the warrantless seizures of motor vehicles in a highly lucrative seizure-for-profit and kickbacks scheme. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants are engaged in a scheme where they seize motor vehicles without a warrant, any judicial order, or any exception to the warrant requirement, so that the Defendants can thereafter extort the owners of such vehicles to pay the Defendants millions of dollars annually, under written threat that if they do not pay such sums within to days, the Defendants will automatically acquire title to their vehicles, which will then be destroyed. Freeport is a village in the town of Hempstead, in Nassau County, on the South Shore of Long Island, in New York state, United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Campanelli, Esq. CAMPANELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1757 Merrick Ave., Suite 204 Merrick, NY 11566 Telephone: (516) 746-1600 Email: ajc@campanellipc.com HIGHER EDUCATION LOAN: Filing for Class Cert Bid Set for Oct. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAIME MALDONADO, ANNA VARELA, ALMA GARY, and JEFF PLAMONDON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HIGHER EDUCATION LOAN AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI, and DOES 1-30, Case No. 3:24-cv-07850-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order setting class certification briefing schedule: Exchange of class certification expert Sept. 16, 2025 witness summaries or reports: Exchange of class certification rebuttal Oct. 16, 2025 expert witness summaries or reports: Deadline to file motion for class Oct. 30, 2025 Certification: Deadline to respond in opposition to motion Nov. 25, 2025 for class certification: Deadline to reply in support of motion Dec. 19, 2025 for class certification: Higher is one of the largest holders and servicers of student loans in the United States. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A4Qi3S at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rebecca C. Eisenbrey, Esq. Noah Zinner, Esq. Rebecca C. Ellis, Esq. PROJECT ON PREDATORY STUDENT LENDING 769 Centre Street Jamaica Plain, MA 02130 Telephone: (617) 322-2808 E-mail: reisenbrey@ppsl.org nzinner@ppsl.org rellis@ppsl.org - and - Daniel "Sparky" Abrahams, Esq. JUBILEE LEGAL 300 E. Esplanade Drive, Suite 900 Oxnard, CA 93036 Telephone: (805) 946-0386 E-mail: sparky@jubilee.legal - and - Adam McNeile, Esq. Malachi J. Haswell, Esq. KEMNITZER, BARRON & KRIEG, LLP 1120 Mar West., Ste. C2 Tiburon, CA 94920 Telephone: (415) 632-1900 E-mail: adam@kbklegal.com kai@@kbklegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Sheila A.G. Armbrust, Esq. Laura V. Herrera, Esq. Amy P. Lally, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 California Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 772-1200 Facsimile: (415) 772-7400 E-mail: sarmbrust@sidley.com laura.herrera@sidley.com alally@sidley.com HOME DEPOT: Eisele's Bid for $96.7MM Relief Tossed -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN EISELE, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:24-cv-00764-HZ (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Marco Hernandez entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment and leave to amend or supplement with alternative state legal theories: The Plaintiff does not seek to reopen the Judgment and to file a second amended complaint to allege other or new facts, rather she seeks to amend to allege new claims based on the same facts. The Plaintiff, therefore, has not cleared the "high hurdle" necessary to show manifest error and to justify reopening the final judgment. On Aug. 28, 2020, Kathleen Eisele filed a class action complaint against Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., in Multnomah County Circuit Court asserting claims for failure to pay wages when due in violation of Oregon Revised Statute section 652.120 and failure to pay wages on termination in violation of Oregon Revised Statute section 652.140. The Plaintiff sought $96,777,200 in statutory damages and declaratory relief. On March 30, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from judgment and leave to amend or supplement with alternative state legal theories. The Court took the motion under advisement on April 28, 2025. Home is an American multinational home improvement retail corporation that sells tools, construction products, appliances, and services. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yH6i6D at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon M. Egan, Esq. Jim W. Vogele, Esq. JON M. EGAN, PC 547 Fifth Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034-3009 The Defendant is represented by: Christopher F. McCracken, Esq. James M. Barrett, Esq. E.A. Meg Barankin, Esq. Evan Reed Moses, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS 222 S.W. Columbia Street, Suite 1500 Portland, OR 97201 HOUSER LLP: $1.3MM Settlement in McMillen Suit Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Richard McMillen v. Houser LLP (RE: HOUSER DATA BREACH LITIGATION), Case No. 8:24-cv-00468-WLH-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wesley Hsu entered an order: -- conditionally certifying the settlement class for settlement purposes only, -- appointing Plaintiffs Richard McMillen, Mark Giannelli, Joseph Kausser, Scott Miller, Jennifer Rivera, and Karie Simmons as class representatives, -- appointing Joseph M. Lyon of The Lyon Firm and John J. Nelson of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC as class counsel, and -- preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement Agreement. The Court approves the proposed notice plan and appoints Kroll Settlement Administration as the settlement administrator and sets a hearing for final approval of the settlement on October 31, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. The Plaintiffs allege that they and Class Members' Private Information was compromised as a result of Houser's failure to adequately protect Private Information and warn of its inadequate information security practices. On March 4, 2024, the Plaintiff Richard McMillen filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In the following days, three additional plaintiffs filed related actions asserting nearly identical claims against Houser. On May 15, 2024, the Court consolidated the cases under Lead Case No. 8:24-cv-00468-WLH-ADS. The Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on August 8, 2024, asserting claims for negligence, third-party beneficiary contract, violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and the Washington Consumer Protection Act (WCPA), and declaratory and injunctive relief. Settlement Class The proposed Settlement Class comprises two Settlement Subclasses: -- the Washington Settlement Subclass, defined as all Washington State residents whose Private Information was actually or potentially accessed or acquired during the Data Incident, and -- the California Subclass, defined as all California residents whose Private Information was actually or potentially accessed or acquired during the Data Incident. The Plaintiffs seek conditional approval of this settlement class in the present motion. Settlement Overview Monetary Relief and Distribution to Class Members Under the Settlement Agreement, Houser will create a non-reversionary $1,300,000 common fund from which Class Members may seek four separate forms of monetary relief: (1) reimbursement of verified out-of-pocket losses up to $5,000 per Class Member; (2) a $100 cash payment for members of the California Subclass asserting claims under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA); (3) a $25 cash payment for members of the Washington Subclass asserting claims under the Washington Consumer Protection Act (WCPA); and (4) a pro rata cash payment, estimated at approximately $50, to all valid claimants, depending on the amount remaining in the fund after other payments are made. Attorneys' Fees and Expenses The Settlement Agreement provides that Class Counsel will seek an award of attorneys' fees and costs to be paid from the $1,300,000 Settlement Fund. The amount of any such award will be determined by the Court following a noticed motion and is subject to Court approval. Defendant has agreed not to oppose a motion seeking attorneys’ fees and costs in an amount not to exceed one-third of the Settlement Fund, or $433,333.33. The Settlement Fund will also be used to compensate Class Members, cover notice and administration costs, and pay any Court-approved service awards. Class Representative Service Award The Settlement Agreement provides that Class Counsel will move the court for service awards for the Class Representatives of up to $2,000. Service awards are "intended to compensate class representatives for work done on behalf of the class, to make up for financial or reputational risk undertaken in bringing the action, and, sometimes, to recognize their willingness to act as a private attorney general." Houser is a commercial and business litigation law firm serving Fortune 500 companies as well as small businesses. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4SuYIs at no extra charge.[CC] J. DOERER: Benoite Bid for Class Certification Tossed ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHELTON BENOITE, v. J. DOERER, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01407-KES-HBK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order adopting findings and recommendation and denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification: 1. The findings and recommendations filed on March 10, 2025 are adopted in full; 2. The Plaintiff's motion to certify a class is denied; and 3. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. The Plaintiff Benoite is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. On Feb. 12, 2025, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. On March 10, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending plaintiff's motion for class certification be denied because plaintiff is a nonlawyer proceeding without counsel and it is well established that a layperson without counsel cannot bring a class action. On April 7, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge construed the filing as a motion to appoint counsel and denied the motion. The Plaintiff has not filed any other objections to the findings and recommendations. A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W4xjVV at no extra charge.[CC] J.A.K.'S PUPPIES: Jury Trial in Carey Suit Set for November 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Rebecca Carey, et al. v. J.A.K.'s Puppies, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-02095-WLH-DTB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Wesley L. Hsu approved a Joint Stipulation to Amend the Case Schedule, which provides for this timeline: Final Pretrial Conference set for Nov. 6, 2026 3:00 p.m; Jury Trial set for Nov. 30, 2026 9:00 a.m. The parties should not expect future continuances to be granted, the court added. Meanwhile, Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow approved an Amended Stipulated Protective Order. The order governs the handling of confidential materials during discovery, protecting sensitive information from public disclosure and limiting its use to litigation purposes. The Court order provides that discovery will likely involve "confidential, proprietary, or private information," including consumers' personally identifiable information (PII) and defendants' trade secrets, such as "customer and vendor information, pricing, cost," and financial data like "bank account information, monetary transactions." These materials, generally unavailable to the public, warrant "special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action." The order aims to "expedite the flow of information," resolve confidentiality disputes, protect entitled information, and "serve the ends of justice." Plaintiffs emphasize the need to shield their PII from exposure, highlighting the order's role in balancing litigation needs with privacy. The order protects "CONFIDENTIAL" information qualifying under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL" information, like customer PII, where disclosure risks "serious harm." "Protected Material" includes any disclosure or discovery material so designated, covering copies, excerpts, summaries, and testimony revealing such material. Protections extend to "any information copied or extracted" from Protected Material, ensuring comprehensive coverage. Plaintiffs underscore the importance of these definitions to safeguard their sensitive data, particularly PII, from unauthorized use or public exposure during the litigation process. Designation and Access Restrictions Parties must designate material as "CONFIDENTIAL" or "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL" with care, affixing legends to documents or identifying protected testimony during depositions. Mass designations are prohibited to avoid sanctions. Access to "CONFIDENTIAL" material is limited to counsel, court personnel, experts, and specific others who sign an "Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound." "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL" material excludes the receiving party and mock jurors, though named plaintiffs may view portions mentioning them. Plaintiffs argue these restrictions are critical to protect their privacy while allowing necessary litigation access. Any party or non-party may challenge confidentiality designations via Local Rule 37.1, with the designating party bearing the burden of persuasion. Inadvertent disclosure of Protected Material requires immediate notification, retrieval of copies, and compliance with the order's terms. Plaintiffs support these mechanisms to ensure fair oversight of confidentiality claims, preventing defendants from over-designating materials to obstruct discovery while maintaining robust protections for their PII and other sensitive information. If Protected Material is subpoenaed in other litigation, the receiving party must notify the designating party and cooperate to protect it. Non-party confidential information is also covered, with procedures for inspection if subject to non-disclosure agreements. Plaintiffs view these provisions as essential to prevent their PII from being exposed in unrelated proceedings, reinforcing the order's protective framework across jurisdictions and parties. Protected Material filed with the court must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5 for sealing. If sealing is denied, the material may be filed publicly unless otherwise instructed. After final disposition, within 60 days of a request, receiving parties must return or destroy Protected Material, certifying compliance, though counsel may retain archival copies subject to the order. Violations may result in "contempt proceedings and/or monetary sanctions." Confidentiality obligations persist beyond final disposition until lifted by agreement or court order. Final disposition is the later of claim dismissal or final judgment post-appeals. Plaintiffs advocate for these enforcement measures to deter misuse of their sensitive information, ensuring long-term protection throughout and beyond the litigation. A copy of the court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Wvz1Sk from PacerMonitor.com. Attorneys for Defendants J.A.K.'s Puppies, Inc., Jolyn Noethe, and Kimberly Dolphin Andrew G. Prout, Esq. Stephanie V. Phan, Esq. Andrew J. Raunau, Esq. ROSS, WOLCOTT, TEINERT & PROUT LLP 3151 Airway Avenue, Building E Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 444-3900 Email: AGP@RossLLP.com SPhan@RossLLP.com AJR@RossLLP.com J.W. LEE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANA LOPEZ, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. J.W. LEE, INC., D/B/A SCARLETT'S CABARET, Case No. 1:25-cv-20367-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time to file its response in opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) conditional certification and issuance of court-authorized notice and incorporated memorandum of law up through and including June 12, 2025. The request for extension is reasonable under the circumstances, is not sought for the purpose of delay, and will not prejudice any party. The Defendant is an adult entertainment club. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sba3Da at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. T'Keara N. Watson, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Ste. 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 813-7513 E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com twatson@theleachfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Gary S. Edinger, Esq. BENJAMIN, AARONSON, EDINGER & PATANZO, P.A. 305 N.E. 1st Street Gainesville, FL 32601 E-mail: GSEdinger12@gmail.com - and - Casey T. Wallace WALLACE & ALLEN, LLP 440 Louisiana, Ste. 590 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 227-1744 Facsimile: (713) 600-0034 E-mail: cwallace@wallaceallen.com JACK CAMPBELL: Woods's Bid to Certify Class Tossed -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAYNE WOODS, v. JACK CAMPBELL, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-03287-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan Hawley entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiff's motion to request counsel is denied. 2. The Plaintiff's motion to certify class is denied. 3. The Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint is denied. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his Complaint is denied. The Court has denied the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Therefore, recruited counsel is not necessary on that basis, and the Plaintiff has generally demonstrated an ability to litigate this case on his own thus far. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion for counsel is denied. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d6MkH8 at no extra charge.[CC] JANJER ENTERPRISES: Class Certification Bids Extended to Oct. 13 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bell, et al., v. Janjer Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 5:24-cv-00150 (N.D.N.Y., Filed Jan. 31, 2024), the Hon. Judge Brenda K. Sannes entered an order extending class settlement deadlines as follows: -- Class discovery due: Sept. 11, 2025 -- Class discovery motions due: Sept. 25, 2025 -- Collective/class certification Oct. 13, 2025 motions due: The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Janjer owns and operates franchises with Popeyes, IHOP and Slapfish restaurants.[CC] JOHNSON CONTROLS: "Gumm" Shareholder Suit Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Johnson Controls International PLC disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the putative class action lawsuit captioned Gumm v. Molinaroli, et al., remain pending. In May 2024, stockholders of Johnson Controls, Inc., filed a putative class action Complaint against Johnson Controls, Inc., certain former officers and directors of Johnson Controls, Inc., and two related entities (Jagara Merger Sub LLC and Johnson Controls International plc) in Wisconsin state court relating to the 2016 merger of Johnson Controls and Tyco (Gumm et al. v. Molinaroli et al., Case No. 30106, filed May 23, 2024 in the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, Wisconsin). The filing of the state court Complaint follows the dismissal of a related lawsuit originally filed in federal court in 2016, which dismissal was affirmed on appeal in November 2023. On March 28, 2025, the Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety. The Court has not yet responded to Defendants' subsequent request for clarification on whether Plaintiffs are permitted to amend their complaint. JOHNSON CONTROLS: AFFF Class Suits Remain Pending Against Units --------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson Controls International PLC disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the putative class action lawsuits filed against its affiliates, Chemguard, Inc., and Tyco Fire Products, arising from alleged exposure to or contamination with PFAS or PFAS-containing products (including AFFF), remain pending. Chemguard and Tyco Fire Products are named in 46 pending putative class actions in federal courts originating from 19 states and territories. All of these cases have been direct-filed in or transferred to the MDL. In addition, six proposed class actions were filed in Canada (British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec and Ontario), which name Tyco Fire Products and other manufacturers as defendants, on behalf of various classes of members (including individuals and government entities) who seek to recover for remediation (past and future) costs, claim property or other environmental damages, or claim personal injuries or other harms arising from alleged exposure to or contamination with PFAS or PFAS-containing products (including AFFF). JP MORGAN: Filing for Class Certification Due Feb. 17, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fatnani v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00712 (D. Or., Filed May 15, 2023), the Hon. Judge entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Plaintiff's amended complaint is due by: May 30, 2025 -- Defendant's response to the amended June 13, 2025 complaint is due by: -- Fact discovery to be completed by: Jan. 29, 2026 -- Expert disclosures and reports are Feb. 10, 2026 due by: -- Motion for class certification Feb. 17, 2026 (as to JPMorgan Chase & Co. only) is due by: -- Rebuttal expert disclosures and March 13, 2026 reports are due by: -- Expert discovery (including discovery April 17, 2026 motions) to be completed by: The nature of suit states torts -- securities fraud. JPM is a multinational financial services corporation headquartered in New York City and incorporated in Delaware.[CC] KEN'S FOODS: Parties Seek Approval of Class Action Notice --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID AUSTIN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KEN'S FOODS, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-40040-MRG (D. Mass.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order approving the proposed notices so that the parties may send notice to the above individuals. On March 21, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification. In doing so, the Court ordered that notice be sent to: "All current and former hourly employees who worked for Ken's Foods, Inc. at any of its manufacturing facilities after March 6, 2021, and who were required to don and doff personal protective equipment ("PPE) on the employer premises before and after their shift without receiving compensation." On May 1, 2025, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Approve Notice, attaching the initial and reminder notices they intended to send to the collective. On May 14, 2025, the Court held a status conference at which the Court instructed the parties to add the date for the beginning of the collective period (March 6, 2021) to those notices. Attached to this Motion are the proposed initial notice (Exhibit A) and reminder notice (Exhibit B) with those additions. Ken's is a privately held food manufacturing company located in Marlborough, Massachusetts. Ken's primary products are salad dressings, sauces, and marinades. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PvwZ0X at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Knox Steffans, Esq. STEFFANS LEGAL PLLC 180 Elm Street, Suite I, Box 183 Pittsfield, MA 01201 Telephone: (413) 418-4176 E-mail: bsteffans@steffanslegal.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com The Defendant is represented by: William Martucci, Esq. Stephen I. Hansen, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP 1800 K. STREET, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 639-5640 E-mail: wmartucci@shb.com sihansen@shb.com KOHLS INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Menard Due March 20, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN MENARD, v. KOHLS INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00165-BHL (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Brett H. Ludwig entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. The parties' initial disclosures as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) must be provided on or before June 2, 2025. 2. Amendments to the pleadings may be filed without leave of Court on or before June 30, 2025. 3. All fact discovery must be completed no later than Feb. 27, 2026. 4. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, primary expert witness disclosures are due on or before Oct. 31, 2025 and rebuttal expert witness disclosures are due on or before Nov. 28, 2025. 5. All expert discovery must be completed no later than Feb. 27, 2026. 6. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and any supporting expert reports are due on or before March 20, 2026. 7. Motions for summary judgment must comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and Civil L. R. 7 and shall be served and filed on or before June 30, 2026. Kohl's operates as a specialty online retailer. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xDiy6K at no extra charge.[CC] MADONNA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Lipeles Due Dec. 3 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTEN LIPELES, et al., v. MADONNA LOUISE CICCONE, Case No. 2:24-cv-04896-MWC-SSC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Williams Court entered an order setting schedule of pretrial and trial dates: Final Pretrial Conference, Hearing on Motions Sept. 11, 2026 in Limine: Last Date to Hear Motion to Amend Pleadings July 18, 2025 or Add Parties: Last Date to File Class Certification Motion: Dec. 3, 2025 Fact Discovery Cut-Off: March 27, 2026 Expert Disclosure (Initial): April 3, 2026 Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal): April 17, 2026 Expert Discovery Cut-Off: May 1, 2026 Deadline to Complete Settlement Conference: July 3, 2026 A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PzyNBU at no extra charge.[CC] MERCY HEALTH: Bid for FLSA Equitable Tolling Partly OK'd -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIELLE PECK, Individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, v. MERCY HEALTH, MERCY HEALTH FOUNDATION, and MHM SUPPORT SERVICES, Case No. 4:21-cv-00834-AGF (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Audrey G. Fleissig entered an order granting in part the Plaintiff's motion for equitable tolling of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) statute of limitations. The Court further ordered that the statute of limitations on the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is tolled for the period of Dec. 13, 2021 to Feb. 5, 2022, and for the period of Aug. 14, 2022 (sixty days after the Plaintiff submitted her surreply in support of her motion for conditional class certification) through March 1, 2023 (the date the Court approved the parties' proposed notice and consent-to-sue documents), for a total of 253 days. The Plaintiff Danielle Peck initiated this action on July 9, 2021 and filed an amended complaint on Sept. 28, 2021 alleging that she and other similarly situated employees were deprived of wages through automatic deductions from their paychecks for meal breaks despite the fact that Defendants know they regularly work through meal breaks, in violation of the FLSA, the Oklahoma Protection of Labor Act, and Oklahoma common law. Mercy is a Catholic health care system with locations in Ohio and Kentucky. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated May 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4dQKDF at no extra charge.[CC] MOBILE MEDIC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid Response ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDIN OLIVER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. MOBILE MEDIC AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00180-HSO-BWR (S.D. Miss.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting the Defendant's Motion and extending the deadline for the Defendant to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and motion for certification of a collective up to and including May 27, 2025. The Plaintiff filed its Motion for Class Certification and Motion for Certification of a Collective on April 21, 2025. The Defendant and Plaintiff are still engaged in active and continuing settlement negotiations. The Plaintiff and the Defendant have entered into a Tolling Agreement whereby agreeing to effectively toll the running of any applicable statute of limitations on putative plaintiffs' and class members' claims under the FLSA and WARN Act from April 30, 2026, through May 27, 2025. Mobile provides emergency medical systems services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GFN4BV at no extra charge.[CC] MONEYLION TECHNOLOGIES: Lowe Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as James Lowe v. MoneyLion Technologies Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-04098-DEH-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Dale Ho entered an order referring action to the assigned Magistrate Judge for the following purpose(s): General pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non- dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement). Specific non-dispositive motion/dispute: class certification Moneylion provides financial technology solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A99J8E at no extra charge.[CC] MONEYLION TECHNOLOGIES: Must File Class Cert Response by June 23 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lowe v. MoneyLion Technologies Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-04098-DEH-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Dale E. Ho entered an order that the deadline for the Defendant to respond to the Complaint is extended up to and including June 23, 2025. Moneylion provides financial technology solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated May 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qfGaEr at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Kaitland M. Kennelly, Esq. COOLEY LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001-2157 Telephone: (212) 479-6643 E-mail: kkennelly@cooley.com NATERA INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Calcaterra Due Oct. 15 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RACHEL CALCATERRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NATERA, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-06342-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order extending the case management and pretrial order deadlines to facilitate mediation: Close of fact discovery: Aug. 29, 2025 Deadline to file motion for class Oct. 15, 2025 certification and any expert reports in support thereof: Deadline to file opposition to class Jan. 15, 2026 certification motion and any expert reports in support thereof: Deadline to file reply in support of Mar. 5, 2026 motion for class certification: Hearing on Motion for Class Certification: TBD Natera is a clinical genetic testing company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Lls9r3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristin J. Moody, Esq. Alexander S. Vahdat, Esq. BERMAN TABACCO 425 California Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-3200 E-mail: kmoody@bermantabacco.com avahdat@bermantabacco.com - and - Patricia I. Avery, Esq. Philip M. Black, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 759-4600 E-mail: pavery@wolfpopper.com pblack@wolfpopper.com The Defendant is represented by: Daniel J. Herling, Esq. Geoffrey A. Friedman, Esq. Paige E. Adaskaveg, Esq. Arameh Z. O'Boyle, Esq. MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C. 44 Montgomery Street, 36th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 432-6000 Facsimile: (415) 432-6001 E-mail: djherling@mintz.com gafriedman@mintz.com peadaskaveg@mintz.com azoboyle@mintz.com - and - Adam M. Tschop, Esq. NATERA, INC. 201 Industrial Rd., Suite 300 San Carlos, CA 94070-2396 Telephone: (650) 980-9190 E-mail: atschop@natera.com NATURE'S PATH: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Dec. 15 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICK WEIDKAMP, v. NATURE'S PATH FOODS USA INC et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00715-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Robert S. Lasnik entered an order setting trial date and related dates: Trial Date: Sept. 14, 2026 Deadline for joining additional parties: Aug. 7, 2025 Motion for class certification due and Dec. 15, 2025 noted on the motion calendar for no earlier than twenty−eight days after filing: Deadline for amended pleadings: Jan. 20, 2026 Discovery completed by: May 18, 2026 Settlement conference held no later than: May 1, 2026 All motions in limine must be filed by July 27, 2026 and noted on the motion calendar for no earlier than fourteen days after filing: Nature's is a privately held, family-owned producer of certified organic foods. A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kXea0m at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK PAVING: Diaz Must Oppose Reconsideration Bid by June 12 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Diaz v. New York Paving Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-04910-ALC-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. entered an order granting the Plaintiff's request for an extension to their deadline to oppose Defendants' motion for reconsideration. -- The Plaintiff's opposition should be submitted on June 12, 2025. New York Paving in in the business of highway and street construction. A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Yhb4S4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica L. Hunter, Esq. WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC 305 Broadway, 7th Floor NY, NY 10007 Telephone: (914) 775-8862 E-mail: jlh@wittelslaw.com NEW YORK, NY: Fact Discovery in Z.Q. Suit Extended to June 23 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Z.Q., et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-09866-JAV-RFT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Robyn Tarnofsky entered an order So ordered extending discovery deadlines and modifying briefing schedule as follows: 1. The deadline for the parties to substantially complete their production of documents is June 6, 2025. 2. The deadline for the completion of fact discovery is extended to June 23, 2025. 3. The deadline for the Plaintiffs' expert report(s) is extended to June 23, 2025. 4. The deadline for the Defendants' expert report(s) is extended to July 25, 2025. 5. The deadline for completing expert depositions is extended to Aug. 11, 2025. 6. The deadline for the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion for class certification is extended to Sept. 9, 2025. 7. The deadline for the parties to serve Daubert motions is extended to Sept. 9, 2025. 8. The deadline for the Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs' anticipated class certification motion is extended to Oct. 22, 2025. 9. The deadline for the parties to serve oppositions to any Daubert motions is extended to Oct. 22, 2025. 10. The deadline for the Plaintiffs' reply in further support of their anticipated motion for class certification is extended to Nov. 5, 2025. 11. The deadline for the parties' replies in further support of any Daubert motions is extended to Nov. 5, 2025. New York City Department of Education is the department of the government of New York City that manages the city's public school system. A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YqgXi3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua Kipnees, Esq. PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP 1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036-6710 Telephone: (212) 336-2000 E-mail: jkipnees@pbwt.com - and - Rebecca C. Shore, Esq. ADVOCATES FOR CHILDREN OF NEW YORK. INC. 151 West 30th St. 5th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 947-9779 E-mail: rshore@advocatesforchildren.org The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey S. Dantowitz, Esq. MURIEL GOODE-TRUFANT 100 Church Street, Room 2-178 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-0876 E-mail: JDantowi@law.nyc.gov NYU LANGONE: Barkley Wins Conditional Collective Status ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLINTON BARKLEY, RASHAAN BOWREY, ANDREW HANCOCK, and PHILIP RAMIREZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v., NYU LANGONE MSO, INC., NYU LANGONE HEALTH SYSTEM, and NYU LANGONE HOSPITALS, Case No. 1:24-cv-09747-AT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Analisa Torres entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective action certification. The Court further entered an order that: The Plaintiffs shall file revised proposed notices, and reminder notices consistent with this Order for final approval by May 27, 2025. The Defendants shall file any objections to Plaintiffs revised proposed notices and reminder notices by June 3, 2025. The Defendants shall provide the Plaintiffs' counsel the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective members' names, last known addresses, last known personal email addresses, last known personal telephone numbers, and employee numbers in manipulable, computer-readable electronic format by June 9, 2025. NYU Langone is a foreign not-for-profit corporation, part of NYU Langone Health, an integrated academic health system. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EVAlSV at no extra charge.[CC] OLE MEXICAN: Class Certification Order Entered in Gambino Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANET GAMBINO, v. OLE MEXICAN FOODS, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-00497-FMO-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order regarding motions for class Certification: The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single, fully integrated joint brief covering each party's position, in which each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a party is immediately followed by the opposing party's/parties’ response. T All citation to evidence in the joint brief shall be directly to the exhibit and page number(s) of the evidentiary appendix, or page and line number(s) of a deposition. Parenthetical explanations are encouraged. In order for a motion for class certification to be filed in a timely manner, the meet and confer must take place no later than 35 days before the deadline for class certification motions set forth in the Court’s Case Management and Scheduling Order. After the joint brief is filed, each party may file a supplemental memorandum of points and authorities no later than 14 days prior to the hearing date. Ole manufactures and sells Mexican food products. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7a2B0j at no extra charge.[CC] OPENAI INC: Chabon Must File Consolidated Complaint by June 13 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chabon, et al v. OpenAI, Inc. et al. (RE: OPENAI, INC., COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION), Case No. 1:25-cv-03291 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sidney Stein entered a case management conference order that: The Class Plaintiffs are directed to submit a proposal for the appointment of a single interim class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) by May 28, 2025. The Class Plaintiffs shall file a single Consolidated Class Action Complaint on or before June 13, 2025, which is to include only the same products and causes of action that have already been asserted in the pending putative class actions. The Times is directed to submit a stipulation that its motion for leave to amend the complaint is unopposed on or before May 27, 2025. The Defendants are directed to file their oppositions to Raw Story Media's motion for reconsideration on or before Tuesday, May 27, 2025. Raw Story Media shall file its reply on or before June 2, 2025. The parties shall submit a joint proposed case schedule on or before June 17, 2025. The deadline for motions for summary judgment must precede class certification briefing in the proposal. If the parties cannot agree upon a proposed case schedule, they shall submit their competing proposals on or before June 17, 2025. OpenAI is a private research laboratory that aims to develop and direct artificial intelligence (AI) in ways that benefit humanity as a whole. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TG3jA9 at no extra charge.[CC] OPENAI INC: Davis Must File Consolidated Complaint by June 13 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ziff Davis, Inc. et al v. OpenAI, Inc. et al., (RE: OPENAI, INC., COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION), Case No. 1:25-cv-04315 (S.D.N.Y.), .), the Hon. Judge Sidney Stein entered a case management conference order that: The Class Plaintiffs are directed to submit a proposal for the appointment of a single interim class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) by May 28, 2025. The Class Plaintiffs shall file a single Consolidated Class Action Complaint on or before June 13, 2025, which is to include only the same products and causes of action that have already been asserted in the pending putative class actions. The Times is directed to submit a stipulation that its motion for leave to amend the complaint is unopposed on or before May 27, 2025. The Defendants are directed to file their oppositions to Raw Story Media's motion for reconsideration on or before Tuesday, May 27, 2025. Raw Story Media shall file its reply on or before June 2, 2025. The parties shall submit a joint proposed case schedule on or before June 17, 2025. The deadline for motions for summary judgment must precede class certification briefing in the proposal. If the parties cannot agree upon a proposed case schedule, they shall submit their competing proposals on or before June 17, 2025. OpenAI is a private research laboratory that aims to develop and direct artificial intelligence (AI) in ways that benefit humanity as a whole. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Qvz3cx at no extra charge.[CC] OPENAI INC: IMI Must File Consolidated Complaint by June 13 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as The Intercept Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc. et al. (RE: OPENAI, INC., COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION), Case No. 1:24-cv-01515 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sidney Stein entered a case management conference order that: The Class Plaintiffs are directed to submit a proposal for the appointment of a single interim class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) by May 28, 2025. The Class Plaintiffs shall file a single Consolidated Class Action Complaint on or before June 13, 2025, which is to include only the same products and causes of action that have already been asserted in the pending putative class actions. The Times is directed to submit a stipulation that its motion for leave to amend the complaint is unopposed on or before May 27, 2025. The Defendants are directed to file their oppositions to Raw Story Media's motion for reconsideration on or before Tuesday, May 27, 2025. Raw Story Media shall file its reply on or before June 2, 2025. The parties shall submit a joint proposed case schedule on or before June 17, 2025. The deadline for motions for summary judgment must precede class certification briefing in the proposal. If the parties cannot agree upon a proposed case schedule, they shall submit their competing proposals on or before June 17, 2025. OpenAI is a private research laboratory that aims to develop and direct artificial intelligence (AI) in ways that benefit humanity as a whole. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5rMnzW at no extra charge.[CC] OPENAI INC: Millette Must File Consolidated Suit by June 13 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Millette v. OpenAI, Inc. et al., (RE: OPENAI, INC., COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION) Case No. 1:25-cv-03297 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sidney Stein entered a case management conference order that: The Class Plaintiffs are directed to submit a proposal for the appointment of a single interim class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) by May 28, 2025. The Class Plaintiffs shall file a single Consolidated Class Action Complaint on or before June 13, 2025, which is to include only the same products and causes of action that have already been asserted in the pending putative class actions. The Times is directed to submit a stipulation that its motion for leave to amend the complaint is unopposed on or before May 27, 2025. The Defendants are directed to file their oppositions to Raw Story Media's motion for reconsideration on or before Tuesday, May 27, 2025. Raw Story Media shall file its reply on or before June 2, 2025. The parties shall submit a joint proposed case schedule on or before June 17, 2025. The deadline for motions for summary judgment must precede class certification briefing in the proposal. If the parties cannot agree upon a proposed case schedule, they shall submit their competing proposals on or before June 17, 2025. OpenAI is a private research laboratory that aims to develop and direct artificial intelligence (AI) in ways that benefit humanity as a whole. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QJUYf9 at no extra charge.[CC] OPENAI INC: Raw Story Must File Consolidated Complaint by June 13 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Raw Story Media, Inc. et al v. OpenAI Inc. et al (RE: OPENAI, INC., COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION), Case No. 1:24-cv-01514 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sidney Stein entered a case management conference order that: The Class Plaintiffs are directed to submit a proposal for the appointment of a single interim class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) by May 28, 2025. The Class Plaintiffs shall file a single Consolidated Class Action Complaint on or before June 13, 2025, which is to include only the same products and causes of action that have already been asserted in the pending putative class actions. The Times is directed to submit a stipulation that its motion for leave to amend the complaint is unopposed on or before May 27, 2025. The Defendants are directed to file their oppositions to Raw Story Media's motion for reconsideration on or before Tuesday, May 27, 2025. Raw Story Media shall file its reply on or before June 2, 2025. The parties shall submit a joint proposed case schedule on or before June 17, 2025. The deadline for motions for summary judgment must precede class certification briefing in the proposal. If the parties cannot agree upon a proposed case schedule, they shall submit their competing proposals on or before June 17, 2025. OpenAI is a private research laboratory that aims to develop and direct artificial intelligence (AI) in ways that benefit humanity as a whole. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=95tI0a at no extra charge.[CC] OXY USA: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Sur-Reply in Rider Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERRY RIDER, trustee of the Cherry Rider Family Trust, and R.W. and CATHY LUCAS, co-trustees of the R.W. Lucas and Cathy Lucas Living Trust, individually and as representative plaintiffs on behalf of persons or concerns similarly situated, v. OXY USA INC., MERIT ENERGY COMPANY, LLC, and MERIT HUGOTON, L.P., Case No. 6:23-cv-01274-KHV-TJJ (D. Kan.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for leave to file a sur-reply to the Plaintiffs' reply to the Defendants' response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Defendants need to file a sur-reply because the Plaintiffs used their reply to make new arguments and introduce new evidence not offered in support of their initial motion for class certification). Due process and fundamental fairness require that the Defendants have an opportunity to respond to these new matters raised in the Plaintiffs' reply. Oxy explores for, develops, produces, and markets crude oil and natural gas. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kOeJxy at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel M. McClure, Esq. James V. Leito IV, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 1550 Lamar, Suite 2000 Houston, TX 77010-4106 Telephone: (713) 651-5151 Facsimile: (713) 651-5246 E-mail: dan.mcclure@nortonrosefulbright.com James.leito@nortonrosefulbright.com - and - Robert W. Coykendall, Esq. Will B. Wohlford, Esq. Jonathan A. Schlatter, Esq. MORRIS, LAING, EVANS BROCK & KENNEDY, CHTD. 300 N. Mead, Suite 200 Wichita, KS 67202-2745 Telephone: (316) 262-2671 E-mail: rcoykendall@morrislaing.com wwohlford@morrislaing.com jschlatter@morrislaing.com - and - James M. Armstrong, Esq. FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP 1551 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 100 Wichita, KS 67206-4466 Telephone: (316) 291-9576 Facsimile: (316) 267-6345 E-mail: jarmstrong@foulston.com - and - Mark Rodriguez, Esq. Maryam Ghaffar, Esq. BECK REDDEN LLP 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 4500 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 951-3700 Facsimile: (713) 951-3720 E-mail: mrodriguez@beckredden.com mghaffar@beckredden.com PACS GROUP: New York Court Denies Manchin Case Transfer to Utah --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied defendants' motion to transfer venue of the consolidated securities fraud action, Manchin v. PACS Group, Inc., No. 24-cv-8636 (S.D.N.Y), to the United States District Court for the District of Utah. PACS Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Farmington, Utah, founded in 2013 and operates as one of the largest operators of skilled nursing facilities in the United States. The company filed a registration statement on Form S-1 for an initial public offering on March 13, 2024, which was declared effective on April 10, 2024. Pursuant to the registration statement, PACS sold 21,428,572 shares of its common stock to the public at a price of $21 per share for proceeds of $450 million. PACS subsequently held a secondary public offering in September 2024, where it sold 2,777,778 shares of common stock to the public at a price of $36.25 per share for proceeds of $589.3 million. The defendants include PACS, individual defendants who are officers and directors of PACS, and underwriter defendants who are financial services companies that served as the underwriters of the IPO and SPO. On November 4, 2024, Hindenburg Research released a report alleging that "PACS had engaged in improper practices, including manipulating Medicare billing through the misuse of a COVID-era waiver, which drove a significant portion of the company's revenues, and inflating its Medicare revenue by inappropriately classifying lower-acuity patients as high-acuity skilled care patients, thereby securing higher reimbursement rates to bolster its financial performance." On November 4, 2024, PACS's share price dropped $11.93 per share, or 27%, to $31.01 per share (below its IPO and SPO price) in reaction to the release of the Hindenburg Report. Further decline occurred when on November 6, 2024, PACS announced that it would delay the release of its third-quarter 2024 financial results while its Audit Committee was conducting an investigation and that it had received civil investigative demands from the federal government regarding its practices. Christopher Manchin filed the initial complaint on November 13, 2024, followed by the New Orleans Employees' Retirement System filing a similar complaint eight days later. The court consolidated these actions on January 7, 2025, and subsequently on February 11, 2025, the Court issued a memorandum and order appointing the 1199SEIU Health Care Employees Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and its counsel Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP as counsel. The Pension Fund demonstrated substantial investment losses, having "purchased a total of 20,326 shares of PACS stock at a price of $36.25 on September 6, 2024, and a total of 1,935 shares of PACS stock at a price of $40.58 on September 20, 2024." The court found that "As of the end of the alleged class period on November 5, 2024, the Pension Fund had suffered a loss on a last-in first out basis of $469,620." Judge Lewis J. Liman applied the established two-step inquiry under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), explaining that "First, it determines whether the action could have been brought in the proposed transferee court" and "Second, the Court 'balances the private and public interests,' to determine whether transfer is warranted 'For the convenience of parties and witnesses, [and] in the interest of justice.'" The court emphasized that "the party requesting transfer carries the 'burden of making out a strong case for transfer'" and that "district courts in the Second Circuit have consistently applied the clear and convincing evidence standard in determining whether to exercise discretion to grant a transfer motion." The court found that the Defendants satisfy the first requirement for transfer of venue. This action could have been brought in the United States District Court for the District of Utah because "PACS's headquarters are located in Farmington, Utah; PACS maintains its executive offices there; and most of PACS's high-level employees and the substantial majority of its accounting, legal, communications, and investor relations personnel, work out of Utah." The court afforded deference to the plaintiff's forum choice, noting that "Lead Plaintiff here is an institutional investor that claims to have lost almost half a million dollars as a result of its investment in PACS common stock." The court explained that "The Pension Fund is headquartered and has always been headquartered in New York, New York" and "Lead Plaintiff received the allegedly misleading materials in New York, made the decision to purchase the securities in New York, and suffered harm in New York." Regarding the class action context, the court acknowledged that plaintiff's choice receives "less deference" but emphasized it "is still entitled to some deference" and found "There is no reason to question the legitimacy of Lead Plaintiff's choice of forum here." The court determined this factor to be neutral, explaining that "The persons identified by the Moving Defendants are all current employees, and although the convenience of party witnesses is 'not wholly insignificant,' it does not weigh as heavily as inconvenience to non-party witnesses." The court noted that "given that a majority of the ten Underwriter Defendants are headquartered in New York, the Underwriter Defendants' relevant employee witnesses are presumably located here as well." The court found this factor neutral because "transferring venue would merely shift the inconvenience to the other party." However, the court noted PACS's contractual agreement with underwriters, stating that "The underwriting agreements for the IPO and SPO contained a choice-of-forum provision under which PACS agreed that disputes between PACS and the Underwriter Defendants would be resolved in a New York court and not in Utah." The court acknowledged this factor "weighs in favor of transfer" because "the locus of operative facts with respect to the Section 10(b) claim lies in Utah." However, regarding Section 11 claims, the court found the facts "split between Utah and New York" since "the offerings were underwritten by firms mainly located in New York, pursuant to underwriting agreements that provided that lead underwriters, primarily located in New York, would purchase and then distribute the securities for delivery in New York." The court emphasized that "trial efficiency favors keeping this case in the Southern District of New York" because "the consolidated shareholder derivative action is pending in this Court" and "trial efficiency would be enhanced by the two sets of cases being heard by the same judge in the same District." After comprehensive analysis, the court concluded that "the only factor even somewhat supporting transfer is the locus of operative facts. On the other side, the deference owed to Lead Plaintiff's choice of forum and concerns regarding trial efficiency counsel against transfer. All of the remaining factors are neutral." The Court determined that balance of these factors lean against transfer to the District of Utah. The Moving Defendants have not satisfied their burden. The motion to transfer venue is accordingly denied. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bMl3nX from PacerMonitor.com. PERFORMANCE FOOD: Bid to Dismiss Bokma Class Action Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA M. BOKMA and DANIEL SAMSIL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00686-DJN (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge David J. Novak entered an order denying Defendant's motion to dismiss. The case shall proceed on all Counts presented in the Plaintiffs' first amended class action complaint. Let the Clerk file a copy of this Memorandum Order electronically and notify all counsel of record. At this stage in the litigation, the Defendant identifies no valid reason why the Court must determine that the applicable Department of Labor ("DOL") regulatory requirements, which have existed without amendment for more than a decade, should no longer apply. The Court finds no contradiction or conflict between the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") statute, which explicitly incorporated Section 2705 of the PHSA, and the DOL regulations, which also address the wellness program requirements articulated in Section 2705. For all of these reasons, the Plaintiffs adequately state a claim under Count II and the Court therefore denies the Defendant's Motion as to that count. The Plaintiffs bring this action against the Defendant, asserting three claims for violations of the ERISA. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendant (1) unlawfully imposed a discriminatory tobacco surcharge on participants in its employee benefits plan, (2) failed to notify the Plaintiffs of a reasonable alternative standard to avoid the tobacco surcharge and (3) breached its fiduciary duty in relation to its imposition of the surcharge. Performance distributes food products. A copy of the Court's memorandum order dated May 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HBD0N7 at no extra charge.[CC] PESI INC: Bid to Dismiss Manza Class Suit Tossed ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANA MANZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PESI, INC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00690-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge James Peterson entered an order denying the defendant's motion to dismiss. The issues Pesi raises may present challenges for Manza at the class certification or summary judgment stages of the case, but they are premature at this stage of the case. The court concludes that Manza’s allegations state a plausible claim for relief under the VPPA. The bottom line is that Pesi seeks to require Manza to plead information that Rule 8 does not require. At this stage, Manza need only raise a right to relief above the speculative level. McCray, 966 F.3d at 620. The issues Pesi raises are better resolved in the context of a motion for class certification or summary judgment. Manza alleges that Pesi disclosed her purchasing history and other personal information to social media companies and data brokers without her consent. She contends that Pesi violated the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), and she seeks to represent four sub-classes of consumers whose information was disclosed to Meta, Google, Pinterest, or a data broker. Pesi sells videos related to various healthcare topics. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Cxhelz at no extra charge.[CC] RICHLAND COUNTY, SC: Court Recommends Class Cert. Bid Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Disability Rights South Carolina, and 15 Unnamed Plaintiffs as Class Representatives on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. Richland County, Case No. 8:22-cv-01358-MGL (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge William S. Brown recommends that the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification be granted. The district court should certify the Proposed Class, approve the Plaintiffs as class representatives, and appoint the Plaintiffs' attorneys as Class Counsel. Certification of the Proposed Class under Rule 23(b)(2) is appropriate in this case because Plaintiffs have shown that the Defendant's actions are generally applicable to the Proposed Class as a whole and Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief as to those actions. The Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing a Complaint on April 28, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on Sept. 5, 2024. The Plaintiffs brought this action against Richland County asserting claims for constitutional violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and discrimination under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). In the Motion for Class Certification, the Plaintiffs request certification of the following class: "All individuals who (1) have been detained at ASGDC since April 28, 2022, or will be detained at ASGDC in the future; and (2) suffer from serious mental illness ("SMI")." The Plaintiffs are current and former pretrial detainees at ASGDC with serious mental illnesses. The Named Plaintiffs seek to be representatives of a putative class of "detainees who suffer from serious mental illness and who are presently confined at ASGDC"—the "SMI Detainees." A copy of the Court's report and recommendation dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2ucDLf at no extra charge.[CC] RYAN CARROLL: Pretrial Schedule & Trial Order Entered in Hough -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID HOUGH ET AL, v. RYAN CARROLL ET AL, Case No. 2:24-cv-02886-WLH-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wesley Hsu entered a civil pretrial schedule and trial order: The Scheduling Conference scheduled for May 23, 2025 is vacated. The Stipulation to Continue filed May 23, 2025 is therefore moot. The cut-off date for discovery is not the date by which discovery requests must be served; it is the date by which all discovery, including all hearings on any related motions, must be completed. The parties are required under Local Rule 7-3 to meet and confer to attempt to resolve disputes before filing a motion. The parties must comply with Local Rule 16. Pursuant to L.R. 16-2, lead trial counsel for each party are required to meet and confer in person forty (40) days in advance to prepare for the FPTC. A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wMBO5u at no extra charge.[CC] SARA CODY: Court Decertifies Class in UNIFYSCC Suit --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as UNIFYSCC, et al., v. SARA H. CODY, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-01019-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order granting the motion for class decertification. The Class is decertified. The Plaintiff UnifySCC is dismissed. The Plaintiffs Tom Davis, Maria Ramirez, and Elizabeth Baluyut may each proceed on an individual basis. In light of the highly varied experiences of the class members and the fact that all but one of the still-live certified questions fails to meet the commonality requirement, the Court sees no reason to rewrite the class definition at this juncture. Accordingly, the Motion for Class Decertification is GRANTED and the class is DECERTIFIED. This lawsuit concerns the County of Santa Clara's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which included imposing a requirement on County employees to either become vaccinated against the virus or obtain an exemption from vaccination. The Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit to challenge the "Risk Tier System" that the County used to determine how an employee with an exemption could be accommodated, as well as the ensuing accommodations procedure. On Jan. 29, 2024, the Court certified a class of: "All individuals who: 1) work or worked for the County and/or were subject to its vaccine policies and orders, including the Risk Tier System; 2) were forced by the County to choose between taking the vaccine to maintain their jobs and/or their employment-related benefits or being placed on unpaid leave; 3) were classified as working in high risk jobs pursuant to the County's Risk Tier System; and 4) received a religious exemption from the County between Aug. 5, 2021 and Sept. 27, 2022." Sara Cody is an American physician, epidemiologist and public health official. A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=E5yt26 at no extra charge.[CC] SHADE STORE: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Briefing --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEE FITZGERALD and KATHERINE ADLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE SHADE STORE, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01435-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadlines for the Parties' class certification briefing by three weeks and six days. The Parties request that these deadlines be extended as follows: Case Event Deadline Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion June 24, 2025 for class certification and opposition to motions to exclude: Defendant's Reply in support of motions July 29, 2025 to exclude: On March 27, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. On April 30, 2025, the Defendant filed its Opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and its motions to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiffs' experts. The Shade Store sells custom window treatments such as shades, drapes, and blinds. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ByP2Cb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Simon C. Franzini, Esq. Martin Brenner, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: simon@dovel.com martin@dovel.com - and - Wright A. Noel, Esq. CARSON & NOEL, PLLC 20 Sixth Ave. NE Issaquah WA 98027 Telephone: (425) 395-7786 Facsimile: (425) 837-5396 E-mail: wright@carsonnoel.com The Defendant is represented by: Maren R. Norton, Esq. James M. Shore, Esq. Jenna M. Poligo, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 600 University Street, Suite 3600 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 624-0900 Facsimile: (206) 386-7500 E-mail: maren.norton@stoel.com jim.shore@stoel.com jenna.poligo@stoel.com - and - Steven N. Feldman, Esq. Shlomo Fellig, Esq. Johanna Spellman, Esq. Kevin Jakopchek, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 485-1234 E-mail: steve.feldman@lw.com shlomo.fellig@lw.com johanna.spellman@lw.com kevin.jakopchek@lw.com SISKIYOU COUNTY, CA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Modified to Nov. 3 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUSSELL MATHIS; JORDAN CHONG MOUA; YING SUSANNA VA; MAI NOU VANG, and all others similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF SISKIYOU; and JEREMIAH LARUE, in his official capacity as Sheriff, Case No. 2:22-cv-01378-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting modified class certification schedule: Event Date Close of Fact Discovery: Sept 30, 2025 Initial Expert Witness Disclosures: Oct. 20, 2025 Last Day to File Motion for Class Nov. 3, 2025 Certification: Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosures: Nov. 17, 2025 Close of Expert Discovery: Dec. 18, 2025 Last Date to File Dispositive Motions: Jan. 9, 2026 Siskiyou is located in inland northern California, adjacent to the Oregon border. A copy of the Court's order dated May 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dpz2kT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Thomas H. Do, Esq. Emi Young, Esq. Grayce Zelphin, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 293-6333 Facsimile: (415) 255-8437 E-mail: jdo@aclunc.org eyoung@aclunc.org gzelphin@aclunc.org - and - Carl Takei, Esq. Megan Vees, Esq. ASIAN LAW CAUCUS 55 Columbus Avenue San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 896-1701 Facsimile: (415) 896-1702 E-mail: carlt@asialawcaucus.org meganv@asianlawcaucus.org - and - Stanley Young, Esq. Michael Plimack, Esq. Hakeem S. Rizk, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 3000 El Camino Real 5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112 Telephone: (650) 632-4700 Facsimile: (650) 632-4800 E-mail: syoung@cov.com mplimack@cov.com hrizk@cov.com The Defendant is represented by: J. Scott Donald, Esq. SPINELLI, DONALD & NOTT, P.C. 300 University Avenue, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 448-7888 E-mail: scottd@sdnlaw.com - and - Jeffrey V. Dunn, Esq. Christopher M. Pisano, Esq. Marco Ornelas-Lopez, Esq. BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 325-4000 E-mail: jeffrey.dunn@bbklaw.com christopher.pisano@bbklaw.com marco.ornelaslopez@bbklaw.com SNOWFLAKE INC: $10MM Class Settlement in Bobbitt Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bobbitt v. Snowflake Inc. et al (RE: SNOWFLAKE, INC., DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION), Case No. 2:24-cv-00071 (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Brian Morris granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. 1. The Court provisionally and preliminarily certifies the following Settlement Class for settlement purposes only, finding it is likely to final certify it at Final Approval: "All persons in the United States whose Private Information was potentially compromised as a result of the Data Incident and who were sent notice of the Data Incident." The Settlement Class is estimated to be approximately 2.3 million individuals. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) all persons who are governing board members of Defendant; (2) governmental entities; (3) the Court, the Court's immediate family, and Court staff; and (4) any Settlement Class Member who timely and validly requests to opt-out from the Settlement. 2. The Court provisionally and preliminarily certifies the following California Settlement Subclass for settlement purposes only, finding it is likely to final certify it at Final Approval: "All Settlement Class Members who are residents of California." Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) all persons who are governing board members of Defendant; (2) governmental entities; (3) the Court, the Court's immediate family, and Court staff; and (4) any Settlement Class Member who timely and validly requests to opt-out from the Settlement. 3. Emmanuel Chaidez, Stefondra Monroe, Raymond Moule, Raven Richardson, Don Smith and Raymond Swain are designated and appointed as the Class Representatives. 4. The Court finds that Devlan Geddes, Raph Graybill, John Heenan, Amy Keller, and Jason Rathod are experienced attorneys and will adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class, and designates them as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). 5. A Final Approval Hearing shall take place before the Court on Thursday July 10, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. 6. Class Counsel intends to seek an award of up to 33.33% of the Settlement Fund as attorneys' fees, as well as reimbursement of reasonable litigation costs, to be paid from the $10,000,000 Settlement Fund. Service Awards of up to $2,500.00 will also be sought for each of the Class Representatives. Snowflake is an American cloud-based data storage company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yz0kOh at no extra charge.[CC] SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT: Must File Class Cert Response by June 11 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRACY MCKEVER and DANA J. BELVIY on behalf of Southeastern Freight Lines Retirement Savings Program, v. SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT LINES, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-06170-SAL (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Sherri A. Lydon entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to extend time to file a response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Defendant's responsive deadline has been extended up to and including June 11, 2025. Southeastern is a privately owned American less than truckload (LTL) trucking company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7C7N1C at no extra charge.[CC] SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRACY MCKEVER and DANA J. BELVIY on behalf of Southeastern Freight Lines Retirement Savings Program, v. SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT LINES, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-06170-SAL (D.S.C.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending its deadline to file a response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification up to and including June 11, 2025. Southeastern is a privately owned American less than truckload (LTL) trucking company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FB8e6C at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Andreas N. Satterfield, Jr., Esq. Rene E. Thorne, Esq. Alex E. Hotard, Esq. Phillip C. Thompson, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 15 South Main Street, Suite 700 Greenville, SC 29601 Telephone: (864) 232-7000 E-mail: Andy.Satterfield@jacksonlewis.com Rene.Thorne@jacksonlewis.com Alex.Hotard@jacksonlewis.com Phillip.Thompson@jacksonlewis.com SPROUTS FARMERS: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Tyndall Due July 24 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDY TYNDALL, v. SPROUTS FARMERS MARKERT, INC. and ECOSOUL HOME INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00048-KES-HBK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Helena Barch-Kuchta entered a preliminary case management and scheduling order: Action or Event Date Deadline for providing mandatory initial May 29, 2025 Disclosures: Deadline to complete non-expert discovery: Feb. 13, 2026 Deadline for plaintiff to disclose expert Mar. 9, 2026 report(s): Deadline for the defendants to disclose expert Mar. 9, 2026 report(s): Deadline for expert discovery: June 5, 2026 Deadline to file class certification motion: July 24, 2026 Deadline to file opposition for class Sept. 25, 2026 Certification: Deadline to file reply: Oct. 9, 2026 Class Certification Hearing: Nov. 6, 2026 at 1:00 p.m. Deadline to advise the Court of settlement, Sept. 28, 2026 ADR, VDRP or mediation efforts to date: Sprouts operates a chain of retail grocery stores. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CuFEiN at no extra charge.[CC] STAT COURIER: Parties Must File Bid to Certify Class by June 23 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEMISON v. STAT COURIER, INC., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01322 (W.D. Pa., Filed Sept. 15, 2022), the Hon. Judge W. Scott Hardy entered an order indicating that the parties shall file a motion to certify class for settlement purposes or a joint status report by June 23, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Established in 1999, STAT Courier is a Woman-Owned Business Enterprise (WBE) headquartered in Lake St. Louis, Missouri.[CC] SUNNOVA ENERGY: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to July 2 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. SUNNOVA ENERGY CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-06346-MRA-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mónica Ramirez Almadani entered an order continuing class discovery cutoff and deadline to file motion for class certification: Pretrial Event Current Continuance Deadline Granted Hearing on Motion for Class Aug. 4, 2025 Sept. 5, 2025 Certification: Reply Motion for Class July 11, 2025 Aug. 13, 2025 Certification Filing Deadline: Opposition to Motion for Class June 27, 2025 July 30, 2025 Certification Filing Deadline: Motion for Class Certification May 30, 2025 July 2, 2025 Filing Deadline: Class Certification Discovery May 27, 2025 June 27, 2025 Cut-Off: Sunnova operates as a solar energy company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AIItB2 at no extra charge.[CC] SYMETRA LIFE: Class Settlement in Davis Suit Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENNIS E. DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SYMETRA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-cv-00533-KKE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Kymberly Evanson entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion pursuant to Rule 26(e) for final approval of class action settlement, attorneys' fees, expense reimbursement, and service award, and class counsel's motion for attorneys' fees, expense reimbursement, and service award. The case is dismissed with prejudice. The Settlement Class Members are permanently enjoined from filing, prosecuting, maintaining, or continuing litigation based on or related to the Released Claims. Each party shall bear their own costs except as provided in this Order. Thie Court retains jurisdiction over this Action and the parties to administer, supervise, interpret, and enforce the Settlement Agreement, this Court’s Order, and the Final Judgment. The Settlement Class is defined as follows: "All current and former owners of one or more of the MasterPlan, Executive MasterPlan, MasterPlan Plus, Joint MasterPlan, and Juvenile MasterPlan Plus universal life insurance policies issued in Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, South Carolina, Texas, and Washington that were in force on or after Jan. 1, 2000, that were issued by American States Life Insurance Company and administered by Symetra or its predecessors in interest." Excluded from the Classes are: Symetra; any entity in which Symetra has a controlling interest; any of the officers, directors, employees, or sales agents of Symetra; the legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns of Symetra; anyone employed with the Plaintiff's counsel's firms; and any Judge to whom this case is assigned, and his or her immediate family. The Court finds that each element of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) are satisfied for purposes of certifying a settlement class. Before the Court is the proposed $32.5 million class action settlement between the Plaintiff, on behalf of the Settlement Class, and the Defendant. On April 3, 2025, Class Counsel filed their fee motion seeking one-third of the settlement fund, reimbursement for expenses in the amount of $197,618.82, and a $25,000 service award for the Plaintiff. Symetra is an American family of companies providing retirement plans, employee benefits, annuities and life insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DnTHNA at no extra charge.[CC] TIP-TOP ROOFING: AEI Submitts Class Cert Opposition Joinder ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Vriens and Steve Smith, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Tip-Top Roofing & Construction, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06797-DCN (D.S.C.), Archer Exteriors, Inc. submits its Motion for Joinder to other Defendants’ motions in opposition of class certification. Archer joins in totality, as allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(c), the other Defendants' motions in opposition of class certification and supporting memorandum. By submitting this motion, Archer is not waiving its position or arguments that class certification should be stayed pending class discovery or stayed pending the Court's ruling on the motions to compel arbitration. All arguments and authorities set forth in the other Defendants' motions in opposition of class certification are joined in and adopted by reference as if fully set forth verbatim by Archer as being mutually applicable to Archer, and further Archer's own motion in opposition of class certification. Furthermore, the proposed class Plaintiffs also lack the requisite standing to bring claims against Archer. This is particularly evident as neither of the class representatives possesses individual standing to sue Archer, since Archer performed no work on their respective residences. Archer objects to briefing of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as it is premature. Archer cannot fully address class certification issues until the forum in which these claims must be decided has been determined, and until sufficient discovery has been completed as to the issues related to class certification. Archer joins in the other Defendants' motions in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and requests that the Court deny the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Defendants include Pacific Contractors, LLC, and Builders FirstSource – Southeast Group, LLC, Carolina Custom Carpentry, LLC, Quad K, LLC, JJL Construction, LLC, CAC Carpentry, LLC, Alpha Construction of SC, LLC, Good Luck Incorporated, South Atlantic Framing, Inc., SRC Construction, LLC, Jalisco Framing, LLC, Mendoza Construction, LLC, VL Contractor, LLC, 84 Lumbar Company, LP, Varanda Contracting Group, Inc., TOMECH, LLC d/b/a Firm Foundation Coastal Carolina’s, Valim Construction, LLC, Ram Construction SC, LLC, Gold Star Construction, LLC, ProBuild East, LLC, Archer Exteriors, Inc., Americo Roofing Concepts, Inc., Contract Exteriors, LLC, Holy City Exteriors LLC, SR Construction, LLC, Robert Helms Construction, Inc., Quick Roofing, LLC, Monarch Company, LLC, Accurate Building Company, LLC, Southern Exteriors, Inc., Above the Sky Roofing, Inc., ABC Supply Co, Inc., SRS Distribution, Inc. f/k/a Superior Distribution, Contract Lumber, Inc., BMC East, LLP, USLBM-Professional Builders Supply a/k/a US LBM Holdings, LLC a/k/a US LBM, LLC, and D.R. Horton, Inc. Tip-Top is a locally owned and operated full service roofing company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2jF4eS at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: F. Heyward Grimball, Esq. RICHARDSON, PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, P.A. 235 Magrath Darby Blvd., Suite 100 Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 E-mail: fhgrimball@richardsonplowden.com Telephone: (843) 805-6550 Facsimile: (843) 805-6599 TIP-TOP ROOFING: CAC Seeks to Compel Arbitration on Class Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL VRIENS AND STEVE SMITH, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. TIP-TOP ROOFING & CONSTRUCTION, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06797-DCN (D.S.C.), the Defendant CAC Carpentry, LLC ask the Court to enter an order pursuant the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") and South Carolina Uniform Arbitration Act: (i) compelling arbitration as to the Plaintiffs' claims asserted in its Third Amended Complaint dated Feb. 27, 2025 and/or any subsequent pleading filed with this court asserting claims against CAC; (ii) compelling arbitration as to the crossclaims asserted by the Defendant D.R. Horton, Inc. in its answer to the Plaintiffs' third amended complaint and crossclaims March 12, 2025; and (iii) to stay the instant action pending the outcome of the arbitration proceedings, including pending discovery motions and the Plaintiff's motion to certify class. Accordingly, CAC requests this action be submitted to arbitration as to the Plaintiffs' claims and DR Horton's crossclaims asserted against CAC as required by the arbitration provisions set forth in the Homeowner Contracts, DR Horton's sub-contracts, and the warranty provisions and CCRs which are incorporated by reference, and that this matter be stayed pending the resolution of the claims between the parties, including, but not limited to, discovery in this case until the resolution of this Motion. The Defendants include PACIFIC CONTRACTORS, LLC; BUILDERS FIRSTSOURCE-SOUTHEAST GROUP, LLC; CAROLINA CUSTOM CARPENTRY, LLC; QUAD K, LLC; JJL CONSTRUCTION, LLC; CAC CARPENTRY, LLC; ALPHA CONSTRUCTION OF SC, LLC; GOOD LUCK INCORPORATED; SOUTH ATLANTIC FRAMING, INC.; SRC CONSTRUCTION, LLC; JALISCO FRAMING, LLC; MENDOZA CONSTRUCTION, LLC; VL CONTRACTOR, LLC; 84 LUMBER COMPANY, LP; VARANDA CONTRACTING GROUP, INC.; TOMECH, LLC d/b/a FIRM FOUNDATION COASTAL CAROLINA'S; VALIM CONSTRUCTION, LLC; RAM CONSTRUCTION SC, LLC; GOLD STAR CONSTRUCTION, LLC; PROBUILD EAST, LLC; ARCHER EXTERIORS, INC.; AMERICO ROOFING CONCEPTS, INC.; CONTRACT EXTERIORS, LLC; HOLY CITY EXTERIORS, LLC; SR CONSTRUCTION, LLC; ROBERT HELMS CONSTRUCTION, INC.; QUICK ROOFING, LLC; SOUTHEND EXTERIORS, INC.; ABOVE THE SKY ROOFING, INC.; ABC SUPPLY CO., INC.; SRS DISTRIBUTION, INC. f/k/a SUPERIOR DISTRIBUTION, INC. f/k/a SUPERIOR DISTRIBUTION; CONTRACT LUMBER, INC.; BMC EAST, LLP; USLBM-PROFESSIONAL BUILDERS SUPPLY a/k/a US LBM HOLDINGS, LLC a/k/a US LBM, LLC; and DR HORTON, INC. Tip-Top is a locally owned and operated full service roofing company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p4VLlz at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Brian E. Wolfe, Esq. Joshua R. Hinson, Esq. WOLFE, GUNST & HINSON, PLLC 215 Queens Road, Suite 200 Charlotte, NC 28204 Telephone: (704) 827-3774 Facsimile: (252) 408-6859 E-mail: bwolfe@wolfegunst.com jhinson@wolfegunst.com TIP-TOP ROOFING: Monarch Seeks to Stay Class Cert Bid Issues ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Vriens and Steven Smith, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Tip-Top Roofing & Construction, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06797-DCN (D.S.C.), the Defendant Monarch Roofing Company Of Mb, Llc F/K/A Monarch Company, LLC's ask the Court to enter an order to stay the issue of class certification until the Court rules upon the multiple pending motions to compel arbitration and until the Defendants are afforded a reasonable time to conduct discovery on the issues related to class certification. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is premature due to the pending motions to compel arbitration filed by numerous Defendants. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is premature as it is made in advance of discovery on class certification issues, thereby prejudicing the Defendants' ability to contest class certification and hindering the Court's ability to analyze this case under the requirements of FRCP Rule 23. The Defendant Monarch Roofing Company of MB, LLC, f/k/a Monarch Company, LLC by and through its undersigned counsel, submits this Motion to Stay Class Certification on the grounds that Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (ECF No. 634) is premature because: 1) A large number of Defendants have filed Motions to Compel Arbitration and Stay Discovery including general contractor Defendant D.R. Horton, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration (EFC No. 5) which is fully briefed and remains pending since December 2023; and 2) Plaintiff is the only party that has had the opportunity to conduct any discovery on the issues related to class certification. The Plaintiffs Michael Vriens and Nicholas Bardsley allege that this litigation involves construction defects in approximately 12,000 residences built by Defendant D.R. Horton, Inc. in Beaufort, Berkeley, Charleston, Dorchester, Georgetown, and Horry Counties. The Defendants include Pacific Contractors, LLC, and Builders FirstSource – Southeast Group, LLC, Carolina Custom Carpentry, LLC, CAC Carpentry, LLC, Alpha Construction of SC, LLC, Good Luck Incorporated, South Atlantic Framing, Inc. SRC Construction, LLC, Jalisco Framing, LLC, Mendoza Construction, LLC, VL Contractor, LLC, 84 Lumbar Company, LP, Varanda Contracting Group, Inc., TOMECH, LLC d/b/a Firm Foundation Coastal Carolina’s, Valim Construction, LLC, Ram Construction SC, LLC Gold Star Construction, LLC, ProBuild East, LLC, Archer Exteriors, Inc., Americo Roofing Concepts, Inc., Contract Exteriors, LLC Holy City Exteriors, LLC, SR Construction, LLC, Robert Helms Construction, Inc., Quick Roofing, LLC, Monarch Company, LLC, Accurate Building Company, LLC, Southend Exteriors, Inc., Above the Sky Roofing, Inc., ABC Supply Co, Inc., SRS Distribution, Inc., f/k/a Superior Distribution, Contract Lumber, Inc., BMC East, LLP, USLBM-Professional Builders Supply a/k/a US LBM Holdings, LLC a/k/a US LBM, LLC, and D.R. Horton, Inc., Tip-Top is a locally owned and operated full service roofing company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uzEftc at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: John A. "Jay" Jones, Esq. GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, P.A. 40 Calhoun Street, Suite 315 Charleston, SC 29401 Telephone: (843) 735-7600 Facsimile: (843) 414-8070 E-mail: jjones@gwblawfirm.com TIP-TOP ROOFING: Ram Construction Seeks to Stay Class Cert Issue ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Vriens and Steve Smith, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Tip-Top Roofing & Construction, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06797-DCN (D.S.C.), the Defendant Ram Construction SC, LLC ask the court to enter an order granting motion and stay the issue of class certification until the Court has ruled on the pending motions to compel arbitration and until Ram is afforded a reasonable time to conduct discovery on the issues of class certification. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is premature. The Defendant Ram and other similarly situated defendants have not been afforded the opportunity to engage in discovery as multiple defendants, including D.R. Horton, have moved to compel arbitration and sought protective orders preventing those defendants from engaging in discovery until a hearing and decision has been made on arbitration. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was made in advance of any decision on the pending motions to compel arbitration which means it was made in advance of any meaningful discovery being conducted on class certification issues. These actions substantially prejudice Ram. Counsel for Ram did not confer with Plaintiffs' counsel prior to making this motion because conferring would be fruitless based upon other parties having conferred and confirming Plaintiffs would not agree to wait for arbitration and class discovery rulings. The case arises out of alleged construction deficiencies concerning an undetermined number of houses thought to be over 10,000 single-family residences. These residences were constructed in Beaufort, Charleston, Berkley, Dorchester, Georgetown, and Horry County. The Defendants include Pacific Contractors, LLC, Builders FirstSource – Southeast Group, LLC, Carolina Custom Carpentry, LLC, Quad K. LLC, JJL Construction, LLC, CAC Carpentry, LLC, Alpha Construction of SC, LLC, Good Luck Incorporated, South Atlantic Framing, Inc., SRC Construction, LLC, Jalisco Framing, LLC, Mendoza Construction, LLC, VL Contractor, LLC, 84 Lumbar Company, LP, Varanda Contracting Group, Inc., Tomech, LLC dba Firm Foundation Coastal Carolinas, Valim Construction, LLC, Ram Construction SC, LLC, Gold Star Construction, LLC, Probuild East, LLC, Archer Exteriors, Inc., Americo Roofing Concepts, Inc., Contract Exteriors, LLC, Holy City Exteriors, LLC, SR Construction, LLC, Robert Helms Construction, Inc., Quick Roofing, LLC, Monarch Company, LLC, Accurate Building Company, LLC, Southend Exteriors, Inc., Above the Sky Roofing, Inc., ABC Supply Co., Inc., SRS Distribution, Inc. f/k/s Superior Distribution, Contract Lumber, Inc., BMC East, LLC, USLBM-Professional Builders Supply a/k/a US LBM Holdings, LLC a/k/a US LBM, LLC, and DR Horton. Tip-Top is a locally owned and operated full service roofing company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AxPbLU at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: John E. Rogers, II, Esq. J. Christian Greene, Esq. THE WARD LAW FIRM, P.A. 233 South Pine Street Spartanburg, SC 29304 Telephone: (864) 591-2366 Facsimile: (864) 585-3090 E-mail: jrogers@wardfirm.com cgreene@wardfirm.com TRICIDA INC: Class Settlement in Pardi Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL PARDI, et al., v. TRICIDA, INC., et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00076-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order granting the motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The parties are directed to meet and confer and stipulate to a schedule of dates for the following events: Deadline for Settlement Administrator to mail notice to all putative Class Members Filing deadline for attorneys' fees and costs motion Filing deadline for incentive payment motion Deadline for Class Members to opt-out or object to settlement and/or application for attorneys' fees and costs and incentive payment, at least 45 days after the filing of the motion for attorneys’ fees and incentive payments Filing deadline for final approval motion Final fairness hearing and hearing on motions The Class is defined the same as in the Court's prior order granting class certification as: "All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of Tricida, Inc. during the period from May 8, 2020 to Feb. 25, 2021." The Class definition excludes anyone who validly seeks exclusion from the Class or whose request for exclusion the Court accepts. Settlement Benefits: The Defendant Klaerner will make a non-reversionary payment of $14,250,000. On Jan. 6, 2021, the Plaintiff filed an initial complaint against both Tricida and Defendant Klaerner, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. Tricida was a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KKddLD at no extra charge.[CC] TSYS MERCHANT: Bid to Continue Class Cert Deadline in SBCW Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SBCW CONSULTING, INC., v. TSYS MERCHANT SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-03193-SRM-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Serena Murillo entered an order denying the Plaintiff's ex parte application to continue the deadline to file the motion for class certification and hearing. SBCW suggests that ex parte relief is required "as there is not sufficient time to file a formal noticed motion requesting an extension" before the May 22, 2025 deadline. However, the Court does not deem this as justifying the filing of an ex parte application. Nor does SBCW's closing paragraph of the Ex Parte Application that requests the extension "[s]ince there is good cause for the extension, no attendant prejudice to the Defendants, and since Defendants do not oppose such" meet the requirements of the Local Rules and governing standards. Rather, SBCW's statement is contrary to the Defendants' Opposition and its lack of oath regarding efforts to contact counsel prior to filing the Ex Parte Application. On May 5, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg ordered the Defendants TSYS to produce and provide certain information and documents to SBCW by May 9, 2025. TSYS offers credit card processing and other related services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2HKE0B at no extra charge.[CC] TSYS MERCHANT: S.B.C.W. Seeks to Certify Class of Customers ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as S.B.C.W. CONSULTING, INC. dba 76 FORD EXIT, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. TSYS MERCHANT SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; TSYS ADVISORS, INC., a Georgia corporation; TSYS ACQUIRING SOLUTIONS, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-03193-SRM-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on July 17, 2025, will move for class certification of the following class: "All of the Defendants' California customers from April 18, 2020, to the date of judgment, who were assessed fees for use of POS terminals and electronic debit, credit, and/or Electronic Benefit Transaction ("EBT") card processing from any of the Defendants, (i) for fees not agreed to, and/or (ii) for fees above their contractual rate." The Plaintiff also seeks their appointment as the Class Representative, and the appointment of Protection Law Group, LLP as Lead Counsel. TSYS offers financial solutions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xlZeQ9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Heather Davis, Esq. Amir Nayebdadash, Esq. Brendan J. Burton, Esq. Shadi Sahebghalam, Esq. PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP 149 Sheldon Street El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 290-3095 Facsimile: (866) 264-7880 E-mail: heather@protectionlawgroup.com amir@protectionlawgroup.com brendan@protectionlawgroup.com shadi@protectionlawgroup.com UHG I LLC: Class Cert Hearing in Powell Suit Reset for June 27 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZACHARY POWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UHG I LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00086-DMS-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dana M. Sabraw entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to continue hearing on the Plaintiff's motion to certify class. -- The hearing is reset for June 27, 2025, at 1:30p.m. -- The Defendant shall file an opposition to the Plaintiff's motion on or before June 6, 2025. -- The Plaintiff may file a reply on or before June 20, 2025. The Defendant is a debt collection company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uMOx7l at no extra charge.[CC] UHG I LLC: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Hearing to June 27 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZACHARY POWELL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. UHG I LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00086-DMS-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order continuing the motion hearing set for June 6, 2025 to June 27, 2025, or as soon thereafter as the Court allows. The Parties further request that the Court adjust the response and reply deadlines such that the Defendant may have until June 6, 2025 to file an opposition and the Plaintiff have until June 20, 2025 to file a reply. Counsel for the Parties have conferred and the Plaintiff's counsel has no objection to the request. This is the first request to continue the hearing date for Plaintiff's Motion. On April 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Certify Class. On April 23, 2025, the Court vacated the Motion hearing date set for May 23, 2025, and reset same for June 6, 2025. The Defendant is a third-party debt buyer. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pDVNDy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Barthel, Esq. BARTHEL LEGAL, APC 2173 Salk Ave., Ste. 250 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 259-0033 Facsimile: (760) 536-9010 E-mail: nick@barthelbarthel.com The Defendant is represented by: Brendan H. Little, Esq. LIPPES MATHIAS LLP 50 Fountain Plaza, Suite 1700 Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 853-5100 Facsimile: (716) 853-5199 E-mail: blittle@lippes.com - and - Jeff W. Poole, Esq. HAMRICK & EVANS, LLP 2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 1020 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (818) 763-5292 Facsimile: (818) 763-2308 E-mail: jpoole@hamricklaw.com UIPATH INC: Seeks to Refile Class Certification Opposition Brief ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Severt et al., v. UiPath, Inc. et al (re: UiPath, Inc. Securities Litigation), Case No. 1:23-cv-07908-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting them permission to refile the Class Certification Opposition Brief and the Lead Plaintiff Deposition Transcript with updated, more limited redactions to match the redactions ordered by the Court. The Defendants have conferred with counsel for the Plaintiff, who consents to this request. On April 29, 2025, the Defendants moved to seal, among other things, the Lead Plaintiff Deposition Transcript in its entirety and all portions of the Class Certification Opposition Brief that quoted or summarized that transcript. The next day, the Court granted Defendants' letter-motion in part and ordered that "the lead plaintiff shall designate any passages [of the Lead Plaintiff Deposition Transcript] that it requests to be redacted and state the reasons for those requests." On May 16, the Plaintiff filed a letter requesting limited redactions, which this Court granted on May 19. UiPath is a global software company that makes robotic process automation software. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bEEg4f at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Edmund Polubinski, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 450-4695 E-mail: edmund.polubinski@davispolk.com UNITED DEBT: Miller Renewed Bid for Class Certification Vacated --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGEL MILLER, et al., v. UNITED DEBT SETTLEMENT, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02210-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Sarah D. Morrison entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to vacate Clerk's entry of default and motion to vacate order granting plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification. The Entries of Default against the Defendants Everything Is In Stock, LLC, United Debt Settlement, LLC, and Gabriel Gorelik are vacated. The Order granting Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Certify Class is vacated. The Plaintiffs' renewed motion to certify class is denied. Because the Defendants were never properly served in this case, the Court never established personal jurisdiction over them. The Court did not have authority to certify a class of plaintiffs against the Defendants, so the Order granting the renewed motion to certify class must be vacated. In light of this new information, the Plaintiffs' renewed motion to certify class is denied. United provides financial advice and education. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MCuAoC at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED SERVICES: Class Certification Order Entered in Abraham ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NEVILLE ABRAHAM, et al., v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-01182-FMO-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order regarding motions for class certification: The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single, fully integrated joint brief covering each party’s position, in which each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a party is immediately followed by the opposing party’s/parties’ response. All citation to evidence in the joint brief shall be directly to the exhibit and page number(s) of the evidentiary appendix or page and line number(s) of a deposition. In order for a motion for class certification to be filed in a timely manner, the meet and confer must take place no later than thirty-five (35) days before the deadline for class certification motions set forth in the Court’s Case Management and Scheduling Order. After the joint brief is filed, each party may file a supplemental memorandum of points and authorities no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the hearing date. United is a private financial services and insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i5SkaV at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED SERVICES: Tomczak "PIP Claim" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MALLOREY TOMCZAK, KALITHA HEAD, JOSEPHINE WALKER, AND LESLIE WYATT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, AND GARRISON PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5:21-cv-01564-MGL (D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order (1) certifying the class defined as: "All persons (1) who were insured under the PIP/MedPay coverage of a South Carolina automobile insurance policy issued by United Services Automobile Association, USAA Casualty Insurance Company, USAA General Indemnity Company, and Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company (collectively, "USAA"); (2) who received medical, health care, or rehabilitation services, or medication or equipment, from a health care provider; (3) who made a claim under the PIP coverage of that policy; (4) who submitted (or whose health care provider submitted) to USAA a bill for such services or products; and (5) who had that bill reduced or denied by a PPO code, a PR code or Physician Review, a DOC code, or an RF code." Excluded from the Class are USAA's officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, employees, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns; (2) appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives; and (3) appointing Franklin D. Azar & Associates, P.C. and Williams & Williams as class counsel. The Plaintiffs bring this action against USAA alleging that USAA has engaged in a multifaceted scheme to arbitrarily and improperly reduce and deny these claims using Auto Injury Solutions' ("AIS") automated Medical Bill Audit ("MBA") system through which the claim cascades and undergoes a review to determine which codes apply to reduce or deny, as the case may be, its insureds' PIP/MedPay claims. The Plaintiffs allege claims against USAA for bad faith breach of contract and breach of contract, including the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. United is an American financial services company providing insurance and banking products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vM7lpn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: C. Bradley Hutto, Esq. WILLIAMS & WILLIAMS Orangeburg, SC 29116 Telephone: (803) 534-5218 Facsimile: (803) 928-5190 E-mail: cbhutto@williamsattys.com - and - Franklin D. Azar, Esq. Paul R. Wood, Esq. Michael D. Murphy, Esq. Dezarae LaCrue, Esq. Timothy L. Foster, Esq. Moses Lebovits, Esq. Brian Hanlin, Esq. FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 14426 East Evans Avenue Aurora, CO 80014 Telephone: (303) 757-3300 Facsimile: (720) 213-5131 E-mail: azarf@fdazar.com woodp@fdazar.com murphym@fdazar.com lacrued@fdazar.com fostert@fdazar.com lebovitsm@fdazar.com hanlinb@fdazar.com - and - Steven W. Teppler, Esq. STERLINGTON PLLC 228 Park Avenue South #97956 New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (202) 253-5670 E-mail: steppler@sterlington.net UNITED STATES: Rev. Boyd's Claims Found Deficient ------------------------------------------------- U.S. Magistrate Judge Mitchell J. Katz of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York issued a report and recommendation in the case captioned as REV. TAMESHA N. BOYD, vs UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00225-DNH-MJK (N.D.N.Y.). The court granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) but recommended dismissal of the complaint on multiple grounds, primarily without prejudice and with leave to amend, due to untimeliness, procedural deficiencies, improper representation, and immunities of certain defendants. On February 19, 2025, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint against numerous defendants, including the Albany County Department of Social Services, the Social Security Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Treasury Department, the New York State Department of Education, Donald John Trump Jr., and Elon Musk. Plaintiff concurrently filed a motion to proceed IFP, declaring her inability to pay the filing fee. The court reviewed her financial declaration and found her eligible for IFP status, granting the motion. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915, the court evaluated the complaint’s sufficiency, which requires dismissal of IFP actions that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek relief against immune defendants. Plaintiff alleges a series of violations spanning over a decade. She claims that since 2014, she and her children have been denied essential healthcare by the Albany County Department of Social Services and the Social Security Administration, exacerbating her physical and psychological injuries, including the loss of her reproductive organs due to medical incompetence. Despite repeated requests for care, Plaintiff asserts her conditions worsened, threatening her survival. She further alleges that the Social Security Administration, Internal Revenue Service, and U.S. Treasury Department shared her personal, medical, and financial data with private corporations and government entities without her consent or due process. Additionally, Plaintiff contends that the Albany County Department of Education failed her two eldest children by separating them from her during critical developmental periods, allegedly to corrupt them into future criminality. The complaint references Plaintiff being forced to earn money for the government since 2008, though this claim lacks clarity. Plaintiff seeks monetary and non-monetary relief, including injunctive remedies, and attempts to assert claims on behalf of herself, her minor children, and a group described as 'Black Americans' or the 'Black Nation.' The court's review under 28 U.S.C Section 1915 identified several grounds for dismissal. The complaint appears to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, subject to a three-year statute of limitations in New York per N.Y. C.P.L.R. Section 214(5). Section 1983 claims accrue when Plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury. The complaint alleges healthcare denials since 2014, forced earnings since 2008, and record detention by the Social Security Administration since 2014. Filed in 2025, these claims appear time-barred unless saved by the continuing violation doctrine or equitable tolling. The continuing violation doctrine applies to ongoing unlawful acts, while equitable tolling requires extraordinary circumstances and diligent action. Due to the complaint's unintelligible nature, the court could not assess these exceptions and recommended dismissal without prejudice, with leave to plead supporting facts. Compliance with Federal Rules. The complaint violates Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10. Rule 8(a)(2) requires a short and plain statement of the claim to provide fair notice, enabling defendants to respond and prepare a defense. Rule 10 mandates numbered paragraphs, each addressing a single set of circumstances. The court described the complaint as a "rambling dissertation" on perceived historical injustices, lacking clarity and coherence. Neither the court nor defendants can reasonably identify Plaintiff’s claims. The court recommended dismissal without prejudice under Rules 8 and 10, with leave to amend for clarity and structure. Plaintiff, a non-attorney proceeding pro se, seeks to represent her minor children. Federal law prohibits non-attorney parents from representing minors, who require trained counsel. The complaint's claims for Plaintiff's children do not fall within exceptions for claims under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or social security benefits. The court recommended dismissing these claims without prejudice until counsel is retained or the children reach the age of majority. Plaintiff's attempt to assert a class or representative action for "Black Americans" or the "Black Nation" is improper. The Second Circuit prohibits pro se litigants from representing others. The court recommended dismissing these claims without prejudice, with leave to amend only if counsel is retained. Several defendants are immune from suit. The New York State Department of Education is protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity, as New York has not waived it, and Congress did not abrogate it under Section 1983. The Albany County Department of Social Services, an administrative arm of Albany County, lacks a separate legal identity and cannot be sued. Federal defendants, including the United States, Social Security Administration, Internal Revenue Service, and U.S. Treasury Department, are shielded by sovereign immunity absent a statutory waiver, which is not present. Claims against Donald John Trump Jr. and Elon Musk, in their official and individual capacities, lack coherent allegations, particularly regarding "DOGE and other corporate interests." The court recommended dismissing these claims with prejudice. The court recommended that if not dismissed as time barred, the complaint should be dismissed in its entirety pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 10 without prejudice and with leave to amend. If not dismissed as time-barred, dismissal without prejudice under Rules 8 and 10, with prejudice and without leave to amend against the United States Government, the Social Security Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, the Treasury Department, Donald John Trump Jr., in his official and individual capacities, and Elon Musk, in his individual and acting official capacities related to DOGE and other corporate interest . The court also recommended: -- Dismissal without prejudice of claims for Plaintiff's minor children until represented by counsel or they reach the age of majority. -- Dismissal without prejudice of class or representative claims, with leave to amend only if counsel is retained. -- Dismissal with prejudice of claims against the New York State Department of Education, Albany County Department of Social Services, the United States, Social Security Administration, Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Treasury Department, Donald John Trump Jr., and Elon Musk due to immunity or lack of actionable claims. A copy of the court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uZJbeN UNITED STATES: Vera Suit Seeks Class Certification -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, PAMELA J. BONDI, in her official capacity as United States Attorney General, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, MAUREEN A. HENNEBERG, in her official capacity as Acting Head of the Office of Justice Programs, Case No. 1:25-cv-01643 (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following Class: "All entities in the United States issued awards by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Justice Programs, whose grants or cooperative agreements DOJ terminated in April 2025 pursuant to 2 C.F.R. section 200.340(a)(4)." The Plaintiffs further request that the Court appoint all named Plaintiffs as class representatives and Democracy Forward Foundation and Perry Law as class counsel. The proposed Class is defined with reference to objective criteria and is limited to specific entities. Indeed, class members can be precisely determined from Defendants' records. Prior to the terminations at issue here, Defendants administered the awards and sent the termination notices. As such, class members are easily identifiable. The Plaintiffs' class action complaint alleges that in April 2025, the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs (OJP) suddenly canceled hundreds of grants and cooperative agreements to community organizations. DOJ is a federal executive department responsible for the domestic enforcement of federal laws and the administration of justice. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j4CqzU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lisa Newman, Esq. Jennifer Fountain Connolly, Esq. Cortney Robinson, Esq. Somil Trivedi, Esq. Brian D. Netter, Esq. Skye L. Perryman, Esq. DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION Washington, DC 20043 Telephone: (202) 448-9090 E-mail: lnewman@democracyforward.org - and - Joshua Perry, Esq. Joshua Stanton, Esq. E. Danya Perry, Esq. PERRY LAW 445 Park Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 251-2619 E-mail: jperry@danyaperrylaw.com UPONOR INC: Class Certification Discovery in Carrico Due Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN CARRICO; KACIE CARRICO; DON GATLIN; and DORA GATLIN; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UPONOR, INC.; UPONOR NORTH AMERICA, INC.; UPONOR CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, whose true names are unknown, Case No. 3:23-cv-00497 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Jeffery Frensley entered an initial case management order as follows: Discovery related to class certification issues shall be completed by Dec. 31, 2025. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed by Jan. 30, 2026. The plaintiff shall identify and disclose all expert witnesses and expert reports on or before Oct. 17, 2025. The defendant shall identify and disclose all expert witnesses and reports on or before Nov. 14, 2025. Expert depositions shall be completed by Dec. 31, 2025. A subsequent case management conference shall be held telephonically on Aug. 27, 2025. The Defendants manufactured, distributed, and sold defective PEX potable water piping that was installed in the homes and other structures of Plaintiffs and the putative Class members when those homes/structures were built. The PEX piping is defective for the specific reasons set forth in the Third Amended Complaint and, in many cases, has leaked causing costly damages to the homes, other structures, and personal property therein of Plaintiffs and the putative Class members. Uponor provides plumbing, indoor climate, and infrastructure systems. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=csTvfy at no extra charge.[CC] VIVA BURRITO: Noperi Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carlos Noperi, an Arizona resident; v. Viva Burrito Development Corporation, an Arizona company; and Juan Beltran an Arizona resident, Case No. 4:25-cv-00213-JCH (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying a collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") consisting of: "All restaurant workers (or similar job titled); who work[ed] for the Defendant Viva Burrito and/or Juan Beltran within the past three years; who work[ed] over 40 hours in any given workweek as a past or present employee; who did not receive time-and-a-half overtime compensation are known as (the "Collective Members")." Through this lawsuit, the Plaintiff Noperi seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages for himself and the Collective Members, requiring the proper payment of overtime wages to employees, under the collective action mechanism of the FLSA. The Plaintiff Noperi worked for the Defendants full-time from Dec. 31, 2008, to March 25, 2025. Viva is a restaurant company specializing in fast-casual Mexican cuisine. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tXNn1m at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Weiler, Esq. Jason Barrat, Esq. WEILER LAW PLLC 5050 N.40th St., Suite 260 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone: (480) 442-3410 Facsimile: (480) 442-3410 E-mail: jweiler@weilerlaw.com jbarrat@weilerlaw.com www.weilerlaw.com VWR INTERNATIONAL: Case Management Plan & Scheduling Order Entered ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSSMAN SALES COMPANY, INC., v. VWR INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02869-LTS-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered a case management plan and scheduling order: All discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues VWR is an American company involved in the distribution of research laboratory products. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=F7zmTF at no extra charge.[CC] WORKFORCE7 INC: Ballast Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ballast, et al., v. Workforce7 Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03812-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending deadline to file motion for class certification. The parties jointly request an extension of these deadlines, as Plaintiffs have been focused on finalizing the settlement and motion for preliminary approval with the Settling Defendants, which they anticipate filing by June 23, 2025, as well as preparing expert disclosures. On March 24, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their pre-motion letter regarding their anticipated class certification motion. Workforce7 provides professional flagging services with safety as utmost priority. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0Zam38 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 Facsimile: (212) 385-0800 E-mail: Pelton@PeltonGraham.com WYETH INC: PDGI Seeks to Certify Direct Purchaser Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PROFESSIONAL DRUG COMPANY, INC. v. WYETH, INC. (RE: EFFEXOR XR ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No. 3:11-cv-05479-ZNQ-JBD (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs, on Jan. 13-14, 2026, will move before the Hon. Zahid N. Quraishi, for an order: 1. Certifying the following "Direct Purchaser Class" pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3): "All persons or entities in the United States and its territories who purchased Effexor XR and/or AB-rated generic versions of Effexor XR directly from Wyeth or Teva1 at any time during the period June 14, 2008 through and until May 31, 2011 (the "Class Period")." Excluded from the Direct Purchaser Class are Wyeth and Teva and their officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, or affiliates, all governmental entities, and all persons or entities that purchased Effexor XR directly from Wyeth during the Class Period that did not also purchase generic Effexor XR directly. 2. Appointing Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., Stephen L. LaFrance Holdings, Inc. d/b/a SAJ Distributors, and Uniondale Chemists, Inc. as the representatives of the Class. 3. Confirming the appointment of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP; Berger Montague PC; Faruqi & Faruqi LLP; Taus, Cebulash & Landau LLP; Nastlaw LLC; and Barrett Law Group, P.A. as Co- Lead Counsel for the Class, and Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf LLP as Liaison Counsel for the Class. Wyeth was a pharmaceutical company purchased by Pfizer in 2009. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VAyAOc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew F. Gately, Esq. COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP Park 80 West – Plaza One 250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401 Saddle Brook, NJ 07663 Telephone: (201) 845-9600 Facsimile: (201) 845-9423 E-mail: mfg@njlawfirm.com - and - Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. Gregory T. Arnold, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP One Faneuil Hall, Square, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02109 E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com grega@hbsslaw.com - and - David F. Sorensen, Esq. Caitlin G. Coslett, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net ccoslett@bm.net - and - Peter Kohn, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI LLP One Penn Center, Suite 1550 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 E-mail: pkohn@faruqilaw.com - and - Barry S. Taus, Esq. TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP 123 William Street, Suite 1900A New York, NY 10038 E-mail: btaus@tcllaw.com - and - Dianne M. Nast, Esq. NASTLAW LLC 1101 Market Street, Suite 2801 Philadelphia, PA 19107 E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com - and - Don Barrett, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. 404 Court Square Lexington, MS 39095 E-mail: donbarrettpa@gmail.com XPO LAST: Lopez Must File Class Cert Bid by Dec. 8 -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAYNOR MEJIA LOPEZ, an individual; individually and on Behalf of All Similarly Situated Individuals, v. XPO LAST MILE, INC., A Georgia Corporation, and DOES 1 through 25, Inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-08976-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Susan Illston entered an order regarding class certification briefing schedule as follows: (1) The Plaintiff is given an extension to file his motion for class certification. (2) The briefing schedule on the Plaintiff's forthcoming motion for class certification is reset as follows: a. The Plaintiff shall file his moving papers by Dec. 8, 2025. b. The Defendant shall file its opposition by Feb. 6, 2026. c. The Plaintiff shall file his reply by March 20, 2026. d. The hearing shall be set for April 10, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. or any time or date thereafter at the Court's convenience. On Feb. 13, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint refining the class definition based on meet and confer efforts with Defendant stemming from pre-certification discovery propounded by the Plaintiff. On Feb. 26, 2025, the Parties stipulated to extend the Defendant's time to respond to the Plaintiff's second amended complaint. XPO provides third-party logistics and last mile delivery services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DEzN9b at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael H. Boyamian, Esq. Armand R. Kizirian, Esq. BOYAMIAN LAW, INC. 550 North Brand Blvd., Suite 1500 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 547-5300 Facsimile: (818) 547-5678 E-mail: michael@boyamianlaw.com armand@boyamianlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Benjamin J. Schnayerson, Esq. Dahn A. Levine, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4615 Telephone: (415) 394-9400 Facsimile: (415) 394-9401 E-mail: Ben.Schnayerson@jacksonlewis.com Dahn.Levine@jacksonlewis.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 ***