250612.mbx

250612.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, June 12, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 117 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Avenarius Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Cropper Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Hall Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Hodgkiss Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Hopson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Kniceley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Larson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: McCoy Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Thomas Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ABIOMED INC: Heart Pumps Caused Fatal Heart Injury, Suit Says AKEELA INC: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Class Suit ALLOVIR INC: Proposes to Settle Securities Class Action Lawsuit ALPHALETE ATHLETICS: Williams Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Connelly Suit AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK: Bishop Sues Over Unsecured Information AMOREPACIFIC US INC: Lewis Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. APPLE INC: Faces Class Suit Over AI Capabilities of iPhone 16 ARCHERY TRADE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Price Fixing ASTRAZENECA PLC: Settles Antitrust Class Suit for $5.475-Mil. ATOMIC PROTOCAL: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Crypto Theft AZURE POWER: Agrees to Settle Securities Class Action Lawsuit BASS PRO: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Price Fixing Scheme BISSELL HOMECARE: Albrigo Sues Over Unlawful and Unfair Conduct BLUE SHIELD: Markovitz Sues Over Unlawful Sharing of PII BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Valencia Sues Over Unpaid Compensation Bunkhouse Management: Thomas Balks at Unprotected Personal Info CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Suit Over Unfair Billing Practices CINMAR LLC: Greben Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio CLEO COMMUNICATIONS: Camplese Sues Over Data Breach COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over False Ads CON-FAB CALIFORNIA: Vega-Regaldo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CVS HEALTH: Settles Class Action Lawsuit Over Recalled Eye Drops DAISO CALIFORNIA: Fukaya Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes DARLING INGREDIENTS: Jopke Seeks to Compel Reformation of Bylaws DAVITA INC: Fails to Properly Secure Personal Info, Fortin Says EL CENTRO: Appeals Remand Order in Grace Suit to 5th Circuit EL TRIO CORP: Lopez Seeks Restaurant Staff's OT Wages Under FLSA FCA US: Gunn Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit FIG & OLIVE: Hughes Files Class Action Complaint in S.D.N.Y. FORTREA HOLDINGS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit GAINFUL HEALTH: Cody Suit Removed to C.D. California GENERAL MOTORS: Wrice-Scott Sues Over Defective Truck Engines GIORDANO'S COLLISION: Mendoza Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA GROCERY OUTLET: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Deceptive Pricing HARVARD PILGRIM: Settles 2023 Data Breach Class Suit for $16MM HELIUM COMEDY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Added Service Fees HELZBERG DIAMONDS: Faces Class Action Over Fake Discounted Prices HIRE VELOCITY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Sanchez Says HOMEAGLOW INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Membership IBOTTA INC: Valentine Balks at Misleading Registration Statements IQBAR INC: Faces Jue Suit Over Bar Misleading Protein Content KINECTA CREDIT: Class-Action Settlement Gets Final Approval KNOWBE4 INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit LEXISNEXIS RISK: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Mendez Says MARKS & SPENCER: May Face Class Suit Over Cyber-Attack in Scotland MARRIOTT HOTELS: Wins US Appeal in Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit MATCH GROUP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set July 7 MCCAIN FOODS: Artificially Inflates Frozen Food Prices, Suit Says MDL 2873: Panel Denies Transfer of Varline Suit to D.S.C. MDL 2873: Three AFFF Suits Transferred to D.S.C. MEAZURE LEARNING: Faces Class Suit Over CA Bar Exam Tech Issues MENCHIE'S GROUP: Taylor Sues Over Unpaid Compensation NORTH CAROLINA: Betts Appeals Complaint Dismissal to 4th Circuit OSCAR HEALTH: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Breast Imaging Fees OXFORD LIFE: Thomas Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info PEOPLEREADY INC: Perez Suit Removed to N.D. California PPG INDUSTRIES: Kassem Removed from State Court to C.D. Cal. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Franco Suit RECKITT BENCKISER: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in S.D.N.Y. REDLINE SOCIETY: Faces Smith Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Norris Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit SEAWORLD SAN DIEGO: Settles Annual Pass Class Action for $1.5-Mil. SOUTHERN STATES: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With FB Financial SPOKEO INC: Larancuent Suit Removed to C.D. California SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Settles Jail Class Action Lawsuit for $18MM SUMMER VIBE: Faces Class Suit Over Unfair Telephone Solicitations TADASHI SHOJI: Faces Davis Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Teamsters Sues Over Dexilant Monopoly TARGET CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Violations of CA Labor Laws TECHTARGET INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims THANG BOTANICALS: M. A. Appeals Suit Dismissal Ruling to 9th Cir. THIRTY THREE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Pittman Claims TITAN REALTY: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Tonato Alleges TOYOTA INSURANCE: Vaccaro Suit Removed to C.D. California TOYOTA MOTOR: Allard Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts UNION HEALTH: Fails to Protect Personal, Health Info, Woolard Says UNITED STATES: Sued Over Federal Indian Boarding School Program UNITED STATES: Vera Institute Balks at Termination of Grants UPONOR INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over AquaPEX Pipes WARBURG PINCUS: Khan Appeals Suit Dismissal to Delaware Supreme Ct. WHIRLPOOL CORP: Goldstein Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. WOODFOREST NATIONAL: Mann Suit Seeks Assistant Managers' OT Wages WORKDAY INC: AI Class Suit to Proceed as Collective Action [] Shine Lawyers Investigates Side Effects of Herbicide Paraquat ********* 3M COMPANY: Avenarius Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Avenarius, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-03614-RMG (D.S.C., April 30, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were being exposed to toxic chemicals until the contamination was recently discovered. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or the Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF product. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Cropper Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals ----------------------------------------------------------------- James Cropper, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successorin interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-03635-RMG (D.S.C., April 30, 2025), is brought for damages stemming from personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during their firefighting career and diagnosed with Thyroid Disease and High Cholesterol as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Y. Shenkar, Esq. MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP 101 West Elm St., Suite 520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (803) 315-3357 Fax: (610) 941-9880 Email: jshenkar@bernllp.com 3M COMPANY: Hall Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals -------------------------------------------------------------- Brett Hall, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successorin interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-03602-RMG (D.S.C., April 30, 2025), is brought for damages stemming from personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during their firefighting career and diagnosed with Kidney Cancer, and High Cholesterol as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Y. Shenkar, Esq. MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP 101 West Elm St., Suite 520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (803) 315-3357 Fax: (610) 941-9880 Email: jshenkar@bernllp.com 3M COMPANY: Hodgkiss Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Hodgkiss, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-03615-RMG (D.S.C., April 29, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were being exposed to toxic chemicals until the contamination was recently discovered. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or the Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF product. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Hopson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Raymond Hopson, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-03616-RMG (D.S.C., April 30, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were being exposed to toxic chemicals until the contamination was recently discovered. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or the Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with liver cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF product. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Kniceley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams -------------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Kniceley, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-03617-RMG (D.S.C., April 30, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were being exposed to toxic chemicals until the contamination was recently discovered. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or the Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF product. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Larson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Larson, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-03619-RMG (D.S.C., April 30, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were being exposed to toxic chemicals until the contamination was recently discovered. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or the Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with thyroid cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF product. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: McCoy Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffery McCoy, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-03620-RMG (D.S.C., April 30, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were being exposed to toxic chemicals until the contamination was recently discovered. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or the Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with liver cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF product. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Thomas Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Johnny Thomas, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-03627-RMG (D.S.C., April 30, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were being exposed to toxic chemicals until the contamination was recently discovered. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or the Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF product. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com ABIOMED INC: Heart Pumps Caused Fatal Heart Injury, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Irvin Jackson, writing for About Lawsuits, reports that according to a recently filed wrongful death lawsuit, an Ohio man died of a left ventricle perforation only a few months before Abiomed released a bulletin instructing doctors how to avoid puncturing the heart when using Impella heart pumps. The complaint was brought by Rebecca Lester in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on May 27, presenting claims on behalf of herself and the estate of her late husband, Garry Lester. The lawsuit names Abiomed, Inc. and its parent company, Johnson & Johnson, as defendants, alleging that their Impella CP heart pump caused Garry Lester's fatal heart injury in 2021. The Impella is a small pump that is about the size of a pencil, which is used during open-heart procedures. The device is inserted through the femoral artery in the leg and guided into the heart's left ventricle. Its purpose is to assist circulation by transferring oxygen-rich blood from the ventricle into the ascending aorta, ensuring a steady blood flow to vital organs during surgery. According to the wrongful death lawsuit, Abiomed and Johnson & Johnson failed to act on known safety problems with the Impella heart pump, including risks of left ventricle perforations and manufacturing defects. Lester seeks class action status to also pursue damages on behalf of others who were seriously injured or killed by Impella pump, claiming the companies withheld critical warnings, violated post-market safety obligations, and misled patients and physicians about the product's safety. Impella Heart Pump Problems Since it was introduced, the Impella heart pumps have been plagued by problems, resulting in multiple recalls and dozens of patient deaths. In recent years, regulators have warned of lower-than-expected patient survival rates, heart valve damage and blood clot risks. In 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a Class I recall for Impella Left Sided Blood Pumps, following reports of heart ventricle perforations, which linked the device to 129 injuries and 49 deaths. That same year, another recall was issued for Impella 5.5 with SmartAssist pumps due to purge fluid leaks that led to device malfunctions, heart valve damage and a heightened risk of severe injuries, with 179 related complaints. Additionally, the FDA issued a Class I recall for Impella RP Flex catheter systems in June 2023, following inadequate safety instructions regarding blood clot risks. This issue was associated with 12 reported injuries and posed a serious risk of death and other complications. Earlier this year, another Impella recall was announced due to the risk that improper positioning during insertion could result in making contact with the guidewires, which could cause the device to shut down, or result in serious injury or death. In recent years, lawyers throughout the United States have begun evaluating potential Impella heart pump lawsuits on behalf of individuals and families who allege that the manufacturer was aware of Impella heart pump risks for years, but failed to act, placing a desire for profits over patient safety. 2025 Impella Class Action Lawsuit According to a recently filed lawsuit, Garry Lester underwent a high-risk cardiac procedure on May 27, 2021, during which doctors implanted an Impella CP heart pump into his left ventricle. Shortly after the device was placed, Lester's blood pressure dropped sharply. Doctors later determined the pump had perforated the wall of his heart, leading to a series of complications that resulted in his death just three days later, on May 30. Although Abiomed issued a technical bulletin in October 2021, warning its sales force about the risk of left ventricle perforations linked to the Impella, the complaint notes that these warnings were never incorporated into the official Instructions for Use or shared directly with physicians or patients. Lester claims it was not until September 2024, more than three years after her husband's death, that a medical professional formally linked the Impella device to the fatal injury. "Abiomed failed to ensure their Impella pump which caused Decedent's serious injury and death was not adulterated in any way, was manufactured according to its approved specifications, and contained sufficient Instructions for Use incorporating post market acquired knowledge of harmful effects in a way to avoid heart wall perforation, other injuries, and death," the lawsuit states. "Abiomed failed to warn users of the Impella CP device and actively marketed the Impella CP device as being safe despite the substantial risk of harm." The lawsuit seeks class action status for all individuals who had an Impella heart pump implanted and who suffered cardiovascular injuries or death between January 1, 2018 and March 21, 2024. Lester's wife and estate present claims of product liability, breach of warranty, fraud, survivorship, violations of Ohio consumer sales practices, wrongful death and loss of consortium. She seeks both punitive and compensatory damages. Impella Heart Pump Lawsuits Investigated Nationwide Amid the growing number of Impella recalls issued in recent years, Impella heart pump recall lawyers are investigating cases for individuals who have received the devices and experienced any of the following injuries: Heart tear/perforation Stroke Organ failure Wrongful death Anemia Blood clots Hypertension Bleeding events Prolapsed valve Vascular damage Reduced blood flow Hemolysis (Red blood cell destruction) Other serious injury Lawyers provide free consultations and claim evaluations to help individuals throughout the United States determine whether financial compensation or settlement benefits through an Impella heart pump lawsuit may be available. [GN] AKEELA INC: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Steve Alder of HIPAA Journal reports that Akeela Inc., an Anchorage, AK-based provider of mental health and substance use disorder treatment services, has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit filed in response to a 2023 data breach that exposed the protected health information of more than 284,000 individuals. On or around June 22, 2023, Akeela experienced disruption to its IT network. The forensic investigation confirmed there had been unauthorized network access and the exfiltration of administrative files containing patients' protected health information. The stolen information included names, dates of birth, diagnosis and treatment information, and Social Security numbers. In August 2024, a class lawsuit -- Jessica McRorie v. Akeela Inc. -- was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska over the data breach. The lawsuit alleged Akeela was negligent by failing to secure and safeguard patients' personally identifiable and protected health information and did not comply with industry-standard data security practices, even though there was a known risk that cybercriminals actively target healthcare providers. The lawsuit claims Akeela maintained sensitive data in a reckless manner, and as a direct consequence of its negligence, sensitive patient data is now in the hands of cybercriminals. Further, when the breach was detected, Akeela delayed issuing notification letters to the affected individuals, who were informed that their sensitive data had been stolen more than a year after the data breach was identified. The lawsuit claims that the delay diminished the plaintiff and class members' ability to timely and thoroughly mitigate and address the harms resulting from the data breach. The lawsuit claims the plaintiff and class members have suffered concrete injuries as a result of the data breach, including financial costs from mitigating the risk and imminent threat of identity theft and fraud, lost of time and productivity, actual identity theft and fraud, deprivation of the value of their private information, loss of privacy, and emotional distress, anxiety, and stress. In addition to claims for negligence and negligence per se, the lawsuit asserted claims of breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment. Akeela maintains there was no wrongdoing and denies all of the claims and contentions in the lawsuit; however, the healthcare provider agreed to settle the litigation to avoid further legal costs and the uncertainty of trial. Details of the settlement agreement have yet to be made public; however, the plaintiff and Akeela have reached an agreement in principle on an appropriate settlement. Notices for class members and the motion for preliminary approval from the court are now being prepared. [GN] ALLOVIR INC: Proposes to Settle Securities Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard LLP announces that the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of AlloVir, Inc. securities (NASDAQ: KLRS): SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES, AND SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING To: All persons or entities who purchased the securities of AlloVir, Inc. ("AlloVir") during the period from January 11, 2023 to December 21, 2023, inclusive ("Settlement Class"). Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Settlement Class as set forth in detail in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated April 14, 2025 ("Stipulation") and the Internet Notice described below. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY; YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT IS AVAILABLE ON THE SETTLEMENT WEBSITE, WWW.STRATEGICCLAIMS.NET/ALLOVIR/ YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "Court"), that the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the proposed Settlement Class, and defendants AlloVir, Diana M. Brainard, and Vikas Sinha, (collectively, the "Defendants") have reached a proposed settlement of the claims in the above-captioned class action (the "Action") in the amount of $1,000,000 (the "Settlement"). A hearing will be held before the Honorable Denise Casper, on July 30, 2025, at 2:30 p.m., in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, Massachusetts 02210 (the "Settlement Hearing") to, among other things, to determine whether to: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the Stipulation; (iii) certify the Action as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, certify Lead Plaintiffs as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class, and appoint Lead Counsel as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; (iv) approve Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees of up to thirty-three and one third percent (33 1/3 %) of the Settlement Fund and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses of up to $100,000, which includes costs and expenses to Lead Plaintiffs; and (v) to consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it telephonically, without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. You may obtain a Claim Form and review the Internet Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses ("Internet Notice") on the website www.strategicclaims.net/allovir/ or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: AlloVir, Inc. Securities Litigation c/o Strategic Claims Services 600 N. Jackson St., Suite 205 P.O. Box 230 Media, PA 19063 Toll-Free: (866) 274-4004 Fax: (610) 565-7985 info@strategicclaims.net https://www.strategicclaims.net/allovir/ Inquiries, other than requests for the Internet Notice and Claim Form or for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel: Michael S. Bigin, Esq. BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP 10 East 40th Street, 28th Floor New York, NY 10016 (212) 779-1414 bigin@bernlieb.com If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked (if mailed) or submitted online at www.strategicclaims.net/allovir/ ("Case Website") no later than August 19, 2025. Read the instructions carefully, fill out the Claim Form in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Claim Form, and sign it in the location indicated. The Case Website also includes instructions on downloading your transaction data directly from your brokerage so that you do not have to manually enter each transaction. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Internet Notice such that it is received no later than July 9, 2025. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses or awards to Lead Plaintiffs must be filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the Internet Notice, such that they are received no later than July 9, 2025. SO ORDERED this 23 day of April, 2025. The Honorable Denise Casper United States District Court Judge [GN] ALPHALETE ATHLETICS: Williams Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ DARNELL WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alphalete Athletics, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05639 (N.D. Ill., May 21, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design its website, https://alphaleteathletics.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The barriers to access have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of the website. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Alphalete Athletics' policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Alphalete Athletics, LLC operates the website that offers fitness apparel including leggings, shorts, T-shirts, hoodies, joggers, pants, swimwear, underwear, 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 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Connelly Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled Renee Connelly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Amazon.com Services LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-2768-JMG, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff, a former non-exempt hourly paid employee of Amazon, brings this lawsuit seeking compensation for the time spent off-the-clock as a result of Amazon's company-wide policy requiring each of its employees to pass a COVID screening in order to work for the day. Amazon's failure to pay the Plaintiff and Class members for this time (1) violates the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"), and (2) constitutes a breach of contract, or in the alternative, unjust enrichment and quantum meruit. On Nov. 15, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which Judge John M. Gallagher granted on Mar. 4, 2025. The Court further entered an Order that upon consideration of the Plaintiff's motion to strike Exhibit I to Amazon's response to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, the Defendant's response in opposition to the Plaintiff's motion to strike, and the Plaintiff's reply in support of motion to strike Exhibit I to Amazon's response to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, that the motion to strike is denied. It is further ordered that upon consideration of the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, the Plaintiff's response to the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, the Defendant's reply in support of the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, the motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. The appellate case is captioned Renee Connelly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Amazon.com Services LLC, Defendant, Case No. 25-8022, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on May 29, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent RENEE CONNELLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. FOTY LAW GROUP 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 Email: dfoty@fotylawgroup.com - and - Matthew Scott Parmet, Esq. PARMET LAW PC 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 999-5200 Email: matt@parmet.law Defendant-Petitioner AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC is represented by: Lucas C. Townsend, Esq. Andrew G.I. Kilberg, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1700 M Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 955-8500 Email: LTownsend@gibsondunn.com AKilberg@gibsondunn.com - and - Bradley J. Hamburger, Esq. Tiffany Phan, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Email: BHamburger@gibsondunn.com TPhan@gibsondunn.com AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK: Bishop Sues Over Unsecured Information -------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Austin Bishop, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK & TRUST, Case No. 7:25-cv-00053-O (N.D. Tex., June 2, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its customers. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure--was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. The Defendant collected and maintained certain personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and the putative Class Members, who are (or were) customers of Defendant. The PII compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff's and Class Members' full names and Social Security numbers ("personally identifiable information" or "PII"). The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach was accessed by an unknown actor who gained unauthorized access and information remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals who target Private Information for its value to identity thieves. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' Private Information from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized intrusions; failing to take standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach; and failing to provide Plaintiff and Class Members prompt and accurate notice of the Data Breach. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the Private Information that Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired by data thieves, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former customers of Defendant. The Defendant is a banking and financial institution with 12 branches across Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (888) 350-3931 Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (213) 474-3800 Fax: (213) 471-4160 Email: daniel@slfla.com AMOREPACIFIC US INC: Lewis Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amorepacific US, Inc. The case is styled as Adam Lewis, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Amorepacific US, Inc., Case No. CACE25008043 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., June 2, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other." Amorepacific -- https://us.amorepacific.com/ -- is the largest cosmetics company in South Korea and one of the ten largest cosmetics companies in the world.[BN] APPLE INC: Faces Class Suit Over AI Capabilities of iPhone 16 ------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that four plaintiffs have filed class action lawsuits against Apple Inc. Why: They allege Apple misled consumers about the artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities of its iPhone 16 lineup. Where: The class action lawsuits were filed in Utah and California federal courts. Three new class action lawsuits allege Apple misled consumers about the AI capabilities of its iPhone 16 lineup, including iPhone 16, iPhone 16e, iPhone 16 Plus, iPhone 16 Pro and iPhone 16 Pro Max. Plaintiff Skyler Mamone Feldt filed claims in Utah federal court on May 5 alleging Apple falsely advertised that its iPhone 16 lineup would have new AI-based enhancements to its Siri digital assistant, among other AI features. Meanwhile, plaintiff Peter Landsheft accused Apple of widespread public deception, misleading millions of consumers into purchasing smartphones based on features that did not exist, violating consumer protection and false advertising laws. The case was filed on March 19 in California federal court. In addition to false advertising claims and non-existent functions, plaintiffs Corey Martin and Tyshaun Butler claimed in California federal court on April 9 that some iPhones routinely experienced overheating, battery drainage and repetitive screen glitches. Apple allegedly knew AI features for iPhone 16 lineup could not be delivered on time Feldt argues Apple knew there was no way the AI features it promised could be delivered on the timeline the company promised consumers. He claims Apple violated the Utah Consumer Sales Practice Act by allegedly misrepresenting the characteristics and benefits of the iPhone 16, failing to deliver on its promises and not adequately disclosing the delays in feature availability. Landsheft alleges Apple was forced to acknowledge, under “mounting pressure” from outraged consumers and industry scrutiny, that the heralded AI features, including the Siri enhancements, “did not exist then and do not exist now.” Plaintiffs Martin and Butler say the Siri AI makeover was the centerpiece of the promised Apple Intelligence platform and was touted by the company in advertisements and other public statements in an effort to increase sales of the iPhone 16 and spur iPhone upgrades. Plaintiffs are demanding respective jury trials and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of statutory fines, compensatory damages and actual damages for themselves and all class members. An additional lawsuit filed in early May accuses Apple of bait-and-switch tactics with the rollout of its iPhone 16 series. Feldt is represented by Raphael Janove of Janove PLLC; Landsheft is represented by Ryan J. Clarkson, Yana Hart and Bryan P. Thompson of Clarkson Law Firm P.C.; and Martin and Butler are represented by Joseph W. Cotchett, Brian Danitz, Karin B. Swope, Gia Jung, Vasti S. Montiel and Pierce H. Stanley of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP. The Apple AI class action lawsuits are Feldt v. Apple Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00353, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division; Landsheft v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-02668; and Martin, et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-03205, both in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. ARCHERY TRADE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Price Fixing ----------------------------------------------------------- Natalie Krebs, writing for Outdoor Life, reports that a proposed class-action lawsuit filed in federal court last week is accusing the archery industry of colluding to fix prices of products at all levels. The suit, which was filed May 30 in U.S. District Court in Utah, names big-box store retailers like Bass Pro Shops, bowmakers like Mathews, and the Archery Trade Association for conspiring "to fix the prices of -- and eliminate price discounting and competition for -- archery products." The suit was first reported by Reuters on Monday, June 2. The 63-page lawsuit hinges on a policy known as Minimum Advertised Pricing, or MAP. Many archery companies and outdoor retailers won't sell their archery equipment, particularly compound bows, for less than a certain amount. If a bow shop undercuts the agreed upon advertising price, manufacturers can -- and have -- enforced their MAP policies by revoking a shop's authorized dealer status for their brand. This is different from the actual sale price of a bow. Still, the lawsuit accuses the ATA of a "campaign to artificially raise prices through MAP policies." MAP policies grew from a need to combat online retail giants like Amazon. The global retailer began undercutting brick and mortar shops by selling products at discount, and without the previously included advice and bow servicing that local sporting goods stores offered customers for free when they purchased equipment. For example, flagship bows from top companies like Mathews, Hoyt, PSE, Bowtech, and others are not sold online. So if you want to purchase the new Mathews, you must show up in person at an authorized dealer. Usually, your local bow shop won't sell you a new bow below the MAP. While there, however, you'll have the opportunity to test-shoot bows and have a bow technician set up your bow properly. If new top bows were to be sold online and shipped directly to your home, industry insiders agree that local bow shops would be doomed. In recent years there's also been a rise in knock-off companies ripping off the design and packaging of top archery products, then selling them at discounted prices online. Customers would think they were buying a brand's top-tier broadheads, but actually receive a cheaper Chinese-made product. Warranty claims began to increase, and archery companies found themselves dealing with quality control and brand degradation. MAP policies were designed to help address this. MAP is a complicated issue, according to industry insiders, but such practices are legal when executed correctly and do not qualify as price fixing as defined by the Federal Trade Commission. The key distinction is that price fixing usually occurs between competitors, while MAP pricing occurs throughout the entire industry. "MAP is generally legal if it's implemented unilaterally by the manufacturer," says one former archery industry insider, who asked not to be identified due to the pending litigation. "Price fixing is when competitors agree to a fixed price. And of course, a manufacturer and a retailer aren't competitors: one is a supplier, one is the seller." The key, they emphasize, is "unilaterally." That means a manufacturer cannot favor one shop or distributor by offering one better pricing. Meanwhile, as e-commerce sales of low-priced and knock-off archery products continued to grow, bow manufacturers and accessory makers looked for an industry-wide solution. To protect their brand values and the industry itself, many companies began implementing MAP policies. "MAP was completely legal," the source says. "No one was suggesting retailers fix prices and force consumers to buy X product at Z price. That never happened and never would have happened. And obviously retailers wouldn't have agreed to it. Retailers want the ability to do things their own way." Another consideration is that price fixing is often done secretly -- because it's illegal. MAP policies are widely publicized by everyone from the ATA to individual manufacturers. (You can find Bowtech's MAP policy here.) One key allegation the lawsuit may be seeking to prove, however, is that the industry tried to enforce not just the advertised price, but the sales price of archery equipment. "Do I think there's price fixing? No, I've never participated in it. I know that I have dealers sell way below MAP in their store, but they do not advertise that way. And that is their decision. That is their store. I cannot dictate what they sell it for," said one bow company executive who was not authorized by their legal team to speak publicly about the lawsuit. "It's a slippery slope because if there's no protection from an advertising standpoint, the big guys are gonna gobble up the small guys. There are shops in the country right now that sell Mathews at $50 to a $100 over cost so that they will sell every Mathews within a 150 mile radius and try to push the smaller guys out of business. I've been told that by big dealers. They don't advertise it but people just know they go in there, you know, they're gonna pay $50 to a hundred over as opposed to $350 to $400 over. So if they could start advertising on what they want and there's nothing we could do, it would drive half the shops in this country out of business." Because ATA is a non-profit organization, its records are subject to public records requests. The lawsuit is packed with excerpts of these statements that are intended to bolster the price-fixing argument. Here are a few examples: "These coordinated MAPs have benefited the industry collectively, allowing retailers and distributors to 'strive for a minimum of 40% profit,' according to the industry trade association National Archery Buyers Association ("NABA"). As one Archery Products retailer observed, 'Every dealer I have ever talked to thinks everything in archery is overpriced today, just as I do . . . [I]s archery overpriced, absolutely." "The ATA explained that "MAP . . . policies help retailers stay in tune with the market and margin expectations. In other words, if you understand and follow a manufacturer's MAP policy, you'll be better positioned to make more money and run a successful business." The suit is brought by plaintiff Joseph Santarlas from Delaware County, Pennsylvania, "on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated." In other words, anyone who has bought the archery products referenced in the suit. Santarlas was working Friday and was not immediately available for comment when reached by phone. None of the eight attorneys who signed their names to the lawsuit have replied to Outdoor Life's repeated requests for comment this week. Four different firms, with offices in California, Washington D.C., New York, and Pennsylvania, are listed as counsel for the plaintiff. Most of the firms specialize in antitrust and class-action lawsuits. One industry insider noted that the defendants named in the suit are all larger companies with deeper pockets that might be able to settle such a lawsuit before ever reaching court. Smaller manufacturers and mom-and-pop bow shops are not named. The lawsuit names: -- Hoyt -- Bowtech -- Mathews -- PSE -- Cabela's -- Dick's -- Bass Pro Shop -- Jay's Sporting Goods -- Kinsey's Outdoors -- Lancaster Archery Supply -- Archery Trade Association -- Two software companies that helped companies track MAP pricing Most companies listed in the lawsuit, including Bass Pro Shops, did not return requests for comment or declined to comment to OL. The Archery Trade Association also did not return a call for comment, but issued a brief public statement via email on Friday shortly after OL reached out. "The Archery Trade Association has learned of a recently filed lawsuit against the ATA and a group of archery manufacturers, distributors and retailers," reads the statement. "The complaint seeks relief related to Minimum Advertised Pricing (MAP) policies dating back more than a decade. The ATA is in the process of preparing an appropriate response to the complaint and looks forward to a swift and favorable conclusion to this matter." [GN] ASTRAZENECA PLC: Settles Antitrust Class Suit for $5.475-Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that AstraZeneca and Handa Pharmaceuticals agreed to pay a combined $5.475 million to resolve claims they violated antitrust laws by keeping Seroquel XR generic medications off the market. The Seroquel XR antitrust settlement benefits entities that purchased, paid and/or reimbursed some or all of the purchase price of Seroquel XR or quetiapine fumarate ER 50 mg, 150 mg, 200 mg and/or 300 mg tablets in certain states between Sept. 5, 2015, and Dec. 9, 2024. According to the class action lawsuit, AstraZeneca and Handa violated state antitrust laws by taking actions to keep generic versions of Seroquel XR off the market. This allegedly harmed competition and caused third-party payers to overpay for Seroquel XR and generic quetiapine fumarate ER. Seroquel XR is an antipsychotic medication used to treat schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and depression. The generic version of Seroquel XR is quetiapine fumarate ER. AstraZeneca and Handa have not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $5.475 million settlement to resolve the antitrust class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the amount they paid for Seroquel XR or quetiapine fumarate ER between Sept. 5, 2015, and Dec. 9, 2024. No payment estimates are available at this time. The deadline for exclusion and objection was Feb. 24, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Seroquel XR antitrust settlement was scheduled for April 23, 2025. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by June 9, 2025. Who's Eligible The settlement benefits third-party payors who purchased, paid for or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price of Seroquel XR or quetiapine fumarate ER 50 mg, 150 mg, 200 mg and/or 300 mg tablets between Sept. 5, 2015, and Dec. 9, 2024, in Arizona, Arkansas, California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia or Wisconsin. Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase Class members must provide documentation of their purchases, payments and/or reimbursements for 50 mg, 150 mg, 200 mg and 300 mg strengths of Seroquel XR and generic quetiapine fumarate ER. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 06/09/2025 Case Name In re: Seroquel XR (Extended Release Quetiapine Fumarate) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:20-cv-01076-CFC (D. Del.), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware Final Hearing 04/23/2025 Settlement Website SeroquelXRAntitrustSettlement.com Claims Administrator Claims Administrator P.O. Box 5017 Portland, OR 97208-5017 info@SeroquelXRAntirustSettlement.com (888) 884-8072 Class Counsel Robert G. Eisler GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. Defense Counsel Benjamin M. Greenblum WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP James E. Gallagher DAVIS, MALM & D'AGOSTINE P.C. [GN] ATOMIC PROTOCAL: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Crypto Theft ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed in California on behalf of victims who lost tens of thousands, some hundreds of thousands, of dollars in cryptocurrency due to a massive security breach at Atomic Wallet, a widely used crypto storage platform. The suit alleges that Atomic Wallet and its parent companies ignored clear warnings about serious vulnerabilities, putting thousands of users at risk. The June 2023 hack saw more than $100 million in digital assets stolen by hackers allegedly linked to North Korea. But according to the lawsuit, the real failure lies with Atomic Wallet's leadership, who were told years in advance that their system was unsafe, yet they did nothing. "This wasn't a sophisticated hack. This was a preventable disaster. And Atomic Wallet knew it was coming," said Kiley Grombacher an attorney for the class. "They were warned by their own security auditors that their product was unsafe. They failed to fix it, failed to warn anyone, and as a result our clients' life savings are gone." The complaint outlines how Atomic Wallet, operated by a global web of companies with ties to Russia, concealed its security problems while marketing itself as a safe and secure option for holding cryptocurrency. A 2021 report from security firm Least Authority concluded that the wallet had fundamental design flaws that left users open to devastating losses. Despite this, Atomic Wallet continued to promote the product without disclosing the risks. Each of the named plaintiffs in the suit used Atomic Wallet between 2019 and 2023 and suffered major financial losses when their wallets were emptied without warning. Some lost more than $500,000. The suit alleges that Atomic Wallet's negligence, misrepresentations, and failure to act directly caused these losses. "This lawsuit is about accountability," added Ms. Grombacher. "Crypto companies that handle people's money don't get to hide behind international shell companies and fake names while real families suffer. We intend to hold them responsible." The lawsuit seeks damages for all U.S. Atomic Wallet users affected by the breach, and calls for greater transparency and consumer protection in the rapidly growing but largely unregulated cryptocurrency space. The case is Petru Alasu et al. v. Atomic Protocal Systems dba Atomic Wallet, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California San Francisco Division, Case No. Case 3:25-cv-04684-LB.[GN] AZURE POWER: Agrees to Settle Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announce that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has granted approval for publication of the following notice regarding a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of Azure Power Global Limited ("Azure") equity securities (OTC: AZREF): SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES To: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Azure equity shares between January 1, 2020 and November 20, 2024, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"). Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants, the officers and directors of the Company, at all relevant times, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest, and Azure shareholders Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec ("CDPQ") and Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System ("OMERS") and all current and former affiliates, employees, officers, directors, and representatives of CDPQ and OMERS, respectively. Also excluded from the Settlement Class are all persons or entities who would otherwise be Members of the Settlement Class, but who exclude themselves by validly and timely submitting a request for exclusion. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Southern District of New York, that the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff, Serap Lokman, on behalf of herself and all members of the Settlement Class, and Azure, Ranjit Gupta, Murali Subramanian and Pawan Kumar Agrawal (collectively, "Defendants"), have reached a proposed settlement of the claims in the above- captioned class action (the "Action") in the amount of $23,000,000.00 (the "Settlement"). Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel estimate that if all affected Azure shares elect to participate in the Settlement, the average recovery per share could be approximately $0.57, before deduction of any fees, expenses, costs, and awards as described in the Notice. In exchange for the Settlement and the release of the Releasing Plaintiffs' Claims against the Released Defendants' Parties, Azure has agreed, on behalf of Defendants, to create a $23,000,000.00 cash fund, which may accrue interest, to be distributed, after deduction of Court-awarded attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, Notice and Administration Expenses, Taxes, and any other fees or expenses approved by the Court (the "Net Settlement Fund"), among all Settlement Class Members who submit valid Claim Forms and are found to be eligible to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund ("Authorized Claimants"). A hearing will be held before the Honorable Gregory H. Woods on September 5, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. EDT, in Courtroom 12C of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 (the "Settlement Hearing") to, among other things, consider whether: (i) the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and should be approved; (ii) the proposed plan for allocating the proceeds of the Settlement (the "Plan of Allocation") to Settlement Class Members is fair and reasonable and should be approved; and (iii) Lead Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses, and any award to the Lead Plaintiff for her time and expenses in representing the interests of the Settlement Class, are reasonable and should be approved. This Notice describes important rights you may have and what steps you must take if you wish to participate in the Settlement, object, or be excluded from the Settlement Class. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it telephonically or via videoconference, without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. A full Notice and Claim Form can be obtained by visiting the settlement website, www.AzureSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Azure Securities Settlement c/o Claims Administrator 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Toll-free: (877) 853-4123 Email: info@AzureSecuritiesSettlement.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice/Claim Form or for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel: Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. Gregory M. Potrepka, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1111 Summer Street, Suite 403 Stamford, CT 06905 (203) 992-4523 shopkins@zlk.com gpotrepka@zlk.com If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked (for U.S. mail), received by the private carrier (for FedEx, UPS, etc.), or submitted online no later than August 29, 2025 to the Claims Administrator at the address above. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice such that it is postmarked (for U.S. mail), received by the private carrier (for FedEx, UPS, etc.), or e-mailed, no later than August 15, 2025 to the Claims Administrator. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application including a Lead Plaintiff Award, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to counsel for the Settling Parties in accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are postmarked (for U.S. mail), received by the private carrier (for FedEx, UPS, etc.), or e-mailed, no later than August 15, 2025. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: MAY 21, 2025 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK [GN] BASS PRO: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Price Fixing Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that retailer Bass Pro Shops and its affiliate Cabela's have been accused in a new lawsuit of scheming with manufacturers, distributors and a trade group to charge consumers artificially higher prices in the billion-dollar archery and bowhunting industry. The proposed class action, filed on Friday, May 30, the federal district court in Utah, also named Dick's Sporting Goods, the Archery Trade Association and several manufacturers and distributors as participants in the alleged price-fixing scheme. The Pennsylvania resident who filed the lawsuit alleged the trade association drove an industry-wide campaign to establish and enforce minimum advertised pricing policies. Those policies violated U.S. antitrust law by preventing price competition among retailers, the complaint alleged. The lawsuit estimated there are hundreds of thousands of potential class members who have purchased relevant archery products since 2014. "The alleged cartel in this case has illegally raised the prices paid by American bowhunters and archers for a decade," said a lawyer for the plaintiffs, Gary Smith Jr, of law firm Hausfeld. "This lawsuit aims to recover those overcharges for the benefit of the alleged cartel's victims." Bass Pro Shops, Dick's Sporting Goods and the Archery Trade Association did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Bass Pro Shops acquired Cabela's in 2017. Archery products distributor Lancaster Archery Supply, another defendant, did not immediately respond to a similar request. The lawsuit said the Minnesota-based Archery Trade Association played a central role in the alleged price-fixing conspiracy. The group's membership, now at more than 2,500 organizations, includes manufacturers, distributors and retailers. Price competition among retailers was seen as an "existential threat" to the industry, according to the lawsuit, so the trade group and retailers allegedly agreed to implement minimum advertised pricing as a measure to keep a level playing field. Some bows can cost hundreds of dollars, and arrows run more than $100, according to the lawsuit. The products at issue also include arrowheads and targets. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and a court order prohibiting the alleged price-fixing conspiracy from continuing. The case is Joseph Santarlas v. Bowtech et al, U.S. District Court, District of Utah, No. 2:25-cv-00436-DAK. For plaintiff: Gary Smith Jr of Hausfeld; Jason Lichtman of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein; David Kesselman of Kesselman, Brantly, Stockinger; and Joshua Grabar of Graber Law Office For defendants: No appearances yet [GN] BISSELL HOMECARE: Albrigo Sues Over Unlawful and Unfair Conduct --------------------------------------------------------------- Todd Albrigo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BISSELL HOMECARE, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-01390-BEN-JLB (S.D. Cal., June 2, 2025), is brought against the Defendant to secure redress for violations of California's Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act ("SBA") and California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), seeking injunctive relief, damages, and restitution based on Defendant's unlawful and unfair conduct. The SBA explicitly requires that "a manufacturer, distributor, or retail seller shall not make an express warranty with respect to a consumer good that commences earlier than the date of delivery of the good." However, Defendant commences their express warranties on the date of purchase, not on the date of delivery, as required by the SBA. As a result of this unlawful and deceitful business practice, consumers who receive their goods after the date of purchase, such as online shoppers, do not receive the full benefit of their warranty. These consumers are short-changed the full value of their warranties. Furthermore, Defendant unfairly benefit by saving themselves the added time and expense that would be required to properly track and administer their warranties were they to commence on the date of delivery, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a purchaser of Defendant's Bissell Crosswave Pet Pro All in One Wet Dry Vacuum Cleaner and Mop. The Defendant manufactures consumer goods which are advertised and accompanied by express warranties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan L. McBride, Esq. Jonathan Gil, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ryan@kazlg.com jonathan@kazlg.com - and - Adib Assassi, Esq. Veronica Cruz, Esq. ASSASSI & CRUZ LAW FIRM, PC 1100 W. Town & Country Road, Suite 1250 Orange, CA 92868 Phone: (800) 500-0301 Facsimile: (800) 500-0301 Email: adib@aclegalteam.com veronica@aclegalteam.com BLUE SHIELD: Markovitz Sues Over Unlawful Sharing of PII -------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Markovitz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE, d/b/a BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, Case No. 25CV121261 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., April 30, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard the sensitive information that it collected and maintains as part of its regular business practices, including, but not limited to personally identifying information such as patient name; city; zip code; gender; and family size; ("PII") and protected health information, such as insurance plan name, type and group number; Blue Shield assigned identifiers; medical claim services date, service provider, and patient financial responsibility; and "Find a Doctor" search criteria and results ("PHI" and, together with PII, "Personal Information"). Blue Shield historically has used the third-party vendor service, Google Analytics, to track website usage of members who entered Blue Shield's Web Properties, along with other Google tracking tools such as Google Tag Manager (collectively, the "Tracking Tools"). Blue Shield, on February 11, 2025, discovered that, between April 2021 and January 2024, the Tracking Tools it uses on its Web Properties were configured in a way that allowed certain member data to be shared with Google's advertising product, Google Ads, including patients' Personal Information. The data disclosed by the Tracking Tools allowed unauthorized third parties, including Google, to receive and view patients' Personal Information and intercept their private digital communications, mine them for purposes unrelated to the provision of healthcare, and then directly monetize that data to deliver targeted advertisements. By providing these functions via its Web Properties, Blue Shield knew, or should have known, that its patients would use the Web Properties to communicate Personal Information to Blue Shield in conjunction with obtaining medical services and submitting insurance claims. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class Members, however, the Tracking Tools embedded in Blue Shield's Web Properties contained source code that surreptitiously tracked, recorded, and disseminated Plaintiff's and Class Members' online activity and communications (including Personal Information) to Google without first obtaining Plaintiff's and Class Members' consent, in violation of HIPAA, state laws, industry standards, and patient expectations. By installing and using the Tracking Tools on its Web Properties, and configuring the Tracking Tools in a way that allowed Personal Information to be shared with Google, Blue Shield effectively planted a bug on Plaintiff's and Class Members' web browsers and devices, which caused their communications to be intercepted, accessed, viewed, and captured by third parties in real time, as they were communicated by Plaintiff and Class Members. As a result of Blue Shield's conduct, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Personal Information, including their PHI, has been disclosed to an unauthorized third party without Plaintiffs' and Class Members' knowledge or permission, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Personal Information to Defendant. Blue Shield is one of the largest health care insurers in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Theodore W. Maya, Esq. Alyssa Brown, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Phone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-4521 Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com abrown@ahdootwolfson.com BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Valencia Sues Over Unpaid Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------ Darin Valencia, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM FREMONT, INC. a Delaware corporation; BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a Delaware corporation; BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM ANIMAL HEALTH USA INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CV121174 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., April 30, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for California Labor Code violations and unfair business practices stemming from Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked and meal periods, failure to timely pay all wages to terminated employees, failure to indemnify necessary business expenses, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements. The Defendants maintained a systematic, company-wide policy and practice of: Failing to pay employees for all hours worked, including all minimum wages, and overtime wages in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders; Failing to provide employees with timely and duty free meal periods in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, failing to maintain accurate records of all meal periods taken or missed, and failing to pay an additional hour's pay at the regular rate of pay for each workday a meal period violation occurred; Failing to authorize and permit employees to take timely and duty-free rest periods in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, and failing to pay an additional hour's pay at the employee's regular rate of pay for each workday a rest period violation occurred; Failing to indemnify employees for necessary business expenses incurred; Willfully failing to pay employees all minimum wages, overtime wages, meal period premium wages, and rest period premium wages due within the time period specified by California law when employment terminates; Failing to maintain accurate records of the hours that employees worked; and Failing to provide employees with accurate, itemized wage statements containing all the information required by the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt Master Associate from February 2019 to November 2024. The Defendants own/owned and operate/operated an industry, business, and establishment within the State of California, including Alameda County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. Tiffany Hyun, Esq. Jessica M. Abreu, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 985-1150 Facsimile: (213) 985-2155 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com tiffany.hyun@thesentinelfirm.com Jessica.abreu@thesentinelfirm.com Bunkhouse Management: Thomas Balks at Unprotected Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bunkhouse Management, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00778 (W.D. Tex., May 22, 2025) is a class action against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and Class Members. On or around June 30, 2024, the Defendant's systems were accessed by an unauthorized third-party and the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised. The private information compromised in the data breach was exfiltrated by cyber criminals and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals who target private information for its value to identity thieves, says the suit. As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft. Through this complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals whose private information was accessed and/or acquired during the data breach. Plaintiff Thomas is a former employee of the Defendant. Bunkhouse Management, LLC is a hotel management company with locations across Texas, California, Kentucky, and Mexico.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Tanner R. Hilton, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 4131 North Central Expressway, Suite 900 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (800) 237-1277 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com trh@federmanlaw.com CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Suit Over Unfair Billing Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- WDRB reports that a Jefferson County man has filed a class-action lawsuit against Spectrum, claiming deceptive and unfair billing practices. The lawsuit was filed by Richard Wookey, a former television broadcast employee. The suit centers around a $28 monthly Broadcast TV surcharge. According to the lawsuit, that money goes toward re-transmission fees paid to stations like WDRB, suggesting this fee is "mandated externally and beyond Spectrum's control." But the plaintiff said in the lawsuit that would mean Spectrum pays out more than $34 million a year to local stations, but it's believed those costs are much lower. The lawsuit claims Spectrum is making improper profits, which it cannot do on re-transmission fees. The Law Office of Winton and Hiestand, the law firm that filed the class-action lawsuit, are now looking into just how much money Spectrum could be taking from its customers. "For example, hypothetically, it's only a dollar improper profit or $2 dollars," Chauncey Hiestand, attorney, said. "You multiply that by every customer in the Metro or everyone in the state of Kentucky or even broader nationwide. Those numbers per month are astronomical, and that's what we're going to get to the bottom of." The lawsuit is asking for the money to be paid back to customers. WDRB News reached out to Spectrum's parent company, Charter Communications, and they declined to comment. [GN] CINMAR LLC: Greben Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Melanie Greben, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CINMAR, LLC and FRONTGATE MARKETING, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-10140 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on May 30, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00360-MRB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. Cinmar, L.P., doing business as Frontgate -- https://www.frontgate.com/ -- provides home furniture.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christin Cho, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. Martin E. Brenner, Esq. Grace Bennett, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 Email: christin@dovel.com simon@dovel.com martin@dovel.com grace@dovel.com The Defendants are represented by: Hillary A. Hamilton, Esq. Jason D. Russell, Esq. SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER AND FLOM LLP 2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 200 N Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (213) 687-5000 Fax: (213) 621-5576 Email: hillary.hamilton@skadden.com jason.russell@skadden.com - and - Meredith C. Slawe, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP One Manhattan West New York, NY 10001 Phone: (212) 735-3534 Fax: (917) 777-3534 Email: meredith.slawe@skadden.com CLEO COMMUNICATIONS: Camplese Sues Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------- Mark Camplese, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CLEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and THE HERTZ CORPORATION, Case No. 3:25-cv-50242 (N.D. Ill., June 2, 2025), is brought on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendants with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII" or "Private Information") that was impacted in a data breach that Defendants publicly disclosed on April 11, 2025 (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"), arising from Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to them, and their accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The Defendants had numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and common law duties and obligations, including those based on their affirmative representations to Plaintiff and Class Members, to keep their Private Information confidential, safe, secure, and protected from unauthorized disclosure or access. The Defendants failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure. Defendants owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendants solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached their duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. Defendant Hertz admitted that information in its system was accessed by unauthorized individuals, though it provided little information regarding how the Data Breach occurred. The sensitive nature of the data exposed through the Data Breach signifies that Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered irreparable harm. Plaintiff and Class Members have lost the ability to control their private information and are subject to an increased risk of identity theft. The Defendants, despite having the financial wherewithal and personnel necessary to prevent the Data Breach, nevertheless failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. As a result of Defendants' inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Camplese is a customer of Hertz. Cleo is a software platform that helps businesses manage their supply chain integration and provides tools to businesses for automating, integrating, and monitoring business-to-business transactions, among other services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq. Melissa G. Meyer, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: cmaccarone@zlk.com mmeyer@zlk.com COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over False Ads --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Josh Cook filed a class action lawsuit against Colgate-Palmolive Co. Why: Cook alleges the company falsely advertises its Hello Kids Fluoride Rinse as safe for young children. Where: The Colgate class action lawsuit was filed in Illinois federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Colgate-Palmolive Co. falsely advertises its Hello Kids Fluoride Rinse as safe for young children. Plaintiff Josh Cook filed the class action complaint against Colgate on May 15 in Illinois federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the lawsuit, Colgate advertises its Hello Kids Fluoride Rinse as safe for young children despite the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considering it too dangerous for children under 6 years old. Cook says Colgate misleadingly markets the product as "naturally friendly" and appealing to children with flavors like Wild Strawberry and Bubble Gum, without proper warnings about potential risks. The lawsuit claims that fluoride is toxic if swallowed and that children under six lack the ability to control swallowing, leading to potential health risks, such as vomiting, intoxication and nausea. Hello Kids product can also cause dental fluorosis, class action says The lawsuit also alleges that swallowing the rinse can cause dental fluorosis, a defect in tooth enamel that results in visible and sometimes disfiguring staining. Cook argues that the FDA does not mandate warnings about this condition because children under six are not supposed to use fluoride rinses in the first place. The lawsuit further claims that Colgate's packaging fails to include the required warnings about the need to read directions for proper use. Cook alleges the company's labeling emphasizes the product's appealing flavors and natural ingredients, misleading consumers into believing it is safe for young children. Cook seeks to represent a class of consumers from multiple states, including Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Virginia, Washington and the District of Columbia, who purchased the rinses for their children under 6 years old. The lawsuit asserts claims for violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. In related news, another class action lawsuit claims Tom's of Maine, a Colgate-Palmolive company, sold toothpaste products made with bacteria-contaminated water. The plaintiff is represented by Michael Connett, Aaron Siri, Elizabeth A. Brehm and Lisa Considine of Siri & Glimstad LLP. The Colgate rinse class action lawsuit is Cook v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., Case No. 1:25-cv-05448, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. [GN] CON-FAB CALIFORNIA: Vega-Regaldo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Con-Fab California, LLC. The case is styled as Francisco Vega-Regaldo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Con-Fab California, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0007628 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 30, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Con-Fab California, LLC -- https://confabca.com/ -- is a manufacturer of structural precast, prestressed concrete located in Lathrop and Shafter, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manny Starr, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 23901 Calabasas Rd., Ste. 1084 Calabasas, CA 91302-3392 Phone: 818-914-3433 Fax: 818-914-3433 Email: manny@frontierlawcenter.com CVS HEALTH: Settles Class Action Lawsuit Over Recalled Eye Drops ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that CVS has agreed to pay up to $1 million to settle a class action lawsuit filed after certain over-the-counter eye drops were recalled in October 2023 due to potential bacterial contamination. The court-approved website for the CVS class action settlement can be found at CVSEyedropSettlement.com. The agreement with CVS, which was preliminarily approved in April 2025, covers all United States residents who purchased any of the following products between October 1, 2021 and October 25, 2023: Product NDC No. CVS SKU CVS Store Brand Lubricant Eye Drops 15 mL (Single Pack) 76168-702-15 408053 CVS Store Brand Lubricant Eye Drops 15 mL (Twin Pack) 76168-702-30 407896 CVS Store Brand Lubricant Gel Drops 15 mL (Single Pack) 76168-704-15 408104 CVS Store Brand Lubricant Gel Drops 15 mL (Twin Pack) 76168-704-30 408083 CVS Store Brand Multi Action Relief Drops 15 mL 76168-706-15 407963 CVS Store Brand Mild Moderate Lubricating Eye Drops 15 mL 76168-711-15 204153 CVS Store Brand Lubricant Gel Drops 10 mL 76168-712-10 408146 CVS Store Brand Lubricant Eye Drops 10 mL (Single Pack) 76168-714-10 408172 CVS Store Brand Lubricant Eye Drops 10 mL (Twin Pack) 76168-714-20 408138 To receive a CVS settlement cash payout, eligible class members must submit a valid claim form online or by mail by the deadline on July 11, 2025. Class members can file a CVS settlement claim form online on this page. Alternatively, they may download a PDF claim form to print, complete and return by mail to the settlement administrator. Consumers will be asked to provide proof of valid identification when submitting a claim form. Class members who file a timely, valid claim form will be eligible to receive a cash payment from the CVS eyedrops settlement, the website says. Individual payout amounts will depend on the product or products a consumer bought, whether proof of purchase is provided and the total number of valid claims that are filed overall, the site shares. According to the settlement website, class members who submit a claim form with valid proof of purchase may receive a cash payment equal to the amount they paid multiplied by the item's corresponding time-discount rate, outlined on this page. Per the website, consumers who file a claim form without proof of purchase will be asked to list the product or products they bought during the relevant period and the corresponding date of purchase, capped at three items. These class members will be eligible to receive a pro-rated cash payout adjusted to reflect the time-discount rate and approximate retail price for each item, the site states. Payment amounts will be determined after settlement benefits are allocated to those with proof of purchase, court documents relay. Class members who believe they bought items through their enrollment in CVS's ExtraCare program may provide their ExtraCare rewards card number or associated phone number on their claim form so the settlement administrator can reference the program's records as potential proof of purchase. The site adds that consumers may file a claim form for purchases both with and without proof. All CVS settlement payments are subject to reduction on a pro rata basis if necessary, court documents note. The court will decide whether to grant final approval to the CVS settlement at a hearing on August 18, 2025. The website says that should the deal receive ultimate court approval, payouts will be issued to eligible class members within 60 days of the date the settlement goes into effect. The CVS class action lawsuit alleged that the pharmacy chain failed to warn consumers about the health risks posed by the potentially contaminated eye drops, which were recalled by foreign manufacturer Kilitch Healthcare India Limited after unsanitary conditions were reportedly discovered at the production facility. As part of the CVS settlement, the company has agreed not to knowingly purchase products from the Indian manufacturer, under its current ownership, through December 2034, court documents say. [GN] DAISO CALIFORNIA: Fukaya Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAKIKO FUKAYA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. DAISO CALIFORNIA LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00099-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying each of the proposed classes under Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) and (3). The case involves the sale of imported prepackaged food products that had mislabeled and mistranslated ingredient sticker labels from Japanese to English. What was of critical importance was that the improper labels failed to disclose allergens as required by federal law. The defendant was informed of the problem, but rather than immediately and systemically review the translated labels of all of the products its sold, Daiso merely conducted spot checks every few weeks. Daiso sells numerous products from Japan in retail stores in the United States, specifically in the states of California, Arizona, Washington, Nevada, Texas, New Jersey, and New York. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IVxeMr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ara Jabagchourian, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ARA JABAGCHOURIAN, P.C. 1650 S. Amphlett Boulevard, Suite 216 San Mateo, CA 94402 Telephone: (650) 437-6840 Facsimile: (650) 403-0909 E-mail: ara@arajlaw.com DARLING INGREDIENTS: Jopke Seeks to Compel Reformation of Bylaws ---------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM JOPKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DARLING INGREDIENTS INC., Defendant, Case No. 2025-0562 (Del. Ch., May 21, 2025) is an action brought by the Plaintiff to compel reformation of the Amended and Restated Bylaws of Darling Ingredients Inc. (as adopted on February 24, 2023) consistent with the Delaware General Corporation Law. The Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Darling Ingredients Inc. does not prohibit or restrict stockholder action via consent. The Bylaws, however, purport to do what the Charter does not: they provide that action may only "be taken without a meeting, without prior notice, and without a vote, if a consent or consents in writing, setting forth the action so taken, shall be signed by all of the holders (acting for themselves or through a proxy) of outstanding stock." By purporting to impose a higher voting standard for stockholders acting via written consent, the Bylaws violate Section 228(a), alleges the suit. The Plaintiff delivered to the board of directors correspondence dated March 26, 2025, wherein he demanded that the Board amend the Bylaws to comply with Section 228(a). The Board rejected the Demand via correspondence dated April 1, 2025. Therein, the Board claimed that the Bylaws did not violate the DGCL because (i) Darling's Charter provides that the "[e]lection of directors may occur by written consent of the stockholders without a meeting in accordance with the Corporation's Bylaws." Plaintiff Jopke is a Darling stockholder and has held Darling stock at all times relevant to the wrongdoing alleged herein. Darling Ingredients Inc. develops and produces natural ingredients from edible and inedible bio-nutrients worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: F. Troupe Mickler IV, Esq. ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A. 500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor P.O. Box 1150 Wilmington, DE 19899 Telephone: (302) 654-1888 - and - William J. Fields, Esq. Christopher J. Kupka, Esq. Samir Shukurov, Esq. FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP 141 Tompkins Ave, Suite 404 Pleasantville, NY 10570 Telephone: (212) 231-1500 - and - D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. KASKELA LAW LLC 18 Campus Blvd., Suite 100 Newton Square, PA 19073 Telephone: (484) 258-1585 DAVITA INC: Fails to Properly Secure Personal Info, Fortin Says --------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN FORTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAVITA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01607-PAB (D. Colo., May 21, 2025) arises out of Defendant's failure to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. According to the complaint, a data breach occurred on DaVita's information network during April 2025, during which over 20+ terabytes of sensitive data was exfiltrated, including Plaintiff and other patients' data. Due to Defendant's data security failures which resulted in the data breach, cybercriminals were able to target Defendant's computer systems and exfiltrate highly sensitive and personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and Class members. As a result of this data breach, Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information compromised and stolen and remains in the hands of those cybercriminals. As a result of the data breach, Plaintiff and Class members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class members must now and for years into the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft. Through this Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed during the data breach. DaVita, Inc. provides treatment for patients living with end stage kidney disease.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com EL CENTRO: Appeals Remand Order in Grace Suit to 5th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------ EL CENTRO DEL BARRIO is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion to remand in the lawsuit entitled Jasmine Grace, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. El Centro Del Barrio, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-1463, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. This class action arises out of the recent data breach involving CentroMed, which collected and stored certain personally identifiable information ("PII") and/or protected health information ("PHI") of the Plaintiff and approximately 350,000 current and former patients, employees, and employee and provider spouses/partners/dependents of CentroMed, all of whom have PII/PHI stored on its servers. On Nov. 21, 2023, the Defendant filed a notice to remove the complaint from the District Court of Bexar County, Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. On Apr. 21, 2025, Judge Jason K. Pulliam finds that the District Court lacks jurisdiction over this removed action and remands the case to the 438th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas. The appellate case is entitled Grace v. El Centro Del Barrio, Case No. 25-50415, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on May 29, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee JASMINE GRACE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. SHUB JOHNS & HOLBROOK, L.L.P. 200 Barr Harbor Drive 4 Tower Bridge Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 477-8380 - and - Ketan Upendra Kharod, Esq. GUERRERO & WHHITTLE, PLLC 2905 San Gabriel Street Austin, TX 78705 Telephone: (512) 605-2300 Defendant-Appellant EL CENTRO DEL BARRIO is represented by: Matthew Sidney Freedus, Esq. POWERS, PYLES, SUTTER & VERVILLE, P.C. 1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 466-6550 - and - Natalie Friend Wilson, Esq. LANGLEY & BANACK, INCORPORATED 745 E. Mulberry Avenue San Antonio, TX 78212 Telephone: (210) 736-6600 EL TRIO CORP: Lopez Seeks Restaurant Staff's OT Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- ELONGINO SANTIAGO LOPEZ and EDUARDO SANTIAGO LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. EL TRIO CORP. (D/B/A EL TRIO RESTAURANT), and DEYANIRA SANTAMARIA, Case No. 1:25-cv-02953 (May 28, 2025) alleges that the Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hour's compensation for the hours that they worked pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants employed and accounted for Plaintiffs as delivery workers in their payroll, but in actuality their duties required a significant amount of time spent performing alleged non-tipped duties. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs were required to spend a considerable part of their work day performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to dishwashing, refilling sauce cups for deliveries, cutting lemons and radishes, cleaning the entire restaurant, receiving and accommodating deliveries downstairs, and bringing up items from the basement hereafter the (non-tipped duties). Further, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over 10 hours a day. The Plaintiffs were employed as delivery workers and a cook at the Defendants' restaurant. The Defendants own, operate, or control a restaurant/bar, located at 102-01 44th Avenue, Corona, New York City.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 FCA US: Gunn Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------- JAMES GUNN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled James Gunn, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FCA US, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02229-JD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs James Gunn and Dustin Stafford have sued FCA US, LLC on behalf of themselves and a putative California class of other purchasers of new cars distributed for sale by FCA. The operative class action complaint alleges that FCA artificially inflates the destination charges it assesses for transporting its new cars, namely Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge, Ram, Fiat, and Maserati brands, model years 2018 and later (the "Class Vehicles"), to dealerships, and that those inflated charges are passed on to consumers in violation of state law. The Plaintiffs allege claims for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, as well as unjust enrichment and a common count for money had and received. On May 22, 2023, the Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, which Judge James Donato granted with leave to amend on Aug. 22, 2023. On Sept. 12, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Oct. 10, 2023. On Apr. 29, 2025, Judge Donato entered an Order dismissing the Plaintiffs' amended complaint. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' amended complaint failed to state a plausible claim. The amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The appellate case is captioned Gunn, et al. v. FCA US, LLC, et al., Case No. 25-3410, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 29, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on June 3, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on July 8, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on August 7, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JAMES GUNN, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: David K. Stein, Esq. Rosemary Medellin Rivas, Esq. GIBBS MURA, LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Defendants-Appellees FCA US, LLC, et al. are represented by: Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq. Scott H. Morgan, Esq. KLEIN THOMAS LEE & FRESARD 100 N. Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 FIG & OLIVE: Hughes Files Class Action Complaint in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fig & Olive Fifth Avenue LLC, et al. The case is captioned as BRANDON HUGHES, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FIG & OLIVE FIFTH AVENUE LLC, et al., Lead Case No. 25-11150 (S.D.N.Y., May 30, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as recovery of money/property - other. Fig & Olive Fifth Avenue LLC is a restaurant owner and operator located in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stuart J. Miller, Esq. LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP 100 Church Street, Ste. 8th Fl. New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 581-5003 Email: stuart@lankmill.com FORTREA HOLDINGS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Fortrea Holdings, Inc. ("Fortrea" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: FTRE). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse information about Fortrea's business, operations, and prospects, including allegations that: (i) Fortrea overestimated the amount of revenue the Pre-Spin Projects were likely to contribute to the Company's 2025 earnings; (ii) Fortrea overstated the cost savings it would likely achieve by exiting the transition services agreements; (iii) as a result, Fortrea's previously announced EBITDA targets for 2025 were inflated; and (iv) accordingly, the viability of the Company's post-Spin-Off business model, as well as its business and/or financial prospects, were overstated. If you purchased shares of Fortrea between July 3, 2023 and February 28, 2025, and experienced a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832, or by visiting the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/fortrea-holdings/ for more information. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is August 1, 2025. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] GAINFUL HEALTH: Cody Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Annette Cody, and all others similarly situated v. GAINFUL HEALTH INC., a Delaware company, Case No. CVRI2500253 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 30, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-01373-KK-SP. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleged nothing more than generalized assertions that Gainful sold some ambiguous protein powder in packaging containing non-functional slack fill. She alleged no details of the alleged purchase at issue, only claiming she "purchased the Product" "within the statute of limitations period," including the "six months prior to filing this Complaint." The Plaintiff brought claims for common law fraud and violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jacob M. Harper, Esq. Katelyn A. Feliciano, Esq. Daniel Imakyure, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 27th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899 Email: jacobharper@dwt.com katelynfeliciano@dwt.com danielimakyure@dwt.com GENERAL MOTORS: Wrice-Scott Sues Over Defective Truck Engines ------------------------------------------------------------- FELICIA WRICE-SCOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02623 (E.D. Pa., May 21, 2025) arises from the Defendant's admission of a major defect in its 6.2-liter V-8 engines that caused catastrophic engine failure. On January 16, 2025, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and GM opened an investigation into failures in 6.2-liter V-8 engines equipped in certain GM trucks and SUVs. According to an engine teardown analysis, there were two problems with the engines: (1) rod-bearing damage from sediment on connecting rods and crankshaft-oil galleries; and (2) out of specification crankshaft dimensions and surface finish -- both of which are attributable to supplier manufacturing and quality issues, says the suit. Moreover, the engine defect and the decreased fuel efficiency have and will continue to depreciate the resale value of the Class Vehicles. The Plaintiff brings this class action to recover the material economic losses she has suffered as a result of GM's misconduct. General Motors LLC is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. Dan Tomascik, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com dtomascik@laukaitislaw.com - and - Mason A. Barney, Esq. Lisa R. Considine, Esq. Leslie L. Pescia, Esq. SIRI | GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Facsimile: (646) 417-5967 E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com lconsidine@sirillp.com lpescia@sirillp.com GIORDANO'S COLLISION: Mendoza Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ OSCAR MENDOZA v. GIORDANO'S COLLISION INC., KRISTOPHER KOERNER and BENEDETTO ROMANO, individually, Case No. 2:25-cv-02959-OEM-SIL (E.D.N.Y., May 28, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Accordingly, the Defendants were required, under relevant New York State law, to compensate the Plaintiff with overtime pay at one and one-half the regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours per work week. In violation of these mandatory pay obligations, the Defendants willfully compensated the Plaintiff at only $30 per hour and deliberately failed to pay required overtime wages from 2006 through May 9, 2025. During this period, the Plaintiff worked well in excess of 40 hours per workweek, as determined by the work schedule set by the Defendants, asserts the suit. The Defendants owned and operated Giordano's Collision, a corporate entity principally engaged in Long Island, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 GROCERY OUTLET: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Deceptive Pricing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jashayla Pettigrew, writing for KOIN 6 News, reports that Oregon patrons of a California-founded grocer are accusing the company of deceptive pricing. On Tuesday, June 3, Oregon Consumer Justice Law and other legal partners filed a class action lawsuit against Grocery Outlet on customers who believe they have paid the same price -- or more -- for items that were advertised as discounted when compared to competitors. Filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court, the complaint alleges the grocery chain has violated the Unlawful Trade Practices Act with its "elsewhere" pricing model. The three Oregonians listed as plaintiffs have shopped at Grocery Outlet within the past year and saw this deceptive pricing at locations in Salem, King City and North Portland's St. John's neighborhood in mid-May, according to the lawsuit. "Defendants claim this model particularly helps its customers who are at risk for food insecurity, which would include those who receive food subsidies and whom most need to stretch their dollars to feed families in need," the complaint reads, referring to Grocery Outlet's bulk purchases of "overrun, closeout, or expiring" products. "In reality, defendants collectively conspire to sell these 'opportunistic' and substandard groceries to Oregon consumers through the illegal use of fictitious reference prices, which Defendants vaguely refer to as 'elsewhere,'" attorneys said. Court documents show receipts of purchases that were advertised as having "elsewhere" pricing, despite the fact that the product isn't sold anywhere else in the state. Oregon law establishes that this competitive pricing practice should be used for other companies in the geographic market area. Other purchases were sold by competitors in the area, but attorneys said Grocery Outlet failed to identify which one. The suit also alleges one plaintiff purchased oat milk for $3.19, with its "elsewhere" price listed at $4.99, although Fred Meyer offered the same product for $1.99. According to Oregon Consumer Justice Law, more than 100,000 customers statewide could be eligible for the class action lawsuit. KOIN 6 has reached out to the grocery chain for comment. [GN] HARVARD PILGRIM: Settles 2023 Data Breach Class Suit for $16MM -------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that Harvard Pilgrim Health Care agreed to a $16 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it failed to prevent a 2023 data breach. The Harvard Pilgrim Health Care settlement benefits individuals whose personal information was impacted by a data breach on April 17, 2023. Harvard Pilgrim is a health insurance company that offers plans to individuals and employers in New England. The company is now part of Point32Health, which also includes Tufts Health Plan. According to a class action lawsuit, Harvard Pilgrim failed to prevent a data breach through reasonable cybersecurity measures that occurred on April 17, 2023. The Harvard Pilgrim Health Care data breach allegedly compromised sensitive information, such as Social Security numbers, health insurance account information and medical histories. Harvard Pilgrim has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $16 million class action settlement to resolve the allegations. Class members can claim up to $2,500 for out-of-pocket expenses related to the data breach. This includes bank fees, credit expenses, credit monitoring costs, communication charges, mileage and more. Class members can also claim up to seven hours of lost time at a rate of $30 per hour. Instead of filing a claim for out-of-pocket losses and/or lost time, members may claim an alternative cash payment of $150. Class members who experienced extraordinary losses as a result of the data breach can receive larger payments. The settlement allows for up to $35,000 in extraordinary losses and up to 20 hours of lost time at a rate of $30 per hour. All class members can receive three years of free credit monitoring services. These services include dark web scanning, identity theft insurance, real-time credit monitoring and access to fraud resolution agents. The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 27, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care settlement is scheduled for July 28, 2025. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Aug. 25, 2025. Who's Eligible The settlement benefits individuals whose personal information was impacted by the Harvard Pilgrim data breach in April 2023, including those who received a data breach notification. Potential Award $150 cash payout or up to $2,500 for documented expenses or $35,000 for extraordinary losses. All class members can receive three years of free credit monitoring services. Proof of Purchase Class members must provide documentation to verify the costs they incurred. Self-prepared documents to add clarity or support other submitted documentation are not sufficient to file a valid claim. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 08/25/2025 Case Name In Re: Harvard Pilgrim Data Security Incident Litigation, Case No. 1:23-cv-11211, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts Final Hearing 07/28/2025 Settlement Website HarvardPilgrimDataIncidentSettlement.com Claims Administrator Harvard Pilgrim Data Security Incident Settlement c/o Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 25245 Santa Ana, CA 92799 info@HarvardPilgrimDataIncidentSettlement.com (833) 296-0892 Class Counsel John A. Yanchunis MORGAN & MORGAN James J. Pizzirusso HAUSFELD LLP Defense Counsel Michael T. Marcucci Jenna L. LaPointe John A. Vogt JONES DAY [GN] HELIUM COMEDY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Added Service Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Gutman, writing for The Philadelphia Inquirer, reports that to some stand-up attendees at Center City's Helium Comedy Club, there is nothing funny about an added service fee at check out. A proposed new class-action lawsuit accuses the club, and Helium locations in Indianapolis and St. Louis, of incorporating a "hidden 'junk fees'" into the total price of shows, making the actual price higher than the listed one. (Helium has other locations in New York, Oregon, and Georgia that are not part of the litigation.) The complaint says that, until recently, Helium was engaging in "unfair and deceptive" pricing that amount to "dishonest bait-and-switch advertising." Grace Jonas and Jake Pavlow are the two Pennsylvania residents who sued Helium over fees for shows at the Center City venue. Jonas purchased a ticket in January that was listed for $89, but on check out a mandatory $8.99 "service charge" was included to her bill, according to the complaint. Pavlow purchased two tickets in July, listed for $22 each, but was charged an additional $5.99 fee. The two, and a plaintiff from Indiana and one from Missouri, were "lured" by Helium's "carefully-engineered" scheme, "springing the junk fee on them at a point in the process at which Helium anticipated Plaintiffs would be highly unlikely to abandon the transaction," says the lawsuit, filed last week in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. "Helium never disclosed the 'service' purportedly paid for by the 'service charge,'" the complaint said. "There was no additional 'service' being provided at the time of checkout." Helium did not respond to a request for comment. Current prices listed on the Helium website are accompanied by a note that says, "Prices Include Fees." So-called junk fees have been increasingly in the spotlight, with airline companies and large live-event ticketing platforms, such as Ticketmaster, as common targets. Elected officials across the political spectrum -- from Philadelphia's Democratic U.S. Rep. Brendan Boyle to conservative Republican U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri -- blasted industry for piling on the often-inconsistent fees. In the 2024 State of the Union address, then-President Joe Biden touted his administration's action on the issue: "Look, I'm also getting rid of junk fees, those hidden fees at the end of your bill that are there without your knowledge." President Donald Trump is also not a fan of junk fees. In March, Trump signed an executive order "combating unfair practices in the live entertainment market" alongside musian Kid Rock. "Anyone who's bought a concert ticket in the last decade, maybe 20 years -- no matter what your politics are -- knows that it's a conundrum," the singer and songwriter said during the Oval Office event. Last month, the Federal Trade Commission's "rule on unfair or deceptive fees" took effect. It prohibits "bait-and-switch pricing and other tactics used to hide total prices and mislead people" when selling tickets for live events and short-term lodging. The lawsuit says that junk fees were already prohibited under Pennsylvania and federal law, before the recent FTC rule. It asks for damages on behalf of all Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Missouri residents who bought a Helium ticket in the past five years. [GN] HELZBERG DIAMONDS: Faces Class Action Over Fake Discounted Prices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Leah Meirovich, writing for Rapaport, reports that a class action filed against Warren Buffett-owned jewelry chain Helzberg Diamonds alleges the website claims products are being offered at discounted prices for a limited time, when the sales and prices are actually fake. Helzberg, part of the Berkshire Hathaway conglomerate of businesses, advertises "made-up regular prices and made-up discounts" online to urge customers to make the purchase, and make it quickly, according to a complaint filed recently in a California federal court. In reality, the sales have no time limit, and when one ends, the next one begins, offering the same price, thus devaluing the jewelry and making the sale price the true one, the filing argued. "Reasonable consumers do not realize the fake nature of the sale," it stated. "It is not apparent from merely purchasing the high-priced products, because the sale appears to be a bona fide sale. Consumers do not have any reason to go back to the website day after day to discover there is still a sale. And even a consumer who occasionally checks the website would reasonably believe that there happened to be another sale, that the sale is not limited in time, that the discounts are fake, and that the advertised regular prices are fake." When presented with discounts, consumers are "substantially" more likely to make the purchase, the suit maintained. Research counsel carried out for the plaintiff found that "nearly two-thirds of consumers surveyed admitted that a promotion or a coupon often closes the deal if they are wavering or undecided on making a purchase," and that "two-thirds of consumers have made a purchase they weren't originally planning to make, solely based on finding a coupon or discount." The false advertising harms consumers by inducing them to make purchases, thus artificially inflating demand, and allowing Helzberg to raise the prices of those goods, meaning buyers are actually paying above value for the products, the filing claims. The complaint is requesting an injunction against the jeweler, preventing it from holding "fake" sales, as well as damages, payment of attorney's fees, and a refund in full of the price of the jewelry purchased. [GN] HIRE VELOCITY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Sanchez Says ---------------------------------------------------------- CELESTINO SANCHEZ II, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HIRE VELOCITY, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02942-JPB (N.D. Ga., May 28, 2025) is a class action suit seeking monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief from Defendant, arising from its failure to safeguard certain Personally Identifying Information1 and other sensitive, non-public financial information of thousands of its prospective, current, and former clients, resulting in Defendant's network systems being infiltrated on or around February 17, 2025, and the PII, including of Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members, being disclosed, stolen, compromised, and misused, causing widespread and continuing injury and damages. On Feb. 17, 2025, the Defendant's file servers were "hacked" and unauthorizedly accessed, resulting in the theft of Personal Information of Plaintiff and the Class Members, including names and Social Security Numbers (the Data Breach). The Plaintiff and Members of the Class have suffered significant injury and damages due to the Data Breach permitted to occur by Defendant, and the resulting publication of their PII on the dark web, misuse of their PII, monetary damages including out-of-pocket expenses, including those associated with the reasonable mitigation measures they were forced to employ, and other damages. Plaintiff and the Class also now forever face an amplified risk of further misuse, fraud, and identity theft due to their sensitive PII being circulated and traded on the dark web as a result of the tortious conduct of Defendant. The Defendant is a talent acquisition and professional search firm that specializes in "providing top-tier talent strategy and recruitment process outsourcing services designed to transform your business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (771) 772-3086 E-mail: cturner@milberg.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com HOMEAGLOW INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Membership --------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that two California consumers filed a class action lawsuit against Homeaglow Inc., which does business as Dazzling Cleaning. Why: The plaintiffs claim Dazzling Cleaning misleads consumers by failing to disclose that a $19 cleaning offer is conditioned on a $49 per month membership. Where: The Dazzling Cleaning class action was filed in a California federal court. A new Dazzling Cleaning class action lawsuit accuses the home cleaning service of misleading consumers by failing to disclose that a $19 cleaning offer is conditioned on a $49 per month membership. Plaintiffs Seth Seneca and Lisa Andoh filed the class action lawsuit against Homeaglow Inc., doing business as Dazzling Cleaning, on May 14 in a California federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer protection laws. According to the Dazzling Cleaning class action, the company advertises a $19 cleaning offer but does not clearly disclose that consumers will be automatically enrolled in a $49 per month membership. "Consumers seeking to book the advertised, one-off, discounted cleaning with Homeaglow must then navigate to one of the Websites. The Websites similarly represent a promotion to 'Get Clean for $19,'" the Dazzling Cleaning class action says. "As such, a consumer booking a cleaning has no expectancy that they are starting an on-going membership with Homeaglow." Dazzling Cleaning charges early termination fee for membership, lawsuit claims The Dazzling Cleaning class action alleges the company also charges an early termination fee if consumers cancel the membership before the end of the initial six-month term. Seneca and Andoh claim they would not have purchased the discounted cleaning if they had known about the membership and early termination fee. The Dazzling Cleaning class action lawsuit seeks to represent all California consumers who incurred renewal fees or early termination fees in connection with Dazzling Cleaning's ForeverClean Membership. The plaintiffs are suing for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, as well as breach of contract, conversion, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and imposition of an illegal penalty. They seek certification of the class action, damages, restitution, disgorgement of profits, public injunctive relief, and an award of costs and attorneys' fees. Homeaglow is facing another lawsuit filed earlier this year from a consumer who claims it made unsolicited robocalls to consumers in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The plaintiffs are represented by Craig M. Nicholas, Shaun Markley and Jordan Belcastro of Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP. The Dazzling Cleaning class action lawsuit is Seth Seneca, et al. v. Homeaglow Inc., Case No. 8:23-cv-02308, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] IBOTTA INC: Valentine Balks at Misleading Registration Statements ----------------------------------------------------------------- QUINTON VALENTINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IBOTTA, INC., BRYAN LEACH, SUNIT PATEL, STEPHEN BAILEY, AMANDA BALDWIN, AMIT N. DOSHI, THOMAS LEHRMAN, VALARIE SHEPPARD, LARRY W. SONSINI, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., BOFA SECURITIES, INC., EVERCORE GROUP L.L.C., UBS SECURITIES LLC, WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC, CITIZENS JMP SECURITIES, LLC, NEEDHAM & COMPANY, LLC, and RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01615-CYC (D. Colo., May 21, 2025) is a federal class action brought by the Plaintiffs under the Securities Act of 1933, on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or acquired Ibotta securities pursuant or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-1 and related prospectus issued in connection with Ibotta's April 18, 2024 initial public stock offering. On April 17, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission declared effective the final registration statement on Form S-1, and the following day, the Company filed the final prospectus for Ibotta's IPO, making available 6,560,700 shares of Class A Common Stock to the investing public at $88 per share. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions that concealed from investors that (1) Ibotta's data measurement system did not provide accurate, precise, and real time client campaign and consumer data measurement; (2) the Company's business mix had shifted and was generating less revenue; and (3) Ibotta had "exhausted" its clients' budgets, negatively impacting fourth quarter 2024 revenue and expected first quarter 2025 revenue. The Plaintiff suffered economic losses when the true facts about the Company's business, financial condition, and operations were disclosed and the artificial inflation was removed from the price of Ibotta's securities, says the suit. Ibotta, Inc. is a technology company that allows consumer packaged goods brands to deliver digital promotions to consumers through a single network called the Ibotta Performance Network.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rusty E. Glenn, Esq. SHUMAN, GLENN & STECKER 600 17th Street, Suite 2800 South Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 861-3003 Facsimile: (303) 356-7849 E-mail: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com - and - Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq. Matthew A. Peller, Esq. Nicholas S. Bruno, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com mpeller@scott-scott.com nbruno@scott-scott.com IQBAR INC: Faces Jue Suit Over Bar Misleading Protein Content ------------------------------------------------------------- JANE JUE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IQBAR, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-04505 (N.D. Cal., May 28, 2025) alleges that the Defendant markets its protein bars Products in a systematically misleading manner by misrepresenting the quantity and quality of contained protein. According to the complaint, the Defendant's Products are comprised of inferior protein sources that do not provide the same nutritional benefits as whey protein. The Defendant's sales are driven by consumers seeking protein supplementation. To market to these consumers, Defendant prominently displays the total protein content of its Products on the front of each label. However, Defendant fails to include the percent of daily value for protein in the Nutrition Facts Panel which would show the adjusted amount after accounting for protein's plant-based origin, asserts the suit. The Defendant formulates, manufactures, advertises, and sells the popular protein bars throughout the United States, including in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. Nathaneil Haim Sair, Esq. GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC 140 Broadway, Fl. 46 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 Facsimile: (212) 884-4230 E-Mail: adrian@gr-firm.com nsari@gr-firm.com KINECTA CREDIT: Class-Action Settlement Gets Final Approval ----------------------------------------------------------- MALDEF reports that a federal judge has granted final approval of a class-action settlement between Kinecta Credit Union, recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), and other immigrants who were denied full consideration for credit because of their immigration status. MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund) represents DACA recipients and other immigrants who comprise the settlement class. "Credit unions continue to play a critical role in our financial system, and they must do so without engaging in irrational and unlawful discrimination," said Thomas A. Saenz, MALDEF president and general counsel. "That includes discrimination against immigrants, regardless of how tawdry and irresponsible the rhetoric from our nation's capital may be." As part of the agreement, which received preliminary approval on Jan. 30, 2025, Kinecta has agreed to create a settlement fund of $77,500 to compensate the class of immigrants affected by the challenged practice. Kinecta will also correct its practices and re-train staff as part of the agreement. The settlement is one of more than a dozen MALDEF has reached with financial institutions that deny services to DACA recipients and other immigrants because of their immigration status rather than their credit-worthiness. Among other agreements, the settlement provides for $2,500 payments each to 31 class members. Kinecta must also pay attorneys' fees and other costs. "Meaningful access to financial institutions requires consistency in policy and practice," said Eduardo Casas, MALDEF attorney. "We are glad that Kinecta has agreed to retrain its staff so that what happened to Mr. Esqueda does not happen to anyone else." MALDEF filed the suit in May 2024 on behalf of Rogelio Esqueda, a DACA recipient, who applied to Kinecta for an auto loan but was turned down because he obtained his social security card through DACA. Attorneys argued that Kinecta's denial of a loan to Esqueda violated Section 1981 of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. Both laws prohibit discrimination based on national origin, citizenship, and immigration status. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. "I am grateful that DACA recipients stand together as a community against the obstacles that we face in this society," said Esqueda. "Our society pushes immigrants away like we are not a part of it, but we are here making changes in the face of those who don't believe in us." Kinecta Federal Credit Union, based in Manhattan Beach, has 25 offices in two states with assets in excess of $6.8 billion and more than 270,000 members. Since 2017, MALDEF has filed 22 lawsuits challenging the policies of financial institutions that discriminate against immigrants. [GN] KNOWBE4 INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------- Entwistle & Cappucci LLP announced that its ongoing investigation has led to the filing of a class action ("Action") against KnowBe4, Inc. ("KnowBe4"), certain of KnowBe4's directors, KKR & Co. Inc., Elephant Partners, Vista Equity Partners Management, LLC ("Vista") and certain of their affiliates (collectively, "Defendants") on behalf of a class ("Class") consisting of all persons or entities that: (a) sold shares of KnowBe4 common stock from October 12, 2022 through February 1, 2023, including those who sold shares into the "take private" acquisition ("Merger") of KnowBe4 by Vista and its affiliates on February 1, 2023; and/or (b) held shares of KnowBe4 as of the December 7, 2022 record date and were entitled to vote on the Merger. The Action seeks to recover damages on behalf of investors that were damaged as a result of allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions of material facts in the October 12, 2022 press release issued by KnowBe4 and Vista announcing the Merger, December 22, 2022 proxy statement and subsequent amendment issued by Defendants on January 18, 2023 ("Proxy"), and related filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). Among other things, the complaint alleges the Proxy and other solicitation materials misled investors regarding the true value of KnowBe4's shares, omitted that KKR increased its equity rollover into the post-Merger entity after it learned of the Merger price, and failed to disclose advantages Defendants provided to Vista over other potential bidders during the sales process leading to the Merger. The Action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and is captioned: Water Island Event-Driven Fund v. KnowBe4, Inc., No. 25-cv-22574. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this matter, you must file a motion with the Court no later than August 5, 2025. Any member of the proposed Class may move the Court to serve as a lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or they may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the Class. If you wish to discuss this Action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact: Robert N. Cappucci, Esq. or Andrew M. Sher, Esq. of Entwistle & Cappucci at (212) 894-7200 or via e-mail at rcappucci@entwistle-law.com or asher@entwistle-law.com. About Entwistle & Cappucci Entwistle & Cappucci is a national law firm providing exceptional legal representation to clients in the most complex and challenging legal matters. Our practice encompasses all areas of litigation, corporate transactions, bankruptcy, insurance, corporate investigations and white-collar defense. Our clients include public and private corporations, major hedge funds, public pension funds, governmental entities, leading institutional investors, domestic and foreign financial services companies, emerging business enterprises and individual entrepreneurs. Contacts Entwistle & Cappucci LLP www.entwistle-law.com Robert N. Cappucci, Esq. (rcappucci@entwistle-law.com) Andrew M. Sher, Esq. (asher@entwistle-law.com) 230 Park Avenue, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 894-7200 [GN] LEXISNEXIS RISK: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Mendez Says ----------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-02934-SEG (N.D. Ga., May 28, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted the Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed in May 2025. The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. On Dec. 25, 2024, an unauthorized third-party acquired certain data belonging to Defendant from a third-party platform used for software development. The Defendant learned about the Data Breach on April 1, 2025. In response, the Defendant launched a review of the impacted data to determine what Private Information was compromised and to whom it belonged. Accordingly, the following types of Private Information were compromised as a result of the Data Breach: name, contact information (such as phone number, postal or email address), Social Security number, driver’s license number, and date of birth. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated persons, whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to the Defendant's inadequate data security practices. The Defendant is a data analytics provider that offers customers solutions to manage risk, make better decisions, and improve operations across various industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (771) 772-3086 E-mail: cturner@milberg.com MARKS & SPENCER: May Face Class Suit Over Cyber-Attack in Scotland ------------------------------------------------------------------ Decision Marketing reports that a Scottish law firm claims it is planning to launch an "unprecedented" class action lawsuit against Marks & Spencer following the ongoing cyber-attack which the retailer has already admitted has resulted in the loss of customers' personal data. Thompsons Solicitors -- which has offices across numerous locations north of the border, including Glasgow, Edinburg and Dundee -- is urging those affected to sign up, insisting they could be entitled to compensation for the increased risk of fraud as well as financial losses, distress, anxiety, and time spent resolving issues or securing accounts. Speaking to ITV News, senior partner Patrick Mcguire, said: "The clients who have joined our class action have done so because their valuable confidential personal details were stolen. "It was the responsibility of M&S to protect that information and they failed completely to do so. They have breached data regulations and caused distress to our clients a significant number of whom have already been the victims of attempted scams." Even so, there is hardly a mad rush to sign up; Thompsons Solicitors said that around 350 people have joined the class action so far. Although M&S has refused to detail how many customers have been affected by the data breach, last month it emailed its entire customer base of 9.4 million people to warn them about the situation. In a statement, M&S said: "We communicated to our customers as soon as we could and told them that the data taken does not include any useable card or payment details, or account passwords. M&S does not hold full card details on its systems." According to the retailer's latest update on the situation -- released two weeks ago -- it is facing a GBP300m loss as a result of the attack, equivalent to 30% of profits, with disruption to its operations set to drag on until July. Meanwhile, this week it has launched its new summer ad campaign, with not a single mention of its online stores, as the website has yet to be fixed. [GN] MARRIOTT HOTELS: Wins US Appeal in Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that hotel giant Marriott (MAR.O), has persuaded a U.S. appeals court to reverse a ruling that allowed tens of millions of guests to sue together as a class over a 2018 cybersecurity breach that exposed a reservation database at its affiliate Starwood. The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, on Tuesday, June 3, that the hotel's guest contracts included a valid provision waiving class action claims, "and so precludes certification of all classes against Marriott." Marriott in a statement said it welcomed the court's ruling. Attorneys for the plaintiffs had no immediate comment. The decision marked the latest development in the closely watched, long-running litigation over the Starwood cyber breach. Hackers in 2014 first accessed names, birth dates and other information, including payment card data in some instances, court records show, before the scheme was detected in 2018. Marriott purchased Starwood in 2016. The proposed class action accused Marriott of violating consumer protection and other laws by failing to provide adequate data protection security. The plaintiffs said guests would have paid less for rooms if they'd known about alleged lax of data security. The guests' contracts said disputes would be handled "individually without any class action," according to court records. A federal trial judge in Maryland found that Marriott's participation in consolidated legal proceedings showed that it had given up its right to enforce the provision against class actions. The appeals court disagreed, ruling that Marriott's participation in the multidistrict proceeding did not deprive the company of relying on a contractual class-action waiver defense. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a brief backing Marriott in its appeal in the 4th Circuit. The case is Maldini v. Marriott International Inc, 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-1064. For plaintiffs: Samuel Issacharoff of New York University School of Law; Amy Keller of DiCello Levitt; James Pizzirusso of Hausfeld; and Andrew Friedman of Cohen Milstein For defendant: Lindsay Harrison and Matthew Hellman of Jenner & Block; Daniel Warren and Gilbert Keteltas of Baker & Hostetler [GN] MATCH GROUP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set July 7 -------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP hereby advises investors of recent developments in the class action lawsuit Sebastien Meslage v. Match Group, Inc., No. 24-cv-10153, pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging violations of the federal securities laws by Match Group, Inc. ("Match Group" or the "Company") and certain of the Company's senior executives (collectively, "Defendants"). The action is brought on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Match Group securities between May 2, 2023 and November 6, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Pursuant to the Court's Order, as described in greater detail below, any member of the putative Class may file a motion seeking appointment as Lead Plaintiff, or otherwise challenge the appointment of the presumptive Lead Plaintiff in this action, on or before July 7, 2025. Match Group's Alleged Fraud Match Group describes itself as "a leading provider of digital technologies designed to help people make meaningful connections. Our global portfolio of brands includes Tinder(R), Hinge(R), Match(R), Meetic(R), OkCupid(R), Pairs(TM), Plenty Of Fish(R), Azar(R), BLK(R), and more, each built to increase our users' likelihood of connecting with others. Through our trusted brands, we provide tailored services to meet the varying preferences of our users." The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the number of Tinder's monthly active users ("MAU" or "MAUs"), a topic of critical importance to investors. Specifically, after instituting policies which led to the removal of at least two million Tinder users and, in part, contributed to a significant decline in the number of Tinder MAUs, Defendants assured the market that it was on a path to positive MAU growth on the Tinder app. As a result of these misrepresentations, the price of Match Group securities traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period. The complaint further alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Match Group materially understated the challenges affecting Tinder and, as a result, understated the risk that Tinder's MAU count would not recover by the time the Company reported its financial results for the third quarter ("Q3") of 2024. The truth began to emerge on November 6, 2024, when Match Group published its Q3 2024 shareholder letter which disclosed that Tinder MAUs were down 9% year-over-year in Q3 2024, the same rate of decline as in the second quarter of 2024. Then, on November 7, 2024, Investopedia published an article discussing the foregoing issue entitled "Match Group Stock Slips as Fourth Quarter Outlook Disappoints." Finally, during the Company's accompanying Q3 2024 earnings call held with investors and analysts on November 7, 2024, Defendants revealed, in relevant part, that the Company "saw less progress on Tinder MAU than [it] expected" and that "certain trust and safety enhancements" made by Match Group "ha[d] caused pressure on Tinder MAU[s]." Appointment of a Lead Plaintiff Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, counsel for the initial plaintiff in the action published a notice advising members of the putative Class that any member wishing to serve as Lead Plaintiff must file a motion with the Court no later than January 24, 2025. On January 24, 2025, three putative Class members filed motions seeking appointment as Lead Plaintiff, including Evan Weisz. After reviewing Mr. Weisz's motion, each of the previously competing Lead Plaintiff applicants withdrew their motions. On June 5, 2025, following a hearing on Mr. Weisz's motion, the Honorable Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, U.S.D.J., entered an Order finding Mr. Weisz to be the presumptive lead plaintiff in this action, and providing that any "any possible plaintiff may file," within thirty (30) days of the date of this notice-i.e., on or before July 7, 2025-"a motion challenging [Mr. Weisz's] status as presumptive lead plaintiff" of the Class in this Action. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. [GN] MCCAIN FOODS: Artificially Inflates Frozen Food Prices, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL JUETTEN and JOHN MURPHY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MCCAIN FOODS LIMITED; MCCAIN FOODS USA, INC.; LAMB WESTON HOLDINGS, INC.; LAMB WESTON, INC.; LAMB WESTON BSW, LLC; LAMB WESTON/MIDWEST, INC.; LAMB WESTON SALES, INC.; J.R. SIMPLOT CO.; CAVENDISH FARMS LTD.; CAVENDISH FARMS, INC.; NATIONAL POTATO PROMOTION BOARD, D/B/A POTATOES USA; CIRCANA, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-05944 (N.D. Ill., May 28, 2025) is a class action suit for injunctive relief under Section 1 and Section 3 of the Sherman Act, and for damages under the antitrust, unfair competition, and consumer protection laws of numerous jurisdictions. The Defendant Processors - McCain, Lamb Weston, J.R. Simplot, and Cavendish Farms -- dominate the market for frozen french fries, hash browns, tater tots, and other frozen potato products (FPPs). The Defendant Processors account for nearly 98% of the U.S. FPPs market. The Defendant Processors are members of Defendant NPPB. NPPB is a trade association which, throughout the relevant period, provided regular opportunities for in-person meetings and communications among Defendant Processors' executives, many of whom served on the board of the NPPB. The Defendant Processors received, throughout the relevant period, detailed data and reports on the market for FPPs from Defendant Circana (or its predecessors), a data analytics company that provides "predictive analytics and technology" to help clients "measure their market share, understand the underlying consumer behavior driving it, and accelerate their growth." Accordingly, this is an indirect purchaser plaintiff antitrust class action against the Defendants for entering into an unlawful conspiracy to raise, stabilize, fix and/or otherwise manipulate the prices in the market for FPPs in the United States. As a result of Defendants' conduct from as early as January 1, 2021, through the present day, consumers, including the Plaintiffs, have paid supracompetitive prices for FPPs at retail. The Defendants have been allegedly able to artificially raise prices of FFPs by, inter alia, using conduits to facilitate price-fixing, including potato price data aggregation services such as Circana's "PotatoTrac," and by sharing information and taking collective action through trade associations like NPPD, says the suit. MCCAIN FOODS LIMITED is a Canadian multinational frozen food company established in 1957 in Florenceville, New Brunswick.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Terry Rose Saunders, Esq. THE SAUNDERS LAW FIRM 120 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 444-9656 E-mail: tsaunders@saunders-lawfirm.com - and - Christopher T. Micheletti, Esq. Qianwei Fu, Esq. James R. Martin, Esq. Jennifer D. Hackett, Esq. ZELLE LLP 555 12th Street, Suite 1230 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (415) 693-0700 Facsimile: (612) 336-9100 E-mail: cmicheletti@zellelaw.com qfu@zellelaw.com jmartin@zellelaw.com jhackett@zellelaw.com MDL 2873: Panel Denies Transfer of Varline Suit to D.S.C. --------------------------------------------------------- Chairperson Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied the move to transfer the case captioned "Varline, Jayden, et al. v. The 3M Company" (C.A. No. 3:24-00859, W.D. Wisc.) to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina for inclusion in "In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 2873. MDL No. 2873 involves allegations that aqueous film-forming foams (AFFFs) used at airports, military bases, or other locations to extinguish liquid fuel fires caused the release of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and/or perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA; collectively, these and other per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances are referred to as PFAS) into local groundwater and contaminated drinking water supplies. Defendant 3M Company moved to transfer the action to the South Carolina District, while the plaintiffs opposed transfer. Plaintiffs in Varline are current or former residents of the Village of Maine, Wisconsin, who allege that their private drinking water wells have been contaminated with PFAS from 3M’s roofing granule facility in the neighboring City of Wausau and 3M's Greystone facility and quarry in the Village of Maine. They seek to represent a class of other such residents. The complaint expressly states that plaintiffs do not assert a claim relating to AFFF exposure. Because plaintiffs do not allege injury due to AFFF manufacture, use, or disposal, 3M "bears a significant burden to persuade us that transfer is appropriate and will not undermine the efficient progress of the AFFF MDL." In support of its motion to transfer, 3M argues that, despite plaintiffs' disclaimer, Varline inevitably will present claims and defenses related to alleged AFFF contamination of drinking water. This argument is based in large part on the pendency of an action that the City of Wausau filed directly in the MDL, alleging that its six municipal water wells are contaminated with PFAS from AFFF sources. 3M argues, among other things, that the Varline plaintiffs' drinking water potentially is contaminated with PFAS from AFFF sources and that the City of Wausau's water supply is already at issue in the MDL. Consequently, 3M contends, discovery in the actions will overlap. The panel notes that even if some plaintiffs' private wells and the City of Wausau municipal wells draw water from the same aquifer system, the extent to which any AFFF contamination of that system has affected plaintiffs' wells is speculative. 3M further contends that discovery in Varline and City of Wausau will overlap, and points to previous orders transferring actions alleging injury from PFAS-contaminated water where the water supply or groundwater involved was at issue in an MDL action. "Those orders are not on point," rules the panel. "The Varline plaintiffs' drinking water is not supplied by the City of Wausau's municipal wells, but rather by private wells, and the extent to which their wells are affected by the same contaminants as the City of Wausau's municipal water supply is disputed." A full-text copy of the court's June 2, 2025 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2873-Transfer_Order-5-25.pdf MDL 2873: Three AFFF Suits Transferred to D.S.C. ------------------------------------------------ Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers one case each from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Eastern District of Wisconsin and the Western District of Wisconsin to the District of South Carolina and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to Judge Richard M. Gergel for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the product liability litigation captioned "In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 2873. MDL No. 2873 involves actions in which plaintiffs allege that that aqueous film-forming foams (AFFFs) used at airports, military bases, or certain industrial locations caused the release of per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) into local groundwater and contaminated drinking water supplies. The MDL actions share factual questions concerning the use and storage of AFFFs; the toxicity of PFAS and the effects of these substances on human health; and these substances' chemical properties and propensity to migrate in groundwater supplies. Turning first to City of Savannah, the panel concludes that transfer is warranted because the water supply at issue in City of Savannah is already at issue in an action in the MDL. Plaintiff in that action -- Allan v. 3M Co., et al., D. South Carolina, C.A. No. 24-07344 -- alleges that he suffers from ulcerative colitis from drinking AFFF-contaminated water "from municipal water providers including but not limited to: Savannah I&D (GA)." The Panel previously has concluded that transfer is justified where such overlap exists. Turning next to City of Wausau, this action was brought by the City of Wausau against the owners and operators of various paper mills and other industrial facilities located in the floodplain of the Wisconsin River, alleging that the City's drinking water, sourced from six municipal wells, is contaminated with PFAS discharged from those facilities. The City opposes transfer of its Western District of Wisconsin action, arguing that the action involves no allegations of AFFF contamination and names no defendants that manufactured, supplied, or used AFFF or AFFF products. Although City of Wausau, does not name any traditional AFFF defendant, it will involve discovery as to the sources of the PFAS contaminants in the same water supply drawn from the same six municipal wells at issue in the City’s MDL action. Given this overlap as to a central factual issue in both cases, transfer is warranted, rules the panel. Lastly, plaintiff in Signature Flight Support is an aviation services company that operates a worldwide network of private aviation terminals, many of which have fire suppression systems. It seeks the costs of remediation of all Signature facilities found to have been contaminated with PFAS from JCI-supplied foams. Despite Signature's attempt to remove AFFF allegations from its action by amending its complaint during briefing, the current operative complaint still alleges that JCI supplied Signature or the previous owners of some of its properties with "aqueous film foams" and that Signature "reasonably believes" that at least sixteen of its facilities "contain[] a Johnson Controls foam product that is purported by [JCI] to be 'PFAS-free,'" but in fact the facilities were contaminated and will require cleanup and remediation of the fire suppression systems. Because the operative Signature complaint expressly includes an allegation that AFFFs were installed at some Signature facilities, transfer is appropriate, the panel concludes. Transfer of these actions thus is consistent with the panel's past practice of transferring actions involving industrial facilities where the alleged PFAS contamination is attributable to use of an AFFF fire suppression system. A full-text copy of the court's June 2, 2025 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2873-Transfer_Order-5-25.pdf MEAZURE LEARNING: Faces Class Suit Over CA Bar Exam Tech Issues --------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges Meazure Learning failed to adequately prepare its computer servers to administer the February 2025 California Bar exam, significantly hampering the ability of thousands of test-takers to complete the crucial two-day legal exam. According to the 19-page lawsuit, Meazure Learning, in October 2024, participated in negotiations with the State Bar of California to develop the platform and administration of the state's 2025 bar exams. In these negotiations, the complaint says, Meazure claimed to have "the capacity to deliver all of the examinations via [their] remote online platform," ProctorU, to approximately 4,100 test-takers in February of this year. Furthermore, the company claimed it would "provide skilled information technology (IT) technicians" capable of handling any unexpected technical issues that might adversely affect the administration of each bar exam, the suit says. The lawsuit alleges that despite Meazure Learning's promises, the company failed to dedicate enough server capacity to handle the administration of the February 2025 California bar exam, as all examinees, both in-person and remote, encountered significant technical issues that "diverted focus away from the actual substance of this difficult exam." Per the case, the tech issues included, but were not limited to: -- The inability to access and respond to certain portions of the exam; -- Excessive lagging; -- Delayed exam start times; and -- Issues with the copy/paste and highlighting functions. For example, Meazure's failure to have adequate server capacity resulted in test-takers encountering complete stops in the middle of their exam, such as a page displaying the message, "This website is under heavy load (queue full). We're sorry, too many people are accessing this website at the time. We're working on this problem. Please try again later." Finally, the class action lawsuit claims that contrary to Meazure Learning's promise of having sufficient tech support, test proctors were unable to address the technical issues that arose during the exam, resulting in examinees wasting precious exam time on troubleshooting. The complaint stresses that the bar exam in any state is notoriously difficult to take, expensive to prepare for, and takes months to grade, meaning that should an examinee not pass, they may be unable to retake the exam for several months. Additionally, the preparation for this examination is not only time-intensive but can cost thousands of dollars in study materials, the suit adds. The plaintiff contends that Meazure Learning's alleged tech shortcomings and inability to repair tech issues that arose during the February 2025 California bar exam cost test-takers precious time and adversely affected their scores for "the most important exam they will ever take." The class action lawsuit against Meazure Learning seeks to represent all individuals in the United States who attempted to take the February 2025 California Bar Exam and paid the laptop fee for the exam. [GN] MENCHIE'S GROUP: Taylor Sues Over Unpaid Compensation ----------------------------------------------------- Sonia Taylor, on behalf of the general public and all other aggrieved employees v. MENCHIE'S GROUP, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 25VECV03012 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 30, 2025), is brought for recovery of penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), as a result of the Defendants failure to pay proper compensation. In this case, Defendants violated various provisions of the California Labor Code. The Defendants implemented policies and practices which led to unpaid wages resulting from Defendant's: failure to accurately pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods before the end of the fifth hour worked and failure to pay an additional hour's of pay in lieu of providing a meal period before the end of the fifth hour worked; failure to authorize and permit rest breaks for every four hours or major fraction thereof worked and failure to pay an additional hour's of pay in lieu of providing a rest period; failing to pay all wages earned and owed upon separation from Defendant's employ; and failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; knowingly and intentionally failing to maintain accurate and complete records; and failure to indemnify for necessary business expenses, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in Los Angeles County as an Accounts Repayable Clerk. The Defendants operate frozen yogurt stores throughout California and the United States, including in Los Angeles County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald W. Makarem, Esq. Daniel J. Bass, Esq. MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES APLC 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2440 Los Angeles, CA 90025-1760 Phone: (310) 312-0299 Fax: (310) 312-0296 NORTH CAROLINA: Betts Appeals Complaint Dismissal to 4th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- AMY BETTS is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Amy Betts, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Stephen Brett Armstrong, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00341-TDS-JLW, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The Plaintiff brings a complaint against the Defendants for violations of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983, 1985, 1986; Americans with Disabilities Act; and Violence Against Women Act. On May 1, 2025, the Plaintiff filed an emergency motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. On May 19, 2025, Judge Thomas D. Schroeder entered an Order dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B) and Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Plaintiff's emergency motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction is denied as moot. The appellate case is captioned Amy Betts v. Stephen Armstrong, Case No. 25-1607, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on May 30, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant AMY BETTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appears pro se. OSCAR HEALTH: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Breast Imaging Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- On June 4, 2025, law firms Jeeves Mandel Law Group, P.C. and Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC filed a class action lawsuit in federal court against Oscar Health Insurance, alleging the company violated Texas state law and its own insurance policies by requiring Texas female policyholders to pay deductibles and coinsurance for diagnostic breast imaging. Following a January 1, 2022 update to Texas law, all medical insurers issuing non-ERISA medical insurance policies in Texas are required to pay 100% of the cost of their policyholders' diagnostic breast imaging -- meaning no deductible, co-pays, or coinsurance. Despite this update, the complaint contends Oscar continued to charge its insureds for part or all of the costs associated with such imaging. The complaint further alleges that besides economically harming the women covered by its policies, Oscar's violation of the law endangers their lives, as many may forego the imaging entirely because they are unable to bear the cost. Excluding interest, the complaint alleges the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, with the potential to reach $30 million considering statutory penalties, attorneys' fees, and additional costs. Texas Law: Revised Effective 2010, following the federal enactment of the Affordable Care Act ("ACA), all U.S. medical insurance policies are required to provide coverage for annual screening mammograms at no out-of-pocket cost to female patients 35 years of age and older. In 2021, Texas amended Chapter 1356 of the Texas Insurance Code, requiring all policies issued or renewed in Texas on or after January 1, 2022 to provide coverage for diagnostic breast imaging "no less favorable" than the screening coverage delineated by the ACA. The updated law also expanded the definition of "diagnostic imaging" to include mammography, ultrasound imaging, or magnetic resonance imaging used to evaluate abnormalities and certain individual criteria. "For Insureds who have dense breast tissue, who have detected a lump or had their doctor detect one, who have had an abnormality show up on a screening mammogram, or who have a prior history of breast cancer, diagnostic breast imaging is a crucial tool to increase early detection and successful treatment of breast cancer," the complaint reads. Oscar Health's Non-Compliance While Oscar's written policies conform in part to Texas law and the ACA - providing coverage for mammogram screenings for women 35 and older at no cost - the complaint alleges the provider has failed to fully comply with the updated Texas statute by requiring its policyholders to pay all or part of the costs associated with diagnostic breast imaging. According to the filing, even after January 1, 2022, Oscar continued forcing its insureds to pay 25% coinsurance after deductible for such imaging. The filing further contends the deductible and/or coinsurance costs for insureds can range in the hundreds of dollars. Lauren Moody, Class Plaintiff The class is represented by Plaintiff Lauren Moody, who brought the suit on behalf of herself and similarly affected policyholders following her personal experience with Oscar. In 2023, Moody underwent diagnostic breast imaging via ultrasound, which her doctor had ordered to evaluate a previously discovered abnormality. The MRI company charged $578 for Moody's ultrasound. In an Explanation of Benefits received the following month, Oscar allowed $161.22 of the charge and declared Moody responsible to pay 100% of that "Allowed Amount" towards her deductible. Moody appealed Oscar's decision, citing the updated Texas Insurance Code provisions which require Oscar to pay 100% of the cost. Oscar denied her appeal. According to the complaint, Oscar "did not address Moody's contention that her Policy had been amended to conform to the Texas Insurance Code," further alleging the company, "did not make a good faith investigation of Moody's claim or have a reasonable basis for underpaying her claim and denying her appeal." Ms. Moody explained her reasons for bringing a class action against Oscar. "By following my doctor's orders to have a diagnostic breast ultrasound, I did everything right. And still, Oscar made me pay. When Oscar denied my appeal even after I had pointed out the Texas law, I realized this was no mistake, it was a betrayal. I filed this lawsuit on behalf of every patient insured by Oscar whose wellbeing has been compromised by its violation of the law. We deserve the coverage we are legally entitled to receive." Moody is one of thousands of women believed to have been harmed by Oscar's violation of Texas law. About Jeeves Mandel Law Group, P.C. & Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman Represented by Roger L. Mandel of Jeeves Mandel Law Group and Greg Coleman of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC, the Class accuses Oscar of knowingly breaching its own policies and violating various provisions of the Texas Insurance Code. According to Mr. Mandel, "The Texas Legislature passed the change in the law to make sure no Texas women with medical insurance would forego potentially life-saving diagnostic imaging because of its costs. By violating the law, Oscar is putting corporate profits above human lives." "Compliance with the law is non-negotiable," says Mr. Coleman. "By shifting the cost of critical diagnostic imaging onto patients, Oscar has created life-threatening barriers to necessary healthcare… violating the law and its own policies in the process. We intend to hold Oscar -- and similarly-operating insurers -- fully accountable." The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for affected policyholders' required payments, interest, and statutory penalties, as well as court costs, reasonable attorneys' fees, and expenses. Jeeves Mandel Law Group has successfully represented victims of corporate wrongdoing across the country using class actions, recovering hundreds of millions of dollars. The firm seeks to protect the health, civil rights, and economic interests of its clients. For over 50 years, Milberg and its affiliates have been fighting to protect victims' rights and have recovered over $50 billion for clients. A pioneer in class action litigation, Milberg is widely recognized as a leader in defending the rights of victims of corporate wrongdoing. Oscar policyholders based in Texas - and patients covered by other insurers who were forced to pay all or part of the cost of diagnostic breast imaging - are encouraged to contact Milberg. Media Contact: Kaitlin Gagnon, Marketing Content Writer Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC kgagnon@milberg.com [GN] OXFORD LIFE: Thomas Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info -------------------------------------------------------------- Donald Thomas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Oxford Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01736-SHD (D. Ariz., May 21, 2025) is a class action arising from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive information. The Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information about account holders, including Plaintiff. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. The Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems -- thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its current and former consumers' PII, says the suit. The complaint asserts that cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class members' PII. In short, the Defendant's failures placed Plaintiff and Class members' PII in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, the suit alleges. Oxford Life Insurance Company is an Arizona-based corporation that provides products and services such as life insurance and annuities to senior citizens in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cristina Perez Hesano, Esq. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7508 N. 59th Avenue Glendale, AZ 85301 Telephone: (602) 730-7100 E-mail: cperez@perezlawgroup.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com PEOPLEREADY INC: Perez Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Elias Perez, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. PEOPLEREADY, INC., a Washington Corporation; GLOBAL FIXTURE SERVICE INC., a Texas Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25-CIV-01748 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on May 30, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-04610. In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following claims for relief against the Defendants: Failure to Provide Meal Periods, Failure to Provide Rest Periods, Failure to Pay all Wages, Knowing and Intentional Failure to Comply with Itemized Employee Wage Statement Provisions, Failure to Timely Pay Wages Due at Termination, Failure to Timely Pay Employees, Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses, Failure to Pay for All Hours Worked, including Overtime Hours, Violation of Business and Professions Code, and Penalties Pursuant to California Labor Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David R. Ongaro, Esq. Cara R. Sherman, Esq. ONGARO PC 1604 Union Street San Francisco, CA 94123 Phone: (415) 433-3900 Facsimile: (415) 433-3950 Email: ongaro@ongaropc.com csherman@ongaropc.com PPG INDUSTRIES: Kassem Removed from State Court to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------ AHMAD SARI KASSEM, individually and on behalf of himself and al others similarly situated, v. PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, PPG ARCHITECTURAL FINISHES, INC., a Delaware corporation, THE PITTSBURGH PAINTS CO., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2025-01477899 (Filed April 25, 2025) was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court, Central District of California on May 28, 2025. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-04838 to the proceedings. The complaint seeks to recover minimum wage and unpaid overtime pursuant to the California Labor Code. PPG Industries is an American Fortune 500 company and global supplier of paints, coatings, and specialty materials.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Shiva S. Davoudian, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 553-0308 Facsimile: (800) 715-1330 E-mail: sdavoudian@littler.com - and - Lauren Manso, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4300 Facsimile: (800) 715-1330 E-mail: lmanso@littler.com PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Franco Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled Mayra Franco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00225, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff submitted a claim to her insurer, Defendant Progressive Southeastern Insurance Company, after her 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee was totaled. She alleges that Progressive Southeastern underpaid her claim and that Defendant Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, which manages and controls the insurance claims process for Progressive affiliates, systematically underpays insureds who submit a total-loss claim by the arbitrary and illegal use of a "projected sold adjustment." On Feb. 20, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Catherine C. Eagles granted on May 14, 2025. The Plaintiff, Mayra Franco, is appointed as class representative. Hemmings & Stevens, PLLC is appointed as class counsel. The appellate case is captioned Progressive Casualty Insurance Company v. Mayra Franco, Case No. 25-154, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on May 29, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent MAYRA FRANCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Aaron Craig Hemmings, Esq. Kelly Ann Stevens, Esq. HEMMINGS & STEVENS 5540 McNeely Drive Raleigh, NC 27675 Telephone: (919) 277-0161 - and - Joseph A. Schouten, Esq. WARD & SMITH, PA P.O. Box 33009 Raleigh, NC 27636 Defendants-Petitioners PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. are represented by: Zoe Michal Beiner, Esq. Paul Alessio Mezzina, Esq. Amy R. Upshaw, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 737-0500 (202) 626-8988 (202) 626-2915 - and - James Matthew Brigman, Esq. Jeffrey Cashdan, Esq. Seth Isaac Euster, Esq. Zachary Andrew McEntyre, Esq. Erin Munger, Esq. Allison Hill White, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 (404) 572-5600 (404) 572-3510 (404) 572-2440 RECKITT BENCKISER: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, has filed a securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC ("Reckitt" or the "Company") (OTC: RBGLY), and certain of its former and current officers and/or directors (collectively, "Defendants"). The Class Action asserts claims under Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Secs. 78j(b) and 78t(a)) and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b‑5) on behalf of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Reckitt American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") between January 13, 2021, and July 28, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby (the "Class"). The Class Action filed by Scott+Scott is captioned: Elevator Constructors Union Local No. 1 Annuity & 401(K) Fund v. Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-4708. LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE ON AUGUST 4, 2025 Reckitt is a United Kingdom-based, global consumer goods company. To date, over 500 state and federal products liability lawsuits have been filed against Reckitt and its competitor, Abbott Laboratories ("Abbott"), claiming that they failed to adequately warn that premature infants consuming cow milk-based formulas, such as Reckitt's Enfamil and Abbott's Similac, have an increased risk of developing necrotizing enterocolitis ("NEC"), a life-threatening intestinal disease that affects premature or low birth weight infants. The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants made misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's business, financial condition, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to warn investors and consumers: (1) that preterm infants were at an increased risk of developing NEC by consuming Reckitt's cow's milk-based formula, Enfamil; (2) of the attendant impact on Reckitt's sales of Enfamil and Reckitt's exposure to legal claims; and (3) as a result of the above, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. The market began to learn the truth on March 15, 2024, when, in the case captioned Watson vs. Mead Johnson Co., Case No. 21-L-1032 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Oct. 28, 2021), a jury in St. Clair County, Illinois, returned a $60 million verdict in the first NEC lawsuit to be tried to a verdict. The jury found that Mead Johnson was negligent and failed to warn the decedent's mother of the increased risk her preterm infant could develop NEC by consuming cow's milk-based formula. On this news, the price of the Company's ADSs fell $1.87, or nearly 14%, from a closing price of $13.31 per share on March 14, 2024, to a closing price of $11.44 per share on March 15, 2024. Then, on July 29, 2024, the market continued to learn the truth when, in the case captioned Gill v. Abbot Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 2322-CC1251 (Mo. Circ. Ct. Jun. 23, 2023), a jury in St. Louis, Missouri, concluded that Abbott's specialized formula for premature babies led to a baby developing NEC and awarded the plaintiff $495 million. On this news, the price of the Company's ADSs fell $1.02, or nearly 9%, from a closing price of $11.66 per share on July 28, 2024, to a closing price of $10.64 per share on July 29, 2024. LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE ON AUGUST 4, 2025 If you purchased Reckitt ADSs during the Class Period and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York no later than August 4, 2025. The lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent class members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in the Class Action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. If you wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, please contact attorney Nicholas Bruno at (888) 398-9312 or at nbruno@scott-scott.com. What Can You Do? You may contact an attorney to discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the Class Action. You may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in the Class Action. About Scott+Scott Scott+Scott is an international law firm known for its expertise in representing corporate clients, institutional investors, businesses, and individuals harmed by anticompetitive conduct or other forms of wrongdoing, including securities law and shareholder violations. With more than 100 attorneys in eight offices in the United States, as well as three offices in Europe, our advocacy has resulted in significant monetary settlements on behalf of our clients, along with other forms of relief. Our highly experienced attorneys have been recognized for being among the top financial lawyers in 2024 by Lawdragon, WWL: Commercial Litigation 2024, and Legal 500 in Antitrust Civil Litigation, and have received top Chambers 2024 rankings. In addition, we have been repeatedly recognized by the American Antitrust Institute for the successful litigation of high-stakes anticompetitive claims in the United States. To learn more about Scott+Scott, our attorneys, or complex case resolution, please visit www.scott-scott.com. [GN] REDLINE SOCIETY: Faces Smith Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------------- ELLIOT SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REDLINE SOCIETY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-01288 (M.D. Fla., May 21, 2025) is a putative class action pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. To promote its goods and services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging and continues to text message consumers after they have opted out of Defendant's solicitations. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Redline Society, LLC is a Florida company whose principal office is located in Tampa.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 732-2792 E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com - and - Manuel Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Norris Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- ELLYN NORRIS, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Ellyn Norris, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-01496-JWH-JDE, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that the Defendant makes, sells, and markets defective gas stoves, cooktops, ovens, and range products. On Sept. 21, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. On Oct. 20, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss on Nov. 2, 2023. On June 21, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss on Aug. 23, 2024. On Apr. 28, 2025, Judge John W. Holcomb entered an order dismissing the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint. The Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed without leave to amend. The appellate case is entitled Norris, et al. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 25-3432, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 30, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on June 4, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on July 9, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on August 8, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants ELLYN NORRIS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Richard Elgar Lyon, III, Esq. Simon Carlo Franzini, Esq. Jonas Bram Jacobson, Esq. Gabriel Zachiah Doble, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Defendant-Appellee SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. is represented by: Lori B. Leskin, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER, LLP 250 W. 55th Street New York, NY 10019 - and - Oscar Daniel Ramallo, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER, LLP 777 S. Figueroa Street, 44th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 SEAWORLD SAN DIEGO: Settles Annual Pass Class Action for $1.5-Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lori Weisberg, writing for The San Diego Union-Tribune, reports that a $1.5 million class action settlement has been reached with SeaWorld, which was accused by two San Diego residents of failing to properly notify them that their annual passes to the marine park would be automatically renewed. The settlement, which still needs formal approval by the San Diego Superior Court, specifically applies to any California resident who purchased an annual pass to the San Diego park online on or after Feb. 28, 2019. Further, in order to qualify for a payout, passholders had to have had their passes automatically renewed after the initial 12-month period ended on or before Feb. 28 of this year and did not receive a refund for the first auto-renewal charge. If approved by the court -- a hearing date has been set for Aug. 15 -- net proceeds from the settlement will be distributed on a pro rata basis to each member of the settlement class. There are an estimated 141,358 members of the class. Those eligible for a payout will not have to fill out a claim form. They will be identified through SeaWorld's records. As part of the negotiated agreement, SeaWorld has admitted no wrongdoing and maintains that it complied with all applicable laws. A Q&A provided on the website for the settlement agreement notes that "the court has not made any determination as to which party is right and has not found that SeaWorld engaged in any wrongdoing or violated any laws. Instead, the Named Plaintiff and Defendants have agreed to a settlement to avoid the risk, cost, and time of continuing the lawsuit." The settlement originated with San Diegans Daniel Blanco and Christopher Lomelli who purchased passes at different times in 2021. The original complaint states that Blanco bought two SeaWorld San Diego Silver Annual Passes for his wife and himself during a Black Friday sale and opted for a monthly payment plan over 12 months. At the time of his purchase, he alleged that SeaWorld did not disclose in a clear manner that the purchase agreement would continue until he canceled, that recurring charges would be on his original payment, and that the amount would exceed that of the initial purpose. The failure to disclose such information is a violation of the California Business and Professions code, the lawsuit alleged. "When Plaintiffs and Class Members discovered the illegal renewal fees, Defendants' cancellation process made it difficult to cancel and thus delayed their ability to terminate the pass," stated the class action statement, which was filed in February of 2023. Such deceptive practices have officially been labeled as "dark patterns" by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. "In September 2022, the FTC released a report shining a light on how companies are increasingly using manipulative digital design practices known as ‘dark patterns' that trick or manipulate consumers into making choices they would not otherwise have made and that may cause harm, such as signing up for automatically renewing purchases or subscriptions." The resolution of the lawsuit comes less than a year after a settlement was reached between SeaWorld and the city of San Diego over a longstanding rent dispute. Earlier this year, the city received a check for $8.5 million to settle a lawsuit it had filed against the park seeking back rent, plus interest and penalty fees totaling more than $12 million. The two parties ultimately agreed to a settlement of $8.5 million, which is close to the $8.8 million that city officials originally said was unpaid. [GN] SOUTHERN STATES: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With FB Financial ------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Southern States Bancshares, Inc. (NASDAQ: SSBK), relating to the proposed merger with FB Financial Corporation. Under the terms of the agreement, Southern States' shareholders will receive 0.800 shares of FB Financial common stock for each share of Southern States stock. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for June 26, 2025. Visit link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/southern-states-bancshares-inc-ssbk/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- LENSAR, Inc. (NASDAQ: LNSR), relating to the proposed merger with Alcon. Under the terms of the agreement, LENSAR shareholders will receive $14.00 per share, with an additional non-tradeable contingent value right offering up to $2.75 per share in cash conditioned on the achievement of certain milestones. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for July 2, 2025. Visit link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/lensar-inc-lnsr/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- iCAD, Inc. (NASDAQ: ICAD), relating to the proposed merger with RadNet, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, iCAD stockholders will receive 0.0677 shares of RadNet common stock for each share of iCAD common stock held at the closing of the merger. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for July 14, 2025. Visit link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/icad-inc-icad/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- BioSig Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: BSGM), relating to the proposed Merger with Streamex Exchange Corporation, pursuant to the Share Purchase Agreement, the Company, through ExchangeCo, will acquire all of the issued and outstanding shares of Streamex (the "Purchased Shares") from the Shareholders. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/biosig-technologies-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] SPOKEO INC: Larancuent Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as John Larancuent individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SPOKEO, INC., Case No. 25STCV10523 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles County, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 30, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-04935. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that Spokeo listed Plaintiff's cell phone number in one or more online services that Spokeo owns or maintains, and that it did so for commercial purposes. The Plaintiff claims that he never consented to Spokeo's use of his cellphone number, and that none of the putative class members did, either.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: John Nadolenco, Esq. Daniel D. Queen, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 333 S. Grand Ave., 47th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 229-9500 Facsimile: (213) 625-0248 Email: jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com dqueen@mayerbrown.com SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Settles Jail Class Action Lawsuit for $18MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Denise Civiletti, writing for Riverhead Local, reports that Suffolk County has settled a 14-year-old class action lawsuit brought by inmates over alleged unsanitary and inhumane conditions at the county jails in Riverhead and Yaphank. The county agreed to pay $18 million into a settlement fund to pay damages to people incarcerated by the county from April 5, 2009 to the preliminary approval date of the settlement, excluding inmates housed exclusively at the facility built in Yaphank in 2013. The county also agreed to repair the jails and correct conditions the lawsuit said violates the U.S. Constitution's prohibition of cruel and inhuman treatment under the 14th Amendment. According to the lawsuit, commenced in 2011, people housed in the correctional facilities are subjected to a range of severely unsanitary and inhumane conditions. Those conditions include defective plumbing, overflowing sewage, chronic overcrowding, poor water, food and air quality, rodent and insect infestation, pervasive mold and rust, and freezing temperatures. The settlement requires the county to repair and correct those conditions. It also requires the county to appoint an employee to address environmental health concerns at both the Riverhead and Yaphank facilities for at least three years. The county must also pay for an independent expert to conduct annual assessments of the county's progress for three years. U.S. District Court Judge Joanna Seybert denied the county's motion to dismiss and certified the class in March 2013. Litigation has been ongoing since. The Yaphank and Riverhead facilities house both pretrial detainees -- people awaiting trial who were unable to post bail or held without bail pursuant to a court order -- and sentenced prisoners -- people serving a local jail sentence of up to one year or those awaiting transfer to a state prison. "This settlement provides much-needed relief to the many incarcerated New Yorkers who have been subject to inhumane and unconstitutional conditions at the Suffolk County jails," New York Civil Liberties Union staff attorney Gabriella Larios said in a May 21 statement announcing the settlement terms. "It also means that the county's longstanding indifference to this manufactured crisis will finally come to an end," Larios said. "The settlement requires Suffolk County to make structural changes to improve the jails and compensate those who have been exposed to their horrendous conditions. We'll be watching closely to ensure the county lives up to that commitment," she said. "This settlement means that people awaiting trial in Suffolk County will no longer be subjected to the degrading conditions while awaiting trial and fighting for their freedom," plaintiff Clyde Lofton said. "I am grateful that no one else will have to experience the degrading conditions I faced while incarcerated at the Suffolk County jail, and I hope this is a positive step forward for the people of Suffolk County." Under the terms of the settlement agreement, filed with the court May 19, original lead plaintiffs in the case will be paid up to $20,000 each, with additional lead plaintiffs eligible to receive up to $10,000 each, on a per diem basis, calculated by the number of days a plaintiff was incarcerated. The maximum amount to be disbursed for per diem payments is $12 million. Additional special injury award payments will be made to eligible plaintiffs or their estates for injuries resulting from their incarceration. Plaintiffs who "experienced death, dismemberment, or a condition requiring ongoing and significant medical treatment" connected to the conditions of confinement in the county correctional facility will be eligible for additional special injury award payments up to $30,000 each. Plaintiffs who "experienced hospitalization or other temporary significant medical treatment" connected to the conditions of confinement are eligible for additional special injury award payments of up to $15,000. [GN] SUMMER VIBE: Faces Class Suit Over Unfair Telephone Solicitations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brittany A. Andres, writing for The National Law Review, reports that yes, another TCPA lawsuit has just hit the docket, and once again, it's centered around the increasingly active quiet hours provision. No surprise, this one comes from Jibrael Hindi's office, which has filed hundreds of these quiet hours cases in recent months. For those keeping track, the "quiet hours" provision under the TCPA prohibits initiating telephone solicitations before 8:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. local time of the called party. 47 C.F.R. Sec. 64.1200(c)(1). This provision is rapidly becoming a favorite for the plaintiffs' bar. In this latest suit, Olivia Lee Pesce, alleges that between April 14, 2023 and November 17, 2023, she received 8 text messages from Summer Vibe Inc. d/b/a Cupshe (yes, the swimwear brand) before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. local time in her location. As you folks know, the TCPA carries statutory violations of $500 per text and up to $1,500 if they were knowing and willful violations. So at best, Olivia could recover $12,000 ($1,500 x 8 messages) for the texts she received. But the real exposure lies in the putative class. Olivia isn't just seeking damages for herself -- she's attempting to certify a nationwide class of individuals who also received marketing texts from Summer Vibe during the quiet hours: All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through the date of class certification (1) Defendant, or anyone on Defendant's behalf, (2) placed more than one marketing text message within any 12-month period; (3) where such marketing text messages were initiated before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (local time at the called party's location). So now everyone Summer Vibe texted outside the quiet hours are potentially in the class. Let's do the math. If just 100 people received similar texts, even at the base statutory amount, the potential liability is already at $50,000 -- and that number only goes up if willfulness is proven or more class members are found. While these cases are multiplying, it's important to remember quiet hours litigation is still a new and evolving area of law. It remains to be seen how far these cases will go. Companies should keep a close eye on this trend. Hindi is clearly on the prowl. As this case was just filed, not much has happened yet, but we will definitely keep a close eye on this one to see how it plays out. Pesce v. Summer Vibe Inc., Case No.: 2:25-cv-05042 [GN] TADASHI SHOJI: Faces Davis Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE DAVIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tadashi Shoji & Associates, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05650 (N.D. Ill., May 21, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design its website, https://www.tadashishoji.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The barriers to access have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of Tadashishoji.com. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Tadashi Shoji & Associates' policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Tadashi Shoji & Associates, Inc. operates the website that offers collection of dresses, including classic styles, evening wear, cocktail attire, plus-size options, and bridal gowns.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630)-478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Teamsters Sues Over Dexilant Monopoly ------------------------------------------------------------ TEAMSTERS HEALTH & WELFARE FUND OF PHILADELPHIA AND VICINITY, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY LIMITED, TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., INC., TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS AMERICA, INC., TWI PHARMACEUTICALS INC., and TWI PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-04405 (N.D. Cal., May 22, 2025) challenges a horizontal conspiracy and agreement among Defendants to restrain competition in the United States market for the pharmaceutical product Dexilant (dexlansoprazole) and its AB-rated generic equivalents. Dexilant is a treatment for erosive esophagitis and symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease, also known as GERD. According to the complaint, the Defendants, competing pharmaceutical manufacturers, entered into a "reverse payment agreement," whereby a patent holder pays an alleged or potential infringer to stay off the market, not to challenge its patents, or otherwise not to compete with the patent holder in the market for the patented product. In a typical competitive market, the infringer pays damages and/or royalties to the patent holder. But in the "reverse payment" scenario, as alleged herein, the payment flows in the opposite direction. That is, the patent holder pays the alleged infringer to stay out of the market, says the suit. The agreement was a lose-lose for Plaintiff and members of the End-Payor Class who were (i) overcharged for dexlansoprazole because they were forced to buy branded Dexilant instead of a cheaper, generic product that would have otherwise been available by mid-2020; and (ii) overcharged on their purchases of generic Dexilant because (a) generic entry was delayed and (b) TWi was granted a monopoly when it belatedly entered the market for generic Dexilant in January 2022. This action seeks overcharge damages and related relief to redress Takeda's and TWi's unlawful conduct, which prevented free and fair competition and caused Plaintiff and members of the End-Payor Class to pay substantial overcharges on both branded and generic Dexilant. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited is a Japanese multinational pharmaceutical company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shana E. Scarlett, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com - and - Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. Gregory T. Arnold, Esq. Whitney E. Street, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1 Fanuel Hall Square, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com grega@hbsslaw.com whitneyst@hbsslaw.com - and - Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq. Diana J. Zinser, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, PC 2001 Market Street, Suite 3420 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 E-mail: jkodroff@srkattorneys.com dzinser@srkattorneys.com - and - Stephen C. Richman, Esq. MARKOWITZ & RICHMAN 123 S Broad Street, Suite 2020 Philadelphia, PA 19109 Telephone: (215) 875-3100 E-mail: srichman@markowitzrichman.com TARGET CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Violations of CA Labor Laws -------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo Finance reports that Target recently faced legal challenges with a class action lawsuit filed against it in California, alleging violations of labor laws. This news plays a role in the company's share price performance, which saw a 1% decline in May 2025. Despite these legal issues, it's important to note that the broader market remained flat over the same period. While the lawsuit may have added some downward pressure on Target's stock, the overall market stability suggests that the company's legal troubles did not lead to a dramatic deviation from general market trends. The recent legal challenges faced by Target, including the class action lawsuit, could potentially impact the company's efforts to enhance customer experience and drive revenue growth. While the short-term impact on the share price was a 1% decline, over a five-year period, Target's total return, including dividends, was a 10.13% decline. This paints a broader picture of the company's struggle to outperform, especially when considering its underperformance against both the US Consumer Retailing industry and the US market over the past year, where the industry saw a 31.5% return and the market a 12.6% return. Considering the revenue and earnings forecasts, Target's growth ambitions through store enhancements and digital expansion might face hurdles if the lawsuit results in operational or financial setbacks. The legal proceedings could also influence analysts' outlooks on the expected revenue of US$113.3 billion and earnings of US$4.6 billion by May 2028. This situation could further impact the fair value assessment, especially given the current share price of US$93.65, which is noticeably lower than the consensus price target of US$127.78 -- a 26.7% potential increase. Observers should remain aware of the implications this legal matter might have on future earnings forecasts and the trajectory toward analysts' price targets. [GN] TECHTARGET INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of TechTarget, Inc. (NASDAQ: TTGT) resulting from allegations that TechTarget may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased TechTarget securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=38552 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: After market hours on April 18, 2025, TechTarget filed with the SEC a current report on Form 8-K. In this current report, TechTarget announced that certain of its previously filed financial statements "should no longer be relied upon due to certain accounting errors[.]" Further, the current report announced that TechTarget's management had identified material errors "relating to certain technical accounting matters associated with goodwill impairment, changes in contingent consideration, and amortization of intangibles, including related tax impacts thereof." On this news, TechTarget's stock fell 12.7% on April 21, 2025. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] THANG BOTANICALS: M. A. Appeals Suit Dismissal Ruling to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- M. A., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled M. A., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Thang Botanicals, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-07029-TLT, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case arises from the Defendants' alleged false, misleading, deceptive, and negligent sales practices regarding their 7-Hydroxymitragynine (7-OH) tablet products. According to the complaint, the Defendants have intentionally failed to disclose the material facts regarding the dangers of 7-OH consumption anywhere on its 7-OH Tablets' labeling, packaging, or marketing material. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek relief in their action individually, and as a class action, on behalf of similarly situated purchasers of the Defendants' Products, for the following violations of: (i) California's Unfair Competition Law; (ii) California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (iii) California's False Advertising Law (FAL); (iv) Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act; (v) Nevada's Deceptive Trade Practices Act; (vi) breach of implied warranty; (vii) unjust enrichment; and (viii) fraud by omission. On Jan. 8, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint and to strike nationwide class allegations. On Mar. 28, 2025, Judge Trina L. Thompson entered an Order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss and to strike nationwide class allegations. Given that the Plaintiffs conceded their injunctive relief, FAL, and unjust enrichment claims, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss those claims. Because the Plaintiffs also agreed to limit their nationwide claims and conceded that the Plaintiffs' consumer protection claims are not based on third party representations, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss and strike the Plaintiffs' nationwide claims and granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' consumer protection claims to the extent those claims are based on third party representations. The Court further ruled that the complaint failed to sufficiently allege the Plaintiffs' breach of implied warranty and fraud by omission claims and granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss as to those claims. The Court denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' remaining consumer protection claims to the extent those claims are based on the sufficiency of the Defendants' disclaimer and website. Out of an abundance of caution, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' leave to amend their injunctive relief request and nationwide class allegations, in addition to the Plaintiffs' consumer protection claims, FAL, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and fraud by omission claims. On Apr. 29, 2025, the Defendants filed a request for entry of order of final dismissal with prejudice due to the Plaintiffs' failure to file amended complaint, which Judge Thompson granted. The Plaintiffs' complaint is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The appellate case is captioned M. A., et al. v. Thang Botanicals, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-3408, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 29, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on June 3, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on July 8, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on August 7, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants M. A., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 1990 N. California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Defendants-Appellees THANG BOTANICALS, INC., et al. are represented by: Daniel Scott Silverman, Esq. Bryan J. Weintrop, Esq. VENABLE, LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 - and - Amit Rana, Esq. Zoe Gallagher, Esq. VENABLE LLP 101 California Street, Suite 3800 San Francisco, CA 94111 THIRTY THREE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Pittman Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- DEBBIE PITTMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Thirty Three Threads, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05644 (N.D. Ill., May 21, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design its website, https://taviactive.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The barriers to access have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of the website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Thirty Three Threads' policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Thirty Three Threads, Inc. operates the website that offers leggings, pants, shorts, skirts, dresses, joggers, bodysuits, sport bras, jackets, short and long sleeves, grip socks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630)-478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law TITAN REALTY: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Tonato Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- ULVIO ELIECER VILLACIS TONATO, MANUEL CLAUDIO MEJIA CAIZAGUANO, LUIS EDUARDO IXCAYA POS, JORGE JAVIER RAMON MAISANCHEZ, CESAR ANIBAL MACAS LASLUISA, and BRYAN LEONARDO MACAS CUNALATA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TITAN REALTY & CONSTRUCTION LLC, LUMICA STONE AND TILE CORP. and K & V STONE CORP., KEITH ZENOBIO and KONRAD EDUARDO FLORES, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02858 (E.D.N.Y., May 22, 2025) seeks to recover damages for Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to pay wages for all hours worked, failure to pay wages owed on a weekly basis in which their wages were earned, failure to provide written wage notice, and failure to furnish wage statements. The Plaintiffs previously worked for the Defendants as mechanics, laborers, construction workers and helpers while performing related miscellaneous duties. Titan Realty & Construction LLC provides construction services with a principal executive office and service of process address in Greenvale, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 TOYOTA INSURANCE: Vaccaro Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Dave Vaccaro, individually and on behalf of all others Similarly Situated v. Toyota Insurance Management Solutions USA, LLC, Does 1-100 and each of them, Case No. 25STCV08700 was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April 30, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-03807-MCS-SSC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Toyota Insurance Management Solutions USA -- https://toyotaims.com/ -- provides property and casualty insurance services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd Michael Friedman, Esq. Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq. Meghan Elisabeth George, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC 21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Phone: 323-306-4234 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Ariel A Neuman, Esq. Abraham Rejwan, Esq. Ekwan E. Rhow, Esq. BIRD, MARELLA, RHOW, LINCENBERG, DROOKS AND NESSIM, LLP 1875 Century Park East 23rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-2100 Fax: (310) 201-2110 Email: aneuman@birdmarella.com arejwan@birdmarella.com erhow@birdmarella.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Allard Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Laura Allard, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., and TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., Case No. 2579CV00310 was removed from the Hampden County Superior Court, to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on June 2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-30107. The Plaintiff's Complaint brings claims under Massachusetts law for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, restitution, a violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, and for breach of implied and/or express warranty.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Holly M. Polglase, Esq. Matthew E. Bown, Esq. CLYDE & CO US LLP 265 Franklin Street, Suite 802 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 728-0050 Email: holly.polglase@clydeco.us matthew.bown@clydeco.us UNION HEALTH: Fails to Protect Personal, Health Info, Woolard Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ GERRI WOOLARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNION HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., and CERNER CORPORATION d/b/a ORACLE HEALTH, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00394-BCW (W.D. Mo., May 22, 2025) is a class action against Defendants for their failure to secure and safeguard approximately 262,831 individuals' (including Plaintiff’s) personally identifying information and personal health information, including names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, dates of birth, treating physicians, dates of service, medication information, insurance information and treatment and/or diagnostic information. On or about February 20, 2025, Cerner discovered that an unauthorized third party gained access to its network systems and accessed and copied files containing the PII/PHI of UHS's patients and the PII/PHI of at least some of Cerner's other clients' customers, including Plaintiff and Class members. The Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff and Class members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard their PII/PHI against unauthorized access and disclosure. The Defendants breached that duty by, among other things, failing to, or contracting and sharing PII/PHI with companies that failed to, implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect their patients' PII/PHI from unauthorized access and disclosure, says the suit. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all other Class members, asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, and seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, equitable relief, and all other relief authorized by law. Union Health System, Inc. is a health system based in and around Terre Haute, Indiana. Cerner is UHS's third party vendor and provides electronic health records services to UHS.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John S. Steward, Esq. STEWARD LAW FIRM, LLC 14824 West Clayton Road, Suite 24 Chesterfield, MO 63017 Telephone: (314) 504-0979 E-mail: js@molawgroup.com - and - Ben Barnow, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 38957 205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 621-2000 Facsimile: (312) 641-5504 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com UNITED STATES: Sued Over Federal Indian Boarding School Program --------------------------------------------------------------- WICHITA AND AFFILIATED TRIBES, WASHOE TRIBE OF NEVADA AND CALIFORNIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DOUG BURGUM, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Interior, THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, AND THE BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00909-JPW (M.D. Pa., May 22, 2025) arises from the Defendants' failure to provide full accounting of Native Nations' funds used in connection with the Federal Indian Boarding School Program. The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, demand an accounting and that the United States must disclose the value of the land ceded and amount of Native Nations' funds taken for purported use in the Boarding School Program and in support of Native children's education, and detail how, and indeed whether, those funds were ever dispensed for the Native Nations' collective benefit as required. The United States Government must also account for the labor that Native Nations' children expended, which the United States Government now admits for the first time, was essential to the very functioning of the Boarding School Program. The complaint further asserts that the United States took upon itself the trusteeship over Native children's education. In that capacity, it forcibly took children as young as toddlers away from their families. It subjected Native children, solely because they were Native children, to physical and sexual abuse, denied them adequate health care and nutrition, barred them from speaking their native tongues, and deprived them of basic human rights. The abuse continued for 150 years, and throughout this time, the United States forced Native Nations to fund it themselves. The impact of the United States' actions continues to be felt by every single Native person, the suit contends. The Wichita and Affiliated Tribes are a federally recognized tribe headquartered in Anadarko, Oklahoma. The Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California and its affiliates are a federally recognized tribe, headquartered in Gardnerville, Nevada, and who have had a presence in the region for approximately 6,000 years. The United States Department of the Interior is a Cabinet-level agency that manages the United States' natural and cultural resources. Interior is charged with honoring and fulfilling the United States' trust responsibilities and special commitments to Native Nations.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Daniel R. Schwartz, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com dschwartz@dicellolevitt.com - and - Faith E. Gay, Esq. Matthew Nussbaum, Esq. Jacob Maiman-Stadtmauer, Esq. SELENDY GAY PLLC 1290 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10104 Telephone: (202) 390-9001 E-mail: fgay@selendygay.com mnussbaum@selendygay.com jmaimanstadtmauer@selendygay.com - and - Larry Bendesky, Esq. Jeffrey P. Goodman, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI BENDESKY PC 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-8282 E-mail: jgoodman@smbb.com - and - Richard Fields, Esq. Martin Cunniff, Esq. FIELDS HAN CUNNIFF PLLC 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (833) 382-9816 E-mail: fields@fhcfirm.com martincunniff@fhcfirm.com - and - Austin R. Vance, Esq. ALL RISE! PLLC 1000 West Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 362 Oklahoma City, OK 73116 Telephone: (405) 698-0131 E-mail: Austin@AllRise.Law UNITED STATES: Vera Institute Balks at Termination of Grants ------------------------------------------------------------ VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE, CENTER FOR CHILDREN & YOUTH JUSTICE, CHINESE FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, FORCE DETROIT, and HEALTH RESOURCES IN ACTION, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; PAMELA J. BONDI, in her official capacity as United States Attorney General; OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS; and MAUREEN A. HENNEBERG, in her official capacity as Acting Head of the Office of Justice Programs, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01643 (D.D.C., May 21, 2025) arises from the Defendants' violations of the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act due to termination of more than 370 multi-year grant awards with no notice. In April 2025, the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs abruptly and summarily terminated more than 370 multi-year cooperative agreements and grants awarding more than $820 million in essential funding. With no prior notice, OJP sent a form email to Plaintiffs and other grantees, offering the same unsupported explanation that Plaintiffs' "awards no longer effectuate the program goals or agency priorities." OJP ordered the grantees to stop work immediately and informed them that they would be reimbursed only up to the date of the termination letter. The Plaintiffs are non-profit organizations that were awarded federal grant funding. They work to train and assist law enforcement, correctional facilities staff, prosecutors, and states and localities. As a direct result of OJP's unlawful termination of Plaintiffs' grants, services to many of these populations have abruptly ceased. Staff have been laid off without meaningful alternatives for employment, and many more staff will soon be laid off without funding, says the suit. Absent a preliminary injunction, the Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm -- multi-year projects will terminate abruptly, specialized staff will be laid off, critical services will be withdrawn from communities facing some of the gravest safety concerns -- all compounded by lasting damage to hard-earned reputational trust, the suit added. United States Department of Justice is a federal agency headquartered in Washington, D.C.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lisa Newman, Esq. Jennifer Fountain Connolly, Esq. Brian Netter, Esq. Cortney Robinson, Esq. Somil Trivedi, Esq. Skye L. Perryman, Esq. DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION P.O. Box 34553 Washington, D.C. 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: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over AquaPEX Pipes --------------------------------------------------------- Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges the now-discontinued red, white and blue PEX pipes made by Uponor are prone to oxidation and can fail within three to 10 years after installation, causing major headaches for property owners who expect potable water piping systems to last a lifetime. The 77-page Uponor PEX lawsuit states that the company's AquaPEX pipes are made of polyethylene, which is vulnerable to oxidation and as a result can degrade prematurely. Though blending antioxidants into the polyethylene PEX piping is meant to prevent premature degradation, the class action suit claims Uponor's method of doing so fails to uniformly mix the antioxidants with the polyethylene, meaning the former is not distributed evenly within the product. "Lack of homogeneity results in areas of the polymer with less antioxidant protection," the Uponor PEX class action lawsuit summarizes. "These less-protected areas lead to oxidation of the pipe. This condition further leads to cracks and leaks." According to the complaint, Uponor has "long been aware" of the oxidation issue with the AquaPEX piping systems, which were manufactured from roughly 2010 to 2021 and included plastic piping, reinforcement rings and fittings. Despite this, Uponor has intentionally failed to disclose the apparent defects to consumers, distributors, contractors or building officials, the suit alleges. To date, there has been no Uponor PEX recall, or any other public statement, about the alleged piping problems, the filing notes, accusing the defendant of "concealing the defects" to avoid the "costs, inconveniences, and reputational harms" of recalling "millions of feet of defective pipe." Microcracks form during PEX pipe manufacturing, lawsuit says The case asserts that cracks and leaks in the PEX piping are the result of shoddy manufacturing and cannot be attributed to faulty installation or water temperature or water pressure in the system. Indeed, the complaint insists that "[p]oor installation practices will not cause these defects in the Class Pipe and perfect installation practices will not prevent them." More specifically, the filing explains that the cross-linked polyethylene used to make the Uponor PEX piping—which is installed in residential properties for water distribution and circulation, fire protection systems and radiant floor and baseboard heating, among other applications—is exposed to oxygen during the manufacturing process. Tiny imperfections, or "microcracks," form on the inside surface of the pipe as a result of the reaction between the polyethylene and oxygen, and these cracks eventually spread and grow through the wall of the pipe over time, leading to brittleness and premature degradation, the lawsuit says. Once it begins, the suit continues, the process of oxidative degradation is accelerated by normal use of the potable water system, causing leaks and potentially significant property damage. This process is compounded by the flame treatment of Uponor's red and blue pipes themselves during application of their color coating, which destroys antioxidants on the outer wall of the pipes and further predisposes them to early failure, the case claims. According to the complaint, the apparent defect is also exacerbated by the fitting installation design system, which, per the filing, creates stress at the edge of the reinforcement rings installed over the fittings. Over time, the stress leads to cracking in the pipe just outside the reinforcement rings, resulting in leaks and property damage, the lawsuit describes. Although Uponor continues to tout the durability and reliability of its PEX piping, including by claiming that it has a life expectancy of "well over 100 years," thousands of pipe failures and resultant leaks have been reported to the company by installers and property owners, the suit alleges. Consumers reasonably believed, based on Uponor's representations, that the AquaPEX piping system would function properly, the case argues. The complaint contends that property owners would not have purchased and installed the pipes had they known the products were plagued by a defect that would cause them to fail prematurely to potentially disastrous effect. Plaintiff says Uponor blamed PEX pipe problems on "installation errors" The plaintiff, an Oceanside, California resident, states that around January 2015 he hired a private plumbing company to replace the copper pipe in his home with Uponor PEX pipe, at a cost of $9,000. The case says the first of three separate water leaks occurred in late October 2022, which prompted the plaintiff's plumber to request a site inspection by an Uponor representative. The filing says that although the private company that installed the PEX piping at the plaintiff's home requested to be reimbursed by Uponor for the out-of-pocket expenses it incurred from repairing the leaking pipe and property damage to the consumer's residence, Uponor denied the request based on the "false pretense" that the water pressure in the hot water tank, and not the pipe itself, was too high. The plaintiff asserts in the class action suit that all of the water pressure measured in his house by the Uponor rep was below 80 PSI, in compliance with the Uniform Plumbing Code in California and far below the 100 PSI that Uponor claims the PEX piping can tolerate. "[E]ven if Uponor asserts there were installation errors, any such deficiencies cannot, and do not, cause the oxidative degradation failures of the [PEX piping] experienced at [the plaintiff's] residence, which is solely related and unique to the defective manufacturing process," the lawsuit asserts. As the suit tells it, the plaintiff and all proposed class members must remove and replace the Uponor PEX plumbing systems in their homes, as replacement of the entire system is "the only means to mitigate further property damage." Who can join the Uponor PEX lawsuit? The Uponor PEX lawsuit looks to represent all individuals and entities that own single-family residential property in California that contains or contained the Uponor PEX red, white and/or blue piping manufactured and installed from 2010 to the present. How do I get involved in the Uponor PEX class action lawsuit? Normally, you don't need to do anything to join or sign up for a class action lawsuit when it's first filed. In the event of a class action settlement, the people covered by the deal—known as class members—may be notified directly by mail or email with instructions on what to do next and details about their legal rights. Remember, a class action suit can take months or even years to be resolved. If you have Uponor PEX piping installed on your property, or you simply want to stay in the loop on class action lawsuit and class action settlement news, sign up for ClassAction.org's free weekly newsletter. [GN] WARBURG PINCUS: Khan Appeals Suit Dismissal to Delaware Supreme Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------- FAIZ KHAN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Faiz Khan, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Warburg Pincus, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2024-0523-LWW, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the dispute arose from the merger of CityMD, an urgent care provider, with Summit Medical Group, forming WP CityMD Topco LLC. The Plaintiffs, Dr. Faiz Khan and Dr. Ralph Finger, were minority Class B unitholders, while private equity firm Warburg Pincus and its affiliates held majority Class A units. The Limited Liability Company Agreement granted Class B unitholders tag-along rights, allowing them to participate in sales of Company units on equal terms with the WP Investors. The Agreement also permitted amendments adversely affecting a class of unitholders if approved by a majority of that class. In 2022, the Company negotiated a merger with VillageMD, a primary care provider backed by Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. The merger offered disparate consideration: Class A unitholders received all cash, while Class B unitholders received a mix of cash and VillageMD equity. To facilitate this, the Company amended the LLC Agreement to eliminate the tag-along rights, securing approval from a majority of Class B unitholders via an Information Statement. The Plaintiffs later sued, alleging coercion and unfair treatment after the VillageMD equity lost value post-merger. On May 1, 2025, Judge Lori W. Will entered an Order granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss. Judge Will issued a final ruling dismissing the Plaintiffs' claims in their entirety with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6). The Court held that the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference with contractual relations, or unjust enrichment. The appellate case is captioned Faiz Khan, et al. v. Warburg Pincus, LLC, et al., Case No. 25-236, in the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, filed on May 29, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants FAIZ KHAN, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Ned Weinberger, Esq. Michael C. Wagner, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1510 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 573-2540 - and - John Vielandi, Esq. Jiahui (Rose) Wang, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Defendants-Appellees WARBURG PINCUS, LLC, et al. are represented by: William M. Lafferty, Esq. Ryan D. Stottmann, Esq. Rachel R. Tunney, Esq. MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP 1201 North Market Street, 16th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 - and - Kevin R. Shannon, Esq. Christopher N. Kelly, Esq. Callan R. Jackson, Esq. POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP 1313 North Market Street, 6th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 - and - C. Barr Flinn, Esq. Paul J. Loughman, Esq. Skyler A. C. Speed, Esq. YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP 1000 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 WHIRLPOOL CORP: Goldstein Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------ DEBRA GOLDSTEIN is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Debra Goldstein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Whirlpool Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-04752-JWH-JDE, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff's complaint alleges that the Defendant makes, sells, and markets defective KitchenAid brand gas stoves. On Sept. 27, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss on Oct. 5, 2023. On June 21, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss on Aug. 23, 2024. On Apr. 28, 2025, Judge John W. Holcomb entered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's second amended complaint. The Plaintiff shall take nothing by way of her second amended complaint. The appellate case is entitled Goldstein v. Whirlpool Corporation, Case No. 25-3428, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 29, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on June 3, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on July 8, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on August 7, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant DEBRA GOLDSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Richard Elgar Lyon, III, Esq. Simon Carlo Franzini, Esq. Jonas Bram Jacobson, Esq. Gabriel Zachiah Doble, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Defendant-Appellee WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION is represented by: Martin F. Hirshland, Esq. DYKEMA GOSSET, PLLC 444 S. Flower Street, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 - and - Michael Timothy Williams, Esq. WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL, LLP 370 17th Street, Suite 4500 Denver, CO 80202 WOODFOREST NATIONAL: Mann Suit Seeks Assistant Managers' OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- SHAWN MANN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. WOODFOREST NATIONAL BANK, Case No. 1:25-cv-01103 (N.D. Ohio, May 28, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to pay employees overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. During their employment with Defendant, the Plaintiff and others similarly situated were not paid for all overtime wages because Defendant required Named Plaintiff and other hourly assistant managers to begin work before clocking in for the start of their shift, asserts the suit. Specifically, the Defendant required the assistant managers to participate in pre-shift meetings. These calls began before the branches opened and the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated employees' scheduled start times, says the suit The Plaintiff worked as an hourly, non-exempt employee of the Defendant at its Ashland Wal-Mart Branch, located at 1996 E Main St., Ashland, Ohio, from January 2013 to March 13, 2025 as an assistant manager. The Defendant is a national bank that offers services for small businesses, personal banking, and personal loans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC Tristan T. Akers (0102298) 1550 Old Henderson Rd, Suite No. 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: 614-386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com WORKDAY INC: AI Class Suit to Proceed as Collective Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Lexology reports that Workday Inc. (Workday) must face a nationwide collective action that could implicate "hundreds of millions of people" who were rejected for employment through Workday. This is the first class action to challenge the use of AI screening software and will be instructive for vendors and employers who rely on vendors, such as Workday, or use AI internally. Here's what you need to know about this critical ruling By way of background, Workday is an "AI platform for HR and finance." It is used by over 11,000 organizations around the world to "elevate their people, supercharge work and move their business forward forever." Among the many services it provides, Workday offers AI tools that use advanced algorithmic methods to screen and ultimately accept or reject applicants for these organizations. Derek Mobley (Black, over age 40) claims that since 2017 he has applied to more than 100 jobs with companies that use Workday's screening features for talent acquisition and hiring. According to Mobley, he was rejected every single time. Mobley initially filed an individual lawsuit in the US District Court for the Northern District of California against Workday alleging race discrimination under Title VII and Section 1981, age discrimination under the ADEA and disability discrimination under the ADA. In response, Workday filed a motion to dismiss asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis that Workday was not the employer and did not make the employment decisions. Judge Rita F. Lin denied Workday's motion to dismiss and allowed the case to proceed holding that Workday could potentially be held liable as an "agent" of the employers who rejected Mobley's application. Mobley then sought to up the ante by moving for preliminary certification of a collective action on his age discrimination claim. Specifically, Mobley sought to certify a class of "[a]ll individuals aged 40 and over who, from September 24, 2020, through the present, [ ] applied for job opportunities using Workday, Inc.'s job application platform and were denied employment recommendations." Mobley was joined by four other plaintiffs who likewise alleged that they too have applied for hundreds of jobs via Workday and have been rejected almost every time without an interview, allegedly because of their age. On May 16, 2025, Judge Lin granted Mobley's motion for preliminary certification and allowed the case to proceed as a nationwide class action. Judge Lin held that the critical issue at the heart of Mobley's claim is whether that system has a disparate impact on applicants over forty. Judge Lin held that at this stage (where a low burden applies) the proposed class is similarly situated because Mobley has substantially alleged the existence of a unified policy—the use of Workday's AI recommendation system to score, sort, rank or screen applicants. Why does this ruling matter for employers? Not only is this the first challenge to the use of AI in hiring decisions, but it is also a preview to how courts are likely to treat AI suits brought directly against employers. While Mobley filed his lawsuit against Workday rather than the companies who subscribed to Workday's tools, employers are likely next in line. Accordingly, it is critically important that companies audit their vendors to ensure that they are complying with company guidelines and protocols and are regularly testing for potential bias and discrimination. If other courts follow Judge Lin's order and reasoning, courts may allow screening systems to be treated as a "unified policy" even if used by different companies nationwide for a wide variety of positions. This in effect dismantles common attacks to conditional certification such as differences in employers and positions. Finally, this ruling has implications for collective actions outside the AI space. Workday raised several arguments with respect to the hurdles with Mobley's proposed class—including that the class could reach millions of applicants and there would be significant difficulties in issuing class notice. In response, Judge Lin indicated that "[a]llegedly widespread discrimination is not a basis for denying notice" and if this was truly a hurdle, they could consider class notice via social media or Workday's own platforms. By doing so, Judge Lin open the door to issuing class notice through these more widespread formats, which in turn, could lead to higher opt-in rates. What's next? The parties have been ordered to meet and confer by May 28 to propose a plan for identifying and notifying class members. A case management conference is also scheduled for June 4, 2025. After additional discovery, Workday will have the opportunity to present evidence that the collective is not, in fact, similarly situated and ask the court to de-certify the class and require each plaintiff to proceed individually. [GN] [] Shine Lawyers Investigates Side Effects of Herbicide Paraquat ---------------------------------------------------------------- AUSTRALIAN firm Shine Lawyers has announced it has launched an investigation into a potential class action concerning the herbicide paraquat and its alleged link to Parkinson's disease. Shine Lawyers has called for expressions of interest from people who were "exposed to the toxic herbicide paraquat" and "have since been diagnosed with Parkinson's disease or have experienced Parkinson's symptoms", or people representing a deceased person who fits these criteria. Grain Producers Australia says it will keep a close watch on developments and has called for any discussion over a possible link between paraquat and Parkinson's disease to be grounded in scientific data and evidence. The announcement comes as Syngenta enters an undisclosed settlement agreement with a large number of litigants in a United States action who claimed their or a loved ones' Parkinson's disease was caused by exposure to paraquat. No claims of the link between Parkinson's disease and paraquat have been tested in court in the US and currently there are almost 6000 cases pending in multi-district litigation across federal courts throughout the US. There is also no guarantee that a class action will be pursued by Shine Lawyers in the Australian courts. Shine Layers joint head of class actions Craig Allsopp said the company's investigation was "guided by legal developments in the US which indicate a connection between the herbicide and Parkinson's diagnoses". "Shine Lawyers is exploring the possibility of a class action on behalf of potentially thousands of individuals who have been diagnosed with Parkinson's disease following exposure to paraquat," Mr Allsopp said. "There are more than 150,000 people living with Parkinson's in Australia. "People who have been diagnosed with Parkinson's may have been exposed to paraquat without even knowing it. "Anyone working on farms or farm equipment, spraying paraquat, or living near farms and wineries where paraquat has been used, may have been exposed to the herbicide." Mr Allsopp said at this stage it was anticipated that any class action would "be against the manufacturers of paraquat, not the APVMA or the government". Importance of data, science GPA RD&E spokesperson and southern grower director Andrew Weidemann said GPA supported "Australia's strong, independent, scientific, evidence-based regulatory regime" to balance the needs of farmers while protecting human health and the environment. "Whilst natural scepticism may exist about the motivations of Shine Lawyers, and the potential needs for parent entity and ASX-listed company Shine Justice to generate revenue for shareholders, GPA will continue monitoring these matters very closely to protect the interests of growers and industry," Mr Weidemann said. "GPA remains absolutely concerned for anyone living with Parkinson's disease, and their families, and for anyone who has ever been affected by this disease, in any way. "However, we also need to be extremely wary and cautious of misinformation, especially where emotions may get ahead of real evidence and salient facts, to possibly undermine credible legal processes and standards, by potentially subverting due process." Mr Wiedemann highlighted that there was "no established causal link between paraquat and Parkinson's disease" which was confirmed by three OECD-nation regulators in the past four years. US court action In a statement, Shine Lawyers referenced legal action under way in the US, citing almost 6000 cases pending in multi-district litigation across federal courts throughout the country. In April, one of these cases being heard in the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which includes parts of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, reached a potential conclusion with paraquat manufacturer Syngenta, entering into an agreement aimed at settling with the claimants. The agreement is yet to be finalised, with no details released on the settlement amount or number of cases involved. However, The Guardian US has reported the move could settle the bulk of the cases currently filed across the country. In a statement published by The Guardian, Syngenta said that there was "no merit to the claims" but that "litigation can be distracting and costly". The company said that by settling the cases it "in no way implies that paraquat causes Parkinson's disease or that Syngenta has done anything wrong". In a statement published to its website, Syngenta said that more than 1500 claimants seeking to find a causal link between paraquat and Parkinson's have had their cases dismissed in US Courts as of January. GPA chief executive Colin Bettles said GPA was "aware of the differences between Australian courts, and those in the US system". He pointed to Federal Court of Australia's decision to dismiss a class action against Monsanto/ Bayer in July last year, which sought to make a connection between Roundup exposure and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Mr Bettles said the GPA "recognises precedents set by other cases recently, where insufficient evidence (of product safety) ultimately led to certain claims being dismissed here, while acknowledging scientific testing and rigour, in ruling". The APVMA is currently reviewing the use of paraquat and diquat, with a final regulatory decision expected towards the end of the year. [GN] ********* 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 ***