Active Cases

This page lists the active class action settlements for which Heffler Claims Group is the Settlement Administrator and, when relevant, links to their settlement websites where you can find more information. Still have questions? Check out our FAQs for class members.

Please note: legal information, claim forms, case deadlines, and more will be found on the specific case website linked below. This tool does not include inactive cases.

Bahnmaier v. Wichita State University

Case No. 2:20-cv-02246, United States District Court Kansas You are included in the Class if you reside in the United States and were notified by WSU in March 2020 of the Data Incident that occurred between December 3, 2019 and December 5, 2019. The Settlement Class specifically excludes: (i) WSU and its officers and directors; (ii) all Settlement Class Members who timely and validly request exclusion from the Class; (iii) Judge Julie A. Robinson, who is assigned to evaluate the fairness of this Settlement, and her staff and family; (iv) Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James and her staff and family; and (v) any other person found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be guilty under the criminal law of initiating, causing, aiding or abetting criminal activity occurrence of the Data Incident or who pleads nolo contendere to any such charge.

Beaton v SpeedyPC Software

Case No. 1:13-cv-08389, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois This lawsuit claims that SpeedyPC deceptively advertised and sold the SpeedyPC Pro Software as capable of enhancing a personal computer’s speed, performance, and security by detecting and repairing harmful errors, threats and viruses, but that it does not and cannot perform all of the functions advertised. The lawsuit claims that, through this conduct, SpeedyPC breached the implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose and merchantability and violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. SpeedyPC denies those allegations and any wrongdoing. The Court certified a class and a subclass, each defined as follows: (1) Class: All individuals living in the United States who downloaded a free trial of SpeedyPC Pro and thereafter purchased the full version between October 28, 2011 and November 21, 2014. (2) Subclass: All Class Members who reside in Illinois.

Becker v Bank of New York Mellon, et al

Case No. 11-cv-06460-JS, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. There is no settlement website for this case.

Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v S.A.C. Capital Advisers L.P.

Case number 1:13-cv-02459, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. There is no settlement website for this case.

Blue Buffalo Co. Ltd., Marketing and Sales Practices

Case No. 2562, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. There is no settlement website for this case.

Brian Warner v Toyota Motor Sales

Plaintiffs alleged that the frames of certain Toyota Tacoma, Tundra, and Sequoia vehicles lack adequate rust protection, resulting in premature rust corrosion of vehicles' frames. If you own or lease, or previously owned or leased, certain Toyota Tacoma, Tundra, or Sequoia vehicles you may be eligible to get benefits from a class action settlement.

Cantlin et al v Smythe Cramer Co.

Case No. 12-790865, Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The lawsuit alleges that Defendant charged a flat fee ranging from $159 to $265 for its services and that this was improper based on language in connection with various contracts to buy and sell real estate. The Court has not made any decisions as to the ultimate merits of the allegations. "Administrative Fee Class” means all individuals in the state of Ohio, both buyers and sellers, who, between September 18, 2005 and December 31, 2009, paid Defendant an  “Administrative Fee” or  “Administrative Services Fee” pursuant to the Exclusive Right to Sell Agreement; Exclusive Buyer Representation Agreement; Offer to Purchase Agreement; or Purchase Agreement. “Brokerage Services Fee Class” means all buyers of real estate in Ohio who, between March 1, 2009 and August 1, 2019, paid Defendant a “Brokerage Services” fee pursuant to the Purchase Agreement or Offer to Purchase Agreement and who did not have an exclusive “Representation Agreement” with Defendant.  

Certainteed Corp. Roofing Shingles Product Liability

MDL Docket No. 1817, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. There is no website for this case.

Cobell et al v Salazar et al

This settlement resolves a class action lawsuit that claims the federal government violated its duties by mismanaging trust accounts and individual Indian trust lands. The class includes anyone alive on Sept.30, 2009 who had an IIM account recorded in currently available electronic data in federal government systems from approximately 1985 to Sept. 30, 2009 and can demonstrate ownership in trust land or land in restricted status. Or, the estate (or heirs) of any deceased landowner or IIM account holder whose account was open or whose trust assets had been in probate according to the federal government’s records as of Sept. 30, 2009.

Daugherty v The University of Chicago

Plaintiffs allege various claims related to the operation of the Contributory Retirement Plan (CRP) and the Retirement Income Plan for Employees (ERIP). n particular, Plaintiffs claim that the University should not have selected and maintained the CREF Stock Account and TIAA Real Estate Account as investment options in the Plans. Plaintiffs also claim that the Plans paid higher record keeping and administrative fees than necessary to the Plans’ record keepers. If you were a participant in the University of Chicago’s 403(b) Retirement Plans at any time from May 18, 2011 through May 23, 2018 you may benefit from this class action settlement.

Delgado et al v Ocwen Loan Servicing

Plaintiffs alleged that Ocwen Loan Servicing (Ocwen) and Cross Country Home Services (CCHS) unlawfully enrolled certain customers in home warrant and service plans. The suite alleges the Defendants mailed customer checks for low sums that looked like refunds or rebates. However, Plaintiffs claim that when customers cashed the checks, they were enrolled in CCHS's home warranty or service plans and charged monthly.

Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation

Plaintiffs alleged the defendant conspired to raise, fix, maintain, or stabilize the price of drywall in violation of federal antitrust laws resulting in higher prices. If you purchased drywall indirectly for end use and not for resale between January 1, 2012 and January 5, 2018, a settlement of a class action or distributions of several prior class action settlements may affect you. The deadline for filing a claim has passed.

Duran v Obesity Research Institute, LLC

The proposed settlement between Obesity Research Institute, LLC, Continuity Products, LLC, Henny den Uijl, and Sandra den Uijl and DeMarie Fernandez, Alfonso Mendoza, and Fred Duran resolves a class action lawsuit about allegations that the defendants made false and misleading statements in their labeling and advertising regarding the effectiveness of Lipozene weight loss pills. Defendants deny the allegations. You are a class member if you are a resident of the United States who purchased Lipozene weight loss pills from August 10, 2012 through October 28, 2019.

Erin Smid v Nutranext LLC

The lawsuit claims that despite a Website claim that the products were “free of heavy metals,” Rainbow Light Vitamins, Multivitamins and Supplements, (including both prenatal and postnatal vitamins and Nonprenatal and Non-postnatal vitamins) may contain small amounts of naturally occurring heavy metals, including lead, mercury, cadmium, and arsenic. The group of affected individuals includes: (1) All individuals in the United States, except California residents, who purchased any Rainbow Light Prenatal or Rainbow Light Postnatal Vitamins between December 1, 2015 and April 16, 2020; and (2) All individuals in the United States who purchased any Rainbow Light Non-Prenatal Vitamins and Non-Postnatal Vitamins (i.e., all other Rainbow Light vitamins, multivitamins, and supplements not specifically labeled as suitable for prenatal or postnatal or lactating mothers) between December 1, 2015 and April 16, 2020.

Hameed-Bolden v Forever 21 Retail Inc.

Case No. 2:18-cv-03019, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation

Plaintiffs allege that the largest distributors of dental supplies and equipment in the United States entered an alleged agreement not to compete on sale prices and coordinated fix gross margins for dental products. You may be a member of the settlement class and eligible to file a claim, object, or exclude yourself from the settlement if you or your company purchased dental supplies from Henry Schein, Patterson, Benco, Burkhart Dental Supply Company Inc. or any combination thereof.

In re: FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., et al

This class action settlement is based on breach of contract claims asserted on behalf of the settlement class relating to certain “Polar Vortex Surcharges” that First Energy Solutions charged class members in connection with unusually cold weather conditions experienced in FES’s service area in early 2014. The settlement applies to all current or former large and mid-sized commercial or industrial business customers of FES that (a) had one or more accounts with FES that were invoiced, by or on behalf of FES, for Polar Vortex Surcharges in 2014; and (b) paid all or a portion of such Polar Vortex Surcharges, but excluding any such customer that has settled or released any claims against the debtors relating to its payment of all or any portion of its Polar Vortex surcharges. Please visit the settlement website for more information.

In RE: Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc., Dog Food Products Liability Litigation

Case No. 2887-MDL, US Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation - Washington DC The lawsuits claim that certain lots of Hill’s Prescription Diet and Science Diet canned dog food products were manufactured with high levels of Vitamin D.  The lawsuits allege that dog owners who purchased these recalled products lost money by purchasing dog food products that contained excess levels of Vitamin D or were otherwise not manufactured as represented and/or received veterinarian services as a result of injuries to their dogs.  

Jordan Docter et al v Fairmont Hotels & Resorts (U.S.) Inc.

Case No. STK-CV-UBT-2019-0000147, California Superior Courts. There is no settlement website for this case.

Kyles et al v Stein Mart, Inc. et al

Case No.: 1:19-cv-00483-CFC,United States District Court for the District of Delaware. From on or about December 28, 2017 and July 9, 2018, Stein Mart and Annex were the victims of a cyberattack in which criminals accessed its computer systems (the “Security Incident”). The Security Incident potentially resulted in unauthorized access to customer payment card data and other personally identifying information. Subsequently, this lawsuit was filed asserting claims against Stein Mart and Annex relating to the Security Incident. The Settlement includes all persons who were notified by Stein Mart that they made purchases on Stein Mart’s online store using their credit, debit, or other payment card on certain dates between December 28, 2017 and July 9, 2018.

Lopez-Mcnear V. Superior Health Linens, Llc Et Al

Case No. 1:19cv2390, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois This lawsuit alleges that SHL violated an Illinois law called the Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) by using hand scanning time clocks in Illinois without complying with the law’s requirements. That law says companies can’t collect, store, or give out “biometric data,” which includes things like face, hand, or fingerprint scans, without first giving notice, getting consent, and posting a policy about what they will do with the data.  The Court decided that this Settlement includes all current and former employees of Superior Health Linens, LLC that used a hand scanner time clock at a Superior Health Linens facility in the State of Illinois between February 28, 2014 and January 12, 2021. There are 790 people in the Settlement Class.

Lowery v Rhapsody International, Inc

Plaintiffs alleged that Rhapsody International infringed on their exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute their music works by streaming the work without voluntary or compulsory licenses. You may be a class member if you are the owner of mechanically distributed and/or reproduced rights in Qualifying Registered Works that were made available or played on the Rhapsody music service in the United States from March 7, 2013 to March 21, 2019 and Qualifying Unregistered Works that were not registered with the U. S. Copyright office.

McCormick v Adtalem Global Education Inc.

A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit claiming that Defendants Adtalem Global Education Group Inc. and DeVry University, Inc. (DeVry) fraudulently advertised that 90% of their graduates or graduates of Keller Graduate School of Management were employed in their fields of study within six months of graduation and that, on average, DeVry graduates earned 15% more income one year after graduation than graduates of other institutions. You are included in the settlement if you are a person in the United States who purchased or otherwise paid for any part of a DeVry or Keller education program between January 1, 2008 and December 15, 2016.

Morrow v Quest Diagnostics Inc.

A class action settlement has been proposed in litigation against Quest Diagnostics Incorporated (Quest), relating to the data breach occurring on or about November 26, 2016, and announced by Quest on or about December 12, 2016. The Incident involved an unauthorized third party accessing Quest’s MyQuest by Care360® internet application, and obtaining the personal information of approximately 34,000 patients. If you are among the approximately 34,000 patients impacted, you are a settlement class member.

Murphy v Gospel for Asia, Inc.

If you donated money to Gospel for Asia between January 1, 2009 and March 22, 2019, you could receive money from a class action settlement.  The proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit may affect your rights.  Read the information contained on this website carefully because it explains decisions and actions you must take now.

OFCCP v Intel Corporation

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) alleges that INTEL discriminated against Female, Black, and Hispanic employees in select job titles in compensation. INTEL denies those claims. Ultimately, OFCCP and INTEL have agreed to resolve the issue through a Conciliation Agreement. A Conciliation Agreement is a legal document that explains the terms of an agreement between INTEL and OFCCP. As a result, affected class members may be eligible for back pay and salary adjustments. To be eligible for a payment and job, you must complete, sign, and return the form mailed to you. The form must be postmarked by December 30, 2019. There is no case website for this settlement.

Oh v Cavalry Spv I, LLC et al

Case No. 2:16cv5127, U.S. District of New Jersey, Newark.

Olmedo and Morrow v PVH Retail Stores

The Action was filed against PVH Retail Stores LLC by plaintiffs Miguel Olmedo and Siobhan Morrow alleging PVH Retail engaged in deceptive advertising by advertising purportedly improper discounts on merchandise at Tommy Hilfiger Outlet Stores located in California. If you shopped at a Tommy Hilfiger Outlet Store located in California between April 18, 2014 and October 8, 2019, you may be eligible to receive a merchandise certificate for up to $10 off the purchase of a single item, or 25% off a purchase of at least $100, usable toward future purchases.

OmniVision Tech, Inc. Securities Litigation

Case No.: 5:11-cv-05235-RMW, U.S. District Court Northern District of California. There is no settlement website for this case.

PA Public School Employees’ Retirement System v Bank of America Corp.

Case number 1:11-cv-00733, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. There is no settlement website for this case.

Pressman v Smith Medical Partners, LLC

Case No. 19-cv-1723, Middle District of Florida. Pressman, Inc. and Pill Box Pines West, LLC  filed a class action complaint alleging that Smith Medical Partners, LLC and H.D. Smith, LLC  sent unsolicited advertisements by facsimile during the time period between September 26, 2013 and January 25, 2019. Plaintiffs allege that the Smith Faxes were sent without prior express invitation or permission or the required opt-out notice, allegedly in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Smith denies Plaintiffs’ allegations, raised defenses, and argues, among other things, that many of the Smith Faxes were not advertisements, that Smith had prior express invitation or permission from the fax recipients, and that facsimiles received electronically are not actionable. Any person who was sent, by or on behalf of H.D. Smith, LLC or Smith Medical Partners, LLC, one or more advertisement by fax from September 26, 2013, through January 25, 2019. Excluded from the settlement class are defendants, any parent, subsidiary, affiliate, or controlled person of the defendants, as well as the members, managers, officers, directors, agents, servants, or employees of Defendants, the immediate family members of such persons, and this Court.

Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi v Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc., et al

Case No. 2:17-cv-00474, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. There is no settlement website for this case.

Rhonda Hutton v National Board of Examiners

Case No 17-1506, US Circuit Court of Appeals - 4th Circuit. There is no settlement website for this case.

Rodriguez et al v It’s Just Lunch, et al

Case No. 07-CV-9227, Southern District of New York The Plaintiffs allege that It’s Just Lunch fraudulently induced clients who joined on or after October 15, 2001 into signing a membership contract. The Plaintiffs also allege that, in charging greater than $1,000 for one year’s worth of services in New York, It’s Just Lunch has (i) committed deceptive or unfair practices in violation of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 394-c on or after October 15, 2001; and (ii) unjustly enriched itself by charging clients greater than $1,000 in New York. The certified class includes all IJL clients or former clients who signed a membership contract and joined It’s Just Lunch on or after October 15, 2001, if the clients did not obtain a refund of their payments to It’s Just Lunch and if they fall within certain time limits set by law. The certified class also includes all IJL clients in the State of New York who signed a membership contract on or after October 15, 2001 and who paid more than $1,000 for a year’s worth of services at the time of initial contracting and who did not obtain a refund of the amounts paid to It’s Just Lunch.

Roy v. County of Los Angeles

Case No. CV 12-09012 This settlement is a result of : Detaining people whose bail was less than $25,000 and who would not have been booked into jail in the first place, if not for their ICE hold (October 2010 – June 2014); detaining people after their criminal case finished, where their detainer was not supported by a removal order or ongoing removal proceedings (October 2010 – June 2014); and refusing to accept bail for people with ICE holds (October 2010 - October 2012). The Court has certified this case a group action (called a “class action”). You do not need to do anything else to become part of the lawsuit.

Sanchez et al v CalPERS

Plaintiffs brought suit against the California Public Employee's Retirement System (CalPERS) sale of long term care insurance to the class. The partial settlement only impacted the claims asserted against Towers Watson Co., Towers Perrin and Tillinghast-Towers Perrin (Towers) and there is currently no settlement with CalPERS. The lawsuit generally alleges that it was improper for CalPERS to impose an 85% rate increase. The lawsuit also alleges that the Towers Defendants negligently performed actuarial services for CalPERS relating to rate-setting at the inception of the program in 1995 and that this contributed to the 85% premium increase implemented by CalPERS 20 years later. The deadline for filing a claim form has passed. All outstanding checks as of January 12, 2019 will be voided.

Shaw, et al v AMN Services, LLC

Plaintiffs allege AMN and Kaiser failed to pay traveling nurses at the Kaiser Foundation Hospitals in California for all the time they worked before and after their scheduled shifts, such as time spent charting and other work-related activities. If you worked as a traveling nurse for AMN in one or more Kaiser facilities in California at any time between September 11, 2013 through December 27, 2018 you may be eligible for benefits.

Short et al v Brown University

Case No. 1:17-cv-00318, U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. Please visit the settlement website for more information.

Simerlein v Toyota Motor Corporation

Plaintiffs alleged the sliding doors on certain Sienna vehicles are defective. If you own or lease, or previously owned, purchased, or leased certain Toyota Sienna vehiles, you could get benefits from a class action settlement.

Somogyi et al v Freedom Mortgage Corp.

Case No. 1:17cv6546, US District Court for the District of New Jersey. A settlement has been reached in this class action lawsuit. In this lawsuit, Plaintiffs allege that FMC violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by using an automated telephone dialing system and/or prerecorded voice to place unsolicited telemarketing calls to consumers without their express written consent. FMC denies that it violated the law or did anything wrong, and has asserted several defenses. The Court has not ruled on the merits of the claims or defenses. FMC has agreed to the proposed settlement to end this lawsuit.

Soto Et Al V. Great America Llc

Case No. 1:17cv6902, US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois You may be a class member if you visited a Six Flags theme park or waterpark in the United States during the period October 14, 2016 through September 28, 2017 and used a credit and/or debit card to make a purchase at the park and received a printed receipt.  Please visit the settlement website to view the specific parks and dates included in this settlement.

Spaude v Phillips Murrah

Plaintiffs alleged Quantum Emery LLC engaged in a fraudulent investment scheme resulting in financial losses to investors. All investors, including any and all of their respective successors-in-interest, who have invested in any Quantom or Quaneco offering on or after October 5, 2005 are eligible for class membership. The deadline for filing a claim has passed.

Venerus, et. al. v. Avis Budget, et. al.

Case No. 6:13cv921 This class action seeks to recover damages suffered as a result of Avis Budget allegedly never providing the insurance policy promised in the contract. This class action alleges a “breach of contract,” and does not include anyone who was in a motor vehicle accident and submitted a claim for liability insurance or for UM protection. Avis Budget denies that they acted wrongly or that Class Members are entitled to money damages because of any breach of contract. If you were involved in a motor vehicle accident while renting the vehicle and submitted an insurance claim either for liability insurance or for UM, you may not be a Class Member. You may not be a Class Member whether Avis Budget covered the claim or even if the claim is merely outstanding or unresolved. However, if you did not submit an insurance claim – for instance, if you were not involved in a motor vehicle accident and thus did not submit any claim – then you may be a Class Member.

Venieris v PVH Retail Stores LLC

The lawsuit alleges that PVH Retail engaged in false, misleading and/or deceptive acts and/or practices in connection with the sale and/or advertisement of merchandise sold by PVH Retail at Arizona Tommy Hilfiger Outlet Stores in violation of Arizona’s Consumer Fraud Act, A.R.S. §§ 44-1521, et seq. The lawsuit also alleges that PVH Retail omitted, failed to disclose, and actively concealed that merchandise offered for sale at Arizona Tommy Hilfiger Outlet Stores was unique to Arizona Tommy Hilfiger Outlet Stores and not discounted from an original price. All individuals not otherwise excluded who, between August 30, 2017 and May 21, 2019, purchased one or more items from any Arizona Tommy Hilfiger Outlet Store which was not returned by you, on your behalf, or otherwise.

Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation Settlement

This case involves multiple data breaches occurring at Yahoo in 2013 through 2016, as well as data security intrusions occurring in early 2012.  If you had a Yahoo account between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2016, you are a settlement class member. If you received an emailed notice from the settlement administrator about this class action settlement addressed to you, then the settlement administrator has already determined that you are a settlement class member.


Subscribe to our blog

[eBook]: Tools for Navigating the Class Action Settlement Process

Find Out More

[On-Demand Webinar] Navigating the Settlement Administration Process from Start to Finish

Find Out More

New to Class Action Litigation? Start With Our Free Resources

Find Out More