Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker A legal group founded by White House aide Stephen Miller sued Chief Justice John Roberts in a brazen but unlikely attempt to seize control of the federal court system In the lawsuit filed last week America First Legal (AFL) argued that the Judicial Conference of the U.S Courts — two key judicial branch bodies that frame policy and handle the basic functions of the federal courts — are executive branch agencies.   “Such agencies must be overseen by the President, not the courts,” the group, represented by attorney Will Scolinos adding that the lawsuit “preserves the separation of powers but also keeps the courts out of politics.” The Judicial Conference is a policymaking body for the lower federal courts established by Congress to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary The Administrative office handles the nuts and bolts of the federal judiciary which dubs itself “the long-awaited answer to the ACLU,” claimed the two judicial bodies are a part of the executive branch by filing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits against them FOIA strictly applies to the executive branch and independent federal regulatory agencies but not to Congress or the federal courts.  The group named Roberts as a defendant because the Judicial Conference is headed by the chief justice The group argued that it’s necessary to bring the bodies under the executive branch because members of Congress, who have the constitutional authority to define most of the federal court system, asked the Supreme Court in 2023 to create or adopt an ethics code for justices The request was in response to allegations that Justice Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas accepted lavish gifts from conservative figures who eventually had business before the court the media and liberal lawmakers have sought to undermine the political independence of Article III Courts,” the lawsuit reads The lawsuit is a continuation of the Trump administration’s extensive effort to break down the separation of powers and usurp the constitutional powers of the other federal branches In targeting the conference and administrative office AFL is threatening both the courts’ independence and Congress’s authority to organize courts below the Supreme Court This is the second time AFL has attempted to FOIA the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office the group’s FOIA suit against the bodies quickly failed after the Supreme Court’s legal counsel said the information act did not apply to judicial branch entities Miller left AFL in January to rejoin the White House but has retained close ties to the group which has not named a new president since his departure AFL recently promoted reporting from Axios indicating that the group is “a key part of Miller’s larger mission to make diversity equity and inclusion (DEI) programs illegal across the country” and has “become a private enforcement arm of the White House’s assault on DEI.” Correction: This story originally reported that America First Legal is led by Stephen Miller Miller founded the group but left earlier this year to rejoin the White House Courts delivered wins for Pennsylvania voters Friday in two different right-wing disenfranchisement efforts We depend on your support to keep bringing you the latest information and insight on the fight for democracy – always free and available for all we can’t fight for the future of our democracy unless we know what’s happening What happens if Trump defies court orders? Here's what we know a judgment on your credit report or even losing assets are all potential repercussions of this type of lawsuit.  That said, settling debt once legal proceedings have started can be a bit more complex than when you're dealing with regular collection calls negotiation strategy and the terms of any agreement all matter If you've been served with a lawsuit over unpaid debt you still have several potential paths forward and it may be worth considering these options in particular: Creditors and debt collectors are often open to settling for less than the full balance even after a lawsuit is filed — especially if they think you might not have the means to repay in full or if they want to avoid the cost of litigation you may be able to negotiate a lump-sum payment or a structured repayment plan that's more manageable for you To do this, you'll need to contact the creditor or debt collector, or their attorney, to discuss your settlement options They may be willing to accept significantly less than the full amount owed they may accept as little as 50% of the original debt be sure to also ask for a settlement that includes dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice meaning they cannot sue you again for the same debt get everything in writing before making any payments If you're not comfortable negotiating on your own, the issue is complicated or the balance is large, a professional debt settlement company may be able to help These companies work to negotiate with creditors on your behalf often securing lower payoff amounts than you could on your own Some even have legal professionals on staff who can coordinate with the court to help have the case dismissed once a settlement is reached However, it's important to make sure you choose a reputable company to work with so you get the best outcome possible be sure to look for firms that have transparent fee structures and proven track records of resolving debt lawsuits which are companies that purchase old debts may be unable to provide sufficient documentation to prove they own the debt or that the amount is accurate you may be able to file a motion to dismiss or force them to prove their case which can give you more leverage to settle for less or get it thrown out entirely If the debt is significant or your financial situation is complex, hiring a debt defense attorney may be worth the cost. Many attorneys offer free consultations and can help you decide whether it makes sense to settle or fight the case. They can also negotiate on your behalf draft a proper settlement agreement and make sure the lawsuit is formally dismissed in court records Having an attorney involved also signals to the creditor that you're serious and may encourage them to settle quickly to avoid a long legal battle Being sued over unpaid debt can be stressful and frustrating but a court summons doesn't have to lead to a judgment You still have options for settling — even after legal proceedings begin work with a settlement company or enlist an attorney's help it's often possible to negotiate a lower payment amount and have the lawsuit dismissed and push for terms that protect you financially and legally.  Angelica Leicht is the senior editor for the Managing Your Money section for CBSNews.com where she writes and edits articles on a range of personal finance topics Angelica previously held editing roles at The Simple Dollar HousingWire and other financial publications Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in March announced a major restructuring plan including the consolidation of divisions from 28 to 15 and elimination of 20,000 full-time employees saying it would save taxpayers $1.8 billion per year James said the states' lawsuit in Rhode Island U.S district court takes aim at Kennedy Jr.'s “reckless and dangerous” efforts that erase decades of public health progress and leaves the federal government “unable to execute many of its most vital functions.” It also decried the federal employees at HHS who were locked out of their work emails and computers on April 1 canceled site visits and trainings and shuttered laboratories MAHA: RFK Jr.'s MAHA movement is coming to a state near you “This administration is not streamlining the federal government; they are sabotaging it and all of us,” James said “When you fire the scientists who research infectious diseases silence the doctors who care for pregnant people and shut down the programs that help firefighters and miners breathe or children thrive you are not making America healthy – you are putting countless lives at risk.” The HHS overhaul includes cutting the number of regional offices by half During the announcement touting the overhaul Kennedy said HHS was "realigning the organization with its core mission and our new priorities," which includes what he calls the "chronic disease epidemic." “We aren't just reducing bureaucratic sprawl," Kennedy said What health & wellness means for you: Sign up for USA TODAY's Keeping It Together newsletter More: Elon Musk talks Lincoln Bedroom stays, late-night ice cream as he steps back from DOGE The HHS cuts are part of the Department of Government Efficiency’s workforce optimization initiative, led by Elon Musk, President Donald Trump’s billionaire adviser the Trump administration released a proposed 2026 budget with a 26% cut to the HHS’ discretionary budget The “skinny budget” request released by the Office of Management and Budget a decrease of about $33 billion over the fiscal 2025 enacted level Trump's budget proposal calls for big cuts to the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention while asking for $500 million for Kennedy’s Make America Healthy Again initiative The administration says the initiative will allow Kennedy to “tackle nutrition over-reliance on medication and treatments The HHS budget proposes reducing funding for CDC by $3.6 billion and NIH by $18 billion while maintaining funding for “core Medicare and Medicaid operations.” Kennedy is expected to appear before the Senate Health and Pensions Committee hearing to discuss the budget and the overhaul of the HHS Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy is a White House Correspondent for USA TODAY roughly 100 days into President Donald Trump’s first term the state of Washington had sued the Trump administration twice roughly 100 days into President Donald Trump’s second term the state of Washington has sued the Trump administration 13 times And just as Trump has moved more aggressively in his second term, the Washington attorney general’s office has been preparing to counter when they deem he has overstepped the law. Former attorney general (and now governor) Bob Ferguson said his office spent months ahead of Trump’s election combing through his proposed agenda looking to see where Trump might act beyond what the law allows who took office in January and has filed or signed on to each of those 13 lawsuits is meeting two to three times a week with other Democratic attorneys general around the country legal strategy and how best to counter a president he says “disregards the Constitution.” “We have a lawless president and I don’t say that lightly at all,” Brown said that so much of our time is protecting Americans from their president truly believe that that is the moment that we are in.” Ferguson built his reputation in part on the nearly 100 times he sued the federal government in Trump’s first term But he didn’t approach the breakneck pace at which Brown is suing Trump now That’s a testament to the preparation in the attorney general’s office and its collaboration with other states but also to how quickly and dramatically Trump is working to unilaterally enact his agenda Trump has signed about 140 executive orders more than triple the number he signed in his first 100 days in 2017 and nearly as many as President Joe Biden signed in four years said the administration would fight all the lawsuits in court and “will prevail.” “All of President Trump’s executive actions are lawful and intended to deliver on the promises he made to the American people,” Fields wrote in an email “Partisan elected officials and judicial activists who seek to legally obstruct President Trump’s agenda are defying the will of 77 million Americans who overwhelmingly re-elected President Trump Brown said people should not “simply accept the president’s abuse of power.” leads the second-largest law firm on the West Coast The office’s more than 800 attorneys represents 200 or so state agencies deal with child welfare cases and enforce environmental laws many of Brown’s weeks have been spent focused on the federal government Brown sued the Trump administration for the first time on Trump’s second day in office He has won preliminary victories in six lawsuits Trump’s push to reshape the federal government Trump’s order to freeze trillions of dollars in congressionally approved spending was halted before it could go into effect after Brown and 21 other states sued And Trump’s push to end birthright citizenship to redefine who is an American citizen and who is not remains halted after Brown won nationwide decisions in a Seattle courtroom and later in a federal appeals court Brown, whose office coffee mug bears a portrait of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, will be in D.C. at the U.S. Supreme Court as it hears arguments in the birthright citizenship case next week he goes through a basic three-pronged test: Is the president’s action “obviously illegal or unconstitutional,” is there harm to Washingtonians and is the state the right party to get involved The lawsuits he has filed or joined generally fall in one of two broad categories in the form of funding or job cuts — to federal workers the Department of Education and at libraries and museums And he has sued to protect civil rights — of those born to undocumented parents of transgender patients and of Washington voters Most of the economic lawsuits challenge Trump’s use of unilateral executive action to undo spending hiring or entire agencies that were authorized or created by votes of Congress Brown said he has declined to join Democratic-led multistate lawsuits that either fail one prong of his three-part test or just aren’t the best use of his office’s resources Late last month, for instance, a dozen Democratic-led states sued the Trump administration over his scattershot tariff policy arguing he had “upended the constitutional order and brought chaos to the American economy.” He said he thinks Trump’s tariff policy is “incredibly harmful” to both Washington and the country He had a robust debate with his advisers about the lawsuit — which he hopes is successful — but ultimately he didn’t think it was “appropriate or necessary” to join is about managing the office’s resources There is also a distinction between cases in which Washington needs to be involved to get relief and cases in which if one plaintiff wins “there’s no way a court could stop tariffs for some states and not others,” Brown said so Washington’s participation is less critical In a lawsuit Brown joined over cuts to public health funding, conversely, only the states that sued had their funding temporarily restored by a federal judge. Brown said that while some view these cases as policy debates, to him they are solely legal ones. People can disagree, he said, on what sorts of health care states should offer to transgender youth or how the nation should define citizenship — both topics of Trump executive orders that Brown has challenged. “But it’s pretty clear the president just can’t do whatever the hell he pleases,” Brown said. “That is the underlying importance to all these cases for me.” The opinions expressed in reader comments are those of the author only and do not reflect the opinions of The Seattle Times. Stay secure and make sure you have the best reading experience possible by upgrading your browser! Armstrong Williams takes on the news of the week and asks the questions you want answered. Don’t miss our weekly town hall. Shark Wake Park sued after man suffers 'significant injuries'by Caroline Surface (WPDE) — A man is suing Shark Wake Park 843 after he suffered "significant injuries" in 2024 according to a lawsuit filed in Horry County Common Pleas Court on April 25 "struck in the head by an object knocking him into the water resulting in significant injuries" on the waterpark's wake boarding course ride He claimed that these injuries required "extensive medical treatment" and that he has suffered pain and "a loss of enjoyment of life." "unable to get out of the water on his own and no employees of Defendants came to his aid." The lawsuit also alleges that Greene had no knowledge of the "dangerous condition" on the waterpark's premises and that there were no signs or warnings posted TRENDING: Scotland Co. men capture alligator, return it back to nature The lawsuit also accuses the waterpark of failing to examine the wake board course ride to ensure safety not having lifeguards on duty and in the tower not having state-required ratio of lifeguards failing to perform routine maintenance and more We've reached out to Shark Wake Park 843 for comment and we'll let you know when we hear back 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Levi & Korsinsky Inc." or the "Company") (NYSE: NPWR) of a class action securities lawsuit CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of NET Power investors who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between June 9 Follow the link below to get more information and be contacted by a member of our team: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/net-power-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=146640&wire=3 NPWR investors may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500 CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (i) Net Power was unlikely to complete its first utility-scale plant on schedule and the project was likely to be significantly more expensive than defendants had represented supply chain issues and numerous site- and region-specific challenges; (ii) accordingly defendants’ projections regarding the time and capital needed to complete Project Permian were unrealistic; (iii) the increased time and capital needed to complete Project Permian were likely to have a significant negative impact on the Company’s business and financial results; and (iv) as a result defendants’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times 2025 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees There is no cost or obligation to participate WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years the team at Levi & Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services’ Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States Complete your personal information for a more tailored experience for the best life sciences journalism in the industry By Bob Herman and Tara Bannow Bob Herman Bob Herman covers health insurance, government programs, hospitals, physicians, and other providers — reporting on how money influences those businesses and shapes what we all pay for care. He is also the author of the Health Care Inc. newsletter You can reach Bob on Signal at bobjherman.09 Tara Bannow You can reach Tara on Signal at tarabannow.70 The Department of Justice has sued three of the largest Medicare Advantage insurers and three dominant insurance brokerages alleging a scheme in which the health insurers bribed the brokers to steer older adults into their policies which together cover nearly 40% of the Medicare Advantage market The brokers named in the lawsuit are eHealth initiated in 2021 by a whistleblower who used to work at eHealth and Humana paid “hundreds of millions of dollars” in kickbacks to the brokerage companies between 2016 and 2021 and SelectQuote only directed people into those insurers’ Medicare Advantage plans regardless of whether they were the best options for someone Already have an account? Log in Already have an account? Log in Unpacking the business — and secretive inner workings — of the U.S By Mario Aguilar By Megan Molteni By Daniel Payne Reporting from the frontiers of health and medicine If you are a large 401(k) plan considering offering in-house funds Lockheed Martin Corporation and its subsidiary investment management company are facing legal action from current and former participants in their 401(k) plans They are accused of violating fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty by utilizing an in-house service provider and affiliated target-date funds The aerospace and defense company is alleged to have taken a “do-it-yourself” (DIY) approach to managing their 401(k) investments ineffective private investment funds,” and charging “excessive and unreasonable fees” to plan assets District Court of Maryland and involves three of Lockheed’s 401(k) plans: the salaried plan claim that Lockheed violated its fiduciary duties to over 140,000 beneficiaries by selecting and maintaining Lockheed Martin Investment Management Co (LMIMCo.) as the manager of the 401(k) plans They also allege that Lockheed offered LMIMCo.’s own target-date funds (TDFs) which were deemed “chronically underperforming” and high-cost began offering a private equity co-investment sleeve within these TDFs The most aggressive TDFs in Lockheed’s lineup have approximately 7% invested in a private equity fund The lawsuit states that Lockheed’s choice to utilize its in-house TDFs which carried “high fees” and demonstrated “poorer performance” compared to those offered by independent investment managers was “unusual.” Plaintiffs noted that the in-house TDFs were two to five times more expensive than higher-performing TDFs offered by Vanguard Lockheed designated these in-house TDFs as the only available investment options in the 401(k) plans and made them the default choice The company also added additional in-house TDFs between March 2019 and this year for younger employees with longer retirement horizons the lawsuit alleges that Lockheed misled participants in marketing the in-house TDFs presenting them as the sole investment option necessary for retirement See more » Refine your interests » Back to Top Explore 2025 Readers' Choice Awards Copyright © var today = new Date(); var yyyy = today.getFullYear();document.write(yyyy + " "); JD Supra PAUL (KVRR) — Health Secretary Robert F and Department of Health and Human Services are being sued by 18 states including Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison says he and attorneys general in 17 other states are suing to stop the dismantling of Health and Human Services Ellison says thousands of federal health workers have been fired vital programs have been closed and Minnesotans are now forced to face a mounting health crises without federal support The attorneys general say all of this is going on in the midst of a deadly measles outbreak and just after a pandemic killed well over one million Americans They are asking the court to halt further dismantling and restore key programs “Every Minnesotan and every American should be outraged that in the midst of a deadly measles outbreak and just after a pandemic that killed well over a million Americans the Trump Administration is trying to make us not healthier “Congress funds HHS to improve the health and well-being of the American people and Trump slashing the HHS staff that track and fight measles or help Americans battling addiction clearly contradicts the authority of Congress I’m suing the Trump Administration to protect the important work HHS does and protect the people of Minnesota and the rule of law.” A coalition of Democratic attorneys general asked for an injunction to stop Trump’s war on offshore wind development after New York was forced to delay construction on a large Staten Island terminal and the massive Empire wind project By Anna Kramer A coalition of 18 states sued the Trump administration on Monday to try to permanently block Trump’s complete halt on all offshore wind energy development argued in a roughly 100-page complaint that the president’s attacks on the industry violated a litany of federal laws and are already causing significant economic harm across the country The Trump administration halted all permitting for new offshore wind projects shortly after taking office a move that hobbled the already-struggling industry The Interior Department then ordered in mid-April that all work cease on one of the few projects already under construction: Empire Wind a large farm off the coast of New York that was scheduled to deliver much-needed electricity to New York City beginning in 2026 New Lawsuits Filed Under STEER Act Against Drivers Who Habitually Flout DC Laws & Seriously Endanger DC Residents “Too many drivers think they can speed recklessly through the District putting the safety of Washingtonians and visitors at risk with no financial consequences for their lawlessness,” said Attorney General Schwalb. “These suits reflect our continuing commitment: if your actions behind the wheel put people’s lives at risk OAG filed the lawsuits announced today against: Sanders racked up a staggering 344 citations for traffic infractions Three hundred and sixteen of Sanders’ citations were for excessive speeding including 61 citations for driving at speeds of 30 MPH or more over the speed limit which would qualify as aggravated reckless driving Sixty-six of his citations were for driving at speeds greater than 20 MPH over the speed limit 74 were for driving 16-20 MPH over the speed limit and 114 were for driving 11-15 MPH over the speed limit Sanders accrued 339 of his citations in a period of a little over a year—from March 2021 through July 2022—and during that period he drew an average of nearly five speeding tickets per week Sanders has failed to pay the District the $187,200 he owes for this extremely large number of dangerous driving violations The complaint is available here Wilson amassed 244 traffic citations across three different license plates Two hundred and two were for excessive speeding—including eight for driving at speeds 30 MPH or more over the speed limit 31 for driving at speeds 20 MPH or more over the limit and 113 for driving 11-15 MPH over the limit Wilson has failed to pay the District $77,100 in fines for these violations The complaint is available here El Idrissi amassed 263 traffic citations across four different license plates Two hundred and forty-six of El Idrissi’s citations were for speeding including one citation for driving at 30+ MPH over the speed limit five citations for driving at 20+ MPH over the speed limit and 42 citations for driving 16-20 MPH over the speed limit El Idrissi has failed to pay the District $69,456 for traffic violations The complaint is available here Baker amassed 159 citations across 14 different license plates Twenty of Baker’s citations were for running red lights He has also been repeatedly cited for unlawfully parking in bus zones Baker has failed to pay the District $31,316 for his wide array of traffic violations The complaint is available here Abebe accumulated 197 traffic citations across three license plates One hundred and sixty-three of the citations were for speeding including 15 citations for driving at 20+ MPH over the speed limit 41 citations for driving 16-20 MPH over the speed limit and 107 citations for driving 11-15 MPH over the speed limit Abebe has failed to pay the District $58,608 for traffic violations The complaint is available here These cases are being handled by Assistant Attorneys General Alexis Hawkins and Jacob Morse Assistant Section Chief Kerslyn Featherstone and Chief Kimberly Johnson of OAG's Civil Enforcement Section oagpress@dc.gov | (202) 442-8919 400 6th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (202) 727-3400 Fax: (202) 347-8922 TTY: (202) 727-3400 Email: oag@dc.gov For adult felony and federal cases in the District of Columbia, call the U.S. Attorney's Office at (202) 252-7566 For federal cases generally, call the U.S. Department of Justice at (202) 514-2000 An official website of theDistrict of Columbia government Previously approved federal grants from Congress are now coming with allegedly unlawful fulfillment conditions for homelessness and transit assistance which put these services at risk of failing to meet the needs of program beneficiaries This is according to a lawsuit filed late last week by eight localities against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S Department of Transportation’s Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington the suit takes aim at what it calls unconstitutional funding stipulations that constitute “overreach by the executive branch.” and the Washington state counties of Pierce and Snohomish The nature of the lawsuit has become common practice for communities aiming to challenge sweeping cuts and rescissions of previously appropriated federal funds. Similar to other suits this one claims that the executive branch cannot unilaterally change federal grant conditions without the expressed approval of Congress “Despite this, the Trump administration has added several unlawful conditions to the HUD Continuum of Care grant and the FTA Master Agreement,” according to King County officials “I have a duty to fully enforce the law and protect these important services for our residents,” King County Executive Shannon Braddock said in a statement announcing the suit “That’s why we are joining other jurisdictions from around the country to ensure the administration can’t disregard congressionally approved processes and bully local governments to comply with their political agenda at the expense of being able to deliver critical services.” New York City was awarded $53.5 million in “Continuum of Care funds from HUD for the coming year that it was planning to provide to nonprofit providers of permanent supportive housing for chronically homeless households that struggle with disabilities and other challenges,” the city explained in a statement it would “directly threaten the housing stability of more than 2,700 households and may put thousands more households in New York City at risk of losing their housing.” These conditions imposed by HUD on previously awarded grants approved by Congress “are illegal under longstanding constitutional and statutory principles,” according to a statement from Muriel Goode-Trufant “Our legal effort seeks to protect tens of millions of dollars in funding that support vital social services in our communities,” she said The plaintiffs are also seeking a temporary injunction this week that would block HUD from imposing or enforcing the grant conditions at issue A ruling on this request is expected by the end of the week Upon his confirmation to lead HUD, Secretary Scott Turner has railed against policies that he and the White House believe promote diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) in government including homelessness assistance programs In a March post on social media platform X Turner said that HUD Continuum of Care (COC) programs were “meant to provide funds to end homelessness unfortunately it was used as a tool by the left to push a woke agenda at the expense of people in need.” enforce ‘gender ideology,’ support abortion and discriminate against faith-based groups,” he said “HUD will use all available resources to fight homelessness.” Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has similarly sought to take a hard line against any programs or funding that he said could support DEI initiatives and website in this browser for the next time I comment Δdocument.getElementById( "ak_js_1" ).setAttribute( "value" it’s fair to say that you’ll have plenty of opinions regarding the properties you show buyers even thousands of listings at a wide variety of price points you’ll cultivate a personal opinion about properties sometimes within seconds of stepping over the threshold But when should you share your opinion with a buyer It’s not always appropriate to tell them what you think Don't have an account? Please Sign Up multiple physicians from different practices were sued after a patient was cleared for surgery when unanswered questions still remained about her respiratory status.  during which she met with both partners of the practice The patient’s medical history included obesity Mrs L was diagnosed with a moderate deviated septum The ENT physicians sent orders for pre-operative testing to Mrs L’s primary care practice the orders requested a medical history and a physical and asked that the results be sent to the ENT practice one of the primary care doctors determined that Mrs L needed cardiac clearance before the surgery Mrs L met with the cardiologist who performed a dobutamine stress test the cardiologist was concerned about Mrs L’s respiratory status He noted in her chart that there was a question “if she would be an optimal surgical candidate.” The cardiologist concluded his assessment by noting in the chart that “the patient is a low-risk surgical candidate from a cardiac standpoint; however I am more concerned with her respiratory status than her cardiac status at this point in time.” Three days prior to surgery she was sent to the SurgiCenter to meet with the anesthesiologist for an airway check (An airway check was triggered by any patient with a body mass index (BMI) of over 40 The anesthesiologist determined that Mrs L was potentially a difficult candidate for intubation but he felt that the anesthesiologist who was assigned to the surgery could take some extra precautions to get the patient intubated without too much difficulty the examining anesthesiologist called the anesthesiologist scheduled for the procedure and verbally provided her with the information The anesthesiologist had no difficulty intubating the patient and she was extubated while awake after surgery Mrs L was discharged home with instructions to sleep in a recliner with her head at an angle of more than 45 degrees above her body She spent the rest of the day on the couch Mr L checked on his wife to see if she needed anything He woke up sometime after 3 am and decided to go down and check on his wife He called 911 and performed CPR but was not able to find a pulse and the cause of death was reported as “arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease Hypothyroidism and diabetes mellitus are considered to be contributing conditions.” The pathologist specified that Mrs L had multi-vessel coronary atherosclerosis chronic airway inflammatory changes and pulmonary arteriolosclerosis Mr L sought the counsel of a plaintiff’s attorney and sued pretty much everyone involved with his wife’s care including: the ENT doctors and their practice the primary care doctors and their practice His attorney hired experts who opined that Mrs L died from postoperative hypoxia attributed to undertreated asthma and undiagnosed obstructive sleep apnea The plaintiff blamed all of the physicians for failing to ensure that Mrs L was fit for surgery from a respiratory standpoint The plaintiff alleged negligence and wrongful death due to malpractice on the part of the doctors The physicians all attempted to blame each other seeking to be eliminated from the pool of defendants The ENTs claimed that they never look at the surgical clearance they just have it sent to the SurgiCenter where the anesthesiologist looks at it The primary care physicians claimed they had sent all the information to the ENTs Some of the doctors claimed that superseding actions on the part of another doctor were the cause of Mrs L’s death The defendants sought summary judgment and asked the court to dismiss the case against them The court rightly pointed out that summary judgment is only appropriate if there is no dispute as to the material facts of the case and the issue is just one of law (which a judge can decide) The judge held that the defendants had not met their goal of demonstrating that there was no dispute as to material facts and that the state supreme court had noted in the past that “the question of what is the proximate cause of an accident is almost always one of fact for the jury.” The court declined to dismiss the case against any of the defendants This was a very unfortunate case because the warning from the cardiologist about the patient’s respiratory status was there for all the other physicians to see yet no one seemed to notice or act upon the information.  If you are ordering surgical clearance for a patient it would be advisable to review the results yourself prior to performing surgery.  The anesthesiologist who did the pre-surgical airway check also made an error by calling the other anesthesiologist to convey his concerns rather than (or better yet This was a complicated case, and the exact reasons for Mrs L’s death were not straightforward, making this a case that will have to be evaluated by a jury. The departure from the standard of care in this case was the poor communication between the physicians and the failure to follow up on the cardiologist’s concerns a trusted source of medical news and feature content for healthcare providers offers clinicians insight into the latest research to inform clinical practice and improve patient outcomes Copyright © 2025 Haymarket Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in any form without prior authorization. Your use of this website constitutes acceptance of Haymarket Media’s Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions. Only subscribers can update their account from this page You’ve read {{metering-count}} of {{metering-total}} articles this month We want you to take advantage of everything MPR has to offer Register now at no charge to access unlimited daily drug news and industry-supported drug information & education Please login or register first to view this content Find Your Next Job ! One of the most frustrating parts of defending class litigation is when a court allows a party to re-define their class at the time they seek certification If you pause to think about that it is absolutely wild A defendant might litigate a case for 18 months focused on one class definition complete expert reports and then have the plaintiff completely change course with virtually no warning Terribly unfair and inconsistent with due process in my view Better practice is for a plaintiff to give the defense fair warning of their true intentions at the pleadings stage–which is why a motion to strike overly broad classes makes so much sense and Troutman Amin But in an unusual case GEICO and ExamWorks LLC are sued in a TCPA class action with a plaintiff who is voluntarily seeking to amend his class And interestingly GEICO opposed the amendment effort 2025) the Plaintiff suing for unwanted robocalls allegedly made by ExamWorks on behalf of GEICO The current class definition is: “all persons in the United States” who: (1) were called with a pre-recorded voice message by ExamWorks (or any party on behalf of ExamWorks); (2) to their cellular telephone provided to ExamWorks by GEICO; (3) during the four-year period prior to filing the complaint in this action through the date of certification; and (4) where the called party did not provide the cellular number called to either GEICO or ExamWorks The Plaintiff sought to amend the class definition to remove the reference to GEICO in the final sentence of the definition Thus it would read: “where the called party did not provide the cellular number called to ExamWorks.” this was a pretty classy move by the Plaintiff They are giving the defense notice of a planned change before filing for certification and really pinning themselves down to a new definition so the defendants don’t need to worry about another late-stage change in my view the newly-defined class is actually harder to certify than the original class So I would have taken this amendment with a thank you But GEICO and ExamWorks both decided to oppose the amendment on a bunch of grounds Their arguments are pretty weak and basically boil down to “the class can’t be certified and is not fair that they’re changing their definition” to which the court responded (properly) that it is too early to determine class certification The Court noted in particular that Plaintiffs’ effort to amend was classy and “seems to minimize surprise and unfair prejudice to Defendants.” Defendants objected to something they probably should have been grateful for More Upcoming Events Sign Up for any (or all) of our 25+ Newsletters or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website If you require legal or professional advice kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 2070 Green Bay Rd., Suite 178, Highland Park, IL 60035  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 or toll-free (877) 357-3317.  If you would like to contact us via email please click here. LLP notifies investors in Cerevel Therapeutics Holdings Inc." or the "Company") (NYSE: ABBV) of a class action securities lawsuit CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of Cerevel Therapeutics Holdings investors who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud This lawsuit is on behalf of all persons or entities that: (a) sold or otherwise disposed of the publicly-traded common stock of Cerevel during the period from October 11 (b) held shares of Cerevel as of the January 8 2024 record date and were entitled to vote on the merger of Cerevel and AbbVie Inc (c) sold shares of Cerevel stock contemporaneously with Bain Capital’s purchase of shares on or about October 16 ABBV investors may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500 2023 secondary stock offering (the “October Offering” or “Offering”) documents and other public statements omitted material facts regarding AbbVie’s interest in acquiring Cerevel at a price well in excess of the $22.81 per share Offering price artificially deflating Cerevel’s stock price until the merger was announced acquired Cerevel shares from the October Offering at an artificially depressed price while allegedly in possession of material nonpublic information regarding AbbVie’s interest Cerevel publicly announced that AbbVie agreed to acquire Cerevel for $45 per share The merger allowed Bain to receive a windfall of more than $120 million on the shares it acquired at the artificially depressed Offering price 2024 Proxy statement misled investors regarding the true nature and timing of AbbVie’s interest in Cerevel If you suffered a loss in Cerevel Therapeutics Holdings Beaty/DenveriteFederal law enforcement outside the Cedar Run Apartments where immigration raids are taking place early Wednesday Department of Justice filed a lawsuit on Friday against Denver and Colorado officials alleging in federal court that they had passed “sanctuary laws” that violate the U.S District Court in Colorado to declare that several city and state policies are invalid blocking the city and state from enforcing them The laws and policies in question generally restrict the ability of state and local government employees to help with immigration enforcement “The Supremacy Clause prohibits Colorado and its officials from obstructing the Federal Government’s ability to enforce laws that Congress has enacted or to take actions entrusted to it by the Constitution,” the lawsuit argues “The Supremacy Clause also prohibits Colorado from singling out the Federal Government for adverse treatment — as the challenged laws do — thereby discriminating against the Federal Government The Sanctuary Laws are themselves unlawful and cannot stand.” Mayor Mike Johnston’s office responded soon after the suit was filed “Denver will not be bullied or blackmailed least of all by an administration that has little regard for the law and even less for the truth and federal and stand ready to defend our values,” wrote Jon Ewing the city and county of Denver and Denver Sheriff Elias Diggins “Colorado is not a sanctuary state,” responded Eric Maruyama state and federal law enforcement regularly and we value our partnerships with local county and federal law enforcement agencies to make Colorado safer If the courts say that any Colorado law is not valid We are not going to comment on the merits of the lawsuit,” Maruyama continued The DOJ argued that because of a state law it can no longer enter into agreements with local governments to detain immigrants in county jails forcing it to transfer all its detainees to a facility in Aurora The lawsuit claims that the state’s policies force it to release individuals into the public because it can’t afford to bring them to Aurora.  Immigrant advocates have argued that local governments should not — and don’t have to — work closely with immigration enforcement They argue that when police partner with Immigration and Customs Enforcement immigrants are afraid to report crimes and communities are less safe The federal lawsuit also argues that state and local laws make it harder for immigration agents to detain people who are set to be released from local jails. But city officials have pushed back on those claims, noting in one recent case that agents were notified more than an hour before a wanted person was released.  Nicknamed the Protecting Colorado Residents From Federal Government Overreach act it prevents law enforcement officers from arresting or detaining an individual on the basis of their immigration status or holding someone in jail past their release time just so immigration officials can come pick them up It also prevents authorities from providing information about an individual’s immigration status to federal officials Officers can continue to assist federal immigration enforcement officials with executing warrants issued by federal judges and they can transfer people from jail or prison into the custody of immigration officers SB21-131: This law aims to further restrict cooperation between state employees and federal immigration agents by preventing the state from looking into people’s immigration status or disclosing anyone’s personal identifying information to ICE HB23-1100: This law prohibits the state and local governments from contracting with private companies to operate immigration detention facilities 94-17: This law was adopted in 2017 under Mayor Michael Hancock It bars city employees from using “any city funds or resources to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws,” the lawsuit states as well as requesting information about a person’s immigration status in most cases It also bars federal immigration agents from “secure areas of any city or county jail or other city-owned law enforcement facility for the purpose of conducting investigative interviews or any other purpose related to the enforcement of federal immigration” unless they have a warrant from a federal judge or magistrate And it says that officers will not detain people solely on the basis of administrative warrants from immigration agents Executive Order No. 142: This order issued by Hancock declared Denver a "safe and welcoming city for all” and touched on numerous subjects It called for city employees to be trained on “the limitations around collecting and sharing national origin including sharing information pertaining to appointment times dates or whereabouts of clients … with federal immigration enforcement officials.” It also called on city leaders to report on “any efforts” they were aware of by immigration agents to get city help enforcing immigration laws Colorado Postcards are snapshots of our colorful state in sound. They give brief insights into our people and places, our flora and fauna, and our past and present, from every corner of Colorado. Listen now. © 2025 Colorado Public Radio. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy So much for friendly neighbors: One Minnesota family is facing a lawsuit from their next door neighbors due to the location of their children's basketball hoop a suburb of Minneapolis-St.Paul in Minnesota the couple installed a basketball hoop for their two young boys as a way for them to stay active Roughly a year ago, new neighbors Julia and Fred Ramos moved into the house next door and began to inquire about the location of the basketball goal A quick land survey found that the hoop was actually 6 in the Moedings moved it to a spot not too far away But the problem was not solved with the fix The Ramoses then filed a restraining order against the Moeding husband claiming that he was harassing them when he retrieved basketballs from the yard The request was quickly dismissed in court with prejudice.  filing a lawsuit against the Moeding family and the city of St They've even asked the court for a temporary injunction to prevent the boys from playing basketball in their own driveway The neighbors cite safety concerns with the kids running into their yard in order to fetch balls that go awry.  Reporters have asked the neighbors behind the lawsuit for comment to no avail. The Moedings say that this continued endeavor has taken a lot of out them, and others have created an online fundraiser to help with legal costs Wood is host of the Taste of Country Mornings With Wood and Nicole, which can be heard every morning from 6-10AM CT on the Taste of Country app on local affiliates where available and online at tasteofcountry.com Gallery Credit: Sterling Whitaker A basketball hoop for kids has now exploded into restraining orders and lawsuits.\nRead More Roughly a year ago, new neighbors Julia and Fred Ramos moved into the house next door and began to inquire about the location of the basketball goal Family in St. Louis Park, Minnesota is being sued by a neighbor for having a basketball hoop.The Moeding family has two children who play during reasonable hours on the Moeding driveway using a hoop on the Moeding property.The neighboring Ramos couple is being ridiculous. pic.twitter.com/TXVbmcKz08 Reporters have asked the neighbors behind the lawsuit for comment to no avail. The Moedings say that this continued endeavor has taken a lot of out them, and others have created an online fundraiser to help with legal costs Wood is host of the Taste of Country Mornings With Wood and Nicole, which can be heard every morning from 6-10AM CT on the Taste of Country app President Trump opened up a new front in his assault on public media on Monday, asserting that he was removing three of the five board members of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The corporation sued Trump on Tuesday morning in response Supreme Court ruling to contend that he does not have the power to take these actions Moss ordered both sides to file arguments on CPB's motion for a temporary restraining order that would prevent Trump's decree from taking effect until the case was fully heard "As numerous courts have repeatedly affirmed the Constitution gives President Trump the power to remove personnel who exercise his executive authority," White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in a comment emailed to NPR "The Trump Administration looks forward to ultimate victory on the issue." The CPB distributes more than $500 million annually to public broadcasters primarily to local television and radio stations 15% of their revenues from the corporation; NPR stations receive 10% of their funds from the CPB while NPR itself receives about 1% directly from CPB (NPR receives a bit more indirectly because local member stations pay NPR for the right to air its programs.) Under the law that created CPB more than five decades ago the president has the authority to appoint members of its board in consultation with Senate leaders of both parties establish any authority for a president to remove them that law does not include the clause common to U.S government agencies that its board members "serve at the pleasure of the President" Indeed, the law specifically states that the CPB "will not be an agency or establishment of the United States Government" and sets up a series of measures intended to "afford the maximum protection from extraneous interference and control." The board members targeted by Trump are Tom Rothman and Diane Kaplan – both appointees of former President Joe Biden – and Laura Gore Ross who was appointed to the board by Trump in his first term and then reappointed by Biden would currently deny CPB's remaining two board members a quorum to operate In recent weeks, the Trump administration similarly took control of the boards of the John F. Kennedy Center for Performing Arts and the U.S. Institute of Peace Trump appointed himself chairman of the former and shut down the latter The two organizations are hybrids – duck-billed platypuses of Washington fauna: The Kennedy Center is a public-private partnership; the peace institute an independent nonprofit corporation with the secretaries of defense and state as board members by virtue of their offices "The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is not a government entity and its board members are not government officers Because CPB is not a federal agency subject to the President's authority we have filed a lawsuit to block these firings." CPB's legal team cites the statute authorizing it which specifically states that no officers or employees of the U.S government can serve on the board – and no board member can be considered a federal employee invoked the example of the Institute of Peace which he said hung over CPB like a "sword of Damocles." "We don't know if there are additional terminations coming," McElroy said He said CPB's remaining directors were unsure whether Trump intended to shut the corporation down or to radically revise its priorities some of this stuff cannot be undone," he said Justice Department litigator Jeremy Newman who was representing the federal government called such concerns "speculative" —prompting Judge Moss to say that it was speculative for the CPB but not for the government itself he did not know the administration's intentions for the CPB Georgetown law professor Stephen Vladeck says the CPB's lawsuit "has legs." But he adds a warning to those who oppose Trump's actions: "The Trump administration is not trying to win all these lawsuits," Vladeck says "A lot of its behavior is patently unlawful And a lot of its behavior will not survive litigation But it's nevertheless designed to intimidate Trump has targeted independent institutions that often serve as a platform for critical voices hits a rhetorical sweet spot for the president In a recent U.S. House subcommittee hearing, the president's conservative allies sought to portray public media as a plaything for liberals and Democrats Yet the CPB chief executive now suing Trump is a former co-chairperson of the Republican National Committee and State Department official under President George W News of the president's intent arrived Monday evening in an email to the three board members from Trent Morse the deputy White House director of presidential personnel for the executive office of the president I am writing to inform you that your position on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is terminated effective immediately the message did not state the authority Trump was invoking to fire them The White House's email to the CPB board members dovetails with Trump's efforts to shut down the corporation altogether. He has said that he will ask Congress to claw back the $1.1 billion it has already granted to support the nation's public broadcasters through September 2027 House and Senate would each have to affirm the withdrawal of those funds — called a "rescission" — by a simple majority within 45 days for it to take effect While Republicans who control each chamber have publicly signaled support it is not clear whether they have enough support within their own ranks to do so Congressional leaders say they have not yet received the request Congress's decision to authorize money for CPB for two years at a time was a further effort to insulate the corporation from political pressures; a 1975 House Committee report said the advance funding would "go a long way toward eliminating both the risk of and the appearance of undue interference with and control of public broadcasting." Trump has used other levers of government to exert pressure on public media he has repeatedly pounded NPR and PBS to contend they should receive no taxpayer funds His chief broadcasting regulator, Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr, has opened up a formal investigation into NPR and PBS stations and the networks' practices for running underwriting spots for corporate sponsors He says they are indistinguishable from commercials; NPR and PBS and public media stations say they closely adhere to the guidance they have received from commission staffers over the course of decades as they have been encouraged to broaden their revenue streams beyond public coffers as Carr's agency oversees who is granted licenses to broadcast on the airwaves -- and who can beam their signals using the desired noncommercial range of terrestrial broadcasting frequencies The chapter on media in The Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 blueprint for a second Trump term - disavowed by the president on the campaign trail and closely followed by his aides once back in office - calls for NPR PBS and public media stations to be "shorn" of their noncommercial status Disclosure: This story was reported and written by NPR Media Correspondent David Folkenflik and edited by Deputy Business Editor Emily Kopp and Managing Editor Vickie Walton-James Under NPR's protocol for reporting on itself no corporate official or news executive reviewed this story before it was posted publicly Become an NPR sponsor The list of lawsuits recently filed against former NFL players continues to grow Former Panthers and Ravens receiver Steve Smith Sr has been sued in North Carolina under a “homewrecker” law As explained by Julia Coin of the Charlotte Observer, Smith is accused of having an extended affair with a member of the Baltimore Ravens marching band Antonio Martinez seeks at least $100,000 for Smith’s alleged interference in Martinez’s marriage when Martinez posted images of messages allegedly exchanged between Smith and Martinez’s wife Martinez alleged that he called Smith to confront him on the matter The lawsuit contains claims for alienation of affection intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress A Division of NBCUniversal DISCLAIMER: This site and the products offered are for entertainment purposes only and there is no gambling offered on this site This service is intended for adult audiences No guarantees are made for any specific outcome If you or someone you know has a gambling problem NEW YORK, May 5, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of Everus Construction Group, Inc. (NYSE: ECG) Shareholders who purchased shares of ECG during the class period listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead plaintiff appointment Appointment as lead plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/everus-construction-group-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=146605&from=4 ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's backlog conversion cycle had become elongated due to larger the Company's revenue recognition would be delayed; and (3) as a result of the foregoing defendants' positive statements about the Company's business and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis DEADLINE: June 3, 2025 Shareholders should not delay in registering for this class action. Register your information here: https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/everus-construction-group-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=146605&from=4 NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who purchased shares of ECG during the timeframe listed above you will be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you with status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case The deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is June 3 There is no cost or obligation to you to participate in this case The Gross Law Firm is a nationally recognized class action law firm and our mission is to protect the rights of all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes CONTACT:The Gross Law Firm15 West 38th Street, 12th floorNew York, NY, 10018Email: [email protected]Phone: (646) 453-8903 The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of Zynex Shareholders who purchased shares of ZYXI during the.. The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of NET Power Shareholders who purchased shares of NPWR during the.. Do not sell or share my personal information: By The Associated Press and AZFamily Digital News StaffPublished: May 2025 at 11:37 AM MST|Updated: 9 hours agoEmail This LinkShare on FacebookShare on X (formerly Twitter)Share on PinterestShare on LinkedInPHOENIX (AP/AZFamily) — A coalition of state attorneys general filed a lawsuit Monday against President Donald Trump’s attempt to stop the development of wind energy are challenging an executive order Trump signed during his first day in office permits and loans for all wind energy projects both onshore and offshore They say Trump doesn’t have the authority to unilaterally shut down the permitting process and he’s jeopardizing development of a power source critical to the states’ economic vitality “Halting the development of wind energy is not just bad policy—it’s illegal,” Attorney General Mayes said in a news release wind energy projects on State Trust lands generate critical revenue that supports our public schools and other beneficiaries The Trump Administration’s blanket freeze undermines that progress threatening both our economy and the environment I’m suing because Arizonans deserve a cleaner They’re asking a federal judge to declare the order unlawful and stop federal agencies from implementing it “This arbitrary and unnecessary directive threatens the loss of thousands of good-paying jobs and billions in investments and it is delaying our transition away from the fossil fuels that harm our health and our planet,” New York Attorney General Letitia James White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said Democratic attorneys general are “using lawfare to stop the president’s popular energy agenda,” instead of working with him to unleash American energy and lower prices for families “The American people voted for the president to restore America’s energy dominance and Americans in blue states should not have to pay the price of the Democrats’ radical climate agenda,” Rogers said in a statement to The Associated Press Trump vowed during the campaign to end the offshore wind industry if he returned to the White House His order said there were “alleged legal deficiencies underlying the federal government’s leasing and permitting” of wind projects and it directed the Interior secretary to review wind leasing and permitting practices for federal waters and lands The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Massachusetts The Biden administration saw offshore wind as a climate change solution, setting national goals holding lease sales and approving nearly a dozen commercial-scale projects to have the lowest-cost energy and electricity in the world The Trump administration took a more aggressive step against wind in April when it ordered the Norwegian company Equinor to halt construction on Empire Wind a fully permitted project located southeast of Long Island Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said it appeared the Biden administration rushed the approval Equinor went through a seven-year permitting process before starting to build Empire Wind last year to provide power to 500,000 New York homes which would be separate from the complaint filed Monday The Norwegian government owns a majority stake in Equinor Wind provides about 10% of the electricity generated in the United States making it the nation’s largest source of renewable energy The attorneys general argue that Trump’s order is at odds with years of bipartisan support for wind energy and contradicts his own declaration of a “national energy emergency,” which called for expanding domestic energy production They say they’ve invested hundreds of millions of dollars collectively to develop wind energy and even more on upgrading transmission lines to bring wind energy to the electrical grid Kathy Hochul said the executive order sows chaos when businesses need clear regulations to effectively operate ocean-based wind farms are the linchpin of state plans to shift to renewable energy particularly in populous East Coast states with limited land The nation’s first commercial-scale offshore wind farm opened a year ago a 12-turbine wind farm east of Montauk Point A smaller wind farm operates near Block Island in waters controlled by the state of Rhode Island Massachusetts has three offshore wind projects in various stages of development The state has invested in offshore wind to ensure residents have access to well-paying green jobs and reliable Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell said The Trump administration has also suspended federal funding for floating offshore wind research in Maine and revoked a permit for a proposed offshore wind project in New Jersey political leaders are trying to rapidly increase wind energy Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced a major investment in wind power in April while hosting an international summit on energy security Nova Scotia plans to offer leases for five gigawatts of offshore wind energy by 2030 Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston said in Virginia last week at an Oceantic Network conference See a spelling or grammatical error in our story? Please click here to report it Do you have a photo or video of a breaking news story? Send it to us here with a brief description NEW YORK, May 5, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of Treace Medical Concepts, Inc. (NASDAQ: TMCI) Shareholders who purchased shares of TMCI during the class period listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead plaintiff appointment Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) competition impacted the demand for and utilization of its primary product Treace Medical's revenue declined and the Company needed to accelerate its plans to offer a product that was an alternative to osteotomy (a surgical procedure that involves cutting and realigning a bone to improve its position or function); and (3) defendants' positive statements about the Company's business NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who purchased shares of TMCI during the timeframe listed above The deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is June 10 CONTACT:The Gross Law Firm15 West 38th Street, 12th floorNew York, NY, 10018Email: [email protected] Phone: (646) 453-8903 The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of Napco Security Technologies The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of Canopy Growth Corporation (NASDAQ: CGC) Shareholders who purchased shares of CGC.. argued eliminating the funding would weaken their ability to respond to infectious disease outbreaks the Trump administration said it would revoke billions of dollars worth of public health grants awarded during the COVID-19 pandemic which went to initiatives to support vaccine access substance use disorder treatment and tracking infectious diseases At the time, the administration said the pandemic was over and the HHS would “no longer waste billions of taxpayer dollars responding to a non-existent pandemic that Americans moved on from years ago.” Ohio; the metropolitan government of Nashville and Davidson County Missouri; and the American Federation of State argues the end of the public health emergency isn’t a lawful basis to cut the funds Disrict Court for the District of Columbia claims the HHS would have to cut funding for the programs on an individual basis for a specific cause The lawsuit added that Congress — which has control over the government’s purse not the executive branch — didn’t limit the funds to the COVID pandemic or even to programs related to the pandemic the union and municipalities said the legislature was motivated to improve the country’s public health infrastructure in the wake of COVID Losing the funds jeopardizes some of the municipalities’ health programs including initiatives for surveilling wastewater to detect emerging infectious diseases and providing vaccines to children AFSCME argued its members have been laid off or moved into new jobs due to the grant cuts grants were used to build up the city’s ability to test for diseases like COVID-19 and screen residents in public housing for common health issues like high blood pressure The termination of grants has led to an “immediate disruption” in healthcare services in Nashville and Davidson County, said Wally Dietz, director of law for the metropolitan government of Nashville, in a Thursday statement “Metro Nashville joined this lawsuit because the federal government’s unlawful termination of health programs has forced layoffs of Health Department employees termination of lab testing for infectious disease including lab tests where the patient is waiting on a result elimination of programs for childhood vaccination “We were on the verge of providing these life saving services to our unhoused population but that initiative is halted in its tracks.” The HHS told Healthcare Dive it doesn’t comment on ongoing litigation Get the free daily newsletter read by industry experts Physician groups slammed Congress for allowing a 2.8% cut to their Medicare pay to go into effect Kennedy's views on vaccines in particular are causing alarm among some physicians and investors The free newsletter covering the top industry headlines NEW YORK, May 5, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of SoundHound AI, Inc. (NASDAQ: SOUN) Shareholders who purchased shares of SOUN during the class period listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead plaintiff appointment CONTACT US HERE:https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/soundhound-ai-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=146602&from=4  Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the material weaknesses in SoundHound's internal controls over financial reporting impaired the Company's ability to effectively account for corporate acquisitions; (ii) in addition the Company overstated the extent to which it had remediated the material weaknesses in its internal controls over financial reporting; (iii) as a result of the foregoing material weaknesses SoundHound's reported goodwill following the Amelia Acquisition was inflated and would need to be corrected; (iv) further SoundHound would likely require extra time and expense to effectively account for the SYNQ3 and Amelia Acquisitions; (v) the foregoing increased the risk that the Company would be unable to timely file certain financial reports with the SEC; and (vi) as a result the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who purchased shares of SOUN during the timeframe listed above The deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is May 27 CONTACT:The Gross Law Firm15 West 38th Street, 12th floorNew York, NY, 10018Email: [email protected] Phone: (646) 453-8903 Retraction Watch Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process A cancer researcher who was once the subject of a misconduct investigation at an Illinois university more than 10 years ago has made his debut on the Retraction Watch Leaderboard with 35 retractions.  More than 100 of Rao’s papers have comments on PubPeer most originating from a user called Lotus azoricus We now know that pseudonym belongs to sleuth Elisabeth Bik “I had learned from several Retraction Watch articles that Dr Rao had previously sued the University of Illinois It seemed wise to file my complaints anonymously at the time to avoid being sued by him as well,” Bik told us so I now feel confident on stating publicly that the PubPeer comments by Lotus azoricus were mine.” Bik had reported the Oncogene papers to the journal in 2019 Bik sought an update and Springer Nature told her the investigation was still ongoing.  A spokesperson for Springer Nature acknowledged that Bik was the first to alert the journal to concerns with the Oncogene papers Whilst we endeavour to complete our investigations as swiftly and efficiently as possible we do so with care to ensure the integrity of the scientific record we appreciate that substantial delays to investigations can be frustrating and we apologise for the length of time taken in these cases We take our responsibility to maintain the scientific record extremely seriously and the retraction of these papers demonstrates our commitment to this [W]e apologise for the length of time taken in these cases This was in part owing to the age of the articles and the difficulty we had in trying to contact the authors as stated in the text of the retraction notices demanded and accepted cash payments from at least one subordinate to pay off alleged gambling debts and concealed the extent of errors in papers published by his lab and then directed subordinates to delete documents evidencing the scope of the errors the easily identifiable problems include image duplications and “problems suggestive of photoshopping,” Bik said But “ it is the sheer number of problematic papers that stand out,” she said A PubMed search for Rao’s name calls up about 450 papers and Bik has found issues in over 100 of them “That means that over one in 5 of his papers have clearly visible problems,” she said “That is a very high and concerning ratio.” Bik reported 104 of Rao’s papers to the university in 2019 An official at the University of Illinois College of Medicine told her in 2022 that they were still looking into them We’ve reached out to the university to ask whether it is still investigating Rao’s published papers or whether they’ve reported the issues to the journals This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed. There’s a rising trend of prominent businesses being sued for using music in TikTok and Instagram posts without permission Warner Music Group has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against US shoe retailer DSW Designer Shoe Warehouse and parent company Designer Brands Inc accusing DSW of having “misappropriated over two hundred” of Warner’s recordings and compositions in TikTok and Instagram posts and via paid partnerships with social media influencers Warner is seeking statutory damages up to the maximum amount of $150,000 per infringed musical work With DSW alleged to have infringed over 200 tracks the damages sought could exceed $30 million DSW is described in the lawsuit as “one of North America’s largest designers producers and retailers of footwear and accessories” Warner’s complaint notes that “during its 55-year history DSW has repeatedly licensed music for promoting its brand and products in television commercials” and that DSW has also “licensed music for its commercials from WMG in the past” DSW allegedly infringed 200+ “popular and valuable musical works” in social media posts by “using these musical works to attract attention to the DSW Videos and build DSW’s brand awareness and profile” Among the works alleged to have been infringed by DSW are what WMG calls “some of the most popular sound recordings and musical compositions in the world” Warner claims that DSW used tracks such as Up by Cardi B and Work it by Missy Elliot in social media posts without a license “‘DSW not only failed to pay for the use of Plaintiffs’ Works but by including these musical works in their promotional materials without Plaintiffs’ consent DSW deprived Plaintiffs and the recording artists and songwriters that Plaintiffs represent of the ability to control how and where their musical works are used,” the lawsuit stated According to the lawsuit, which you can read in full here has shifted much of its marketing focus from traditional advertising to promoting its products through social media platforms such as Instagram and TikTok as well as via paid partnerships with well-known social media ‘influencers’.” The lawsuit continues: “Broadly speaking an ‘influencer’ is a person with a large social media following whose reputation and credibility enables them to influence consumers’ purchasing decisions or brand awareness “Knowing that popular music is the best way to capture the attention of its targeted audience DSW and its social media influencers have incorporated many of Plaintiffs’ most valuable musical works into marketing and advertising videos for DSW’s products “These videos … are an integral part of DSW’s promotional DSW distributes the DSW Videos to the public via the various accounts that it maintains on a variety of social media platforms.” Warner’s complaint argues that even though DSW “is a sophisticated party that has extensive experience with music licensing,” the company “and its influencer partners have failed to seek permission or pay for the use of the sound recordings and musical compositions that are featured in the DSW Videos” The lawsuit is the latest involving a prominent music company taking legal action over unauthorized use of music in social media posts In another recent case, Sony Music sued the University of Southern California alleging the school repeatedly and willfully used unauthorized copyrighted music in its social media posts Artist Publishing Group and others against 14 NBA teams Stay on top of the real stories shaping the music industry: Join over 60,000 industry professionals who rely on MBW's FREE daily newsletter and alert emails for essential insights and breaking news 2:32 PM | Updated: 5:33 pm BY CARLYSLE PRICE SALT LAKE CITY – Utah-based dessert company Crumbl, LLC is being sued by major music labels after they said the company used copyrighted songs in its advertising for years Crumbl is accused of using 159 “of the most popular and valuable sound recordings and musical compositions on the market,” including songs from popular artists and songwriters such as Dua Lipa The use of these audio recordings in promotional content on TikTok and Instagram violates copyright laws and the company is now being sued for direct copyright infringement Crumbl had not paid music labels for their audio recordings Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include multiple related subsidiaries of Warner Music Group Corp. Warner Music International Services Limited The lawsuit stated that music labels and their artists have the legal right to their work stripping the plaintiffs of revenue from their sound recordings The lawsuit cited the company’s use of social media to advertise their desserts “is a highly successful gourmet cookie business with over one-thousand owned or franchised stores nationwide,” the lawsuit said “Crumbl has achieved its success by infringing Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound.” Aside from posting on its own social media accounts the lawsuit noted the company’s partnership with social media influencers to promote their business who also used copyrighted sounds on their videos the Crumbl Videos frequently feature unauthorized use of Plaintiffs’ sound recordings and musical compositions–usually featuring chart-topping and award-winning artists–as a principal and indispensable element of the Crumbl Videos,” the lawsuit said Warner Music Group is asking for up to $150,000 per infringed work for statutory damages which could total at $23,850,000 plus attorney fees Crumbl is also asked to stop working with social media influencers through the company’s ‘perks and rewards’ program sent Crumbl a cease-and-desist letter for videos using unauthorized sound recordings months after receiving the cease-and-desist letter Crumbl not only continued to exploit many of the infringing Crumbl Videos but also posted new infringing Crumbl Videos.” said six new videos violating copyright laws were discovered In January 2024, the company posted a video that appeared to acknowledge the copyright violations but did not take action to remove the audio from existing videos Crumbl is aware of the legal action initiated by Warner Music Group and is actively reviewing the matter Crumbl respects the rights of artists and creators and will respond appropriately through the legal process and bringing friends and families together Connecting decision makers to a dynamic network of information Bloomberg quickly and accurately delivers business and financial information Grindr Inc.'s largest stockholder orchestrated a buyback program that would force public investors to pay hundreds of millions for the privilege of handing him majority control A shareholder is suing billionaire G. Raymond Zage III and other board members saying the repurchases are aimed at pushing his stake above 50% after a round of warrant redemptions shrank it to 45% The scheme “threatens to misuse corporate funds to give Zage control of the company for free,” according to the filing in Delaware’s Chancery Court Zage, founder of Singapore-based Tiga Investments Pte. Ltd. workflow tools and premium legal & business news Log in to keep reading or access research tools NEW YORK, May 5, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of Napco Security Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: NSSC) Shareholders who purchased shares of NSSC during the class period listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead plaintiff appointment https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/napco-security-technologies-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=146614&from=4 defendants provided investors with material information concerning Napco's overall expected growth and strength in the Company's hardware division confidence in Napco's ability to achieve its fiscal 2026 growth projections on back of its ability to both appropriately forecast and execute upon the alleged demand for its hardware products.  On February 3 Napco announced its financial results for the second quarter of fiscal 2025 revealing a significant reduction in hardware sales for the quarter The Company attributed the decline "primarily … to reduced sales from 2 of the company's larger distributors." As a result of the setback in sales defendants additionally pulled back their long-term 45% EBITDA margin target as they "don't know" if the target can be achieved by the end of fiscal 2026 Napco's common stock declined dramatically From a closing market price of $36.70 per share on January 31 Napco's stock price fell to $26.93 per share on February 3 a decline of about 26.62% in the span of just a single day DEADLINE: June 24, 2025 Shareholders should not delay in registering for this class action. Register your information here: https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/napco-security-technologies-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=146614&from=4 NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who purchased shares of NSSC during the timeframe listed above The deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is June 24 CONTACT:The Gross Law Firm15 West 38th Street, 12th floorNew York, NY, 10018Email: [email protected]Phone: (646) 453-8903 The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of TFI International Inc Shareholders who purchased shares of TFII.. The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of Treace Medical Concepts Share on FacebookShare on X (formerly Twitter)Share on PinterestShare on LinkedInATLANTA (WALB) - Georgia is one of the newest states to get sued over its parental consent laws for children using social media Georgia recently passed a law that requires parental consent for children under the age of 16 to use social media AP News reported that Georgia is the eighth state to be challenged over its parental consent laws in court NetChoice represents companies including Meta The group is asking the courts to declare the new law unconstitutional A NetChoice representative said in a statement to the AP “We’re fighting to keep online communication safe and free in the Peach State.” titled the “Protecting Georgia’s Children on Social Media Act of 2024,″ is meant to protect children and teens from harm on social media Read the full Protecting Georgia’s Children on Social Media Act: Have a news tip or see an error that needs correction? Let us know. Please include the article’s headline in your message DoJ says Clean Air Act creates program to oversee air pollution and ‘displaces’ states’ ability to regulate it The suits, which legal experts say are unprecedented, mark the latest of the Trump administration’s attacks on environmental work and raise concern over states’ abilities to retain the power to take climate action without federal opposition the justice department said the Clean Air Act – a federal law authorizing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate air emissions – “creates a comprehensive program for regulating air pollution in the United States and ‘displaces’ the ability of states to regulate greenhouse gas emissions beyond their borders” The justice department argues that Hawaii and Michigan are violating the intent of the act that enables the EPA authority to set nationwide standards for greenhouse gases, citing the states’ pending litigation against oil and gas companies for alleged climate damage. Michigan’s attorney general, Dana Nessel, a Democrat, last year tapped private law firms to go after the fossil fuel industry for negatively affecting the state’s climate and environment. Meanwhile, Hawaii’s governor, Josh Green, another Democrat, plans to target fossil fuel companies that he said should take responsibility for their role in the state’s climate consequences, including 2023’s deadly Lahaina wildfire. When burned, fossil fuels release emissions such as carbon dioxide that warm the planet. Both states’ laws “impermissibly regulate out-of-state greenhouse gas emissions and obstruct the Clean Air Act’s comprehensive federal-state framework and EPA’s regulatory discretion”, the justice department’s court filings said. The justice department also repeated the Republican president’s claims of a US energy emergency and crisis. “At a time when states should be contributing to a national effort to secure reliable sources of domestic energy”, Hawaii and Michigan are “choosing to stand in the way”, the filings said. A spokesperson for the office of the Democratic Michigan governor, Gretchen Whitmer, deferred to Nessel when asked for comment. “This lawsuit is at best frivolous and arguably sanctionable,” Nessel said in a statement, which noted that Michigan had not filed a lawsuit. “If the White House or big oil wish to challenge our claims, they can do so when our lawsuit is filed; they will not succeed in any attempt to pre-emptively bar our access to make our claims in the courts. I remain undeterred in my intention to file this lawsuit the president and his big oil donors so fear.” Green’s office and the Hawaii attorney general’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment. But legal experts raised concern over the government’s arguments. Michael Gerrard, founder and faculty director of the Columbia University Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, said usual procedure was for the justice department to ask for a court to intervene in pending environmental litigation – as is the case in some instances across the country. While this week’s suits are consistent with Trump’s plans to oppose state actions that interfere with energy dominance, “it’s highly unusual”, Gerrard told the Associated Press. “What we expected is they would intervene in the pending lawsuits, not to try to pre-empt or prevent a lawsuit from being filed. It’s an aggressive move in support of the fossil fuel industry. “It raises all kinds of eyebrows,” he added. “It’s an intimidation tactic, and it’s telling the fossil fuel companies how much Trump loves them.” an environmental law professor at the University of California who has previously consulted on climate litigation said this week’s lawsuits look “like DoJ grasping at straws” said his agency was seeking to overturn a finding under the Clean Air Act that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare “So on the one hand the US is saying Michigan can’t regulate greenhouse gases because the Clean Air Act does so and therefore pre-empts states from regulating,” Carlson said “On the other hand the US is trying to say that the Clean Air Act should not be used to regulate The Trump administration has aggressively targeted climate policy in the name of fossil fuel investment Federal agencies have announced plans to bolster coal power roll back landmark water and air regulations Community Safety Department Director To Resign Amid Tension With Cambridge Police Department From Lab to Startup: Harvard’s Office of Technology Development Paves the Way for Research Commercialization People’s Forum on Graduation Readiness Held After Vote to Eliminate MCAS 8 Takeaways From Harvard’s Task Force Reports Harvard sued the Trump administration in federal court on Monday over its multibillion dollar cuts to the University’s research funding accusing the White House of undertaking an arbitrary and unconstitutional campaign to “punish Harvard for protecting its constitutional rights.” The move comes just one day after the Trump administration reportedly planned to cut another $1 billion in federal grants and contracts from Harvard, on top of an existing $2.2 billion cut that was announced last week And it sets in motion a historic legal clash as Harvard attempts to combat the Trump administration’s devastating multi-agency campaign to slash the University’s funding in exchange for deep concessions — including federal audits of Harvard’s programs agreements to screen international students for their beliefs and the installation of administrators who will ensure the White House’s demands are carried out “The tradeoff put to Harvard and other universities is clear: Allow the Government to micromanage your academic institution or jeopardize the institution’s ability to pursue medical breakthroughs and innovative solutions,” Harvard’s lawyers wrote in the Monday filing asks for the court to halt and declare unlawful the $2.2 billion freeze as well as any freezes made in connection with “unconstitutional conditions” in the Trump administration’s April 3 and April 11 letters outlining demands to Harvard “We stand for the truth that colleges and universities across the country can embrace and honor their legal obligations and best fulfill their essential role in society without improper government intrusion,” University President Alan M Garber ’76 announced in a message to Harvard affiliates Monday afternoon Harvard accused the administration of unlawfully freezing billions in research funding to pressure the University into restructuring its governance It argued that the freeze violates the First Amendment by “imposing viewpoint-based conditions on Harvard’s funding.” The University also accused federal agencies of bypassing legally required procedures under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, alleging that the Department of Health and Human Services cut off grants without fair legal justification “has nothing at all to do with antisemitism and Title VI compliance.” the Government has ceased the flow of funds to Harvard as part of its pressure campaign to force Harvard to submit to the Government’s control over its academic programs violates Harvard’s constitutional rights,” the lawyers added Garber alleged that the Trump administration’s second — and more aggressive — set of demands on April 11 were part of a campaign against Harvard that used concerns of campus antisemitism as a pretext the law requires that the federal government engage with us about the ways we are fighting and will continue to fight antisemitism,” he wrote the government’s April 11 demands seek to control whom we hire and what we teach.” both lawyers with deep ties to President Donald Trump Hur was appointed to the United States Department of Justice by Trump in his first term and Burck has served as counsel for the Trump Organization Lawyers affiliated with law firms Ropes & Gray and Lehtosky Keller Cohn will also represent Harvard [ Read Harvard’s complaint against the Trump administration. ] The Monday lawsuit names the Department of Education National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Institutes of Health as defendants and HHS have led the charge against Harvard and their heads were listed as signatories on the April 3 and April 11 letters The other departments have cut off grants and contracts to Harvard researchers in the wake of the funding pause In his message to affiliates last Monday, Garber alleged that the White House’s demands were beyond federal authority and could be in violation of the First Amendment and Title VI — a blunt statement that left a courtroom battle between Massachusetts Hall and the White House increasingly likely The lawsuit comes just three days after the New York Times reported that the April 11 letter, which contained a more aggressive set of demands, was sent in error and without authorization The Monday lawsuit is not the first time that Harvard has taken Trump to court. In 2021, former President Lawrence S. Bacow successfully sued the Trump administration over its Covid-era policy barring international students from retaining their visas if they enrolled in virtual classes This is a developing story and will be updated —Staff writer Dhruv T. Patel can be reached at dhruv.patel@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @dhruvtkpatel —Staff writer Grace E. Yoon can be reached at grace.yoon@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @graceunkyoon Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter. Print What does it take to break up a friendship Mary J. Blige is reportedly being sued by stylist Misa Hylton, her best friend for decades, over allegations that the singer undermined her business relationship with rapper Vado. The lawsuit alleges that Blige withheld Vado’s completed album to pressure him into leaving Hylton behind, according to AllHipHop. Music Blige’s new “Good Morning Gorgeous” follows a protracted and painful divorce “I had to do it,” she says of making the album Vado had an agreement with Hylton and her management company But that dispute might be beside the point an attorney for Hylton who spoke Tuesday on “The Latest With Loren LoRosa” podcast Misa wanted to handle the situation amicably with a settlement “It’s unbeknownst to us why Mary J. Blige and her camp completely cut off Miss Hylton,” he told LoRosa, who played the conversation Wednesday on the Breakfast Club. “And I can tell you, this Vado lawsuit isn’t why their friendship died.” Publicists for Blige did not immediately respond to The Times’ request for comment. Hollywood Inc. The music mogul’s sexual mistreatment of women dating back decades was aided and abetted by a complex and vast network of enablers, according to a Times review of court filings and interviews with current and former business associates. Though Ramcharitar didn’t get specific about the reason, he stated that “Misa is confused, and we’ve tried, Misa’s tried, to reach out to Mary. We did not want this in the media. Misa just thought that Mary may have been busy.” However, he said, when calls and texts stopped and Hylton was “not being included in the normal things that they do on a daily, weekly, monthly basis, her antennas went up and we tried to figure out what’s going on here. And that’s really when we started to figure out that the relationship wasn’t the same.” “This is silly,” Charlamagne said. “I mean, for them to be such close friends, like it should never have gotten to this point.” was released on bail after being arrested near Beverly Hills on suspicion of misdemeanor DUI on Sunday morning Hylton is “upset,” her attorney said “There’s a lot going on it’s unfortunate but it affects everybody.” Combs, of course, is sitting behind bars for months now, awaiting trial on sex-trafficking and racketeering charges and more. Hylton is mother to Combs’ son Justin. Blige started off as a Combs protegé. “Misa’s a wonderful woman ... but she’s upset,” Ramcharitar said. “And again, she’s more upset [about] the relationship. It’s like all of a sudden you have a sister you’ve been with forever and 40 years later your sister stops talking to you and you have no reason why.” ‘It is truly agonizing to watch the world turn against my son so quickly,’ she says Charlamagne noted that “you don’t escalate that with a lawsuit.” Later “This is obviously about something else.” “She in her feelings,” co-host Jess Hilarious interjected “is if Charlamagne’s not my friend anymore The $5-million figure appears to be based on work that Blige and Vado had collaborated on successfully, not work Vado released by himself, LoRosa relayed. “‘Why won’t Mary J. Blige just resolve this and put this behind all of us?’” Hylton asked, per LoRosa. “‘That’s the bigger question. Judgment is too easy in this situation. It is shocking. However, this is screaming so many things on so many different levels. Just take a deeper look. God bless and thank you again.’” Christie D’Zurilla is an assistant editor for entertainment news on the Fast Break team. A graduate of USC, she joined the Los Angeles Times in 2003 as a copy editor, started writing about celebrities in 2009 and has more than 34 years of journalism experience in Southern California. California Subscribe for unlimited accessSite Map nonprofits and local governments including Chicago has mounted the broadest legal challenge yet to President Trump's massive overhaul of the federal government the plaintiffs charge that actions taken by the president Elon Musk and the heads of nearly two dozen federal agencies to dramatically downsize the federal workforce violate the Constitution because Congress has not authorized them there can be no real doubt that impacted federal agencies are acting according to the direction being given by President Trump through DOGE referring to the government efficiency team that Musk oversees as well as the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) newly appointed agency heads have explained that they are reorganizing and cutting thousands upon thousands of jobs because the President directed them to and because DOGE told them how much and what to cut." The new complaint goes further, arguing that Trump's Feb. 11 executive order "Implementing the President's 'Department of Government Efficiency' Workforce Optimization Initiative" and actions taken since by his administration to implement it "usurp" Congress' authority under the Constitution noting that "since the founding of the nation federal courts have recognized that the federal agencies are not created by the President," but by Congress which has the sole authority to undertake the kind of wholesale transformation Trump has ordered which is led by Republican allies of Trump has largely chosen to remain silent as the administration fires federal workers shuts down government programs and closes federal buildings Trump has touted these moves as restoring accountability He has repeatedly argued that the American people fraud and inefficiency in the federal government the plaintiffs have asked the court to vacate Trump's executive order along with accompanying memos to agencies issued by OMB and OPM on how to implement the order They have also asked the court to void agencies' "reduction in force" or RIF plans arguing that the compressed timeline — only a matter of weeks — set forth by the Trump administration for submitting those plans for approval could not have allowed for proper compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements The lawsuit takes direct aim at Musk's DOGE which is installing representatives in agencies across the government to direct workforce reductions Congress has not granted DOGE any kind of statutory power the plaintiffs write: "DOGE has no authority at all to dictate to the agencies created and governed by Congress any level of staffing cut or spending reduction." responded to NPR's request for comment on the lawsuit "All of President Trump's executive actions are lawful and intended to deliver on the promises he made to the American people," Fields wrote in a statement "The Trump Administration is prepared to fight these battles in court and will prevail." a 55-year-old corporate professional from Texas is at the center of a disturbing pattern of in-flight sexual assaults that American Airlines is now being sued over Abraham has repeatedly groped women on flights — often during red-eye trips when the cabin is dark — yet was allowed to continue flying until his March 2024 arrest is now accusing the airline of enabling a predator and then failing to protect or support her says she was sexually assaulted by Abraham on April 24 during an overnight flight from San Francisco to Dallas She had boarded the flight to celebrate her son’s new job but says her experience was hijacked by Abraham no one from the flight crew came to her aid,” her attorneys said in a press release With most passengers asleep or wearing headphones unsure how to protect herself and afraid of escalating the situation “In a state of shock,” she remained silent until landing in Dallas where she approached a gate agent and identified Abraham was a second trauma: American Airlines allegedly dismissed her report and blamed her for not speaking up during the flight District Court for the Northern District of California accuses the airline of negligence and “victim-blaming.” American Airlines has since banned Abraham from future flights saying in its statement: “The safety of our customers and team members is our highest priority We take this matter very seriously and are working closely with law enforcement on its investigation.” Copyright © 2022 India West | Developed By Codeblend Labs BALTIMORE — Retired Ravens star Steve Smith Sr is facing a $100,000 civil lawsuit out of North Carolina over an alleged affair Army veteran and former Texas Police officer named Antonio Martinez He accuses Smith of having a sexual relationship with his wife North Carolina state law permits such lawsuits if in court it can be proven that a marriage was on good terms prior to an affair Martinez and Nicole previously lived together in Baltimore County until February when he discovered Smith had been messaging her The lawsuit details how Nicole and Smith first met in September 2024 while the former wide receiver was in Baltimore filming an episode of "The NFL's Most Interesting Jobs with Steve Smith," a television program that aired on NFL Network Nicole was a member of the Baltimore Ravens marching band leading to dozens of messages and phone calls being exchanged Court documents describe their context in great detail including sexually explicit photos and videos Smith allegedly sent of himself Martinez claims to have called Smith to confront him A brief transcript of the phone call are provided in court papers but otherwise remained silent as Martinez yelled expletives at him Martinez said he and Nicole are now separated He's since filed for divorce in Baltimore County The former couple share one child together Martinez says the affair caused "Alienation of Affection," and "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress."