250620.mbx

250620.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, June 20, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 123 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Anders Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Beach Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Caruthers Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Hawthorne Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Lambert Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Mead Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Villareal Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ACACIA NETWORK: Neor Suit Seeks Class Certification ACCEPTANCE NOW: McBurnie Wins Class Certification in Rental Suit ACCIDENT FUND: Porcelli Suit Removed to C.D. California ADVANCED CARRIER: Rivera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ALASKA AIRLINES: Germani Files Suit in California State Court ALLSTATE FIRE: Filing for Class Cert Response Extended to June 20 ARON SECURITY: Ince Files Suit in E.D. New York ASHLEY STEWART: Advertised False Sale Prices, Harrison Alleges AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Finney Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BANK OF AMERICA: Appeals Reconsideration Ruling in Schertzer Suit BEAUTY SOLUTIONS: Faces Liz Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BLAZESOFT LTD: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Gambling Operation BLUE SHIELD: Reotutar Sues Over Data Breach BRADLEY UNIVERSITY: Azab Sues Over Unfair Faculty Terminations BSH HOME: Hedrick Appeals Consumer Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit CALIFORNIA HEALTH: Barnes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CERNER CORPORATION: LaPointe Files Suit in W.D. Missouri. CGB ENTERPRISES: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hayes Due Feb. 16, 2026 CHAPEL OF THE ROSES: Milanes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CITIZEN WATCH: Herrera Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind CLASSY CLOSETS: Branson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages COGIR MANAGEMENT USA: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. COLDWATER INTERNATIONAL: Lewis Sues Over Unlawful Calls COLLEEN & HERB: Loretto Files Labor Suit in California State Court CONTINENTAL MILLS: Faces False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit CROSSROADS EQUIPMENT: Class Settlement in Bolanos Gets Initial Nod CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Conriquez Seeks August 15 Class Cert Deadline CYBERNET ENTERTAINMENT: Faces S.H. Suit for Invasion of Privacy DICKS SPORTING: Ramirez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DIGIMARC CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 7 ECOM AUTHORITY: Campos Files Civil Suit in Texas State Court EL AL: Faces Class Suit Over Airline Ticket Prices' Monopoly EL PESCADOR: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. EMIRATES AND EMIRATES: Farah Suit Seeks Class Certification ENCLOS TENSILE STRUCTURES: Duran Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ETTITUDE HOLDINGS: Lewis Sues Over Unlawful Telephonic Calls F&T FARMS CO: Gonzales Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FARM BUREAU: Hollis Appeals Reconsideration Order to 10th Circuit FELLOW INDUSTRIES: Lewis Sues Over Unlawful Sales Calls FIRST ADVANTAGE: Class Cert Oral Argument in Jones Set for July 23 FIRST STUDENT: Galvan Must File Class Cert Supplemental Briefing FLAGSTAR BANK: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading NYCB Merger Info FLO HEALTH: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Frasco Suit to 9th Cir. FOX NEWS: Faces Class Action Over Automatic Renewal Scheme GAMESTOP INC: Agrees to Settle VPPA Class Suit for $4.5MM GENEDX HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims GENERAL CONFERENCE: Court Refuses to Revive Joseph's Fraud Suit GOOGLE LLC: Monopolizes Android App Distribution Market, Suit Says GREEN DOT: Koffsmon Suit Seeks to Certify Class GREEN DOT: Must File Class Cert Opposition by July 3 HAIR & CO: Court Rejects Solis' ADA Claim Due to Non-Compliance HARBIN CLINIC: Heather Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct. HARBIN CLINIC: Solomon Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct. HARBIN CLINIC: Staples Sues Over Failure to Secure PHI and PII HEALTHEC LLC: $5.48MM Settlement in Lempinen Gets Initial Nod HIRE VELOCITY: Roberts Sues Over Unsecured PII and Data Breach KENT HAMILTON: Ramos Must File Full Versions of Discovery Docs KNOX COUNTY, IL: Amended Bid for Class Cert. Moot LEGAL ANSWER: Underpays Legal Case Consultants, Johnson Says LI AUTO: Faces Securities Class Action Over Misleading Statements LIBERTY MUTUAL: Class Cert. Bid Continued in Cortinas Class Suit LIBERTY MUTUAL: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Hearing LIBERTY MUTUAL: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid in Watts LIMESTONE UNIVERSITY: Fails to Provide Layoff Notice, Ruth Claims LITTLE CAESAR: Cuevas Seeks More Time to File Class Cert LUCAS COUNTY, OH: Upperco Suit Seeks to Extend Class Cert Deadlines MATTHEW WARREN: Vaca Suit Removed to C.D. California MISSOURI: Class Cert Bid Filing in Maldonado Due Oct 30 MNGI DIGESTIVE: Settles Cyberattack Class Suit for $2.8 Million MONAT GLOBAL: Clark Suit Removed to W.D. Washington MONAT GLOBAL: Kreifels Suit Removed to C.D. California MUELLER WATER: Kok Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII MW POLAR: Faces Class Action Over Salmon Products' False Ads NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Silberman Sues Over Pet Insurance Cancellations NIKE INC: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Marketing Emails ONE SOURCE: Agrees to Settle PFAS Class Suit for $2.5 Million OSCAR INSURANCE: Does Not Fully Pay for Diagnostic Breast Imaging PADSPLIT INC: Loban Balks at Unwanted Telemarketing Messages PAPA HOTEL: Faces Hernandez Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination PRACTICE RESOURCES: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $1.5-Mil. SCOSHA W. LLC: Fernandez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind SENSIO INC: Brandon Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit SOCIETE DE TRANSPORT: Class Suit Seeks Damages Due to Strike TEMPUS AI: Faces Shareholders Class Action Lawsuit TESLA AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Autopilot Claims UBER EATS: Charges Hidden Delivery Service Fees, Class Suit Says UCM MEDICAL: Faces Young Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info UNITED STATES: Thakur Sues Over Unlawful Federal Grant Termination URS MIDWEST: Makes Illegal Deductions From Driver's Pay, Suit Says WILSHIRE LAW FIRM: Hudson-Bryant Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Core & Main Still Faces Product Liability Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Defends Exposure Lawsuits ********* 3M COMPANY: Anders Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- James Anders Jr., and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successorin interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-04028-RMG (D.S.C., May 14, 2025), is brought for damages stemming from personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during their firefighting career and diagnosed with Thyroid Disease as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Y. Shenkar, Esq. MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP 101 West Elm St., Suite 520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (803) 315-3357 Fax: (610) 941-9880 Email: jshenkar@bernllp.com 3M COMPANY: Beach Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- James Beach, et al., and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;) DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case No. 2:25-cv-04023-RMG (D.S.C., May 14, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. Turnout gear ("TOG") is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiffs in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiffs were unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiffs to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiffs seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products or TOG products at various locations during the Plaintiffs' training and firefighting activities. Plaintiffs further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during their working careers. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq. John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq. KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC 2 Bridge Ave, Suite 623 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Phone: 732-224-9400 Facsimile: 732-224-9494 3M COMPANY: Caruthers Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- William Caruthers, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-03674-RMG (D.S.C., May 1, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were being exposed to toxic chemicals until the contamination was recently discovered. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or the Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with liver cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF product. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Hawthorne Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- Marquan Hawthorne, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successorin interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-04025-RMG (D.S.C., May 14, 2025), is brought for damages stemming from personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during their firefighting career and diagnosed with Thyroid Disease and High Cholesterol as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Y. Shenkar, Esq. MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP 101 West Elm St., Suite 520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (803) 315-3357 Fax: (610) 941-9880 Email: jshenkar@bernllp.com 3M COMPANY: Lambert Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ------------------------------------------------------------- Nilia Lambert, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successorin interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-04035-RMG (D.S.C., May 14, 2025), is brought for damages stemming from personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during their firefighting career and diagnosed with Thyroid Disease as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Y. Shenkar, Esq. MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP 101 West Elm St., Suite 520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (803) 315-3357 Fax: (610) 941-9880 Email: jshenkar@bernllp.com 3M COMPANY: Mead Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- David Mead, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successorin interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-04032-RMG (D.S.C., May 14, 2025), is brought for damages stemming from personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during their firefighting career and diagnosed with Thyroid Disease and High Cholesterol as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Y. Shenkar, Esq. MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP 101 West Elm St., Suite 520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (803) 315-3357 Fax: (610) 941-9880 Email: jshenkar@bernllp.com 3M COMPANY: Villareal Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ----------------------------------------------------------- Ricky Villareal, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-03686-RMG (D.S.C., May 1, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were being exposed to toxic chemicals until the contamination was recently discovered. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or the Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF product. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com ACACIA NETWORK: Neor Suit Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GIITOU NEOR and TYRONE WALLACE, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. NETWORK, INC., d/b/a ACACIA NETWORK, ACACIA NETWORK HOUSING INC., d/b/a ACACIA NETWORK, PROMESA RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITY, INC., d/b/a PROMESA, and JOHN DOE CORP 1-100, Case No. 1:22-cv-04814-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification. Acacia provides social services such as community groups. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YXVBQd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 ACCEPTANCE NOW: McBurnie Wins Class Certification in Rental Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANNON MCBURNIE, et al., v. ACCEPTANCE NOW, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-01429-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order certifying the following class for the Plaintiffs' claims under the Karnette Act, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and Unfair Competition Law: "All individuals who entered into a Rental-Purchase Agreement with RAC in California at any time between Dec. 11, 2016, and June 30, 2021 and who were charged a Processing Fee." The Plaintiffs Shannon McBurnie and April Spruell are appointed class representatives. Attorneys Zach Dostart of Dostart Hannink LLP and Michael Rubin of Altshuler Berzon LLP are appointed lead class counsel. The Plaintiffs are ordered to submit by June 30, 2025, a proposed plan for dissemination of notice to the class. The Plaintiffs will meet and confer with RAC at least 10 days in advance of submitting the plan so that the proposal can be submitted on a joint basis to the fullest extent possible. For the remaining case schedule, the last day to file dispositive and FRE 702 motions is set for Oct. 9, 2025. A pretrial conference is set for Jan. 15, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. A jury trial is set for January 26, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. To rent the goods, all RAC customers must sign a Rental Purchase Agreement (RPA), which includes a $45.00 processing fee. The Plaintiffs challenge the imposition of the processing fee as unlawful under the Karnette Act, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the Unfair Competition Law, and ask to pursue these claims on behalf of a class certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). AcceptanceNow is a lease-to-own company that partners with retailers to provide customers with a way to purchase merchandise with a lease agreement. A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yUNmOX at no extra charge.[CC] ACCIDENT FUND: Porcelli Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Madison Porcelli, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Accident Fund Holdings, Inc. doing business as: www.compwestinsurance.com, Case No. 25STCV08626 was removed from the Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 2, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-03920-SK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Accident Fund -- https://www.accidentfund.com/ -- offers workers' compensation insurance policies, loss control consulting, and risk management services to businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. David W. Reid, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC 4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com dreid@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: Matthew D. Pearson, Esq. WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON US LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 900 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7221 Phone: (714) 754-6600 Fax: (714) 754-6611 Email: Matthew.Pearson@wbd-us.com ADVANCED CARRIER: Rivera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advanced Carrier Services, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Trevon Lamont Rivera, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and the general public v. Advanced Carrier Services, LLC, Amazon Logistics, Inc., Does 1 through 50, Case No. 25CV010611 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 1, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Advanced Carrier Services -- https://advancedcarrierservicesllc.com/ -- offers end-to-end logistics and transportation solutions tailored to clients ranging from small businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Keledjian, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd., Ste. 840 Glendale, CA 91203-2920 Phone: 818-962-6465 Email: d.keledjian@d.law ALASKA AIRLINES: Germani Files Suit in California State Court ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alaska Airlines, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as BERNIE GERMANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALASKA AIRLINES, INC., et al., Case No. CGC25625776 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., May 30, 2025). A case management conference is set for October 29, 2025, before Judge Rochelle East. The case type is stated as other non-exempt complaints. Alaska Airlines, Inc. is an American airline headquartered in SeaTac, Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicolas Wall Schieffenlin, Esq. EMPLAW, LLP 2235 Encinitas Boulevard, Suite 210 Encinitas, CA 92024 Telephone: (760) 942-9433 ALLSTATE FIRE: Filing for Class Cert Response Extended to June 20 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sims, et al., v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-00580 (W.D. Tex., Filed June 2, 2022), the Hon. Judge Jason K. Pulliam entered an order granting the Defendants' unopposed motion for two-week extension of deadline to file response to plaintiffs' opposed motion for class certification, appointment of class representative, and appointment of class counsel, to June 20, 2025. The nature of suit states Insurance -- Diversity-Contract Dispute. Allstate Fire operates as an insurance firm.[CC] ARON SECURITY: Ince Files Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aron Security Inc., et al. The case is styled as Kelcey Ince, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Aron Security Inc. doing business as: Arrow Security, Mark Bowen, Case No. 1:25-cv-02467-NGG-PK (E.D.N.Y., May 3, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights. Aron Security Inc. doing business as Arrow Security -- https://arrowsecurity.com/ -- is a premier security services company offering exceptional armed/unarmed guarding, protective services, corporate investigations, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jazly Liriano, Esq. Alex Michael Rissmiller, Esq. RISSMILLER PLLC 5 Pennsylvania Plaza, 19th Floor New York, NY 10001 Phone: (646) 248-7811 Email: jliriano@rissmiller.com arissmiller@rissmiller.com ASHLEY STEWART: Advertised False Sale Prices, Harrison Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- Brenda Harrison and Sandra Pickens, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Ashley Stewart, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-01349 (C.D. Cal., June 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, quasi-contract/unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation, and violation of the California's False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant lists purported regular prices and advertises purported limited time sales offering steep discounts from those listed regular prices, for example "50% OFF Sitewide." The Defendant also advertises that the sales are limited in time, by using language like "LAST DAY" and "TONIGHT ONLY." Far from being time -- limited, however, steep discounts on each of Defendant's products are nearly always available. As a result, everything about Defendant's price and purported discount advertising is false. The list prices Defendant advertises are not actually Defendant's regular prices, because Defendant's products are consistently available for less than that. The purported discounts Defendant advertises are not the true discount the customer is receiving, and are often not a discount at all. Nor are the purported discounts limited time -- quite the opposite, they are available almost constantly. Had Defendant been truthful, Plaintiffs and other consumers like them would not have purchased the Products, or would have paid less for them, says the suit. Ashley Stewart, Inc. makes, sells, and markets clothing and accessories. The Products are sold online through Defendant's website, ashleystewart.com, and in brick-and-mortar stores.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christin Cho, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: christin@dovel.com simon@dovel.com AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Finney Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avalonbay Communities, Inc. The case is styled as David Finney, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Avalonbay Communities, Inc., Case No. 25STCV13093 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 2, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." AvalonBay -- https://www.avaloncommunities.com/ -- is a leading multifamily real estate investment trust (REIT).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Mickelson, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MATTHEW C. MICKELSON 16055 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 1230 Encino, CA 91436-2627 Phone: 818-382-3360 Email: matthew@mickelsonlegal.com BANK OF AMERICA: Appeals Reconsideration Ruling in Schertzer Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- BANK OF AMERICA, NA is taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part its motion for reconsideration in the lawsuit entitled Kristen Schertzer, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bank of America, NA, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00264-DMS-MSB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this consumer class action seeks to challenge Bank of America's systematic practice of charging more than its promised rate of 3 percent when it assesses International Transaction Fees on its customers' international debit card transactions. On Nov. 8, 2024, Plaintiff Brittany Covell filed a renewed motion to certify class, which Judge Dana M. Sabraw granted on Feb. 19, 2025. On Mar. 12, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration the Feb. 19 Order to certify class, which Judge Sabraw granted in part and denied in part on May 20, 2025. The Court redefines the class as: "Defendant Bank of America checking account holders in the United States who were assessed more than one OON balance inquiry fee during the same visit to a FCTI, Inc.-owned ATM located in a 7-Eleven store from May 1, 2018, to Nov. 16, 2021, and who did not make a valid claim and receive payment in Weiss." Because the settlement agreement is confidential, the Court will not specify further on the record. Should Defendant wish to learn the nature of FCTI's consideration, it may do so with the Plaintiff's and FCTI's permission. The settlement agreement may also be reviewed in camera by any reviewing court, if necessary. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion for Reconsideration on grounds of the Plaintiff's settlement with FCTI is denied. The extent to which individuals' damages would be offset by their failure to mitigate could thus be determined at a later date. Accordingly, the Defendant's failure to mitigate defense does not defeat predominance. The Defendant's motion for reconsideration due to predominance concerns is granted in part and denied in part. The Court denies the Defendant's motion for reconsideration of Weiss' effect on superiority and adequacy. The appellate case is captioned Schertzer, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 25-3487, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 3, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents KRISTEN SCHERTZER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Todd David Carpenter, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 9171 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 180 San Diego, CA 92122 - and - Jae Kook Kim, Esq. Tiffine Malamphy, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 117 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 600 Pasadena, CA 91105 Defendant-Petitioner BANK OF AMERICA, NA is represented by: Amanda L. Groves, Esq. Shawn R. Obi, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue, 38th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 - and - Scott P. Glauberman, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 BEAUTY SOLUTIONS: Faces Liz Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- PEDRO LIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Beauty Solutions, Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04608 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2025) is a civil rights action against Beauty Solutions for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://retinoltreatment.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Beauty Solutions' policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Beauty Solutions, Ltd. operates the website that offers skincare products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com BLAZESOFT LTD: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Gambling Operation --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that three consumers in two separate lawsuits are suing Blazesoft Ltd., Blazegames Inc., SSPC LLC d/b/a Sportzino, SCPS LLC d/b/a Zula Casino and Social Gaming LLC d/b/a Fortune Coins. Why: The plaintiffs allege that the online gaming companies are illegal gambling operations. Where: The class action lawsuits were filed in Illinois and New York federal courts. Two new class action lawsuits allege that an umbrella of online gaming companies are illegally operating unregulated internet casinos under the guise of "free-to-play sweepstakes." Plaintiffs Vincent Ambrosia Jr. and Robert Houpt in Illinois and Autumn Boatner in New York accuse Blazesoft and its affiliated platforms -- Sportzino, Zula Casino and Fortune Coins -- of deceiving users into real-money gambling through unlawful dual-currency systems. The lawsuits claim that the defendants lure consumers to their platforms by falsely marketing them as free-to-play "sweepstakes" casinos when, in reality, they operate as unregulated gambling traps where users wager and lose real money playing virtual slot machines and other casino-style games over the internet. The lawsuits were filed on Feb. 19 in Illinois federal court and on April 18 in New York federal court. The Blazesoft class action lawsuits argue that customers can purchase "Gold Coins" and "Sweeps Coins" (or "Fortune Coins") to wager on games of chance and redeem for cash. Plaintiffs argue this setup is a deceptive mask for illegal online gambling, designed to evade strict state laws that prohibit unlicensed wagering over the internet. The lawsuits claim that this violates gambling laws by effectively offering real-money slot machines, bingo and other chance-based games outside of regulated casinos. Additionally, they claim that the platforms fail to enforce age restrictions and do not provide required consumer protections or addiction resources mandated by state laws. Lawsuits allege companies are 'sham' entities that use aggressive advertising The Blazesoft class action lawsuits claim that affiliate companies Blazegames, Social Gaming, Sportzino and Zula Casino are "sham" entities registered in Delaware but operated entirely from Ontario, Canada. Plaintiffs accuse Blazesoft of exercising total control over all three platforms and using aggressive social media advertising and mobile accessibility to lure consumers, particularly vulnerable and young users, into spending large sums under the guise of entertainment. "Defendants' misconduct inflicts particularly severe harm on vulnerable populations, including individuals predisposed to gambling addiction and younger consumers targeted through 'free play' marketing," the lawsuits claim. Boatner claims Blazesoft is guilty of unjust enrichment and violating New York's Loss Recovery Statute and General Business Law. Ambrosia and Houpt claim the defendants are guilty of violating the Illinois Loss Recovery Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The plaintiffs seek restitution of funds spent on the platforms, monetary damages, declaratory and injunctive relief and court certification of their proposed class actions to represent similarly harmed consumers. Meanwhile, a recent lawsuit accuses gambling company DraftKings of pushing legal boundaries, while another alleges Stake.us runs an illegal online casino in Illinois. Have you played casino games on the Blazesoft platforms? Let us know in the comments. Plaintiffs Ambrosia and Houpt are represented by J. Eli Wade-Scott, Michael Ovca, Hannah Hilligoss and Ari J. Scharg of Edelson P.C. Plaintiff Boatner is represented by Matthew S. Tripolitsiotis of Burns Charest LLP and J. Eli Wade-Scott, Michael Ovca, Hannah Hilligoss and Ari J. Scharg of Edelson P.C. The Blazesoft class action lawsuits are Boatner v. SSPS LLC, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-03251, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and Ambrosia, et al. v. Blazesoft Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01723, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. [GN] BLUE SHIELD: Reotutar Sues Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------- Robert Reotutar and Puria Keshmiri, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE d/b/a BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, Case No. 25CV121379 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., May 1, 2025), is brought arising from a data breach seeking damages for the injuries that Defendant's negligence and statutory violations have caused and will cause, as well as injunctive relief to ensure that the data Defendant continues to store will be protected by reasonable data security practices going forward. The Defendant manages and maintains medical records as part of its business operations, lost control over highly sensitive protected health information ("PHI") in a cybersecurity breach ("Data Breach"). Despite recognizing the risk that security breaches pose to the information it maintains in its systems, and its responsibility to quickly warn them about data breaches, Blue Shield failed to implement reasonable security measures to safeguard PHI. Blue Shield failed its responsibilities. As set forth in the notice Blue Shield provided to its customers on or about April 4, 2025, Blue Shield configured its own website in a manner that allowed Google to harvest PHI from Blue Shield customers. This information was used by Google to target advertisements to Blue Shield customers based on their medical conditions and other private information. Thus, this is not a normal data breach case where some third-party unlawfully accessed PHI in the possession of a custodian; Blue Shield handed the PHI they should have been protecting to a third party, to be used in a manner not to the benefit of its customers and for no reasonable medical purpose, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are Blue Shield of California customer. The Defendant is a health insurance provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq. BRONSTEIN GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 4200 Regent Street, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43219 Phone: (614) 578-5582 Email: mboyle@bgandg.com BRADLEY UNIVERSITY: Azab Sues Over Unfair Faculty Terminations -------------------------------------------------------------- Marian Azab, Julia Gonzalez Calderon, Thomas Carty, Mark Johlke, Carmen Keist, Samantha Kirk, David Olds, Tyler Smith, Mathew Timm, and Daniel Yee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and the American Association of University Professors, Bradley University Chapter; Plaintiffs v. Bradley University, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01223-JEH-RLH (C.D. Ill., June 4, 2025) arises from the alleged unlawful termination of the employment of dozens of faculty members of Bradley University in December 2023. According to the complaint, through the faculty terminations, the administration eliminated programs, terminated faculty appointments, and violated faculty rights of governance and due process while refusing to consider non-academic cuts recommended by the Faculty Members of the Senate Executive Committee and failing to eliminate inefficiencies and excessive spending in the senior administration's bureaucracy. The Plaintiffs are a) individual faculty members and putative class representatives whose employment was terminated, b) an individual faculty member and putative class representative who was precluded from participating in the shared governance of the institution, and c) an association of faculty members whose ability to protect and further faculty academic freedom, due process rights, and shared governance is severely limited due to the faculty terminations. The Plaintiffs seek reinstatement (if desired) and compensation for lost wages for all terminated faculty members, a declaration that the Faculty Handbook precludes the Bradley administration from making unilateral changes to faculty status and academic programs, a declaration that the Bradley administration breached the Faculty Handbook through the faculty terminations, and injunctive relief in the form of a stay on the decision to eliminate academic programs until the faculty has been permitted to exercise its contractual role in decisions regarding academic programs. Bradley University is a private, not-for-profit organization properly recognized and sanctioned by the laws of the State of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rima Najjar Kapitan, Esq. KAPITAN GOMAA LAW, P.C. P.O. Box 46503 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 566-9590 E-mail: rima@kapitangomaa.com - and - M. Nieves Bolanos, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL 111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 224-2423 E-mail: mnbolanos@hq-law.com BSH HOME: Hedrick Appeals Consumer Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT HEDRICK, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Robert Hedrick, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BSH Home Appliances Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-00358-JWH-JDE, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs bring this complaint against the Defendant for alleged false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of gas stoves. On Aug. 23, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which Judge John W. Holcomb granted on Apr. 28, 2025. The case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Judgment is entered in favor of the Defendant. The appellate case is captioned Hedrick, et al. v. BSH Home Appliances Corporation, Case No. 25-3471, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 2, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on June 9, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on July 14, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on August 13, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants ROBERT HEDRICK, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Richard Elgar Lyon, III, Esq. Simon Carlo Franzini, Esq. Jonas Bram Jacobson, Esq. Gabriel Zachiah Doble, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Defendant-Appellee BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION is represented by: Emily Tomoko Kuwahara, Esq. CROWELL & MORING, LLP 515 S. Flower Street, 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 - and - Rebecca Baden Chaney, Esq. Scott L. Winkelman, Esq. CROWELL & MORING, LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 CALIFORNIA HEALTH: Barnes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Health Benefit Exchange. The case is styled as Alizea Barnes, on behalf of others similarly situated v. California Health Benefit Exchange, aka Covered California, Case No. 25CV010817 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 1, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death." California Health Benefit Exchange also known as Covered California -- https://www.coveredca.com/ -- is the health insurance marketplace in the US state of California established under the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Swigart, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (866) 219-3343 Fax: (866) 219-8344 Email: josh@swigartlawgroup.com CERNER CORPORATION: LaPointe Files Suit in W.D. Missouri. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cerner Corporation. The case is styled as Martha LaPointe, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Cerner Corporation doing business as: Oracle Health, Union Health System, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-00313-BP (W.D. Mo., May 1, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Cerner Corporation doing business as Oracle Health -- https://www.oracle.com/ -- is a US-based, multinational provider of health information technology platforms and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Brandon Wise, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP One US Bank Plaza, Suite 1950 St Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 833-4827 Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com The Defendant is represented by: Patrick Nathaniel Fanning, Esq. LATHROP GPM LLP 2345 Grand Avenue, Suite 2200 Kansas City, MO 64108-2618 Phone: (816) 292-2000 Email: patrick.fanning@lathropgpm.com CGB ENTERPRISES: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hayes Due Feb. 16, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hayes v. CGB Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-03296 (C.D. Ill., Filed Oct. 11, 2023), the Hon. Judge Sue E. Myerscough entered an order that: -- Any motions for class certification due by Feb. 16, 2026, and will be briefed simultaneously with any dispositive motions. -- The Final Pretrial Conference and Trial dates are vacated and will be reset, if necessary, after the dispositive motion deadline has passed. -- A telephonic Status Conference set 8/7/2025 at 10:00 a.m. before Judge Doug Quivey. The nature of suit states Other Contract. CGB provides agricultural services.[CC] CHAPEL OF THE ROSES: Milanes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chapel of the Roses Mortuary, et al. The case is styled as Jesus Jorge Milanes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and the general public v. Chapel of the Roses Mortuary, Los Osos Valley Memorial Park, Inc., S.E. Combined Services of California, Inc., SCI Shared Services, Inc., SCI SHARED SERVICES LLC, Case No. 25STCV13047 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 1, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Chapel of the Roses Mortuary is a funeral home in Atascadero, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Keledjian, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd., Ste. 840 Glendale, CA 91203-2920 Phone: 818-962-6465 Email: d.keledjian@d.law CITIZEN WATCH: Herrera Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- EDERY HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITIZEN WATCH COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04632 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://us.frederiqueconstant.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on May 16, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Classics Moneta Moonphase Watch from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. He was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Citizen Watch Company of America, Inc. operates the website that offers consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about its watches.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal CLASSY CLOSETS: Branson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Gary Branson, Steven Pena, Paul Acevedo, filing individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Classy Closets, Etc., Inc. an Arizona Corporation; and Duane Standage and Jill Standage, husband and wife, Case No. 2:25-cv-01511-SMB (D. Ariz., May 2, 2025), is brought arising from the illegal employment actions of Defendant involving violations of the overtime wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiffs and the Collective Action Group members were improperly classified by Defendants as exempt employees and not paid the overtime wages rightly due them in violation of the FLSA. The Plaintiffs and the Collective Action Group members did not rightly qualify for any of the exemptions to the payment of overtime wages outlined in the FLSA. This violation of the FLSA by Defendants was willful and taken in bad faith. The Plaintiffs and the Collective Action Group members were also required by Defendants to periodically work off-the-clock without compensation and perform labor for the benefit of Defendants. The Defendants' failure to properly pay overtime wages to Plaintiffs and the Collective Action Group members was for the purpose of unjustly enriching themselves. As a result, Plaintiffs and the Collective Action Group members have suffered significant economic damages in an amount to be proved at trial, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants. Classy Closets conducts extensive manufacturing and fabrication operations at this same location.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Pruitt, Esq. JACKSON WHITE, ATTORNEY AT LAW 40 North Center Street, Suite 200 Mesa, Arizona 85201 Phone: (480) 464-1111 Fax: (480) 464-5692 Email: centraldocket@jacksonwhitelaw.com mpruitt@jacksonwhitelaw.com COGIR MANAGEMENT USA: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cogir Management USA Inc., et al. The case is styled as Alma Rosa Rodriguez, Shakeima Freeman, and all others similarly situated v. Cogir Management USA Inc., Does 1-50, Case No. 25CV010769 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 2, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Cogir Management USA Inc. -- https://cogirusa.com/ -- offers a variety of senior living services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Melmed, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP P.C. 1801 Century Park E, Ste. 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2346 Phone: 310-824-3828 Fax: 310-862-6851 Email: jm@melmedlaw.com COLDWATER INTERNATIONAL: Lewis Sues Over Unlawful Calls ------------------------------------------------------- Adam Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COLDWATER INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Case No. CACE-25-006605 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., May 4, 2025), is brought for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations Of the Caller ID Rules, Fla. Stat. Of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA"). In direct contravention of the Caller ID Rules, however, many callers, such as Defendant, make Telephonic Sales Calls a central part of their marketing strategy, and in doing so, intentionally transmit telephone numbers to recipient's Caller ID services that are not capable of receiving telephone calls. As such, Plaintiff, brings this action alleging that Defendant violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number that was not capable of receiving phone calls when it made Telephonic Sales Calls by text message ("Text Message Sales Calls"). Specifically, Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that promoted Coldwater Creek ("Coldwater Creek Text Message Sales Calls") and violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is the regular user of a cellular telephone number that receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls. Coldwater International, LLC, is registered as a Foreign Limited Liability Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Phone: (202) 709-5744 Fax: (866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com COLLEEN & HERB: Loretto Files Labor Suit in California State Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Colleen & Herb Enterprises, Inc. The case is captioned as HENRY LORETTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COLLEEN & HERB ENTERPRISES, INC., Case No. 25CV124773 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., May 28, 2025). A case management conference is set for September 29, 2025, before Judge Somnath Raj. The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged employment violation. Colleen & Herb Enterprises, Inc. is a machining, welding, and fabrication company located in Fremont, California. [BN] CONTINENTAL MILLS: Faces False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Michele Tucker filed a class action lawsuit against Continental Mills Inc. Why: Tucker claims the company falsely advertises its Krusteaz Cinnamon Swirl Crumb Cake & Muffin Mix as containing no artificial preservatives. Where: The Krusteaz class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit claims Continental Mills falsely advertises its Krusteaz Cinnamon Swirl Crumb Cake & Muffin Mix as containing no artificial preservatives. Plaintiff Michele Tucker filed the Krusteaz class action complaint against Continental Mills Inc. on April 24 in California federal court, alleging violations of state consumer protection laws. Tucker claims the packaging for Krusteaz Cinnamon Swirl Crumb Cake & Muffin Mix states it contains "no artificial flavors, colors or preservatives." However, the product contains silicon dioxide, which is an artificial preservative, the Krusteaz class action alleges. Tucker argues that Continental Mills uses the "no artificial preservatives" claim to mislead consumers into paying a premium for the product, believing they are buying a healthier option. Packaging and labeling deceptive, Krusteaz class action claims "Defendant's packaging, labeling and advertising scheme is intended to give consumers the belief that they are buying a premium product that abides by the representation," the Krusteaz class action states. Tucker claims she purchased the Krusteaz product at a Vons store in Menifee, California, for about $4 per package, relying on the "no artificial preservatives" statement on the front of the packaging. She says she would not have purchased the product or would have paid less for it had she known it contained silicon dioxide. The Krusteaz class action lawsuit asserts claims for violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law and breach of express warranty. Tucker is seeking certification of the class action, damages, restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs. In related news, consumers recently filed two class action lawsuits accusing Target of falsely advertising its Good & Gather pasta sauces as free from artificial preservatives, even though they contain synthetic citric acid. The plaintiffs are represented by Craig W. Straub and Kurt D. Kessler of Crosner Legal P.C. The Krusteaz class action lawsuit is Tucker v. Continental Mills Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-01013, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division. [GN] CROSSROADS EQUIPMENT: Class Settlement in Bolanos Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Omar Bolanos and Caren Luke v. Crossroads Equipment Lease and Finance, LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-00552-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered an order as follows: 1. The Agreement is preliminarily approved as potentially fair, reasonable, and adequate for members of the settlement class. 2. The following Settlement Class is certified for settlement purposes only: "All individuals residing in the United States to whom the Defendant sent a notice concerning the Security Incident." 3. The Court appoints Scott Edelsberg of Edelsberg Law, P.A. and Raina Borrelli of Straus Borrelli PLLC to serve as counsel on behalf of the Settlement Class for purposes of settlement only. 4. The Plaintiffs Omar Bolanos and Caren Luke are appointed as the representatives of the Settlement Class for purposes of settlement only. 5. The Court appoints Epiq as the settlement administrator. 6. The Final Approval Hearing shall be held on Monday, Nov. 17, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division, located at 3470 12th Street, Riverside, California 92501. 7. The June 9, 2025 hearing is vacated. The Court concludes that, for purposes of settlement, common questions regarding Crossroads’ alleged misconduct and the resultant harm to Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Members predominate over individualized issues. The Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Members share common questions of law and fact arising from the same April 2023 Security Incident and Defendant’s security policies and response affected all Settlement Class Members in the same way. (Motion at 11.) The Court is satisfied that the common questions predominate. The Agreement provides $425,000 for a class of 24,182, which equates to a value of $17.58 per Class Member. Crossroads is a transportation equipment leasing company based in California. A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w0Tq5a at no extra charge.[CC] CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Conriquez Seeks August 15 Class Cert Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as FERNANDO CONRIQUEZ, JACOB MICHAEL BRYANT, and ANTHONY PORTS, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, v. CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD U.S., INC., a Missouri corporation; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; a California corporation; C&W FACILITY SERVICES, INC., a California corporation; INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-02734-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order regarding class certification deadlines: -- Class Certification Motion Due: Aug. 15, 2025 -- Class Certification Opposition Due: Sept. 30, 2025 -- Class Certification Reply Due: Nov. 10, 2025 On March 27, 2024, the Parties filed a joint scheduling proposal regarding Class Certification. On April 3, 2024 the Court adopted the joint scheduling proposal. On April 4, 2025, the Parties filed a joint stipulation to continue class certification deadlines due to pre-certification class data production, including discrepancies and data gaps. Cushman is an American global commercial real estate services firm. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jwAALe at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Joshua D. Boxer, Esq. Clare E. Moran, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 2101 E. El Segundo Blvd., Suite 403 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-190 E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com jboxer@maternlawgroup.com cmoran@maternlawgroup.com - and - Ronald W. Makarem, Esq. Daniel J. Bass, Esq. MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES APLC 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2440 Los Angeles, CA 90025-1760 Telephone: (310) 312-0299; Facsimile: (310) 312-0296 E-mail: makarem@law-rm.com bass@law-rm.com The Defendants are represented by: John R. Giovannone, Esq. Chanjarit Singh, Esq. CDF LABOR LAW LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 5150 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 612-6300 E-mail: jgiovannone@cdflaborlaw.com lwang@cdflaborlaw.com - and - Torey Joseph Favarote, Esq. GLEASON & FAVAROTE, LLP 4014 Long Beach Blvd., Suite 300 Long Beach, CA 90807 Telephone: (213) 452-0510 Facsimile: (213) 452-0514 E-mail: tfavarote@gleasonfavarote.com CYBERNET ENTERTAINMENT: Faces S.H. Suit for Invasion of Privacy --------------------------------------------------------------- S.H. and C.C. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CYBERNET ENTERTAINMENT LLC d/b/a KINK.COM. Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-04682 (N.D. Cal., June 3, 2025) asserts statutory and common law claims against Defendant for invasion of privacy; breach of confidence; negligence; breach of implied contract; and violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the New York General Business Law, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs used Defendant's website, www.kink.com, to privately view pornographic media from the comfort of their own homes. Given the confidential nature of pornography usage -- and particularly fetish pornography usage -- when Plaintiffs used the website, they assumed that Kink would do its utmost to keep their use of its service private. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and other visitors to the website, Kink does not keep sensitive information about their website visitors private. Instead, the Defendant collects and transmits information related to individuals' use of the website, including the specific pornographic videos that they watch, to third party advertisers, including Alphabet Inc. (Google), through the use of surreptitious online tracking tools, says the suit. The Defendant never obtained informed consent from Plaintiffs or Class Members to share the sensitive information it collects with third parties, let alone with Google, the largest advertiser and compiler of user information in the world, the suit contends. Cybernet Entertainment LLC, d/b/a Kink.com, was founded in 1998. The Company produces theatrical and nontheatrical motion pictures and video tapes.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Connett, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 S. Flower Street, Ste. 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (772) 783-8436 E-mail: mconnett@sirillp.com - and - Mason A. Barney, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Sonjay C. Singh, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (772) 783-8436 E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com ssingh@sirillp.com DICKS SPORTING: Ramirez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dicks Sporting Goods, Inc. The case is styled as Tony Ramirez, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employee v. Dicks Sporting Goods, Inc., Case No. 25CV124393 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., May 23, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. -- https://www.dickssportinggoods.com/ -- is an American chain of sporting goods stores founded in 1948 by Richard "Dick" Stack.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karen Gold, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-439-5208 Email: kgold@blackstonepc.com DIGIMARC CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 7 ------------------------------------------------------------- The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of Digimarc Corporation (NASDAQ: DMRC). Shareholders who purchased shares of DMRC 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. For more information, visit link: https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/digimarc-corporation-loss-submission-form-2/?id=152570&from=4 CLASS PERIOD: May 3, 2024 to February 26, 2025 ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period, Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) a large commercial partner would not renew a large contract on the same terms; (2) as a result, Digimarc would renegotiate the large commercial contract; (3) based on this renegotiation, the Company's subscription revenue and annual recurring revenue would be adversely affected; (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading or lacked a reasonable basis. DEADLINE: July 7, 2025 Shareholders should not delay in registering for this class action. Register your information here: https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/digimarc-corporation-loss-submission-form-2/?id=152570&from=4 NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who purchased shares of DMRC 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 July 7, 2025. There is no cost or obligation to you to participate in this case. WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? 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, fraud, and illegal business practices. 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. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: The Gross Law Firm 15 West 38th Street, 12th floor New York, NY, 10018 Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com Phone: (646) 453-8903 [GN] ECOM AUTHORITY: Campos Files Civil Suit in Texas State Court ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ecom Authority, LLC. The case is captioned as OMAR CAMPOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ECOM AUTHORITY, LLC, Case No. 2025DCV2469 (Tex. D.C., El Paso Cty., May 28, 2025). The case type is stated as other civil. Ecom Authority, LLC is a wholesaler doing business in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfonso Kennard, Jr., Esq. KENNARD LAW PC 5120 Woodway Dr., Suite 10010 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 742-0900 EL AL: Faces Class Suit Over Airline Ticket Prices' Monopoly ------------------------------------------------------------ Annabel Sinclair, writing for Jewish News, reports that El Al is facing a class action lawsuit accusing it of price gouging during the aftermath of the 7 October attacks, with claims the airline exploited its monopoly to hike ticket prices while most foreign carriers suspended operations. Filed Tuesday, June 10, in the Lod District Court, the lawsuit alleges El Al's pricing practices during the wartime period caused consumer damages estimated at NIS 600 million (£128m) by the end of Q1 2024. The legal team is seeking over NIS 2.5 million in compensation as a first step. Attorney Ilan Verednikov, along with lawyers Tal Rotman and Adi Zitron of Perl Cohen, argue El Al raised prices immorally and unlawfully during a national crisis. Former competition commissioner Prof. David Gilo submitted an economic analysis supporting the claim, stating that on 20 of 24 key routes, El Al held a dominant share, and the price hikes could not be justified by rising costs -- which in fact dropped while profits soared. El Al is facing a class action lawsuit accusing it of price gouging during the aftermath of the 7 October attacks, with claims the airline exploited its monopoly to hike ticket prices while most foreign carriers suspended operations. Filed in the Lod District Court, the lawsuit alleges El Al's pricing practices during the wartime period caused consumer damages estimated at NIS 600 million (£128m) by the end of Q1 2024. The legal team is seeking over NIS 2.5 million in compensation as a first step. Attorney Ilan Verednikov, along with lawyers Tal Rotman and Adi Zitron of Perl Cohen, argue El Al raised prices immorally and unlawfully during a national crisis. Former competition commissioner Prof. David Gilo submitted an economic analysis supporting the claim, stating that on 20 of 24 key routes, El Al held a dominant share, and the price hikes could not be justified by rising costs -- which in fact dropped while profits soared. El Al posted a £434 million net profit in 2024 -- nearly five times its 2023 figure of £89 million. The lawsuit claims this was largely driven by fare increases, with average ticket prices rising 14.2 percent year-on-year. The airline has not yet formally responded in court but said it would do so "in accordance with regulations". The company complied and continues to comply with judicial instructions, including relating to flight prices," it said in a statement. CEO Dina Ben Tal Ganancia told Globes in November: "We raised fares much less than everyone thinks. Alternatives like low-cost options don't currently exist at Ben-Gurion Airport." The suit also notes that El Al's stock value rose sharply, senior executives received pay increases -- including a 10.2 percent raise for Ganancia -- and staff were awarded £81 million in bonuses. Verednikov argued that the airline's conduct undermined public solidarity during a national trauma and called on the court to ensure excess profits are returned to the public. Israel's Competition Authority and Consumer Protection and Fair-Trade Authority have launched investigations, though they cannot secure consumer restitution. [GN] EL PESCADOR: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against EL PESCADOR #16, INC., et al. The case is styled as Liliana Janeth Maciel Sanchez, an individual, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated v. EL PESCADOR #16 INC., EL PESCADOR #10 INC., EL PESCADOR #12 INC., EL PESCADOR #2 INC., EL PESCADOR #6 INC., ORTIZ ALEJANDRO, Case No. 25STCV15307 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 23, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." El Pescador -- https://elpescadorontario.com/ -- is Restaurant Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Orion S. Robinson, Esq. ROBINSON DI LANDO 801 S Grand Ave, Ste 500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-4633 Phone: 213-229-0100 Fax: 213-229-0114 Email: orobinson@rdwlaw.com EMIRATES AND EMIRATES: Farah Suit Seeks Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAYENAT FARAH, CHARLOTTE ARMSTRONG, VIOLET SIMPSON, and MONIQUE TACKLING, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and SARAH CAMMARATA, as successor in interest to Joseph Cammarata, v. EMIRATES and EMIRATES SEVERANCE PLAN, Case No. 1:21-cv-05786-LTS-SN (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court before Hon. Laura Taylor Swain, for an Order: (1) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 granting class certification for the ERISA Class, NY WARN Act Class, Discrimination Class, New York State Discrimination Sub- Class, and New York City Discrimination Sub-Class, (2) certifying Plaintiffs as class representatives, (3) appointing Plaintiffs’ counsel Brustein Law PLLC, Risman & Risman, P.C., and Renaker Scott LLP, as class counsel; and (4) granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xaAJse at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kirsten Scott, Esq. Teresa Renaker, Esq. RENAKER SCOTT LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 1125 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 653-1733 E-mail: kirsten@renakerscott.com teresa@renakerscott.com - and - Evan Brustein, Esq. BRUSTEIN LAW PLLC 299 Broadway, Suite 800 New York, NY, 10007 Telephone: (212) 233-3900 E-mail: evan@brusteinlaw.com - and - Maya Risman, Esq. RISMAN & RISMAN, P.C. 233 Broadway, Suite 2707 New York, NY 10279 Telephone: (212) 233-6400 E-mail: mrisman@risman-law.com ENCLOS TENSILE STRUCTURES: Duran Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enclos Tensile Structures, Inc. The case is styled as Juan Duran, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Enclos Tensile Structures, Inc., Case No. 25STCV15270 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 23, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Enclos Tensile Structures -- https://ets-na.com/ -- is an award-winning design-build contractor specializing in the design and construction of tensile membrane structures.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 725 South Figueroa St., 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com ETTITUDE HOLDINGS: Lewis Sues Over Unlawful Telephonic Calls ------------------------------------------------------------ Adam Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ETTITUDE HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. CACE-25-006602 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., May 3, 2025), is brought for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations Of the Caller ID Rules, Fla. Stat. Of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA"). In direct contravention of the Caller ID Rules, however, many callers, such as Defendant, make Telephonic Sales Calls a central part of their marketing strategy, and in doing so, intentionally transmit telephone numbers to recipient's Caller ID services that are not capable of receiving telephone calls. As such, Plaintiff, brings this action alleging that Defendant violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number that was not capable of receiving phone calls when it made Telephonic Sales Calls by text message ("Text Message Sales Calls"). Specifically, Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that promoted Ettitude ("Ettitude Text Message Sales Calls") and violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is the regular user of a cellular telephone number that receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls. Coldwater International, LLC, is registered as a Foreign Limited Liability Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Phone: (202) 709-5744 Fax: (866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com F&T FARMS CO: Gonzales Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against F&T Farms Co., LLC. The case is styled as Arthur Gonzales, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. F&T Farms Co., LLC, Case No. 25CECG02473 (Cal. Super. Ct., Fresno Cty., May 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." F&T Farms was founded in 1989. The Company's line of business includes operating farms that produce vegetables and melons.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC 28632 Roadside Dr, Ste 203 Agoura Hills, CA 91301-6015 Phone: (818) 293-5623 Fax: (888) 850-1310 Email: roman@OLFLA.com FARM BUREAU: Hollis Appeals Reconsideration Order to 10th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- THOM HOLLIS is taking an appeal from a court order denying his motion for reconsideration in the lawsuit entitled Thom Hollis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-CV-00720-WJ-GJF, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the First Judicial District Court for the State of New Mexico to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, is brought against the Defendant for unfair and deceptive practices, in which it overcharged the Plaintiff for both uninsured motor vehicles and underinsured motor vehicles coverage. On Aug. 9, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which Judge William P. Johnson granted on Mar. 19, 2025. On Apr. 16, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration the Mar. 19 Order, which Judge Johnson denied on May 1, 2025. The appellate case is entitled Hollis v. Farm Bureau Property, Case No. 25-2059, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on June 2, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant THOM HOLLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Kedar Bhasker, Esq. 2741 Indian School Road Northeast, Suite 208 Albuquerque, NM 87106 - and - Geoffrey Rodin Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF GEOFFREY R. ROMERO 4801 All Saints Road Northwest Albuquerque, NM 87120 Telephone: (505) 271-1539 - and - Ray M. Vargas, II, Esq. THE VARGAS LAW FIRM 807 Silver Avenue, SW Albuquerque, NM 87102 Telephone: (505) 242-1670 - and - Bryan L. Williams, Esq. WILLIAMS INJURY LAW 4801 All Saints Road NW Albuquerque, NM 87120 Telephone: (505) 594-4444 Defendant-Appellee FARM BUREAU PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by: Meena H. Allen, Esq. ALLEN LAW FIRM 6121 Indian School Road, Suite 230 Albuquerque, NM 87110 Telephone: (505) 298-9400 - and - Michael Mumford, Esq. BAKER HOSTETLER LLP 127 Public Square, Suite 2000 Cleveland, OH 44114 - and - Kevin Zimmerman, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 200 Civic Center Drive, Suite 1200 Columbus, OH 43215 FELLOW INDUSTRIES: Lewis Sues Over Unlawful Sales Calls ------------------------------------------------------- Adam Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FELLOW INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. CACE-25-006601 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., May 3, 2025), is brought for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations Of the Caller ID Rules, Fla. Stat. Of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA"). In direct contravention of the Caller ID Rules, however, many callers, such as Defendant, make Telephonic Sales Calls a central part of their marketing strategy, and in doing so, intentionally transmit telephone numbers to recipient's Caller ID services that are not capable of receiving telephone calls. As such, Plaintiff, brings this action alleging that Defendant violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number that was not capable of receiving phone calls when it made Telephonic Sales Calls by text message ("Text Message Sales Calls"). Specifically, Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that promoted Fellow Industries ("Fellow Industries Text Message Sales Calls") and violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is the regular user of a cellular telephone number that receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls. Coldwater International, LLC, is registered as a Foreign Limited Liability Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Phone: (202) 709-5744 Fax: (866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com FIRST ADVANTAGE: Class Cert Oral Argument in Jones Set for July 23 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jones v. First Advantage Background Services Corp., Case No. 3:23-cv-00553 (D. Conn., Filed May 1, 2023), the Hon. Judge Kari A. Dooley entered an order granting motion for oral argument. The Court will hold oral argument on the Motion for Class Certification and Motion for Summary Judgment on July 23, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.[CC] FIRST STUDENT: Galvan Must File Class Cert Supplemental Briefing ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA GALVAN, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, v. FIRST STUDENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; FIRSTGROUP AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation; FIRST TRANSIT, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 4:18-cv-07378-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order allowing supplemental briefing re: renewed motion for preliminary approval of amended class action and PAGA settlement. First Student provides transportation services to school districts and related clients. A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6Dwh1H at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. Brian Louis, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 420 N. Camden Drive, Suite 100 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile:(310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com thomas@setarehlaw.com brian@setarehlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: David J. Dow, Esq. Jocelyn D. Hannah, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone (619) 232-0441 Facsimile (619) 232-4302 E-mail: ddow@littler.com FLAGSTAR BANK: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading NYCB Merger Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all investors who held shares of Flagstar Bank N.A. ("Flagstar") at the time of its merger with New York Community Bancorp, Inc. ("NYCB") in December 2022. The lawsuit alleges that the combined company and certain of its executives misled Flagstar shareholders by overstating the company's financial condition and failing to disclose critical risks -- resulting in significant investor losses. If you held Flagstar shares in December 2022, you may be entitled to join the lawsuit. Contact us today at 203-658-8455 to learn more or submit your information at flagstarlawsuit.com and receive a complimentary report. CASE OVERVIEW According to the complaint, the offering documents used to promote the merger included numerous false and misleading statements, such as: -- Inflating NYCB's income, goodwill, and total assets -- Understating expenses and potential losses -- Misrepresenting NYCB's underwriting practices and risk management systems Following the merger, the truth about NYCB's financial condition began to emerge. On January 31, 2024, NYCB disclosed a $252 million net loss, triggering a 38% drop in its stock price. Additional disclosures revealed: -- Inadequate internal controls -- Poor risk oversight -- Major credit downgrades and executive resignations By March 2024, NYCB had announced a $2.4 billion goodwill impairment and admitted to material weaknesses in its internal controls -- causing further stock declines. Flagstar shareholders who received NYCB stock in the merger allege that they were misled into accepting overvalued NYCB stock and suffered severe financial harm. YOUR OPTIONS The lawsuit has been filed, but no class has been certified yet. That means you are not automatically represented unless you take action. You can: -- Review a copy of the Complaint -- Speak with our legal team about your options For a free consultation, contact us today at 203-658-8455 to learn more or submit your information at flagstarlawsuit.com and receive a complimentary report. Our Firm has been retained to evaluate whether you can participate in the class. ABOUT PASTORE LLC Joseph M. Pastore III Chairman Stamford | New York 203-658-8455 jpastore@pastore.net Pastore LLC was founded by a team of elite litigators who left behind the bureaucracy of large corporate firms to build a practice rooted in agility, excellence, and results. With decades of combined experience at some of the most prestigious Wall Street law firms and financial institutions, our attorneys offer clients a rare combination of deep industry knowledge and courtroom firepower. Our team includes former general counsel of major brokerage firms and veterans of firms such as Skadden, Kelley Drye, Proskauer, Paul Weiss, Mayer Brown, and others. One of our attorneys has been recognized by The American Lawyer as one of the top litigators in the nation. We have secured significant victories for clients at trial, in arbitration, and on appeal in complex, high-stakes matters across state and federal courts nationwide. Our practice spans a broad range of litigation areas -- including partnership disputes, securities fraud, alternative investments, distressed debt, antitrust, real estate, construction, and employment law. We have also served as lead counsel on major class actions involving consumer products, pharmaceuticals, and construction materials. Clients come to us when the stakes are high and the issues are complex. Pastore delivers the sophistication of a top-tier firm with the focus, creativity, and efficiency of a litigation boutique. Among our alumni is the current Lieutenant Governor of the State of Connecticut, underscoring the caliber of our team and the respect we have earned in the legal and public spheres. [GN] FLO HEALTH: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Frasco Suit to 9th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- FLO HEALTH, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Erica Frasco, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Flo Health, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00757, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs bring this suit against Flo Health's data disclosure practices which constitute an extreme invasion of the Plaintiff and Class members' right to privacy and violate federal and state common law. On Aug. 29, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a request to certify classes of Flo App users for damages and injunctive relief, which Judge James Donato granted on May 19, 2025. The Court certified the nationwide class under FRCP Rule 23(b)(3) for the Plaintiffs' the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, breach of contract, and intrusion upon seclusion claims against Flo Health. Plaintiffs Wellman, Chen, and Gamino are appointed as named representatives for the California subclass. Pursuant to Rule 23(g), the interim co-lead counsel -- Carol C. Villegas of Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP, Diana J. Zinser of Spector Roseman & Kodroff, PC, and Christian Levis of Lowey Dannenberg, PC are confirmed as class counsel for both the nationwide class and the California subclass. The parties are directed to jointly file by May 27, 2025, a proposed plan to give notice to the certified classes and an opportunity to opt out. The appellate case is captioned Frasco, et al. v. Flo Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-3496, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 3, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents ERICA FRASCO, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: James M. Wagstaffe, Esq. ADAMSKI MOROSKI MADDEN CUMBERLAND & GREEN LLP P.O. Box 3835 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 - and - Christian Levis, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, PC 44 S. Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 - and - Carol C. Villegas, Esq. Michael P. Canty, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW, LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 - and - Ronald Marron, Esq. Alexis M. Wood, Esq. Kas Gallucci, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Defendant-Petitioner FLO HEALTH, INC. is represented by: Allison Ozurovich, Esq. DECHERT LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 4900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 FOX NEWS: Faces Class Action Over Automatic Renewal Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a California consumer has filed a class action lawsuit against Fox News Network LLC. Why: The plaintiff alleges Fox Nation violated California's Automatic Renewal Law (ARL) by failing to obtain consumers' consent before enrolling them in automatic renewal programs. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Fox Nation violated California's Automatic Renewal Law by failing to obtain consumers' consent before enrolling them in automatic renewal programs. Plaintiff Travis Poper's class action lawsuit, filed on April 21 in California federal court, alleges Fox Nation charged consumers for subscriptions without proper consent and failed to provide necessary disclosures. The California Automatic Renewal Law requires businesses to clearly disclose automatic renewal terms and obtain consumers' affirmative consent before charging their credit or debit cards. Poper alleges Fox Nation, Fox News Network's online video subscription service, failed to meet these requirements. The Fox Nation auto-renewal class action lawsuit claims the service enrolled consumers in automatic renewal membership programs without providing “clear and conspicuous” disclosures as mandated by California law. Additionally, Fox Nation allegedly posted charges to consumers' credit or debit cards without obtaining their affirmative consent to an agreement containing the requisite disclosures. Fox Nation failed to provide clear disclosures, class action alleges Poper says he signed up for a Fox Nation free trial, believing he would be charged a one-time payment of $46.17 after the trial period ended. However, his credit card was charged $46.17 on Dec. 21, 2020, and additional charges of $71.03 were posted to his credit card on Dec. 21, 2021, Dec. 21, 2022 and Dec. 22, 2023, the Fox Nation class action lawsuit states. Poper claims he was not aware that Fox Nation would automatically renew his subscription and post additional charges to his credit card. He claims Fox Nation failed to present automatic renewal offer terms in a clear and conspicuous manner before a subscription was fulfilled. The class action lawsuit further argues Fox Nation did not provide consumers with the cancellation policy and information regarding a mechanism for cancellation that is cost-effective, timely and easy to use. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of California consumers who were enrolled in a Fox Nation membership program on or after April 21, 2021, and charged for the membership program within the applicable statute of limitations. Poper asserts claims for violations of California's ARL and Unfair Competition Law. He is seeking restitution, injunctive relief and certification of the class action. Other class actions taking on auto-renewal practices include NordVPN, accused of alleged deceptive and illegal tactics to trick consumers into paying for unwanted subscriptions, and Houzz for using negative billing practices. Poper is represented by Mark L. Javitch of Javitch Law Office. The Fox Nation class action lawsuit is Poper v. Fox News Network LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-00977, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division. [GN] GAMESTOP INC: Agrees to Settle VPPA Class Suit for $4.5MM --------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that GameStop agreed to a $4.5 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it violated the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) by sharing consumer information with Facebook. The GameStop VPPA class action settlement benefits individuals who purchased a video game from the company's website between Aug. 18, 2020, and April 7, 2025, and who had a public Facebook profile using their actual name at the time of purchase. GameStop is a video game retailer with locations around the United States. The company also sells video games and consoles through its website. According to the class action lawsuit, GameStop violated the VPPA by sharing consumer information with Facebook via a tracking pixel on its website. This pixel allegedly allowed GameStop to share information about the video games consumers purchased with Facebook, including information about the specific games purchased by consumers. GameStop has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $4.5 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the GameStop settlement, class members can receive either a cash payment or a voucher. Cash payments are capped at $5 per class member. Vouchers are capped at $10 per class member. Class members may only select one of these options and cannot receive both a cash payment and a voucher. In addition to providing cash and vouchers to class members, the settlement requires GameStop to suspend the operation of the Facebook tracking pixel on its website. This change will help protect consumer privacy and ensure GameStop is compliant with the VPPA. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Aug. 15, 2025. The final approval hearing for the GameStop VPPA class action settlement is scheduled for Sept. 18, 2025. To receive a payment from the GameStop settlement, class members must submit a valid claim form by Aug. 15, 2025. Who's Eligible Consumers who purchased a video game from the GameStop website between Aug. 18, 2020, and April 7, 2025, and were Facebook members with a public profile at the time of their purchase. Potential Award Cash payment of up to $5 or a $10 GameStop voucher. Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 08/15/2025 Case Name Aldana, et al. v. GameStop Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07063, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Final Hearing 09/18/2025 Settlement Website GameStopVPPASettlement.com Claims Administrator Aldana v. GameStop Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 4129 Portland, OR 97208-4129 (888) 861-4077 Class Counsel Philip L. Fraietta Alec M. Leslie BURSOR & FISHER P.A. Defense Counsel Marc J. Zwillinger ZWILLGEN PLLC [GN] GENEDX HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of GeneDx Holdings Corp. (NASDAQ: WGS) resulting from allegations that GeneDx may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased GeneDx securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=40333 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On February 5, 2025, Grizzly Research published a report entitled "Insiders Attest that GeneDx (Nasdaq: WGS) Is Actively Committing Widespread Fraud." This report stated that Grizzly believed that GeneDx's "growth is largely an illusion, driven by fraudulent schemes and illegal tactics deliberately aimed at exploiting Medicaid and Medicare systems to artificially inflate revenue." On this news, GeneDx stock fell 6.7% on February 5, 2025. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. At the time, Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone, the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by Law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] GENERAL CONFERENCE: Court Refuses to Revive Joseph's Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued an order regarding reconsideration of the order of dismissal in the case captioned as Lorfils Joseph, v. General Conference Corporation of 7th Day Adventist et al., Civil Action No.23-cv-21552 (S.D. Fla.). The court independently amended its dismissal order with respect to Joseph's state-law claims, denied Joseph's motion for reconsideration in part as to his federal claims, and denied it as moot in part as to his state-law claims. This is a putative class action brought by Plaintiff Lorfils Joseph against various Seventh-Day Adventist entities alleging fraud through the EminiFX Ponzi scheme. Plaintiff, on his own behalf as well as on behalf of a putative class of allegedly similarly situated parties, complains he was defrauded by the Defendants1 through a Ponzi scheme directed at, primarily, Seventh-Day Adventist Church parishioners throughout the United States. Previously, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss Joseph's complaint for a failure to state a claim and dismissed all his claims with prejudice. Joseph now asks the Court to reconsider and amend its order "to reflect a dismissal without prejudice" and grant him leave to file a third amended complaint. The Defendants oppose any reconsideration. The court amended its order of dismissal to dismiss Joseph's state-law claims without prejudice as to refiling in state court, instead of with prejudice. Where a court's jurisdiction over state-law claims is premised on supplemental jurisdiction, the Eleventh Circuit "has repeatedly said that, when all of the federal claims have been dismissed pretrial, Supreme Court case law 'strongly encourages or even requires dismissal of the state claims." Joseph's federal claims were dismissed on their merits for his failure to state a claim under the Federal Racketeer and Corrupt Organizations Act. However, because the court dismissed Joseph's state-law claims on jurisdictional grounds, the court erred by lumping them together with the with-prejudice dismissal of his federal claims. Accordingly, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a), the court amended its order to reflect that Joseph's state-law claims are dismissed without prejudice to their being refiled in state court. Joseph pointed to two grounds that support reconsideration: "the recent discovery of critical new evidence and the need to prevent manifest injustice." Both grounds were found meritless by the court. Joseph and his counsel claimed they only just "learned, for the first time," during Joseph's November 2024 deposition, "that Mr. Joseph was never a member of any of the defendant congregations and lacked any firsthand knowledge of the misrepresentations regarding the EminiFX Ponzi scheme." The court agreed with the defendants that it was nonsensical for Joseph or his counsel to claim that they exercised any sort of due diligence. Joseph's argument that the court should reconsider its dismissal order based on newly discovered evidence was thoroughly unavailing. Joseph's appeal to "manifest injustice" fared no better. The Eleventh Circuit "equates manifest injustice with the plain error standard of review." Joseph's biggest hurdle was that he himself acknowledged "that there is no argument regarding the dismissal of the current Plaintiff's case." Joseph failed to meet this high standard. Upon careful examination of Joseph's time-bar concerns, the court found they failed to move the needle. Section 1367(d) explicitly provided that the limitations period for any claim asserted under a court's supplemental jurisdiction "shall be tolled while the claim is pending and for a period of 30 days after it is dismissed unless State law provides for a longer tolling period. The court added that Joseph failed to supply any support for his position that the court erred by not sua sponte allowing him to amend his complaint for the third tim and said "A district court is not required to grant a plaintiff leave to amend his complaint sua sponte when the plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, never filed a motion to amend nor requested leave to amend before the district court." The court independently amended its dismissal order to reflect that Joseph's state-law claims, counts five through twenty-one, are dismissed without prejudice. Joseph's federal claims remained dismissed with prejudice. The court denied Joseph's motion for reconsideration as moot in part as to his state-law claims and denied it outright in part as to his federal claims. Because the court denied Joseph's motion for reconsideration, the court also denied his request for leave to amend, to intervene, and to substitute parties. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q0vaij GOOGLE LLC: Monopolizes Android App Distribution Market, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Korean Publishers Association, Korea Electronic Publishing Association, and PangSky Co., Ltd., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Google LLC, Google Ireland Ltd., Google Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., and Google Commerce Ltd. Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-04686 (N.D. Cal., June 3, 2025) is a class action complaint for damages and equitable relief against Defendant Google LLC and its subsidiaries for violations of the Sherman Act, the California's Unfair Competition Law, the California Cartwright Act, and Korea's Monopoly Regulation & Fair Trade Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants have unlawfully monopolized the global markets, excluding China, for Android app distribution and in-app payment processing, which together comprise the conditions under which Android app developers place their products and services for distribution, as well as the method by which purchases are made. Rather than fairly compensating the app developers who are the lifeblood of the Google Play Store, also called Google Play, Google extracts an anticompetitive 30% headline tariff on apps and in-app products that Google had no part in creating or developing. Google has and continues to systematically leverage anticompetitive agreements and technical barriers to secure its monopoly and block potential competition in the mobile OS market and global markets, excluding China, for Android app distribution and in-app payment processing. The Plaintiffs and members of the proposed classes are Android app developers that were forced to pay anticompetitive commissions to Google and abide by its anticompetitive policies, says the suit. KPA is an association that represents Korean publishers. Google LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its headquarters and principal place of business in Mountain View, California. It is the owner of the Google Play Store, from and by which developers of Android apps sell paid applications, music, movies, books, and in app products to Android device owners.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kyle G. Bates, Esq. Scott Martin, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 Facsimile: (212) 202-4322 E-mail: kbates@hausfeld.com smartin@hausfeld.com - and - Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq. Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. Samuel Maida, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 580 California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 Facsimile: (415) 358-4980 E-mail: clebsock@hausfeld.com mlehmann@hausfeld.com smaida@hausfeld.com - and - YoungKi Rhee, Esq. WE THE PEOPLE LAW GROUP Chinyang Building, 7/F 47 Kyonggidae-ro, Seodaemun-gu Seoul, South Korea 03752 Telephone: 82-2-2285-0062 E-mail: ykrhee@wethepeople.co.kr - and - Byung-Joo Lee, Esq. JIHYANG LAW FIRM Seohee Tower, 7/F 2583 Nambusunhwan-ro Seoul, Korea 06735 Telephone: 82-2-3476-6002 Facsimile: 82-2-3476-6607 E-mail: bjlee@jihyanglaw.com GREEN DOT: Koffsmon Suit Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Esteban Koffsmon v. Green Dot Corporation, et al. (re GREEN DOT CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 2:19-cv-10701-FLA-E (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Aug. 1, 2025, will move the Court for an order: -- granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class, -- appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, and -- appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Class Counsel. Green is an American financial technology and bank holding company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N7Py6A at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica T. Shinnefield, Esq. Christopher R. Kinnon, Esq. John M. Kelley, Esq. Rachel C. Braby, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: jshinnefield@rgrdlaw.com ckinnon@rgrdlaw.com jkelley@rgrdlaw.com rbraby@rgrdlaw.com - and - Vincent F. Pitta, Esq. PITTA LLP 120 Broadway, 28th Floor New York, NY 10271 Telephone: (212) 652-3890 Facsimile: (212) 652-3891 GREEN DOT: Must File Class Cert Opposition by July 3 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Esteban Koffsmon v. Green Dot Corporation et al., (RE GREEN DOT CORPORATE SECURITIES LITIGATION) Case No. 2:19-cv-10701-FLA-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha entered an order modifying briefing schedule on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion shall be filed on or before June 6, 2025; 2. The Defendants' opposition to the motion shall be due on or before July 3, 2025; and 3. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of the motion shall be due on or before July 18, 2025. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be taken under submission as of July 18, 2025. The court will set this matter for hearing if the court deems a hearing necessary or appropriate. IT IS SO ORDERED. Green is an American financial technology and bank holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AeUkIH at no extra charge.[CC] HAIR & CO: Court Rejects Solis' ADA Claim Due to Non-Compliance --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Hector Gonzalez of the United States District Court for the Eastern District Court of New York dismissed the putative class action in the case captioned as ROBERTO SOLIS v. HAIR & CO., BKLYN, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00308-HG (E.D.N.Y.) without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). This is a putative class action brought by Plaintiff Roberto Solis against Defendant Hair & Co., BKLYN, LLC. Plaintiff is legally blind and alleged that he was unable to book a hair appointment at Defendant's salon on Defendant's website, which was incompatible with "screen access programs" he needed to use the website. He claimed that this violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. Upon careful examination of the procedural history, the Court found that Plaintiff repeatedly failed to abide by basic Court orders. After Plaintiff filed proof of service, the Court directed the parties to file a proposed scheduling order on or before March 20, 2025. They failed to do so. The Court noted that Defendant was in default and directed Plaintiff to request a certificate of default on or before April 4, 2025. Plaintiff failed to do so, marking his first missed deadline. The Court sua sponte extended Plaintiff's deadline to seek a certificate of default to April 11, 2025, warning that failure to comply would likely result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff failed to comply, marking his second missed deadline. The Court granted another extension to April 16, 2025, warning that failure would result in dismissal. Plaintiff finally obtained the certificate of default on April 15, 2025. The Court directed Plaintiff to file his default judgment motion on or before May 15, 2025, and to file a declaration describing service on or before April 22, 2025. Plaintiff failed to do either, marking his third missed deadline. The Court granted yet another extension to May 20, 2025, warning that failure to comply would likely result in sanctions, "including but not limited to dismissal for failure to prosecute." Defendant argues that while it failed to appear in the action and was placed in default, Plaintiff's counsel had contacted defense counsel to explore resolution of the matter. Defendant's position, as referenced by the Court, was that additional time was required to either reach a settlement resolution or for Defendant to enter a formal appearance in the case Plaintiff sought an additional 30-day extension to move for default judgment. The Court denied Plaintiff's request for extension, stating: "Based on Plaintiff's multiple missed deadlines in this action, the Court has no reason to believe that an additional extension of time would meaningfully advance the resolution of this matter." The Court noted that "Defendant is in default. Plaintiff has been aware of this for over six weeks. The parties are free to try to resolve this matter, but the Court is not in the business of holding cases open on its docket merely to facilitate settlement." According to the Court, when dismissing claims for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b), the Second Circuit requires consideration of five factors: the duration of plaintiff's failure to comply with court orders, whether plaintiff was on notice that failure would result in dismissal, whether defendants would be prejudiced by further delay, balancing the court's docket management interest with plaintiff's right to be heard, and whether the judge considered less drastic sanctions. Upon careful review of these factors, the Court found dismissal appropriate. Although the delays were short in absolute terms, this was only because the Court closely monitored the docket and reminded Plaintiff of deadlines. The Court determined that counsel's conduct indicated willful disregard of Court orders. Plaintiff was warned three separate times that failure to obtain a default judgment could result in dismissal. The Court found that judicial economy strongly supported dismissal, as the Court had been more active in the case than Plaintiff. The Court considered less drastic sanctions but concluded that "there is no reason to believe that a lesser sanction would be effective" given Plaintiff's repeated failures after multiple warnings. The Court noted that counsel appeared more interested in obtaining a settlement than pursuing the default judgment that was "easily within reach." Therefore, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's claims without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b). A copy of the court's decision can be found at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vMZNQc https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0WD0GX HARBIN CLINIC: Heather Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harbin Clinic, LLC. The case is styled as Stout Heather individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Harbin Clinic, LLC, Case No. 25CV00868 (Ga. Super. Ct., Floyd Cty., May 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Tort." Harbin Clinic LLC -- https://harbinclinic.com/ -- operates as medical services clinic and is Georgia's trusted health care provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Herman, Esq. HERMAN JONES LLP 3424 Peachtree Rd NE, Suite 1650 Atlanta, GA 30326 Phone: 404.504.6500 Fax: 404.504.650 HARBIN CLINIC: Solomon Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harbin Clinic, LLC. The case is styled as Sanea Solomon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Harbin Clinic, LLC, Case No. 25CV007057 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cty., May 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Contract/Account." Harbin Clinic -- https://harbinclinic.com/ -- has grown into the largest privately owned multi-specialty physician group in the state of Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com HARBIN CLINIC: Staples Sues Over Failure to Secure PHI and PII -------------------------------------------------------------- Jericka Staples, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HARBIN CLINIC, LLC, and NATIONWIDE RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00130-WMR (N.D. Ga., May 23, 2025), is brought against Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard the protected health information ("PHI") and other personally identifiable information ("PII") of its patients, including, but not limited to: names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, clinical information (service locations, physicians' names, discharge dates, diagnosis, and billing codes) and financial account information. In July 2024, Defendant NRS discovered suspicious activity in its information technology environment, which resulted in an unauthorized party gaining access to PHI/PII between July 5, 2024, and July 11, 2024 (hereafter, the "Data Breach"). The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendants' failure to implement reasonable safeguards to protect PHI/PII from a foreseeable and preventable risk of unauthorized disclosure. Had Defendants implemented administrative, technical, and physical controls consistent with industry standards and best practices, it could have prevented the Data Breach. The Defendants' conduct resulted in the unauthorized disclosure of Plaintiff's private information to cybercriminals. The forgoing harms are directly traceable to the Defendants' failure to adequately secure the PHI/PII in its custody, and has resulted in actual, particularized, and concrete harm to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff suffered actual injury in the form of damages to and diminution in the value of the PHI/PII that was compromised in the Data Breach. The injuries Plaintiff suffered, as described herein, can be redressed by a favorable decision in this matter. In the course of their relationship, Defendant collected or created PHI/PII related to Plaintiff and Class Members. By sharing that PHI/PII with Defendant NRS, Defendant Harbin was obligated to ensure the data would be safeguarded and include those data protection obligations in a business associates' agreement or other vendor contract. As such, Defendants were obligated to use reasonable technical, administrative, and physical safeguards to protect the PHI/PII in their custody. These obligations were contained in the applicable privacy policy, contract, and other statutory privacy requirements. The Plaintiff and the Class Members relied on Defendants to keep their PHI/PII confidential, securely maintained, and to make only authorized disclosures of this information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former patients of Defendant. Harbin is a privately owned, multi-specialty medical clinic.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Main: 412.322.9243 Direct: 412.385.2021 Fax: 412.231.0246 Email: nickc@lcllp.com HEALTHEC LLC: $5.48MM Settlement in Lempinen Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEMPINEN v. HEALTHEC, LLC (RE: HEALTHEC LLC DATA BREACH LITIGATION), Case No. 2:24-cv-00026-SDA (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Stacey Adams entered an order granting motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Settlement Class is defined as: "the approximately 1.67 million individuals that were patients of [the Provider Defendants] whose personal information and/or protected health information was compromised in the [Data Breach] announced by HealthEC in December 2023." The settlement provides that $5,482,500 shall be severally funded by Defendants into an escrow account. HealthEC is a business that sells data management and analytics services to healthcare providers. A copy of the Court's opinion dated June 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=grm5Tl at no extra charge.[CC] HIRE VELOCITY: Roberts Sues Over Unsecured PII and Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Lencola Roberts, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HIRE VELOCITY, LLC, Case 1:25-cv-02872-JPB (N.D. Ga., May 23, 2025), is brought arising from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information, on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII or "Private Information") that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed on May 16, 2025 (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"). The Defendant had numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and common law duties and obligations, including those based on its affirmative representations to Plaintiff and Class Members, to keep their Private Information confidential, safe, secure, and protected from unauthorized disclosure or access. The Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Defendant admits that information in its system was accessed by unauthorized individuals, though it provided little information regarding how the Data Breach occurred. The Defendant failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant. The Defendant is a full-service talent acquisition and professional search firm based in Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Fax: (771) 772-3086 Email: cturner@milberg.com KENT HAMILTON: Ramos Must File Full Versions of Discovery Docs -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARNULFO GARCIA-RAMOS, et al., v. KENT HAMILTON, et al., Case No. 7:24-cv-00054-WLS (M.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge W. Louis Sands entered an order directing the Plaintiffs to comply with the Local Rules and file the full versions of discovery materials they rely upon in their Motions no later than June 20, 2025. Before the Court are Plaintiffs' Motion for 29 U.S.C. section 216(B) Notice to Similarly Situated Workers and for Disclosure of Contact Information and Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification (together the "Motions"). The Courts preliminary review of the Record reveals that Plaintiffs have failed to file discovery in accordance with the Local Rules. A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NnnDIe at no extra charge.[CC] KNOX COUNTY, IL: Amended Bid for Class Cert. Moot ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.B.H. v. Knox County, et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-04096 (C.D. Ill., Filed May 27, 2024), the Hon. Judge Colleen R. Lawless entered an order that the Plaintiffs amended motion for class certification is moot. Pursuant to the parties' Fourth Revised Expedited Discovery Plan for Preliminary Injunction and Class Certification, the Defendants' response to the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Motion for Class Certification is due on July 21, 2025, and Plaintiffs' reply is due on Sept. 5, 2025. The nature of suit states Prisoner Civil Rights.[CC] LEGAL ANSWER: Underpays Legal Case Consultants, Johnson Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Lee Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Legal Answer Edge, LLC, a Tennessee Limited Liability Company, and Michael Harris, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00615 (M.D. Tenn., June 3, 2025) is an action for unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest under the Fair Labor Standards Act for Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff all earned overtime wages. The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in any given workweek in his work for Defendants. However, the Defendants paid Plaintiff and the Collective Members straight-time pay for all hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff and the Collective Members one and one-half their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants and worked as a Legal Case Consultant from approximately January 2, 2025 through approximately May 19, 2025. Legal Answer Edge, LLC provides client intake and retention services to lawyers and law firms throughout the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anne Bennett Hunter, Esq. Kaitlyn E. Lyons, Esq. HUNTER LAW FIRM PLC 5115 Maryland Way, Suite 125 Brentwood, TN 37027 Telephone: (615) 592-2977 E-mail: anne@hunteremploymentlaw.com kate@hunteremploymentlaw.com LI AUTO: Faces Securities Class Action Over Misleading Statements ----------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo Finance reports that Li Auto experienced a notable 5% increase in its stock price over the last quarter, alongside legal challenges and growth in vehicle deliveries. The company faces multiple lawsuits alleging misstatements, which could have influenced investor sentiment. However, Li Auto's Q1 2025 earnings showed revenue growth and improved net income, potentially bolstering confidence. Despite the broader market pressure from geopolitical tensions and a declining Dow, Li Auto maintained positive momentum, likely supported by its partnership with Celanese and promising delivery figures. These factors add weight to the company's resilience amid market fluctuations and legal uncertainties. The recent developments surrounding Li Auto, including legal challenges and revenue growth, could significantly influence the company's ongoing narrative. While the Q1 2025 earnings report showed revenue growth and improved net income, the legal issues may impact investor sentiment and long-term projections. Over the last year, Li Auto's total shareholder return was 53.56%, reflecting strong performance, but over the past year, the company underperformed relative to the US Auto industry, which returned 60.1%. This discrepancy could suggest competitive pressures or market-specific challenges impacting Li Auto's shares. The introduction of new BEVs and advancements in autonomous driving technology may bolster future revenue and earnings forecasts, driven by enhanced customer experiences and expanded market presence. However, intensifying competition and diminishing margins present risks. With a current share price of US$25.68, Li Auto trades at a discount to the consensus price target of US$33.69, indicating potential upside if the forecasts of revenue reaching CN¥258.4 billion and earnings of CN¥19.3 billion by 2028 become a reality. Investors should weigh these factors against existing market pressures and competitive benchmarks to form a comprehensive view of Li Auto's potential trajectory. [GN] LIBERTY MUTUAL: Class Cert. Bid Continued in Cortinas Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA CORTINAS, ADELINE CLARKE FOSS, TERESA MCINTYRE, KASANDRA VITACCA-MITCHELL, CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL, MARCUS ODUM, CASSANDRA ODUM, DONALD VILLA, JOAN VILLA, TANYA RAWLINS, SARAH BAIOTTO, BRENT BAIOTTO, and DARREN PETTIS individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, and SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF INDIANA, Case No. 5:22-cv-00544-OLG-HJB (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Henry Bemporad entered an order continuing the class certification motion until later date to be determined by the Court following joint report due by Aug. 23, 2025. Liberty is an American diversified global insurer. A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KhH3zB at no extra charge.[CC] LIBERTY MUTUAL: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Hearing ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA CORTINAS, ADELINE CLARKE FOSS, TERESA MCINTYRE, KASANDRA VITACCA-MITCHELL, CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL, MARCUS ODUM, CASSANDRA ODUM, DONALD VILLA, JOAN VILLA, TANYA RAWLINS, SARAH BAIOTTO, BRENT BAIOTTO, and DARREN PETTIS individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF INDIANA, Case No. 5:22-cv-00544-OLG-HJB (W.D. Tex.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint motion to continue hearing on the Plaintiffs' opposed motion for class certification, appointment of class representative and appointment of counsel. On April 8, 2025, the Court issued an order setting the Class Certification Motion for hearing on June 12, 2025 at 1:30 p.m. The parties have scheduled a mediation in this action with Michael Ungar on Aug. 13, 2025. Mr. Ungar has successfully mediated many class actions involving similar claims, including matters involving counsel for the Parties here as well as certain affiliates of the Defendantsm the suit says. Liberty is an American diversified global insurer. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ixvk69 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Brandon McWherter, Esq. McWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC 341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite 230 Franklin, TN 37067 Telephone: (615) 354-1144 E-mail: brandon@msb.law - and - Shaun W. Hodge, Esq. THE HODGE LAW FIRM, PLLC The Historic Runge House 1301 Market St. Galveston, TX 77550 Telephone: (409) 762-5000 E-mail: shodge@hodgefirm.com - and - Erik D. Peterson, Esq. ERIK PETERSON LAW OFFICES, PSC 110 W. Vine Street, Suite 300 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (800) 614-1957 E-mail: erik@eplo.law - and - T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq. SNODGRASS LAW, LLC 100 S. Fifth St., Suite 800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 448-2600 E-mail: jsnodgrass@snodgrass-law.com The Defendants are represented by: David T. Moran, Esq. Christopher A. Thompson, Esq. Maggie Burreson, Esq. Marilyn Brown, Esq. Michael Roberts, Esq. JACKSON WALKER L.L.P. 2323 Ross Avenue, Suite 600 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 953-6000 Facsimile: (214) 953-5822 E-mail: dmoran@jw.com cthompson@jw.com mburreson@jw.com mbrown@jw.com mroberts@jw.com - and - Mark L. Hanover, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5900 Chicago, IL 60606 LIBERTY MUTUAL: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid in Watts ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANE WATTS, ANTHONY WATTS, and ADAM PIZZITOLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-12845-BEM (D. Mass.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline by which they must file an opposition to the motion to Aug. 4, 2025, and extending the deadline by which the Plaintiffs must file a reply in further support of the motion to Sept. 1, 2025. On May 5, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification. Absent an extension, pursuant to the Court's Scheduling Order, dated December 19, 2024, the deadline for Defendants to file their opposition to the Motion is July 7, 2025, and the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their reply in further support of their Motion is August 4, 2025. Liberty offers a wide range of insurance products and services. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oz0Uyz at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Bridgitte E. Mott, Esq. James A. Morsch, Esq. Stephanie L. Denker, Esq. Ryan M. Jerome, Esq. SAUL EWING LLP 131 Dartmouth Street, Suite 501 Boston, MA 02116 E-mail: Bridgitte.Mott@saul.com Jim.Morsch@saul.com Stephanie.Denker@saul.com Ryan.Jerome@saul.com LIMESTONE UNIVERSITY: Fails to Provide Layoff Notice, Ruth Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- NATALIE RUTH, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIMESTONE UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 7:25-cv-04838-DCC (D.S.C., June 3, 2025) is a class action complaint brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the other similarly situated former employees, against Defendant for its failure to provide 60 days' advance notice of layoffs. The Defendant operates a facility located at 1115 College Drive, Gaffney, South Carolina, where Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees worked. According to the complaint, within 90 days of April 30, 2025, the Defendant terminated over 50 and/or at least 33% of active full-time employees, including Plaintiff, at the Facility. The Defendant failed to provide 60 days' advance notice of these layoffs. The Plaintiff brings this action, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated former employees who worked for Defendant and were terminated as part of the foreseeable result of a mass lay off or plant closing ordered by Defendant on or around April 30, 2025, and who were not provided 60 days' advance written notice of their terminations by Defendant, as required by the WARN Act. Limestone University is a non-profit university based in Gaffney, South Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: T. Ryan Langley, Esq. Matthew T. Foss, Esq. THE LANGLEY LAW FIRM, LLC 229 Magnolia Street Spartanburg, SC 29306 Telephone: (864) 774-4662 Facsimile: (864) 580-7041 E-mail: ryan@thelangleylawfirm.com matt@thelangleylawfirm.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Michael C. Iadevaia, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com miadevaia@stranchlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, LLP One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborelli.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Ian Bensberg, Esq. COHENMALAD One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com ibensberg@cohenmalad.com LITTLE CAESAR: Cuevas Seeks More Time to File Class Cert -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE CUEVAS, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, v. LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-03166-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order continuing the Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class certification by 45 to 60 days from the currently scheduled deadline of June 16, 2025 to approximately July 31, 2025 or Aug. 15, 2025. The Plaintiff seeks a 45- to 60-day continuance of the deadline for filing his Motion for Class Certification (the “Continuance”) for two different and independent reasons: (1) to allow the Court to rule on Plaintiff's pending motion for leave to file first amended complaint before the Plaintiff is required to file a motion for class certification, as the ruling will impact the scope and relief sought by the Plaintiff in that motion; and (2) to allow the Defendant more time to respond to a series of questions relating to the pre-certification data and to complete outstanding discovery before Plaintiff is required to file a motion for class certification. Little is an American multinational chain of pizza restaurants. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2a12ro at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Yablonovich, Esq. Monica Balderrama, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARK YABLONOVICH 9465 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 300 Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2511 Telephone: (310) 286-0246 Facsimile: (310) 407-5391 E-mail: Mark@Yablonovichlaw.com Monica@Yablonovichlaw.com - and - Bevin Allen Pike, Esq. Daniel Jonathan, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com Daniel.Jonathan@capstonelawyers.com LUCAS COUNTY, OH: Upperco Suit Seeks to Extend Class Cert Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER UPPERCO, et al., v. LUCAS COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01283-JRK (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadlines for class certification briefing as follow: The Plaintiffs' Motion: Sept. 10, 2025 The Defendant's Opposition: Oct. 10, 2025 The Plaintiffs' Reply: Oct. 27, 2025 The requested extension will not at this time affect other deadlines including the close of liability discovery, which is currently scheduled to end on Dec. 31, 2025, the suit says. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WQGMdf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff are represented by: Heidi R. Burakiewicz, Esq. BURAKIEWICZ & DEPRIEST, PLLC 1015 15th Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 856-7500 E-mail: hburakiewicz@bdlawdc.com - and - Nancy Grim, Esq. NANCY GRIM, LLC Kent, OH 44240-0002 Telephone: (330) 678-6595 Facsimile: (844) 270-7608 E-mail: nancy.grim@nancygrimlaw.net MATTHEW WARREN: Vaca Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Alfredo V. Vaca, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and the general public v. MATTHEW WARREN, INC., a Delaware corporation; MW INDUSTRIES, INC., a California Corporation; MW COMPONENTS, a business entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,, Case No. 30-2025-01475486-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 22, 2025, and assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-01140-SRM-JC. The Plaintiff's claims establish an amount "in controversy" in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs for: Unpaid Minimum Wages, Failure to Provide Meal Periods, Failure to Provide Rest Periods, Unpaid Overtime Wages, Failure to Pay Wages Due at Termination of Employment (Waiting Time Penalties), Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Statements, Failure to Indemnify, and Additional Relief Sought.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Emily Burkhardt Vicente, Esq. D. Andrew Quigley, Esq. Katarzyna Ryzewska, Esq. HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP 550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627 Phone: 213-532-2000 Facsimile: 213-532-2020 Email: ebvicente@hunton.com aquigley@Hunton.com kryzewska@hunton.com MISSOURI: Class Cert Bid Filing in Maldonado Due Oct 30 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAIME MALDONADO, ANNA VARELA, ALMA GARY, and JEFF PLAMONDON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HIGHER EDUCATION LOAN AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI, and DOES 1-30, Case No. 3:24-cv-07850-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order setting motion for class certification briefing schedule as follows: Exchange of class certification expert Sept. 16, 2025 witness summaries or reports: Exchange of class certification rebuttal Oct. 16, 2025 expert witness summaries or reports: Deadline to file motion for class Oct. 30, 2025 Certification: Deadline to respond in opposition to Nov. 25, 2025 motion for class certification: Deadline to reply in support of motion Dec. 19, 2025 for class certification: Higher is one of the largest holders and servicers of student loans in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DyBJSg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rebecca C. Eisenbrey, Esq. Noah Zinner, Esq. Rebecca C. Ellis, Esq. PROJECT ON PREDATORY STUDENT LENDING 769 Centre Street Jamaica Plain, MA 02130 Telephone: (617) 322-2808 E-mail: reisenbrey@ppsl.org nzinner@ppsl.org rellis@ppsl.org - and - Daniel "Sparky" Abrahams, Esq. JUBILEE LEGAL 300 E. Esplanade Drive, Suite 900 Oxnard, CA 93036 Telephone: (805) 946-0386 E-mail: sparky@jubilee.legal - and - Adam McNeile, Esq. Malachi J. Haswell, Esq. KEMNITZER, BARRON & KRIEG, LLP 1120 Mar West., Ste. C2 Tiburon, CA 94920 Telephone: (415) 632-1900 E-mail: adam@kbklegal.com kai@@kbklegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Sheila A.G. Armbrust, Esq. Laura V. Herrera, Esq. Amy P. Lally, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 California Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 772-1200 Facsimile: (415) 772-7400 E-mail: sarmbrust@sidley.com laura.herrera@sidley.com alally@sidley.com MNGI DIGESTIVE: Settles Cyberattack Class Suit for $2.8 Million --------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that more than $2.8 million settlement is set to resolve a class action lawsuit against MNGI Digestive Health, P.A. over an August 2023 cyberattack in which consumers' personal and health information was compromised. The $2,838,749.62 MNGI Digestive Health settlement received preliminary court approval on May 7, 2025 and covers all individuals who received a notice regarding the data breach MNGI experienced on or around August 20, 2023. The court-approved website for the MNGI class action settlement can be found at MNGISettlement.com. MNGI settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form may receive up to $10,000 for unreimbursed, out-of-pocket losses and expenses incurred as a result of the data breach, including: -- Unreimbursed expenses, costs, charges or losses resulting from falsified tax returns, identity fraud or theft or other misuse of a class member's Social Security number; -- Unreimbursed expenses, costs, charges or losses incurred from freezing, unfreezing or accessing credit reports with any credit reporting agency; -- Other unreimbursed miscellaneous expenses related to out-of-pocket losses such as fax, postage, notary, copying, long-distance telephone charges and mileage costs; -- Other mitigative costs incurred between August 20, 2023 and the submission of a class member's individual MNGI settlement claim form; and -- Unpaid time off of work spent addressing issues that are fairly traceable to the cyberattack and subsequent data breach at the actual hourly rate of the individual class member. Class members may file an MNGI claim form online by navigating to the this page on the settlement website and clicking the “Start Your Claim” button. Alternatively, class members may download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out and submit by mail to the address listed at the top of the first page of the form. All MNGI Digestive Health settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked no later than September 4, 2025. Claims for reimbursement of out-of-pocket losses must be accompanied by supporting documentation, a brief description of the loss and the class member's name and current address, the settlement website specifies. These losses will be considered as “fairly traceable” to the incident if said losses were incurred starting on August 20, 2023, and the settlement administrator determines that the losses could reasonably have been caused by the MNGI data breach. Class members are also able to submit a claim to receive two years of CyEx medical monitoring and a pro rata cash payment out of the $2.8 million-plus settlement fund. There will be a hearing on September 4, 2025 to determine whether the settlement will receive final approval from the court. Benefits from the MNGI settlement will begin to be distributed only after the deal receives ultimate approval from the court, and any appeals are resolved. The data breach class action lawsuit against MNGI Digestive Health alleged that customers' personal health and identifying data was accessed by an unauthorized third party during a cyberattack on or around August 20, 2023. Per the case, the data compromised in the incident included full names, dates of birth, passport numbers, driver's license or state ID numbers, Social Security numbers, medical information, health insurance data, payment card details and more. [GN] MONAT GLOBAL: Clark Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as ROBERT CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WHITEPAGES, INC, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 25-2-11215-2 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for King County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on May 2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00810-TL. The Plaintiff purports to bring claims on behalf of a putative Colorado class for Whitepages’ alleged violation of Colorado’s Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act (“PTFA”), claiming that Whitepages improperly listed cellular telephone numbers of Colorado residents without consent.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kimberlee L. Gunning, Esq. R. Omar Riojas, Esq. GOLDFARB & HUCK ROTH RIOJAS, PLLC 925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3950 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206.452.0260 Email: gunning@goldfarb-huck.com riojas@goldfarb-huck.com - and - Blaine C. Kimrey, Esq. Bryan K. Clark, Esq. VEDDER PRICE P.C. 222 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312.609.7500 Email: bkimrey@vedderprice.com bclark@vedderprice.com MONAT GLOBAL: Kreifels Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Rachel Kreifels and Ashley Marin, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MONAT GLOBAL CORP., RAYNER URDANETA, LUIS URDANETA, LU URDANETA, FRANCISCO JAVIER URDANETA, MARJORIE MUNOZ, CARLA HERNANDEZ, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2025-01476545-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 23, 2025, and assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-01160-JVS-AJR. The Complaint alleges 9 causes of action against Defendants in connection with the core allegation (which Defendants deny) that under California law, Plaintiffs were misclassified as independent contractors: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide rest periods; failure to provide meal periods; failure to timely pay wages during employment; failure to keep payroll records; failure to provide accurate wage statements; failure to reimburse business expenses; and unfair competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Lawrence B. Steinberg, Esq. Kathryn B. Fox, Esq. Rochelle L. Calderon, Esq. BUCHALTER, A Professional Corporation 1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-1730 Phone: (213) 891-0700 Fax: (213) 896-0400 Email: LSteinberg@buchalter.com kfox@buchalter.com rcalderon@buchalter.com MUELLER WATER: Kok Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ----------------------------------------------------- David Kok, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MUELLER WATER PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 25CV007040 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cty., May 22, 2025), is brought arising from its failure to safeguard certain Personally Identifying Information ("PII") of thousands of its current and former employees, resulting in Defendant's network systems being unauthorizedly accessed on or around October 25, 2023, and the PII of employees therein, including of Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members, being disclosed, stolen, compromised, and misused, causing widespread and continuing injury and damages. According to Defendant's Breach Notice, on or around October 25, 2023, "Mueller became aware of unusual activity" on its IT network. An internal investigation revealed that "certain files stored within Mueller's environment were copied from the system by an unauthorized person(s) between October 25, and 26, 2023." The total number of individuals who have had their data exposed due to Defendant's failure to implement appropriate security safeguards is approximately 5,732. The Plaintiff and Members of the Class have suffered significant injury and damages due to the Data Breach permitted to occur by Mueller, and the resulting misuse of their PII, monetary damages including out-of-pocket expenses, including those associated with the reasonable mitigation measures they were forced to employ, and other damages. The Plaintiff and the Class also now forever face an amplified risk of further misuse, fraud, and identity theft due to their sensitive PII falling into the hands of cybercriminals as a result of the tortious conduct of Defendant, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Mueller. Mueller is "a leading manufacturer and marketer of products and services used in the transmission, distribution and measurement of water in North America."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph B. Alonso, Esq. Daniel H. Wirth, Esq. ALONSO & WIRTH 1708 Peachtree Street, NW, Suite 303 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (678) 928-4472 Email: jalonso@alonsowirth.com dwirth@alonsowirth.com - and - Cassandra P. Miller, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1601 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: cmiller@straussborrelli.com MW POLAR: Faces Class Action Over Salmon Products' False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------ Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges MW Polar Foods Corporation has falsely advertised its Salmon Fillet in Brine and Juice product by failing to disclose that the farm-raised salmon derives its characteristic pink color from chemical coloring additives. The 33-page lawsuit claims that independent testing conducted by the plaintiffs' counsel confirmed that the Salmon Fillet in Brine and Juice contains astaxanthin, an artificial food additive used to color the meat pink to imitate the natural color of wild-caught salmon, rather than the white or grey color typical of farm-raised salmon. Both California and federal law require that the use of astaxanthin or canthaxanthin, another common additive used to color farmed salmon, be disclosed on the label of food products containing these artificial additives, the filing states. However, the lawsuit claims that no such disclosure is made on the label for MW Polar salmon containing astaxanthin. The suit alleges that the company has used the additive to appeal to the public perception of color as an indicator of freshness and the apparent consumer association between color and quality. In particular, the suit shares, consumers associate deeper pinks and reds with wild-caught salmon, which the lawsuit says the average consumer prefers over farmed salmon due to the known negative impacts of salmon farming on both the fish and the environment. The lawsuit alleges that MW Polar Foods Corporation should have known that consumers would have been misled by its omission of the presence of color additives. The case says the plaintiffs would have paid less for the product, or not purchased it at all, had they been made aware of the use of artificial coloring additives in the food. The class action lawsuit against MW Polar Foods Corporation seeks to represent anyone in the United States who purchased the company's Salmon Fillet in Brine and Juice product within the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Silberman Sues Over Pet Insurance Cancellations ------------------------------------------------------------------ DON SILBERMAN, KAREN SILBERMAN and NETTI STERNKLAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, NATIONWIDE VETERINARY PET INSURANCE COMPANY and NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-11619 (D. Mass., June 4, 2025) is a class action brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and similarly situated pet insurance policyholders who were allegedly deceived by Nationwide regarding the extent of its nose-to-tail coverage for pet insurance policies. According to the complaint, Nationwide engaged in bait-and-switch scheme that lured consumers into purchasing Whole Pet insurance policies based on the false promise that their policies would "never" be cancelled due to a pet's age. Then, when their senior pets needed veterinary care, Nationwide decided it would no longer offer Whole Pet, thus cancelling coverage for thousands of consumers. Consumers who wished to maintain pet insurance were left out in the cold, as pet insurance policies offered by all companies would not cover pre-existing medical conditions and some would not cover certain pets due to age. Had consumers known of the surprise pet insurance cancellations, they never would have signed up for Nationwide's Whole Pet insurance, says the suit. Nationwide Veterinary Pet Insurance Company is an insurance provider, which markets and administers pet insurance policies to consumers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paula S. Bliss, Esq. Kelly Guagenty, Esq. JUSTICE LAW COLLABORATIVE, LLC 210 Washington Street North Easton, MA 02356 Telephone: (508) 230-2700 Facsimile: (385) 278-0287 E-mail: paula@justicelc.com kelly@justicelc.com NIKE INC: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Marketing Emails ------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Nike's advertising emails employ false or misleading subject lines, in violation of the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act. The 14-page lawsuit says that Nike's marketing emails contain subject lines designed to impart a false urgency or false sense of scarcity for products in order to pressure consumers into making more immediate purchasing decisions. "This false urgency wastes consumers' time by enticing them to engage with Nike's marketing for fear of missing out and chokes consumers' email inboxes with repeated false notifications that consumers' time to act is short," the class action lawsuit summarizes. For example, the case claims that an email sent by Nike on June 10, 2022 had a subject line that read "2 days only: Save up to 50%," implying that the purported sale would run for only June 10 and 11 of that year. However, the suit claims that Nike, in fact, had always intended to run the sale advertised in the June 10 email until June 18, 2022. The complaint lists several more examples of allegedly misleading or fraudulent advertising emails and subject lines from Nike. The filing charges that Nike's false email advertising violates Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA), a state law that prohibits any commercial email that "[c]ontains false or misleading information in the subject line" from being sent to the email address of a Washington resident. The lawsuit also argues that Nike knows or has reason to know whether the address to which a given marketing email is being sent belongs to a Washington resident, as the retail giant has access to multiple avenues through which to gather location information. The class action lawsuit against Nike seeks to represent all Washington citizens in possession of an email address which received a Nike marketing email with one of the following subject lines in the past four years: -- "Cyber Monday is here" (12/1/2024) -- "Only a few hours left" (11/30/2024) -- "Last chance to save an extra 25%" (9/22/2023) -- "Two days left to save" (8/4/2023) -- "THE Ultimate Sale Ends tonight: Save up to 60%" (7/15/2023) -- "Up to 50% off disappears tonight" (8/26/2022) -- "2 days only: Save up to 50%" (6/10/2022) [GN] ONE SOURCE: Agrees to Settle PFAS Class Suit for $2.5 Million ------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that HexClad has agreed to a $2.5 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that it falsely advertised its cookware as free from toxic chemicals, such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). The settlement benefits consumers who purchased one or more eligible HexClad products between Feb. 1, 2022, and March 31, 2024. A full list of eligible products can be found on the settlement website. HexClad is a cookware brand that sells a variety of pots, pans and other kitchen accessories. The brand advertises its cookware as "the best of both worlds," combining the benefits of stainless steel and nonstick cookware. HexClad customers claimed in the class action lawsuit that the company's products are not as safe as they seem. According to the class action lawsuit, HexClad cookware contains toxic chemicals, such as PFAS and PFOA. Plaintiffs in the case say they purchased HexClad cookware based on the company's marketing that advertised its products as "PFAS Free," "PFOA Free" or otherwise free from certain chemicals. In reality, HexClad cookware allegedly contains these chemicals. HexClad's false and misleading representations and omissions are material and are likely to deceive reasonable consumers, the class action lawsuit contends. HexClad has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $2.5 million to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the HexClad cookware settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the number of eligible products they purchased and the amount they paid for these products. Class members who purchased one eligible product can receive a higher pro rata share of the net settlement fund than class members who purchased multiple products. Exact payment amounts will vary. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Aug. 5, 2025. The final approval hearing for the HexClad cookware settlement is scheduled for Sept. 15, 2025. To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by Nov. 14, 2025. Who's Eligible Consumers who purchased certain HexClad cookware products between Feb. 1, 2022, and March 31, 2024. A full list of eligible products can be found on the settlement website. Potential Award Varies. Proof of Purchase Proof of purchase is not required for class members who submit a claim for one or two products. However, those submitting a claim for three or more products must include proof of purchase, such as a receipt, order confirmation or other documentation that shows the class member purchased the products and the price paid. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 11/14/2025 Case Name Cliburn, et al. v. One Source to Market LLC d/b/a HexClad Cookware Inc., Case No. 23STCV28390, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles Final Hearing 09/15/2025 Settlement Website HexCladSettlement.com Claims Administrator Cliburn v. One Source to Market LLC d/b/a HexClad Cookware Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 301172 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1172 admin@HexCladSettlement.com (866) 507-0323 Class Counsel Brian C. Gudmundson ZIMMERMAN REED LLP Christopher D. Jennings JENNINGS PLLC John R. Parker Jr. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC Defense Counsel Kevin D. Rising Garrett S. Llewellyn BARNES & THORNBURG LLP Joshua D. Rievman DUNNING RIEVMAN & MACDONALD LLP [GN] OSCAR INSURANCE: Does Not Fully Pay for Diagnostic Breast Imaging ----------------------------------------------------------------- LAUREN MOODY, Plaintiff v. OSCAR INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-02577 (S.D. Tex., June 4, 2025) is brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, for Defendant's alleged violation of the Tex. Ins. Code that requires 100% payment of the cost of breast-related diagnostic imaging. All Oscar non-ERISA medical insurance policies issued or renewed in Texas on or after January 1, 2022, as conformed to Texas law, require Oscar to pay 100% of the cost of breast-related diagnostic imaging, as that term is defined in Tex. Ins. Code. In violation of the law and in breach of the Policies, Oscar has been requiring the insureds who make up the Class to pay deductibles and coinsurance for diagnostic breast imaging. The complaint asserts that Oscar's violation of Texas law and breach of its policies don't just harm its insureds economically. It also endangers their lives. For insureds who have dense breast tissue, who have detected a lump or had their doctor detect one, who have had an abnormality show up on a screening mammogram, or who have a prior history of breast cancer, diagnostic breast imaging is a crucial tool to increase early detection and successful treatment of breast cancer. This class action seeks to recover all amounts Oscar required Plaintiff Moody and the Class to pay for diagnostic breast imaging. Oscar Insurance Company provides insurance services with principal place of business in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger L. Mandel, Esq. JEEVES MANDEL LAW GROUP, P.C. 2833 Crockett St., Suite 135 Fort Worth, TX 76107 Telephone: (214) 253-8300 E-mail: rmandel@jeevesmandellawgroup.com - and - Scott R. Jeeves, Esq. JEEVES LAW GROUP, P.A. 2100 1st Avenue South, Suite 2 St. Petersburg, FL 33712 Telephone: (727) 894-2929 E-mail: sjeeves@jeeveslawgroup.com khill@jeeveslawgroup.com PADSPLIT INC: Loban Balks at Unwanted Telemarketing Messages ------------------------------------------------------------ MUBASHIR LOBAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PADSPLIT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-01422-TPB-AAS (M.D. Fla., June 2, 2025) is a putative class action brought against the Defendant pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. To promote its goods and services, the Defendant engages in telemarketing text messages at unlawful times. The Defendant violated the law by initiating telephone solicitations to telephone subscribers such as Plaintiff and the Class members before the hour of 8 a.m. or after the hour of 9 p.m. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the Class members. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. PadSplit, Inc. is a foreign profit corporation with its headquarters located in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faaris K. Uddin, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (813) 340-8838 E-mail: faaris@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com PAPA HOTEL: Faces Hernandez Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARY CARMEN ASCENCION HERNANDEZ (A.K.A. BRITTANY), individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAPA HOTEL CORP. (d/b/a JET SET HOTEL), HARRY KUMAR, PRAMOD CHADHA, VINOD KUMAR and SETH PRINCE KUMAR, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04690 (S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards, for violations of the New York Labor Law, and for compensatory and punitive damages for violations of Plaintiff's rights under the New York State Executive Law and the Administrative Code of the City of New York. According to the complaint, the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff Hernandez to work without paying appropriately for any hours worked, at the straight rate of pay. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Maldonado appropriately for any hours worked at the straight rate of pay. Additionally, in violation of state and local laws prohibiting discrimination against individuals regarded as disabled, Defendant Seth Prince Kumar discriminated against Plaintiff Hernandez by terminating her because she fainted while at work. Plaintiff Hernandez was a 17-year old minor residing in Bronx County, New York who was employed by Defendants as a housekeeper at Jet Set Hotel, from approximately September 2023 until on or about February 2024. Papa Hotel Corp. owns, operates and controls a hotel located at 4563 Third Ave, Bronx, New York under the name of Jet Set Hotel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 E-mail: michael@faillace.com PRACTICE RESOURCES: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $1.5-Mil. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that Practice Resources has agreed to pay a $1.5 million settlement to resolve a consolidated class action lawsuit over an April 2022 data breach that reportedly compromised the personal and medical information of approximately 942,000 people. The court-approved website for the Practice Resources data breach settlement can be found at PRLDataBreachSettlement.com. The settlement agreement with the medical billing services provider covers all individuals whose private information was compromised in the data breach, including those who were sent notice of the incident on or around August 23, 2022. According to the Practice Resources class action settlement website, class members who filed a valid claim form by April 25, 2025 are eligible to receive settlement benefits, including a choice of up to $5,000 in reimbursement for documented monetary losses incurred on or after April 12, 2022 and “more likely than not” traceable to the incident, up to three years of credit monitoring and identity theft insurance services, or a pro-rated cash payment. The website notes that the credit monitoring and insurance service benefit was available to consumers regardless of whether they accepted any previous offer from Practice Resources. Class members who took advantage of a prior offer or received such services from another provider as a result of the data breach may delay activation of this benefit for up to 12 months, the site adds. For consumers who elected to receive a Practice Resources settlement payment, individual payout amounts will depend on the total number of valid claims that were filed and what remains of the settlement fund after the aforementioned benefits are paid, the website explains. Per the site, all settlement payments and the duration of credit monitoring and insurance services are subject to reduction as needed to exhaust but not exceed the $1,500,000 fund. The Practice Resources settlement was preliminarily approved by the court on September 23, 2024. Next, the court will decide whether to grant final approval to the terms of the deal at a hearing on June 11, 2025. Settlement benefits will be issued to eligible class members only if the settlement receives ultimate court approval. The process may be prolonged by appeals, which must be resolved before any Practice Resources settlement benefits are distributed. According to the class action lawsuit against Practice Resources, the company failed to prevent the cyberattack, which the company claims to have discovered on or around April 12, 2022. The incident compromised individuals' names, home addresses, dates of treatment, health plan numbers and/or medical record numbers, the case said. [GN] SCOSHA W. LLC: Fernandez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- FELIPE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCOSHA W., LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04672 (S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.scosha.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's website, blind and visually impaired customers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the facilities, products, and services Defendant offers to the public on the website, says the suit. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. SCOSHA W., LLC operates the website that offers handcrafted jewelry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com SENSIO INC: Brandon Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- DELANA BRANDON is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Delana Brandon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sensio, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-2859, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged marketing and sale of defective pressure cookers. On Sept. 25, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss on Oct. 7, 2024. On May 29, 2025, Judge Ronnie Abrams granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice. The appellate case is entitled Brandon v. Sensio, Inc., Case No. 25-1399, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on June 2, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant DELANA BRANDON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Philip Furia, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 SOCIETE DE TRANSPORT: Class Suit Seeks Damages Due to Strike ------------------------------------------------------------ Jack Wilson, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that a proposed class-action lawsuit filed Thursday, June 12, is seeking damages for commuters affected by the ongoing STM strike -- targeting both the STM and the striking union. The application, filed by Montreal lawyer Sidney Bitton, is looking to represent holders of transit passes for June, arguing that the strike's significant cuts in service breached the contract that riders entered when they purchased a monthly pass. It holds that both the STM and union bear responsibility for the strike. Before it can proceed, the suit will have to be authorized by a judge, who will determine whether Bitton can represent the proposed group of plaintiffs in court. Montreal's planned nine-day transit strike, the first since 2007, left commuters frustrated and confused as service stopped for hours-long stretches during its first three days from Monday to Wednesday. The anger was perhaps most palpable on the first day of the strike, when many commuters found themselves stranded after metro and bus service shut down earlier than they'd expected. One commuter at Côte-Vertu metro station, who only gave his name as Mike, arrived Monday morning expecting trains to be running. With the station closed, he said he would miss work and likely find himself in trouble with his boss. "The ministers, the people who make decisions, they have their own cars," he said, adding that people with fewer resources would be most affected. The lawsuit filing criticizes the decision to run full transit service during the Grand Prix weekend, while shuttering it for hours at a time during the workweek. "It's shameful" and insulting, Bitton said. "Mr. and Ms. Everyone with a pass are made to suffer the consequences and the damages," he said, while Grand Prix spectators are unaffected. Those attending the Grand Prix tend to be "of a certain class," Bitton said. After the 2007 STM strike, the transit authority offered $3.50 to monthly transit pass holders who had paid full price -- $65 at the time -- and $2 to those who had paid the reduced price, then $35. Both the STM and union declined to comment directly on the lawsuit, though both said in emails that the strike was legal. "The STM underlines that it took all reasonable measures to maintain the most service possible," during the strike, spokesperson Isabelle Tremblay said in a statement. [GN] TEMPUS AI: Faces Shareholders Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP reminds stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Tempus AI, Inc. (NASDAQ: TEM) common stock between August 6, 2024 and May 27, 2025. Tempus purports to be provide Artificial Intelligence ("AI") enabled precision medicine solutions. For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that Tempus AI, Inc. (TEM) Misled Investors Regarding its Business Prospects According to the complaint, defendants failed to disclose: (1) Tempus inflated the value of contract agreements, many of which were with related parties, included non-binding opt-ins and/or were self-funded; (2) the credibility and substance of the joint venture with SoftBank was at risk because it gave the appearance of "round-tripping" capital to create revenue for Tempus; (3) Tempus-acquired Ambry had a business model based on aggressive and potentially unethical billing practices that risked scrutiny and unsustainability; (4) AstraZeneca had reduced its financial commitments to Tempus through a questionable "pass-through payment" via a joint agreement between it, the Company and Pathos AI; and (5) the foregoing issues revealed weakness in core operations and revenue prospects. The complaint alleges that on May 28, 2025, Spruce Point Capital Management, LLC issued a report on Tempus that raised numerous red flags over Tempus' management, operations and financial reporting. The Spruce Point Report scrutinized Tempus on an array of issues, including: (1) defendant Eric Lefkofsky and his associates have a history cashing out of companies before public shareholders incur losses or lackluster returns; (2) Tempus' actual AI capabilities are overstated; (3) board members and other executives have been associated with troubled companies that restated financial results; (4) signs of aggressive accounting and financial reporting; (4) issues with the AstraZeneca and Pathos AI deal that merit scrutiny; and (5) the Company's recent financial guidance reveals weakness in core operations. On this news, the price of Tempus common stock fell $12.67 per share, or 19.23%, from a closing price of $65.87 per share on May 27, 2025, to a closing price of $53.20 per share on May 28, 2025. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Tempus AI, Inc. Shareholders who want to serve as lead plaintiff for the class should contact the firm. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action against Tempus AI, Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact: Aaron Dumas, Jr. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 adumas@robbinsllp.com (800) 350-6003 www.robbinsllp.com [GN] TESLA AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Autopilot Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tung Nguyen of DRIVE reports that the class action brought against Tesla Australia for claims of phantom braking, battery issues, and misleading Autopilot marketing in Model 3 and Model Y electric cars is building momentum, with a reported circa-10,000 owners joining the lawsuit. First initiated in February, the case alleges that Model 3 and Model Y vehicles "have a propensity to autonomous engage Automatic Emergency Braking [Autonomous Emergency Braking, or AEB] abruptly in inappropriate circumstances, leading to a risk of collisions", according to law firm JGA Sadler. ABC News and 7.30 has recently reported on local occurrences of unintended braking, with a Model 3 owner allegedly experiencing sudden braking on a freeway wherein a truck nearly collided into them. According to the driver via ABC News, "it has happened to him numerous times". There are semi-regular posts on local Tesla owner groups and forums claiming sudden and unexpected braking in Model 3 and Model Y vehicles. There may be further instances of the system not working as intended that may not have been reported, so the true scale of the alleged issue is unclear. Aside from phantom braking, the lawsuit also looks to address Model 3 and Model Y vehicles allegedly not achieving close to their advertised driving range numbers. Finally, the class action also puts forward that "the hardware on Tesla vehicles is incapable of supporting fully autonomous or close to autonomous driving" despite being labelled as Autopilot by the brand. Tesla describes its Autopilot system as an "advanced driver assistance system that enhances safety and convenience behind the wheel" and that drivers need to "keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times and maintain control of [the] vehicle". Designed primarily for freeway driving scenarios, the Autopilot system combines Tesla's version of adaptive cruise control and lane-centring technology which is also offered by other car brands like Nissan, Hyundai, and Toyota, but marketed under different names. Tesla also offers an Enhanced Autopilot system that can automatically change lanes or autonomously park the vehicle, as well as a Full Self-Driving mode unlocked in other markets that can steer by itself on city streets and read traffic lights. Last month, a video released by Tesla showed a vehicle navigating Melbourne's CBD in Full Self-Driving mode where it was able to complete a hook turn without any driver input, but it is unclear when this feature will be rolled out to owners in Australia. The case against Tesla was brought to the Federal Court last month, and a verdict is still forthcoming. [GN] UBER EATS: Charges Hidden Delivery Service Fees, Class Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- blogTO reports that Uber Eats customers in Canada could be part of a new proposed class-action lawsuit accusing the online food delivery service of charging hidden service fees. On May 16, Toronto law firm Koskie Minsky brought forward a proposed lawsuit against Uber Eats, accusing the company of drip pricing. The lawsuit against Uber Technologies, Inc., Uber Canada Inc., Uber Portier Canada Inc., and Uber Castor Canada Inc. was filed in the Superior Court of Ontario. In an email statement, an Uber Canada representative said that they cannot comment on the ongoing legal proceedings but that the company takes "these allegations seriously." "We are committed to transparency and fairness in our pricing practices," they stated. "We are reviewing the claims thoroughly and will be defending the lawsuit." The allegations Koskie Minsky alleges that in addition to the advertised delivery fee, Uber Eats charged customers hidden service fees in Canada. "The class action alleges that Uber misrepresented the true cost of delivery by only fully disclosing the Service Fee at the final stage of the transaction, often obscured under a 'Taxes and Other Fees' line item, a practice known as drip pricing," states the website. According to Canada's Competition Bureau, drip pricing occurs when the price you see isn't the price you pay, when the true total cost of a product or service isn't displayed upfront, or when there are additional charges that you weren't expecting. "The only mandatory fees you should pay are the fixed ones imposed by the government on purchasers, such as sales tax," states the site. The company is also being accused of breach of contract. The lawsuit alleges that customers who paid a monthly subscription fee for Uber One had to pay a service fee, despite being promised no delivery fees on eligible orders in Canada. "Uber One Class Members do not, in fact, benefit from no delivery fees as they are still required to pay the service fee, which is an additional delivery fee," reads the court document. According to the lawsuit, by leading customers to pay more for delivery than represented, Uber's actions are accused of being "false and misleading," thereby violating the Competition Act and the Ontario Consumer Protection Act. The proposed class action alleges that the company must reimburse customers for the service fees they paid, in addition to damages. It also alleges that Uber One customers are entitled to reimbursement for monthly and annual subscription fees, as well as any additional fees paid. The total amount to be paid to class members in punitive damages depends on what the court finds appropriate. Are you eligible? You may be eligible to participate in the proposed class-action lawsuit if you're a Canadian resident and an Uber Eats customer who paid a service fee after placing an order for delivery on or after May 16, 2023. The lawsuit also includes Canadians who were Uber One subscribers on or after May 16, 2023. If you're eligible, you don't need to sign up as you're automatically included as a class member unless you choose to opt out. To learn more about the proposed class action lawsuit, visit Koskie and Minsky's website. Uber isn't the only company facing legal troubles. The Competition Bureau is suing DoorDash, alleging that the company has advertised misleading prices and discounts in Canada. [GN] UCM MEDICAL: Faces Young Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------ ALTA YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UCM MEDICAL GROUP SUB, LLC, d/b/a UCHICAGO MEDICINE MEDICAL GROUP, and NATIONWIDE RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06124 (N.D. Ill., June 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard the protected health information and other personally identifiable information of 38,000 patients, including, but not limited to first and last name, address, date of birth, Social Security number, financial account information, and/or medical-related information. In July 2024, Defendant NRS discovered suspicious activity in its information technology environment, which resulted in an unauthorized party gaining access to PHI/PII between July 5, 2024, and July 11, 2024. Upon information and belief, NRS did not notify Defendant UCM of the Data Breach until April 8, 2025. The complaint alleges that the Data Breach was a direct result of Defendants' failure to implement reasonable safeguards to protect PHI/PII from a foreseeable and preventable risk of unauthorized disclosure. Had Defendants implemented administrative, technical, and physical controls consistent with industry standards and best practices, they could have prevented the Data Breach, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a patient/guarantor on one or more Defendant UCM's patient accounts, which is how Defendant UCM obtained Plaintiff’s personal information. UCM is a not-for-profit, academic medical health system and is the largest provider of medical care on the South Side of Chicago in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Rosemergy, Esq. CAREY DANIS & LOWE 8235 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100 St Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 725-7700 Facsimile: (314) 721-0905 E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com UNITED STATES: Thakur Sues Over Unlawful Federal Grant Termination ------------------------------------------------------------------ NEETA THAKUR, KEN ALEX, NELL GREEN NYLEN, ROBERT HIRST, CHRISTINE PHILLIOU, and JEDDA FOREMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States; DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY ("DOGE"); AMY GLEASON, in her official capacity as Acting Administrator of the Department of Government Efficiency; NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION; BRIAN STONE, in his official capacity as Acting Director of the National Science Foundation; NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES; MICHAEL MCDONALD, in his official capacity as Acting Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities; UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; LEE ZELDIN, in his official capacity as Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; BROOKE ROLLINS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture; AMERICORPS (a.k.a. the CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE); JENNIFER BASTRESS TAHMASEBI, in her official capacity as Interim Agency Head of AmeriCorps; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; PETE HEGSETH, in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Defense; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; LINDA MCMAHON, in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; CHRIS WRIGHT, in his official capacity as Secretary of Energy; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; UNITED STATES CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL; MATTHEW BUZZELLI, in his official capacity as Acting Director of the Centers for Disease Control; UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; MARTIN A. MAKARY, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; UNITED STATES NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH; JAYANTA BHATTACHARYA, in his official capacity as Director of the National Institutes of Health; INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES; KEITH SONDERLING, in his official capacity as Acting Director of the Institute of Museum and Library Services; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; DOUG BURGUM, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Interior; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE; MARCO RUBIO, in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of State; DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; SEAN DUFFY, in his official capacity as Secretary for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-04737 (N.D. Cal., June 4, 2025) is a class action for declaratory and injunctive relief brought by and on behalf of University of California researchers whose previously approved grants from the federal agencies here named as Defendants have been or are threatened to be unlawfully terminated or suspended. The Plaintiffs challenge these terminations and seek a declaration that they are unconstitutional and otherwise unlawful because they violate the bedrock constitutional principle of separation of powers; the First Amendment guarantee of free speech; the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process; the Impoundment Control Act of 1974; statutes requiring agencies to fulfill congressionally defined missions; and the Administrative Procedure Act. These terminations bypassed Congress, ignored or contradicted the purposes for which Congress created the granting agencies and appropriated funds, and dispensed with the regular procedures and due process afforded grantees under the APA, in implementing the Trump Administration's political "cost-cutting" agenda and ideological purity campaign, asserts the complaint. These terminations and suspensions occurred pursuant to Executive Orders or other directives of Defendant President Donald J. Trump, issued from January 20, 2025 to present, that were implemented through Defendant Department of Government Efficiency and then operationalized by myriad administrative agencies. The Plaintiffs seek, for themselves and the UC researchers' class, an injunction that restores their lost funding, enjoins further unlawful grant terminations or suspensions, and provides the grant extensions necessary to enable them to effectively complete the work for which these grants were approved. The Plaintiffs and the Class are suffering, or will imminently suffer, concrete harm to their research, their careers, and their professional standing. Donald J. Trump is sued in his official capacity as the President of the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Erwin Chemerinsky, Esq. Claudia Polsky, Esq. U.C. BERKELEY SCHOOL OF LAW Law Building Berkeley, CA 94720-7200 Telephone: (510) 642-6483 E-mail: echemerinsky@law.berkeley.edu cpolsky@law.berkeley.edu - and - Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq. Richard M. Heimann, Esq. Kevin R. Budner, Esq. Annie M. Wanless, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com rheimann@lchb.com kbudner@lchb.com awanless@lchb.com - and - Anthony P. Schoenberg, Esq. John J. Darin, Esq. Katherine T. Balkoski, Esq. FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP One Bush Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 954-4400 E-mail: tschoenberg@fbm.com jdarin@fmb.com kbalkoski@fbm.com URS MIDWEST: Makes Illegal Deductions From Driver's Pay, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ GENE LAFLEUR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. URS MIDWEST, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-11633-SKD-CI (E.D. Mich., June 2, 2025) alleges that URS has subjected Plaintiff and other truck drivers to illegal practices and policies in violation of the Truth-in-Leasing regulations. According to the complaint, URS entered into leases with Plaintiff and other similarly situated drivers and failed to adhere to the terms of the leases. The leases did not include mandatory terms and disclosures, and the company took illegal deductions from the compensation it paid Plaintiff and other similarly situated drivers. On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated drivers, the Plaintiff seeks damages, liquidated damages, interest, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs, and all other allowable relief. URS is authorized by the U.S. Department of Transportation to transport property in interstate commerce as a motor carrier. URS engages drivers to perform the transportation services that the company provides to its customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah S. Hurwitz, Esq. HURWITZ LAW PLLC 340 Beakes St., Suite 125 Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Telephone: (844) 487-9489 E-mail: noah@hurwitzlaw.com - and - Hillary Schwab, Esq. Brook S. Lane, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 607-3260 Facsimile: (617) 488-2261 E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com brook@fairworklaw.com WILSHIRE LAW FIRM: Hudson-Bryant Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wilshire Law Firm PLC. The case is styled as Kimberly Hudson-Bryant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wilshire Law Firm PLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00510-O (N.D. Tex., May 1, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Wilshire Law Firm -- https://wilshirelawfirm.com/ -- is California's top-rated legal team specializing in personal injury, employment, and class action cases.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (615) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Sharon K Campbell, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SHARON K CAMPBELL 3500 Oak Lawn Ave, Suite 205 Dallas, TX 75219 Phone: (214) 351-3260 Fax: (214) 443-6055 Email: sharon@sharonkcampbell.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Core & Main Still Faces Product Liability Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Core & Main, Inc., has been and continue to be a defendant in asbestos-related litigation matters, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Like other companies in our industry, we have been subject to personal injury and property damage claims arising from the types of products that we distribute. As a distributor in this industry, we face an inherent risk of exposure to product liability claims in the event that the use of the products we have distributed in the past or may in the future distribute is alleged to have resulted in economic loss, personal injury or property damage or violated environmental, health or safety or other laws. Such product liability claims in the past have included, and may in the future include, allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OtsP1W ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Defends Exposure Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------- Graham Corporation is a defendant in a number of lawsuits alleging illnesses from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products and seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "We cannot predict with certainty the outcome of these lawsuits or whether we could become subject to any similar, related or additional lawsuits in the future. In addition, because some of our products are used in systems that handle toxic or hazardous substances, any failure or alleged failure of our products in the future could result in litigation against us. For example, a claim could be made under various regulations for the adverse consequences of environmental contamination. Any litigation brought against us, whether with or without merit, could result in substantial costs to us as well as divert the attention of our management, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ForPeB ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***