250630.mbx

250630.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, June 30, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 129 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Anghuy Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Ballew Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Brockenbrough Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Carroll Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Cervantes Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams 3M COMPANY: Chance Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Cortez Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Crosby Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Curley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Denton Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Medina Sues Over Asbestos Containing Products 45RPM STUDIO: Fernandez Sues Over Blind Inaccessible Website 965 AMSTERDAM: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Espinoza Says ACE ELECTRIC: Fails to Secure Customers' Personal Info, Sole Says ALN MEDICAL: Siebuhr's Bid to Consolidate Cases Granted ALN MEDICAL: Waldman's Bid to Consolidate Cases Granted ALN MEDICAL: Washington's Bid to Consolidate Cases Granted AMY O INC: Hampton Sues Over Website's Noncompliance of ADA APEX GLOBAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Thompson Alleges APEX GLOBAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Zimmerman Alleges APPLE INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ATR BRANDS: Anderson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BETTER DEBT: Bid to Bifurcate Discovery Tossed w/o Prejudice BLUE WATER: Wills Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind BRO GLO INC: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Brown Claims CALIFORNIA INTERSCHOLASTIC: Calhoun Sues Over Restraints of Trade CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Transmits Subscribers' Info to 3rd Party CASELY INC: Holm Sues Over Power Pods' Defective Lithium Batteries CENTRAL STATES MANUFACTURING: Shipp Seeks Class Certification CENTRAL TEXAS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Alleges CERNER CORP: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Venaglia Claims CERTIFIED TITLE: Stern Suit Removed to D. Maryland CEVICHE BAR: Brito Sues Over Property's Architectural Barriers CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Crane Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts CHILDREN'S PLACE: Mediation in Gonzalez Suit Ongoing CHURCH & DWIGHT: Swetz Sues Over Sale of Contaminated Products COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Clayborne Sues Over Mislabeled Toothpaste COLIBRI REAL ESTATE: Vaccaro Suit Removed to C.D. California CRESTA INTELLIGENCE: Galanter Files Suit in N.D. California CUTTER & BUCK: Faces Battle Suit Over Blind Inaccessible Website DAIKIN COMFORT: Perez Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. California DAMAN BEAUTY: Shields Files Suit in D. Arizona DARTMOUTH-HITCHCOCK: Initial Approval of $850K Settlement Sought DAVID GREEN: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Aleman Alleges DOLCE GLOW: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fagnani Alleges DOT TRANSPORTATION INC: Court Vacates Scheduling Order EARTH INC: Lewis Sues Over FTSA' Caller ID Rule Breaches EMIRATES: Must File Class Cert Opposition by August18 EPISOURCE LLC: Altes Files Suit in C.D. California EPISOURCE LLC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Finke Suit Says EQUAL EMPLOYMENT: Seeks to Stay Consideration of Class Cert Bid ER CARPENTER: Marrow Suit Seeks Class Certification FARMHOUSE STORE: Claude Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind FIVE STAR: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Lucio Says FORD MOTORS: Court Dismisses E-Series Cutaway Class Action Lawsuit FORT WAYNE: Hotel Violates ADA Standards, Foster Suit Says GOOGLE LLC: Seeks to File Class Cert Memo Under Seal HYUNDAI MOTOR: Kwiatkowski Suit Removed to C.D. California IHEARTMEDIA + ENTERTAINMENT: Ringler Sues Over Alleged Data Breach JANE TECHNOLOGIES: Bronstin Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania JAV FOOD: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Alexandria Claims JESUS EXPRESS: Arias-Chavez Sues Over Labor Law Breaches KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Modification of Class Cert Order Sought KUEHNE + NAGEL: Faces Sullivan Suit Over Violation of ADA LAKEVIEW LOAN: Morrill Seeks to File Class Cert Reply Under Seal LAKEVIEW SECURITY: Court Initiates Default Proceedings in Rojo LE-VEL BRANDS: Cahilig Suit Removed to N.D. California LEAFFILTER NORTH: Wright Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania LENDIFY ASSOCIATES: Griffin Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California LEXISNEXIS RISK: Faces Smith Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info LOS ANDES: Faces Tolentino Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. LUME DEODORANT: Allen Sues Over Unsafe Deodorant Products MARGINEDGE CO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Spiller Alleges MASIMO AMERICAS: Pleasants Suit Removed to C.D. California META PLATFORMS: Tracks Online Browsing Activity, Vincent Says METRO CARE: Underpays Clinical Care Coordinators, Obaoye Claims MICHELINA LLC: Molina Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MIDEA AMERICA: Barnhart Sues Over Defective Air Conditioners MM 879 INC: $995K Settlement in Cruz Gets Initial Nod MONAHAN PRODUCTS: Faces Class Action Suit Over UPPAbaby Car Seats NATIONAL RURAL: Fails to Manage 401(k) Pension Plan, Mullins Says NATIONWIDE LIFE: Funes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NEW YORK: Cardew Loses Bid to Strike Class Cert Opposition NEWREZ LLC: Moody Seeks More Time to File Class Certification O POSITIVE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to July 2 OVERSEAS WINE: Sharf Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Restaurant Staff OXY USA: Rider Bid for Class Certification Overruled PATRIOT LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Bryan Suit Due July 17 PAYCOR INC: Bid to Reconsider March 28 Order Tossed PORSCHE AG: Klein Loses Bid for Class Certification POSTMEDS INC: $7.5MM Class Settlement in Reed Suit Gets Final Nod PSOMI LLC: Caruso Suit Seeks to Recover Servers' Unpaid Wages PURFOODS LLC: Settlement Deal in Douglas Gets Initial OK REPUBLIC SERVICES: Parties Must File Supplemental Joint Report RES 360 LLC: Bramlett Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia RJ REYNOLDS: Faces Class Suit Over Carbon Neutrality Claims ROBINHOOD: Renewed Bid for Class Cert Tossed w/o Prejudice ROBLOX CORP: Computer Games Causes Addiction, Roy Suit Says ROCKET PHARMACEUTICALS: Artificially Inflated Stock Price, Ho Says SAFEWAY INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Boren Due Feb. 23, 2026 SALVATORE'S OF ELMONT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bonilla Says SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Bid to Align Case Sched Tossed w/o Prejudice SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Bid to Align Sched in R.P. Tossed w/o Prejudice SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Class Settlement in Anderson Gets Initial Nod SAZERAC CONSUMER: Pizarro Seeks to Seal Class Cert Exhibits SENSATA TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Wloch Says SENSATA TECHNOLOGIES: Lackner Files Suit in D. Massachusetts SHOPIFY (USA): Lazares Suit Removed to N.D. California SHOPPERSCHOICE.COM LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 31 SIRIUS XM RADIO: Stutsman Suit Removed to W.D. Washington SMITH & WESSON: Ontario Court Certifies Mass Shooting Class Suit SONY GROUP: Faces Suit Over Monopoly on Digital Game Sales STATE FARM: Class Cert Deadlines in Brown Suit Extended to July 31 STATE FARM: Class Cert Deadlines in M & M Suit Extended to July 31 STITCH FIX: Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Suit Pending SUBARU OF AMERICA: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due August 13 SUNGAGE FINANCIAL: Beatty Sues Over Alleged Financial Fraud SYNERGY INSPECTIONS: Hodge Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd TABLEONE BSNYC: Espinal Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due May 5, 2026 TARGET CORP: Pre-certification Discovery Extended to July 18 TEXTRON AVIATION: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines TRICOLOR HOLDINGS: Campos Suit Removed to C.D. California UNITED AIRLINES: Removes Bell Suit to N.D. Illinois UNITED NATURAL: Faces NYSM Organics Breach of Contract Suit UNITED NATURAL: Faces Securities Suit over SEC Disclosures UNITED STATES: Cabrera Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Class UNITED STATES: Coker et al. Sue Over Labor Law Violations UNITED STATES: Mora Bid to Reconsider Dismissal of FOIA Claim OK'd UNITED STATES: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response USAA INSURANCE: Filing for Class Cert. in Kujawa Due May 4, 2026 VETERANS ALLIANCE: Seeks Denial of Mitchell Class Cert Bid VINEYARD VINES: Harrington Suit Removed to W.D. Washington VISA INC: Judge Dismisses Class Action Suit Over Vanilla Gift Cards VMWARE INC: Court OKs Settlement in Shareholder Suit VOLVO CARS: Levine Seeks to Schedule Status Conference WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Casillas Alleges WALGREEN CO: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Polk Suit Due Oct. 17 WALGREEN EASTERN: Faces Monks Suit Over Late Payment of Wages WALT DISNEY: Settles Gender Discrimination Class Suit for $43.25MM WELLS FARGO: Class Cert Bid Filing in Kirkpatrick Due August 9 WESTGATE RESORTS: Amended Class Complaint Dismissed w/o Prejudice WEXFORD HEALTH: Parties Must Confer Response Partial Redaction WHOLE FOODS: Fact Discovery Completion in Silberstein Due May 15 WM WHOLESALE: Hernandez Seeks to Continue Class Cert. Deadline XACTUS LLC: Bid for Class Cert in Cinner Amended to Sept. 5 ZUFFA LLC: Must File Class Cert Reply by July 18 ********* 3M COMPANY: Anghuy Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ------------------------------------------------------------ Sylvester Anghuy, 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-04604-RMG (D.S.C., May 28, 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 3M COMPANY: Ballew Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ------------------------------------------------------------ Terry Ballew, 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-04606-RMG (D.S.C., May 28, 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: Brockenbrough Files Suit in D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Edward Brockenbrough, IV, and all others similarly situated v. 3M Company formerly known as: Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC Chemicals Americas Inc.; Amerex Corporation; Archroma US 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., formerly known as: DowDuPont Inc.; Dynax Corporation; EI Du Pont De Nemours and Company; Kidde PLC; Nation Ford Chemical Company; The Chemours Company; Tyco Fire Products LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; United Technologies Corporation; UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation Inc. formerly known as: GE Interlogix Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-04817-RMG (D.S.C., June 3, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Phone: (216) 849-3326 Email: dean@constantllp.com 3M COMPANY: Carroll Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ------------------------------------------------------------- Walter Carroll, 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-04607-RMG (D.S.C., May 28, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were being exposed to toxic chemicals until the contamination was recently discovered. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or the Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with thyroid cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF product. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Cervantes Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams ------------------------------------------------------- Richard Cervantes, 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-04542-RMG (D.S.C., May 27, 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 3M COMPANY: Chance Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Walter Chance, 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-04608-RMG (D.S.C., May 28, 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 3M COMPANY: Cortez Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals -------------------------------------------------------- Terry Cortez, 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-04608-RMG (D.S.C., May 28, 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 and thyroid disease 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: Crosby Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tara Crosby, 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-04611-RMG (D.S.C., May 28, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were being exposed to toxic chemicals until the contamination was recently discovered. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or the Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF product. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Curley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ------------------------------------------------------------ William Curley, 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-04612-RMG (D.S.C., May 28, 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 and thyroid disease 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: Denton Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Denton, 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-04543-RMG (D.S.C., May 27, 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 3M COMPANY: Medina Sues Over Asbestos Containing Products --------------------------------------------------------- Eva Medina, Individually and as successor-in-interest to Lawrence Medina, Deceased, and Stephanie Torres, Lawrence Medina, Jr., Monica Raupp, Jonathan Medina, and Carson Medina, individually, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, ARKEMA INC. f/k/a PENNWALT CORPORATION, AUTOZONE, INC., BWDAC, INC., COTY, INC., DAP INC., n/k/a LA MIRADA PRODUCTS CO., INC., GENUINE PARTS COMPANY, GEORGE'S AUTO SUPPLY INC., IMI FABI (DIANA) LLC, IMI FABI (USA) INC., IMI FABI, LLC, KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC., MORSE TEC LLC f/k/a BORGWARNER MORSE TEC LLC, Individually and as Successor-In-Interest to BORGWARNER CORPORATION, PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION, as successor-in-interest to EIS BRAKES, PFIZER, INC., PNEUMO ABEX LLC, Individually and as Successor-By-Merger to PNEUMO ABEX CORPORATION, Successor-In-Interest to ABEX CORPORATION f/k/a AMERICAN BRAKE SHOE COMPANY, f/k/a AMERICAN BRAKE SHOE AND FOUNDRY COMPANY including the AMERICAN BRAKEBLOK DIVISION, Successor-By-Merger to the AMERICAN BRAKE SHOE AND FOUNDRY COMPANY and THE AMERICAN BRAKEBLOK CORPORATION, f/k/a THE AMERICAN BRAKE MATERIALS CORPORATION, R.T. VANDERBILT HOLDING COMPANY, INC., Individually and as successor to RT VANDERBILT COMPANY, INC., SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC as successor in-interest to Fisons Corporation, SHERWIN WILLIAMS COMPANY, SMITH AUTO PARTS INC., STANDARD MOTOR PRODUCTS INC. individually and as successor-in-interest to EIS BRAKES STATER BROS. INC., SUMITOMO CORPORATION OF AMERICA, UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, VANDERBILT MINERALS LLC f/k/a RT Vanderbilt Company Inc., individually and as successor to International Talc Co., VI-JON, LLC, f/k/a VI-JON, INC., f/k/a CUMBERLAND SWAN HOLDINGS, INC. WESTERN AUTO SUPPLY COMPANY d/b/a ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, WESTROCK MWV LLC successor in interest to Meadwestvaco, and DOES 1 THROUGH 400 INCLUSIVE, et al., Case No. 25STCV17238 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 13, 2025), is brought arising out of Defendants' purposeful efforts to serve directly or indirectly the market for their asbestos and/or asbestos containing products, including but not limited to talc, in this State, either through direct sales or utilizing an established distributing channel with the expectation that their products would be purchased and/or used with the State of California As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Decedent was exposed to respirable asbestos, which he inhaled and which thereby entered his body, and which caused him to suffer the severe and permanent harm, up to and including death, as set forth herein. Decedent suffered permanent injuries, including, but not limited to mesothelioma, and ultimately death, and the mental, physical and emotional distress attendant thereto, all to Plaintiffs' incurred general damages in a sum in excess of $75,000.00. Decedent and Plaintiffs have paid and/or incurred liability for medical costs, including, but not limited to, the costs of physicians, surgeons, nurses, hospital care, medicine, hospices, medical imaging, palliative care and other medical treatment, and funeral expenses, the true and exact amount thereof being unknown to Plaintiffs at this time. Decedent incurred loss of the ability to perform household services, loss of income, a diminishment of earning potential, and other pecuniary losses, the full nature and extent of which are not yet known to Plaintiffs, says the complaint. The Plaintiff, Eva Medina, is the spouse of Lawrence Medina ("Decedent"). The Defendants bottled, blended, mixed, marketed, manufactured, sold, supplied, distributed, rebranded, relabeled, and otherwise placed asbestos-containing products into the stream of commerce.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah Gilson, Esq. MEIROWITZ & WASSERBERG, LLP 95 Third Street, 2nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 Phone: (212) 897-1988 Email: sgilson@mwinjurylaw.com 45RPM STUDIO: Fernandez Sues Over Blind Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ DEVIN FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 45RPM STUDIO USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-03026 (E.D.N.Y., May 30, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. As a result, access barriers effectively denied Plaintiff the ability to use and enjoy Defendant's website the same way sighted individuals do. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. 45RPM Studio USA, Inc. owns and operates the website, www.45rglobal.com, which offers clothing for sale. [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 965 AMSTERDAM: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Espinoza Says ------------------------------------------------------- FAUSTA AVILES ESPINOZA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 965 AMSTERDAM LAUNDROMAT INC. (D/B/A 965 LAUNDROMAT), FENG ZHENG, WEN YI LIN, and CHI CHING LAU, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04548 (S.D.N.Y., May 30, 2025) arises out of Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Aviles was ostensibly employed as a delivery worker. However, she was required to spend a considerable part of her workday performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to undertaking all the laundromat attendant tasks. In addition, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants without appropriate minimum wage compensation for the hours that she worked, says the suit. T he 965 Amsterdam Laundromat Inc. owns, operates, or controls a laundromat service, located at 965 Amsterdam Avenue, Front 2, New York, NY 10025, under the name "965 Laundromat". [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 ACE ELECTRIC: Fails to Secure Customers' Personal Info, Sole Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ERICK SOLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACE ELECTRIC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 7:25-cv-00076-WLS (M.D. Ga., June 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, breach of fiduciary duty, bailment, violation of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA), and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on March 29, 2023. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Ace Electric, Inc. is an electrical contractor, headquartered in Valdosta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel H. Wirth, Esq. ALONSO & WIRTH 1708 Peachtree Street, NW, Suite 303 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (678) 928-4472 Email: dwirth@alonsowirth.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: croman@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com ALN MEDICAL: Siebuhr's Bid to Consolidate Cases Granted ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Siebuhr v. ALN Medical Management, LLC (re ALN Medical Management LLC Data Incident Litigation), Case No. 4:25-CV-3077 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Michael D. Nelson entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate Cases (Filing No. 18 in Case No. 4:25CV3067) is granted. 2. The above-captioned cases are consolidated for all purposes. The Court designates Case No. 4:25CV3067 as the "Lead Case" and Case Nos. 4:25CV3069, 8:25CV224, 4:25CV3070, 4:25CV3071, 4:25CV3072, 4:25CV3073, 4:25CV3074, 4:25CV3075, 4:25CV3077, 4:25CV3080, 4:25CV3082 and 4:25CV3096 as "Member Cases." The Lead Case will proceed under the new title "In re ALN Medical Management LLC Data Incident Litigation." 3. The plaintiffs shall seek leave to file a consolidated amended complaint in the Lead Case on or before July 21, 2025. The Court FURTHER entered an order: 1. The Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel (Filing No. 18 in Case No. 4:25CV3067) is granted to the extent it requests appointment of Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel. 2. Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A.; Andrew Shamis of Shamis & Gentile P.A.; and John Nelson of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC are appointed as Interim Co- Lead Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedures 23(g)(3). 3. The plaintiffs’ Interim Co-Lead Counsel will be responsible for and have plenary authority to prosecute any and all claims of plaintiffs’ and the putative class and to provide general supervision of the activities of plaintiffs’ counsel in the Consolidated Action. 4. The plaintiffs' request for establishment and appointment of a Plaintiffs' Executive Committee is denied, without prejudice. ALN is an administrative services company for healthcare organizations. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j4yyC4 at no extra charge.[CC] ALN MEDICAL: Waldman's Bid to Consolidate Cases Granted ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Waldman v. ALN Medical Management, LLC (re ALN Medical Management LLC Data Incident Litigation), Case No. 4:25-CV-3070 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Michael D. Nelson entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate Cases (Filing No. 18 in Case No. 4:25CV3067) is granted. 2. The above-captioned cases are consolidated for all purposes. The Court designates Case No. 4:25CV3067 as the "Lead Case" and Case Nos. 4:25CV3069, 8:25CV224, 4:25CV3070, 4:25CV3071, 4:25CV3072, 4:25CV3073, 4:25CV3074, 4:25CV3075, 4:25CV3077, 4:25CV3080, 4:25CV3082 and 4:25CV3096 as "Member Cases." The Lead Case will proceed under the new title "In re ALN Medical Management LLC Data Incident Litigation." 3. The plaintiffs shall seek leave to file a consolidated amended complaint in the Lead Case on or before July 21, 2025. The Court FURTHER entered an order: 1. The Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel (Filing No. 18 in Case No. 4:25CV3067) is granted to the extent it requests appointment of Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel. 2. Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A.; Andrew Shamis of Shamis & Gentile P.A.; and John Nelson of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC are appointed as Interim Co- Lead Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedures 23(g)(3). 3. The plaintiffs’ Interim Co-Lead Counsel will be responsible for and have plenary authority to prosecute any and all claims of plaintiffs’ and the putative class and to provide general supervision of the activities of plaintiffs’ counsel in the Consolidated Action. 4. The plaintiffs' request for establishment and appointment of a Plaintiffs' Executive Committee is denied, without prejudice. ALN is an administrative services company for healthcare organizations. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QNv84h at no extra charge.[CC] ALN MEDICAL: Washington's Bid to Consolidate Cases Granted ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Washington v. ALN Medical Management LLC et al., (re ALN Medical Management LLC Data Incident Litigation), Case No. 4:25-CV-3071 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Michael D. Nelson entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate Cases (Filing No. 18 in Case No. 4:25CV3067) is granted. 2. The above-captioned cases are consolidated for all purposes. The Court designates Case No. 4:25CV3067 as the "Lead Case" and Case Nos. 4:25CV3069, 8:25CV224, 4:25CV3070, 4:25CV3071, 4:25CV3072, 4:25CV3073, 4:25CV3074, 4:25CV3075, 4:25CV3077, 4:25CV3080, 4:25CV3082 and 4:25CV3096 as "Member Cases." The Lead Case will proceed under the new title "In re ALN Medical Management LLC Data Incident Litigation." 3. The plaintiffs shall seek leave to file a consolidated amended complaint in the Lead Case on or before July 21, 2025. The Court FURTHER entered an order: 1. The Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel (Filing No. 18 in Case No. 4:25CV3067) is granted to the extent it requests appointment of Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel. 2. Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A.; Andrew Shamis of Shamis & Gentile P.A.; and John Nelson of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC are appointed as Interim Co- Lead Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedures 23(g)(3). 3. The plaintiffs’ Interim Co-Lead Counsel will be responsible for and have plenary authority to prosecute any and all claims of plaintiffs’ and the putative class and to provide general supervision of the activities of plaintiffs’ counsel in the Consolidated Action. 4. The plaintiffs' request for establishment and appointment of a Plaintiffs' Executive Committee is denied, without prejudice. ALN is an administrative services company for healthcare organizations. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4zJQqu at no extra charge.[CC] AMY O INC: Hampton Sues Over Website's Noncompliance of ADA ----------------------------------------------------------- PHYLLIS HAMPTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Amy O, Inc., Defendant., Case No. 1:25-cv-06066 (N.D. Ill., May 30, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. According to the complaint, the Defendant's website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. However, the Defendant failed or refused to remove access barriers on its website, depriving blind individuals the equal access to the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through the website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Headquartered in New York, NY, Amy O, Inc. owns and operates the website, Amyojewelry.com, which offers women jewelry for sale, including necklaces, rings, bracelets, anklets, studs, and charms. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630)-478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law APEX GLOBAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Thompson Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- KEIA THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APEX GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:25-cv-05021 (S.D.N.Y., June 13, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to safeguard and secure the personally identifiable information and protected health information in its care. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that as a result of the Defendant's inadequate security and breach of its duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI was accessed and disclosed. This action seeks to remedy these failings and the harm caused to Plaintiff and Class Members as a result. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all persons whose PII and PHI was exposed because of the Data Breach. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of financial fraud and identity theft. Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft. Apex Global Solutions, LLC provides of financial management services intended to address complex needs of skilled nursing and long-term care multi-facility owners. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd S. Garber, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP One North Broadway, Suite 900 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3281 Email: tgarber@fbfglaw.com - and - Matthew R. Mendelsohn, Esq. MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 228-9898 Email: mrm@mazieslater.com - and - Joseph M. Adams, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH M. ADAMS 200 Highpoint Drive, Suite 211A Chalfont, PA 18914 Telephone: (215) 996-9977 Email: josephmadamsesq@verizon.net APEX GLOBAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Zimmerman Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ DONALD ZIMMERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APEX GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, LLC., Defendant, Case No. 7:25-cv-05008 (S.D.N.Y., June 13, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to safeguard and secure the personally identifiable information and protected health information in its care. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that as a result of the Defendant's inadequate security and breach of its duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI was accessed and disclosed. This action seeks to remedy these failings and the harm caused to Plaintiff and Class Members as a result. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all persons whose PII and PHI was exposed because of the Data Breach. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of financial fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, says the suit. Apex Global Solutions, LLC provides of financial management services intended to address complex needs of skilled nursing and long-term care multi-facility owners. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven P. Sukert, Esq. Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A. 1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 Email: sukert@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com APPLE INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------ Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces that a lawsuit has been filed against Apple Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL) and certain of the Company's senior executives for potential violations of the federal securities laws. If you invested in Apple, you are encouraged to obtain additional information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/apple-inc-class-action-lawsuit. Investors have until August 19, 2025, to ask the Court to be appointed to lead the case. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors who purchased Apple securities. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and is captioned Tucker v. Apple Inc., et al., No. 5:25-cv-05197. Why was Apple Sued for Securities Fraud? Apple is a multinational technology company that engages primarily in the businesses of smart-devices and artificial intelligence ("AI"). Apple's software includes a digital personal assistant called "Siri," which was first introduced in October 2011. The complaint alleges that Apple misrepresented Siri's advanced AI-based features as well as its ability to deliver them within the iPhone 16 product cycle. In truth, as alleged, Apple lacked a functional prototype of Siri's purported advanced AI-based features and misrepresented the time it would take to integrate such features into its devices. The Stock Declines as the Truth is Revealed On March 7, 2025, Apple announced it was indefinitely delaying several AI-based Siri features, citing development delays and pushing their release to sometime "in the coming year." On this news, the price of Apple stock declined $11.59 per share, or almost 5%, from $239.07 per share on March 7, 2025, to $227.48 per share on March 10, 2025, the following trading day. Then, on June 9, 2025, Apple hosted its Worldwide Developer Conference for 2025. Noticeably, Apple failed to announce any new updates regarding advanced Siri features. Analysts and media outlets described the WWDC as "underwhelming" and "disappointing," with CNN stating that "it's unlikely that any of the announcements made at Monday's event will change the perception that Apple is behind its competitors in AI." On this news, the price of Apple stock declined $2.47 per share, or over 1%, from $203.92 on June 6, 2025, to $201.45 per share on June 9, 2025, the following trading day. Click here for more information: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/apple-inc-class-action-lawsuit. What Can You Do? If you invested in Apple you may have legal options and are encouraged to submit your information to the firm. All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any potential fees and expenses. Submit your information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/apple-inc-class-action-lawsuit Or contact: Ross Shikowitz ross@bfalaw.com (212) 789-3619 Why Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP? Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP is a leading international law firm representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder litigation. It was named among the Top 5 plaintiff law firms by ISS SCAS in 2023 and its attorneys have been named Titans of the Plaintiffs' Bar by Law360 and SuperLawyers by Thompson Reuters. Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million in value from Tesla, Inc.'s Board of Directors, as well as $420 million from Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. For more information about BFA and its attorneys, please visit https://www.bfalaw.com. https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/apple-inc-class-action-lawsuit [GN] ATR BRANDS: Anderson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- DERRICK ANDERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATR Brands USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-03015 (E.D.N.Y., May 30, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website provides to the public a wide array of services, price specials and other programs it offered. Moreover, the Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered, and in conjunction with its physical location, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Headquartered in White Plains, NY ATR Brands USA, Inc. owns and operates the website, Antler.com, which provides consumers with access to an array of travel gear and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com BETTER DEBT: Bid to Bifurcate Discovery Tossed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Austin v. Better Debt Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01103 (N.D. Ga., Filed March 3, 2025), the Hon. Judge Steven D. Grimberg entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to bifurcate discovery and consent motion for extension of time to file motion for class certification. Pursuant to Section II.c. of the Court's Standing Order, during the pendency of a motion to dismiss, all pretrial activity and deadlines, including the NDGa LR 16.1 conference, Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan, and motion for class certification, are automatically stayed until the Court rules on the motion or otherwise directs. If a party believes good cause exists for any or all pretrial activity to continue or deadlines to remain in effect notwithstanding the pendency of a motion to dismiss, the party may submit a request to Chambers pursuant to the discovery dispute procedures outlined in Section III.f. of the Standing Order. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant offers debt relief services.[CC] BLUE WATER: Wills Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------- LAURENCE WILLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE WATER SPA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03182 (E.D.N.Y., June 6, 2025) alleges Defendant's violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.bluewaterspany.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Blue Water Spa, Inc. offers quick and effective non-invasive treatments for the face and body. [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 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com BRO GLO INC: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bro Glo Inc. The case is styled as Mykayla Fagnani, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Bro Glo Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-05023-JHR-GS (S.D.N.Y., June 14, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bro Glo -- https://thebroglo.com/ -- is a self-tanning brand tailored for men.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Brown Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- GREGORY BROWN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01699 (D. Colo., May 30, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to pay employees' overtime wages. Plaintiff Brown worked for Defendant at its Isle of Capri casino in Black Hawk, Colorado as an hourly, non-exempt employee, primarily in the position of slot attendant from approximately September 2023 to March 2025. Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees have worked, or were scheduled to work, 40 or more hours in one or more workweek. However, the Defendant has applied its time rounding practice to systematically round Plaintiff's and other employees' compensable worktime down in Defendant's favor. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order, and the Colorado Wage Act. Caesars Entertainment, Inc. is an entertainment company that specializes in owning and operating casinos, resorts, and other facilities across the country. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com CALIFORNIA INTERSCHOLASTIC: Calhoun Sues Over Restraints of Trade ----------------------------------------------------------------- DOMINIK CALHOUN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; Plaintiff v. CALIFORNIA INTERSCHOLASTIC FEDERATION ET AL., Case No. 3:25-cv-04603 (N.D. Cal., May 30, 2025) accuses the Defendants of implementing policies that harm the high school student-athletes and constitute unreasonable restraints of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the California Cartwright Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, the California Interscholastic Federation, its Sections, its member schools, and their corporate media partners generate substantial revenues through the commercial exploitation of student athletes' athletic performances, names, images, and likenesses, including via broadcasting rights, streaming services, sponsorships, advertising, ticketing, and merchandise sales. They also profit from the many hours of athletic labor supplied by their student-athletes. However, they provide no compensation to the student-athletes themselves and, by and large, prohibit them from receiving any compensation associated with such activities, alleges the suit. CIF is an independent non-profit corporation that operates as the sole regulatory authority over high school sports in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel Benjamin Young, Esq. THE TIDRICK LAW FIRM LLP 1990 N. California Blvd., 8th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (510) 788-5100 Facsimile: (510) 291-3226 E-mail: jby@tidricklaw.com - and - Yaman Salahi, Esq. Nicole Cabañez, Esq. SALAHI PC 505 Montgomery St., 11th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 236-2352 E-mail: yaman@salahilaw.com nicolec@salahilaw.com CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Transmits Subscribers' Info to 3rd Party --------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC SIROTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE D/B/A BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant, Case No. 25CV126353 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., June 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, common law invasion of privacy, breach of confidence, and violations of California Customer Records Act, California Unfair Competition Law, Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, California Penal Code, and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The case arises from the Defendant's transmission of the personally identifying information (PII) and personal health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated customers to Google Analytics and Google Ads tracking tools without their permission or consent. The Defendant had a duty to protect and secure sensitive subscriber data, including data provided to third parties, to sufficiently inform subscribers as soon as practicable of any data breach, and to abide by its own stated and agreed data security policies and procedures. The Defendant's failures in these duties harmed the Plaintiff and the class. California Physicians' Service, doing business as Blue Shield of California, is a health care insurer, headquartered in Oakland, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert C. Schubert, Esq. Amber L. Schubert, Esq. Sonum Dixit, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union St., Ste. 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 Email: rschubert@sjk.law aschubert@sjk.law sdixit@sjk.law CASELY INC: Holm Sues Over Power Pods' Defective Lithium Batteries ------------------------------------------------------------------ SARAH HOLM, KATHLEEN MCDERMOTT, and NICOLE SLINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CASELY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04933 (S.D.N.Y., June 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent concealment, failure to warn, negligent misrepresentation, design and formulation defect, unjust enrichment, and violations of Minnesota's Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, Minnesota's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices Act, and District of Columbia's Consumer Protection Procedures Act. The case arises from the Defendant's manufacturing, marketing, and sale of Power Pod 5000mAh MagSafe Wireless Phone Charger with defective lithium batteries. According to the complaint, the Defendant marketed and advertised its Power Pods as being fit or suitable for human use. However, the Power Pods were prone to severe overheating resulting in an unreasonable risk of fire and burn hazards to consumers and their property, making them worthless. Had the Plaintiffs and similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased the Power Pods or would have paid less for them, says the suit. Casely, Inc. is a technology accessories company, with its principal place of business located in Brooklyn, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samuel R. Jackson, Esq. Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-8505 Email: sjackson@cbplaw.com rpulliam@cbplaw.com CENTRAL STATES MANUFACTURING: Shipp Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN SHIPP; VINCENT TATE; and TERRENCE YAZEL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. CENTRAL STATES MANUFACTURING, INC.; CENTRAL STATES MANUFACTURING, INC. BOARD OF DIRECTORS; GREATBANC TRUST CO.; JAMES SLIKER; CHAD WARE; THOMAS FERREE; MATT KRAMER; TINA CHANG; and MATTHEW STITES, Case No. 5:23-cv-05215-TLB (W.D. Ark.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification in its entirely and enter all other just and proper relief to which the Plaintiffs and the Class may be entitled. Specifically, Plaintiffs move the Court for an order: A. Certifying this action to proceed as a class action asserting claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. section 1001 et seq., on behalf of the following class: "All participants of the Central States Manufacturing Inc. ("CSMI") Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the "ESOP") who had shares of CSMI stock allocated to their ESOP trust accounts as of Dec. 2, 2020, and who have vested in those shares, in whole or in part, as of the date of the Court's order certifying the class, and the beneficiaries of such participants." Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, their corporate subsidiaries and affiliates, and the Judge to whom the case is assigned and his immediate family. B. Appointing named Plaintiffs Justin Shipp, Vincent Tate, and Terrence Yazel as Class representatives. C. Appointing Keller Rohrback L.L.P. as lead Class counsel and the Thrash Law Firm, P.A. as Class counsel. D. If appropriate, directing the parties to submit a joint proposed class notice for the Court’s approval under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(A) (concerning notice to class members for classes certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)) or (B) (concerning notice to class members for classes certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)). Central produces metal roof, siding, and packages for buildings of all kinds. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6yPTQA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary Gotto, Esq. Matthew Gerend, Esq. Eric Lombardo, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK, L.L.P. 3101 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1400 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2643 Telephone: (602) 230-6322 Facsimile: (602) 248-2822 E-mail: ggotto@kellerrorhback.com mgerend@kellerrohrback.com elombardo@kellerrohrback.com - and - Thomas P. Thrash, Esq. William T. Crowder, Esq. THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A. 1101 Garland Street Little Rock, AR 72201-1214 Telephone: (501) 374-1058 / Facsimile: (501) 374-2222 E-mail: tomthrash@thrashlawfirmpa.com willcrowder@thrashlawfirmpa.com The Defendants are represented by: Mark A. Nebrig, Esq. Joseph M. Piligian, Esq. MOORE & VAN ALLEN PLLC 100 North Tryon Street, Suite 4700 Charlotte, NC 28205 Telephone: (704) 331-3602 Facsimile: (704) 39-5974 E-mail: marknebrig@mvalaw.com joepiligan@mvalaw.com - and - Nathan A. Read, Esq. Devin R. Bates, Esq. MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES & WOODYARD P.L.L.C. 4206 South J.B. Hunt Drive, Suite 200 Rogers, AR 72758 Telephone: (479) 464-5663 Facsimile: (479) 464-5680 E-mail: nread@mwlaw.com dbates@mwlaw.com - and - Lars C. Golumbic, Esq. Andrew D. Salek-Raham, Esq. Larry M. Blocho, Jr., Esq. Caroline Wood, Esq. GROOM LAW GROUP 1701 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Ste. 1200 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 861-6615 Facsimile (202) 659-4503 E-mail: lgolumbic@groom.com asalek-raham@groom.com lblocho@groom.com cwood@groom.com CENTRAL TEXAS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE, on behalf of her minor child E.H. individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTRAL TEXAS PEDIATRIC ORTHOPEDICS AND SCOLIOSIS SURGERY, P.A., Defendant, Case No. 25-003203 (D. Tex., May 5, 2025) is an action arising from a recent cyberattack resulting in a data breach of sensitive information in the possession and custody and control of Defendant. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Data Breach resulted in unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, and theft of current and former patients' highly personal information, including names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and government issued ID numbers, ("personally identifying information" or "PII"), as well as medical information and health insurance information ("protected health information" or "PHI"). Plaintiff refers to both PII and PHI collectively as "Private Information." The Defendant's failure to timely detect and report the Data Breach made its patients vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their Private Information. The Defendant knew or should have known that each victim of the Data Breach deserved prompt and efficient notice of the Data Breach and assistance in mitigating the effects of Private Information misuse. Central Texas Pediatric Orthopedics And Scoliosis Surgery, P.A. specializes in arthritis and arthroscopic surgery, sports injuries, spine specialties, pediatric, adolescent, and adult orthopaedics services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Tel: (888) 350-3931 Email: Jellzey@eksm.com lmontgomery@eksm.com E-Service: service@eksm.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com CERNER CORP: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Venaglia Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ TOMILYN VENAGLIA and JOHN VENAGLIA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CERNER CORPORATION D/B/A ORACLE HEALTH, and UNION HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-422 (W.D. Mo., June 6, 2025) is a class action against Oracle Health and Union Health for their failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and Class Members' personally identifiable information and protected health information from cybercriminals. As part of its operations, Union Health collects and stores the private information of its patients and entrusts the storage and management of such data, in part, to Oracle Health. In the course of doing business, Defendants are entrusted with the private information that Plaintiffs and other similarly situated patients provide to them. Oracle Health revealed that a cybercriminal used compromised customer credentials to breach the server sometime after January 22, 2025, and copied data including patients' private information to a remote server. Oracle Health's lack of transparency and proper notification, including its failure to provide official written reports to affected hospitals or to send data breach notices to affected patients and other victims, is not only frustrating but puts Plaintiffs and Class Members at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. This substantial and imminent risk will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and Class Members bring this action against Defendants seeking redress for its unlawful conduct and asserting claims for: (i) negligence; (ii) breach of third-party beneficiary contract; (iii) breach of implied contract; (iv) unjust enrichment; (v) breach of confidence; (vi) breach of fiduciary duty; (vii) invasion of privacy; (viii) violations of the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act; and (ix) declaratory judgment. Oracle Health is a healthcare software-as-a-service company offering electronic health record and business operations systems to hospitals and healthcare organizations.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Norman E. Siegel, Esq. J. Austin Moore, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com moore@stuevesiegel.com - and - Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. Eric D. Barton, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLP 4740 Grand Ave, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701 1100 E-mail: thudson@wcllp.com ebarton@wcllp.com - and - David S. Almeida, Esq. Elena A. Belov, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (708) 437-6476 E-mail: david@almeidalawgroup.com elena@almeidalawgroup.com CERTIFIED TITLE: Stern Suit Removed to D. Maryland -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sidney Stern, et al., and all others similarly situated v. CERTIFIED TITLE CORPORATION, et al., Case No. C-03-CV-25-000310 was removed from the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland, to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on June 13, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01917-ELH. This is a putative class action alleging that Certified Title, and two of its principals, Stephen Millstein and Michael Segal, violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), by giving "unearned fees, things of value, and/or kickbacks" to residential mortgage brokers "for the referral of residential mortgage loans, refinances, and/or reverse mortgages to Certified Title for title and settlement services."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Paul Smith, Esq. Eric R. Harlan, Esq. SMITH, GILDEA & SCHMIDT, LLC 600 Washington Ave., Suite 200 Towson, MD 21204 Email: mpsmith@sgs-law.com eharlan@sgs-law.com - and - Robert Hanley, Esq. ROYSTON, MUELLER, MCLEAN & REID, LLP 102 West Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 600 Towson, MD 21204 Email: rhanley@rmmr.com The Defendants are represented by: Laurie G. Furshman, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 1201 Wills Street, Suite 330 Baltimore, MD 21231-3805 Phone: 410-949-2943 Facsimile: 410-510-1274 Email: Lgfurshman@duanemorris.com CEVICHE BAR: Brito Sues Over Property's Architectural Barriers -------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS BRITO, Plaintiff v. OKASHAN MONEM, FARHAM MONEM and CEVICHE BAR EL SENORIAL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-22484-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 30, 2025) is a class action seeking for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Defendant's commercial property and restaurant businesses. The said barriers have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and restaurants and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. Ceviche Bar El Senorial, Inc. owns, operates and oversees the commercial restaurant within its commerical property at at 1750 SW 3rd Avenue, Miami, FL. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com jr@ajperezlawgroup.com CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Crane Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Korey Crane, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE CHEESECAKE FACTORY, INC., Case No. 2584CV01137-BLS2 was removed from the Suffolk County, Massachusetts Superior Court, to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on June 13, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-11727-ADB. The Plaintiff alleges that TCFI violated M.G.L. c. 149, Section 19B(2)(B) by failing to give written notice to applicants for Massachusetts positions, stating that it is unlawful in Massachusetts to administer a lie detector test as a condition of employment.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jonathan D. Persky, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE LLP 800 Boylston Street, Suite 1005 Boston, MA 02199 Phone: (617) 849-7880 Fax: (617) 849-7870 Email: jpersky@constangy.com adam.a.cooke@hoganlovells.com CHILDREN'S PLACE: Mediation in Gonzalez Suit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------- The Children's Place, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended May 3, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2025, that the parties in "Gabriela Gonzalez v. The Children's Place, Inc.," a purported class action pending in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, participated in mediation proceedings on November 15, 2023 and February 9, 2024. The parties agreed to further discuss settlement options in May 2024, which occurred without resolution. In late May, due to the judge's retirement, the Gonzalez action was transferred and reassigned to a different judge. Deadlines were reset, including the company's motion to dismiss. On June 10, 2024, the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services advised that it would be pausing its administration of the claims until the parties resolve their dispute over which set of arbitration terms apply to the case. The company's motion to dismiss was denied in November 2024. The plaintiff alleged that the company had falsely advertised discounts that do not exist, in violation of California's Unfair Competition Laws, False Advertising Law and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The company filed a motion to compel arbitration, which the plaintiff did not oppose, and the court granted the motion on August 17, 2022, staying the case pending the outcome of the arbitration. The demand for arbitration was filed on October 4, 2022, in connection with the individual claim of the plaintiff. A mass arbitration firm associated with plaintiff's counsel then conducted an advertising campaign for claimants to conduct a mass arbitration. In part, to avoid the mass arbitration, the parties stipulated to return the original plaintiff's claim to court to proceed as a class action. Accordingly, the arbitration would not be proceeding and the company's response to the original plaintiff's complaint in court was filed on July 20, 2023. On August 16, 2023, however, the company began to receive notices regarding an initial tranche of approximately 1,300 individual demands that were filed with Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. as part of a related mass arbitration claim. The Children's Place, Inc. and its subsidiaries operate an omni-channel children's specialty portfolio of brands with a digital-first operating model. Its global retail and wholesale network includes two digital storefronts, more than 500 stores in North America, wholesale marketplaces and distribution in 16 countries through six international franchise partners. CHURCH & DWIGHT: Swetz Sues Over Sale of Contaminated Products -------------------------------------------------------------- BRYAN SWETZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHURCH & DWIGHT CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 7:25-cv-04932 (S.D.N.Y., June 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for unjust enrichment and violation of New York General Business Law. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Swabs, Zicam Nasal AllClear Swabs, and Orajel Baby Teething Swabs. The Defendant labeled and marketed the products as safe for consumption while omitting and not disclosing to consumers on its packaging that the products are contaminated with Penicillium sumatraense, Penicillium citrinum, and Exophiala spiniphera, which could lead to serious and life-threatening adverse health consequences. Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased the products or would have paid less for them. Church & Dwight Co., Inc. is a consumer goods company doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Furia, Esq. Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 Email: furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 Email: nsuciu@milberg.com COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Clayborne Sues Over Mislabeled Toothpaste --------------------------------------------------------------- TANISIER CLAYBORNE; CAMARIA BURLEIGH; SHERRY HODGE; ANJU GOEL; and JOSH COOK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY; and & TOM'S OF MAINE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04877 (N.D. Ill., May 2, 2025) alleges the Defendants' violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, the Defendants know that their fluoride toothpastes, including their "kids" versions, are not safe for young children to swallow. But they deceptively market these Kids products in ways that lead parents and caregivers to believe they are extra safe for children -- which Defendants knows is false. The Defendants' deceptive marketing tactics cause millions of caregivers in the U.S. to unwittingly permit and encourage their children to use far more toothpaste than is recommended or safe. Not only does this pose significant health risks for children, it causes economic loss to consumers by reducing the number of brushings that they receive per tube. Colgate-Palmolive Company is a consumer products company that markets its products throughout the world. The Company's products include toothpaste, toothbrushes, shampoos, deodorants, bar and liquid soaps, dishwashing liquid, and laundry products, as well as pet nutrition products for cats and dogs. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Connett, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 S. Flower St., Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (888) 747-4529 Email: mconnett@sirillp.com - and - Aaron Siri, Esq. Elizabeth A. Brehm, Esq. Lisa Considine, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (888) 747-4529 Email: aaron@sirillp.com ebrehm@sirillp.com lconsidine@sirillp.com COLIBRI REAL ESTATE: Vaccaro Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as David Vaccaro, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. COLIBRI REAL ESTATE LLC, d/b/a XCEL SOLUTIONS, et al., Case No. 25STCV13472 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 13, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-05407. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Colibri records telephone communications of Plaintiff and the proposed classes without prior consent, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Paul M. Croker, Esq. ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP 2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1500 Kansas City, MO 64108 Phone: 816.221.3420 Email: pcroker@atllp.com - and - Julie W. O'Dell, Esq. Victoria S. Yim, Esq. O'DELL LAW GROUP, APC 30950 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 226 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Phone: (949) 409-1900 Email: julie.odell@odelllawgroup.com victoria.yim@odelllawgroup.com CRESTA INTELLIGENCE: Galanter Files Suit in N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cresta Intelligence Inc. The case is styled as Judy Galanter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cresta Intelligence Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-05007 (N.D. Cal., June 13, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Cresta -- https://cresta.com/ -- combines the best of human and AI intelligence, transforming conversations and workflows at every level of the contact center.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC 140 Broadway, Suite 4667 New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 884-4230 Email: adrian@gr-firm.com CUTTER & BUCK: Faces Battle Suit Over Blind Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Cutter & Buck, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06052 (N.D. Ill., May 30, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The case arises out of Defendant's policy and practice of denying the blind access to the goods and services offered by its website. Due to Defendant's failure and refusal to remove access barriers to its website, blind individuals have been and are being denied equal access to its numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through its website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Headquartered in Renton, WA, Cutter & Buck, Inc. owns and operates the commercial website, Cutterbuck.com, which offers sportswear and lifestyle clothing. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com DAIKIN COMFORT: Perez Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled VICTOR PEREZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DAIKIN COMFORT TECHNOLOGIES DISTRIBUTION, INC. dba DAIKIN COMFORT TECHNOLOGIES DIST INC., a Texas corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-6316, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 11, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:25-at-00759 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay wages and overtime, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to keep required payroll records, and unfair business practices. Daikin Comfort Technologies Distribution, Inc., doing business as Daikin Comfort Technologies Dist Inc., is an air conditioning company in Texas. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Justin T. Curley, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 Email: jcurley@seyfarth.com - and - Phillip J. Ebsworth, Esq. Jeffrey A. Nordlander, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 448-0159 Facsimile: (916) 558-4839 Email: pebsworth@seyfarth.com jnordlander@seyfarth.com DAMAN BEAUTY: Shields Files Suit in D. Arizona ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Daman Beauty LLC. The case is styled as Jamie Shields, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Daman Beauty LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00297-JCH (D. Ariz., June 13, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Injury. Daman Beauty LLC -- https://damanbeauty.com/ -- offers soothing massages and revitalizing facials to precise waxing and lash enhancements.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com DARTMOUTH-HITCHCOCK: Initial Approval of $850K Settlement Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBRA M. ADAMS, DANILLIE L. MARS, and MICHELLE L. MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DARTMOUTH-HITCHCOCK CLINIC, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH-HITCHCOCK CLINIC, THE ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE OF DARTMOUTH-HITCHCOCK CLINIC and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 1:22-cv-00099-LM (D.N.H.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and related relief, along with a supporting memorandum. The Plaintiffs propose the Fairness Hearing be scheduled at least 90 days after entry of the Preliminary Approval Order in order to provide the Settlement Class with fair notice and the opportunity to be heard, as well as to provide notice to appropriate federal and state officials as required by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"). The Plaintiffs are pleased that after years of hard-fought litigation, they are able to present for preliminary approval a proposed settlement of a cash payment of eight hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($850,000). The Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing a complaint on March 18, 2022. The Complaint alleged violations of the fiduciary duties of prudence imposed by ERISA, and the fiduciary duty to adequately monitor other fiduciaries under 29 U.S.C. sections 1109(a) and 1132(a)(2). The Settlement provides the Defendants and/or their insurer will pay $850,000.00 to the Plan to be allocated to participants pursuant to a Court-approved Plan of Allocation. In exchange, Plaintiffs and the Plan will dismiss and release all their claims, as set forth more fully in the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement also proposes to allocate no more than $283,333.33 (one-third of the Gross Settlement Amount) for the payment of attorneys' fees, and the Plaintiffs' Case Contribution Awards of no more than $10,000 per Plaintiff. Both of these awards are subject to Court approval. Dartmouth provides primary and specialty care throughout NH and VT. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f0PM3i at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. Jay Wells, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com jaw@capozziadler.com - and - Peter A. Muhic, Esq. MUHIC LAW LLC 923 Haddonfield Road, Suite 300 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: (856) 242-1802 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: peter@muhiclaw.com DAVID GREEN: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Aleman Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- ZORAIDA ALEMAN; ROSA VELAZQUEZ; KIMBERLEY LADDA DALY; PAOLA ECHEVERRY; and ESTATE OF LISA OWENS, BY AND THROUGH DAVID OWENS, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, individually, and as Representatives of a Class of Participants and Beneficiaries of the David Green, D.D.S., P.A. Profit Sharing Plan, David Green, D.D.S., P.A. 401(k) Plan, and the David Green, D.D.S., P.A. Pension Plan, Plaintiffs v. DAVID GREEN, D.D.S., P.A., as fiduciary, trustee, and plan administrator of the David Green, D.D.S., P.A. Profit Sharing Plan, David Green, D.D.S., P.A. 401(k) Plan, and David Green, D.D.S., P.A. Pension Plan, Defendant, Case No. 9:25-cv-80713 (S.D. Fla., June 6, 2025) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, as the fiduciary of Green Plans, Dr. Green had an obligation, characterized as the highest known to law, to fairly administer these Plans for his current and former employees that make up the Class, to act with a duty of loyalty and duty of care in providing them retirement benefits under these Plans, and to not engage in prohibited transactions that amounted to self-dealing with the Plans' assets. Dr. Green violated his fiduciary duties of loyalty and care and engaged in party-in-interest and prohibited fiduciary transactions under ERISA by failing to disclose and inform all members of the Class of the existence of the Green Plans, failing to provide the required Plan notices, failing to provide complete and accurate requested Plan documents or making such plan document requests impossible by concealing the plans, and by improperly failing to consider Plaintiffs and Class members for enrollment in the 401(k) Plan and Pension Plans. As a result of this fiduciary misconduct and self-dealing, Plaintiffs and other Class members were unable to exercise their rights under the Green Plans and suffered grievous harm, says the suit. David Green, D.D.S., P.A. is a dentistry practitioner in Boynton Beach, FL. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dean A. Burri, Esq. BURRI LAW, P.A. 16445 Collins Ave WS1B Sunny Isles Beach, FL 33160 Telephone: (727) 688-3600 Email: burri@burri-law.com - and - Roderick Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN LAW, PLLC 400 S. Dixie Highway, #121 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 620-9292 Email: rfc@colemanattorneys.com kl@colemanattorneys.com DOLCE GLOW: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fagnani Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- MYKAYLA FAGNANI, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. DOLCE GLOW LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-05108 (S.D.N.Y., June 18, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://dolceglow.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff intends to immediately revisit the Website to purchase a Dolce Glow Body Balm with SPF 50 from Defendant and to ascertain the information stated above the moment that the access barriers are removed from the Website. While attempting to navigate the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility barriers for blind or visually-impaired persons, suit contends. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff Fagnani is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. The Defendant offers the commercial website to the public. The Website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services offered by Defendant and which Defendant ensures delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States including New York State.[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 DOT TRANSPORTATION INC: Court Vacates Scheduling Order ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Watson v. DOT Transportation, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01303 (E.D. Cal., Filed July 23, 2021), the Hon. Judge Dena M. Coggins entered an order granting stipulation requesting the deadlines set by the court in the Scheduling Order, as modified, be vacated and reset after the court resolves the pending Motion for Class Certification. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation. The Defendant provides trucking transportation services.[CC] EARTH INC: Lewis Sues Over FTSA' Caller ID Rule Breaches -------------------------------------------------------- ADAM LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EARTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. CACE-25-007991 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., May 31, 2025) seeks for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA). Allegedly, the Defendant made text message sales calls that promoted Earth Shoes and violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls. Earth, Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells footwear products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shwan A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Telephone: (202) 709-5744 Facsimile: (866) 893-0416 E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com EMIRATES: Must File Class Cert Opposition by August18 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FARAH et al., v. Emirates et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-05786-LTS-SN (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting the parties' proposed schedule for briefing the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, as follows: 1. The Defendants' papers in opposition to the motion shall be filed by Aug. 18, 2025; and 2. The Plaintiffs' reply papers in further support of the motion shall be filed by Sept. 16, 2025. This request encompasses Defendants' first request for an extension of time to file their Opposition Papers, to which Plaintiffs consent. The Plaintiffs filed the Motion on June 6, 2025. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y6cEue at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Evan B. Citron, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 666 Third Avenue New York NY 10017-4030 Telephone: (212) 545-4069 Facsimile: (212) 972-3213 Fax E-mail: evan.citron@jacksonlewis.com EPISOURCE LLC: Altes Files Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Episource LLC. The case is styled as Steve Altes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Episource LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-05363 (C.D. Cal., June 13, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Episource -- https://www.episource.com/ -- provides risk adjustment services, software, and solutions for health plans and medical groups.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: jnelson@milberg.com EPISOURCE LLC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Finke Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- HEIDI FINKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EPISOURCE, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-05552 (C.D. Cal., June 18, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted with sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed in June 2025. The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. 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. On Feb. 6, 2025, the Defendant became aware of a suspicious activity its IT Network. In response, Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the incident. The Defendant's investigation determined that the following types of Private Information may have been compromised in the Data Breach: name, address, phone number, email, data of birth, health insurance data (such as health plans/policies, insurance companies, member/group ID numbers, and Medicaid-Medicare-government payor ID number), and health data (such as medical record numbers, doctors, diagnoses, medicines, test results images, care, and treatment). On June 6, 2025, the Defendant started sending notice letters to impacted individuals. The Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure. EPISOURCE, LLC is a provider of risk adjustment services, software, and solutions for health plans and provider groups, including Sharpe Healthcare. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Theodore W. Maya, Esq. Alyssa Brown, Esq. Sarper Unal, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com abrown@ahdootwolfson.com sunal@ahdootwolfson.com EQUAL EMPLOYMENT: Seeks to Stay Consideration of Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOE 1, et al., v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01124-RBW (D.D.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to stay consideration of the Plaintiffs' premature motion for summary judgment and motion for class certification, which were filed before the Defendants' initial response date (that response date is June 27, 2025 to the Amended Complaint). The Defendants also move for an extension of their deadline to respond to the Amended Complaint. In the event the stay request is denied, the Defendants further move to extend their current deadline of June 20, 2025, to respond to the two motions so that those response deadlines are co-extensive with the extended deadline to respond to the Amended Complaint requested in this motion. Government counsel contacted Plaintiffs' counsel regarding this motion and learned that the Plaintiffs oppose the relief sought by this motion. Accordingly, the Court should stay Plaintiffs’ motions or deny them without prejudice pending resolution of Defendants’ motion to dismiss. In addition, for reasons set forth below, Defendants request an extension of their deadline to respond to the Amended Complaint to, and including, July 31, 2025 The Defendants request an extension to, and including, July 31, 2025, to file their response to the Amended Complaint. There is good cause for the requested extension. Accordingly, Defendants request an extension to, and including, July 31, 2025, to file their response to the Amended Complaint. In the event the above stay request is denied, Defendants also move to extend their deadline to respond to the two motions so that those deadlines are coextensive with the extended deadline to respond to the Amended Complaint requested in this motion. A proposed order is enclosed herewith. On April 15, 2025, the Plaintiffs commenced this action. The Plaintiffs amended their Complaint on May 16, 2025, to, among things, assert a putative class action in addition to asserting claims on their individual behalf. Equal enforces laws that make discrimination illegal in the workplace. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IZRSZF at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jeremy S. Simon, Esq. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 601 D Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 252-2528 ER CARPENTER: Marrow Suit Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAROYA MARROW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. E. R. CARPENTER COMPANY, INC. d/b/a CARPENTER CO., Case No. 8:23-cv-02959-KKM-LSG (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification. The Plaintiff requests that the Court certify the proposed nationwide class. Alternatively, if the Court is not inclined to certify a nationwide class, Plaintiff requests the Court certify a Florida class. The Plaintiff also requests the Court appoint her Class Representative and appoint undersigned counsel, Luis A. Cabassa, Brandon J. Hill, and Amanda E. Heystek, of Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, P.A., as Class Counsel, and allow them to send notice to class members. The nationwide class should be defined as follows: Nationwide Class: "All participants and beneficiaries in the Defendant's Health Plan who: (1) were sent a COBRA notice by Defendant, in the form attached to this Motion as Exhibit C, during the applicable four-year statute of limitations period as a result of a qualifying event, as determined by Defendant, and (2) did not elect continuation coverage." Alternatively, if for any reason the Court is not inclined to certify a nationwide four-year class, the Court should certify the following Florida four-year class: Alternative Florida Class: "All Florida participants and beneficiaries in the Defendant's Health Plan who: (1) were sent a COBRA notice by the Defendant, in the form attached to this Motion as Exhibit C, during the applicable four-year statute of limitations period as a result of a qualifying event, as determined by the Defendant, and (2) did not elect continuation coverage." The Defendant E. R. Carpenter, Inc. allegedly failed to provide the Plaintiff and the putative class members with a COBRA notice that complies with the law. ER offers manufactures resins, synthetic rubbers, and fibers. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cWNq5r at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com bhill@wfclaw.com gnichols@wfclaw.com FARMHOUSE STORE: Claude Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- WISLANDE CLAUDE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE FARMHOUSE STORE PRINCETON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-07972 (D.N.J., June 6, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.homesteadprinceton.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. The complaint asserts that 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 its website, says the suit. 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. The Farmhouse Store Princeton Limited Liability Company operates the website that sells furniture made from barnwood, as well as gifts and home accessories.[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 FIVE STAR: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Lucio Says --------------------------------------------------------------- LOLA LUCIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIVE STAR REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-11280-BRM-DRG (E.D. Mich., May 2, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' Clarkston Bar and Tap commercial property located at 5801 S. Main Street, Independence Township, MI., is not accessible to mobility-impaired individuals in violation of ADA. Five Star Real Estate Investments, LLC offers property search, mortgage calculator, instant home valuation reports, buyer and seller guides, and perfect home finder service. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Pete M. Monismith, Esq. 3945 Forbes Ave., #175 Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Telephone: (724) 610-1881 Facsimile: (412) 258-1309 Email: Pete@monismithlaw.com FORD MOTORS: Court Dismisses E-Series Cutaway Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ RV Business reports that a Ford cutaway class action lawsuit has been dismissed after the Illinois plaintiffs failed to adequately allege their claims, according to a report by CarComplaints.com. The Ford class action includes RV owners who "purchased or leased in the State of Illinois a completed motor home vehicle utilizing a Ford E-Series Cutaway [from] 2018" onward. Plaintiffs Ricardo and Marleinet Gurrola purchased a recreational vehicle from an Illinois RV dealer in March 2022. According to the lawsuit, the RV was built on a Ford chassis known as a Cutaway. A chassis is the skeletal framework of a vehicle with a load-bearing frame that provides the backbone for everything else. Specifically, the plaintiffs purchased an RV built on a 2022 Ford E-450 Dual-Rear Wheel Cutaway, or what is known as an "incomplete vehicle." "An 'incomplete vehicle' is an 'assemblage consisting, at a minimum, of chassis (including the frame) structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, in the state that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, but requires further manufacturing operations to become a completed vehicle.'" -- Description according to U.S. federal regulations. Once Ford builds an E-Series Cutaway, the automaker sells it to a final-stage manufacturer which turns it into a "completed" vehicle. Third-party manufacturers build a vehicle body on top of the Cutaway frame to make finished RVs, dump trucks, ambulances, etc. When Ford delivers a Cutaway to a final-stage manufacturer, it must include the frame's "gross vehicle weight rating," which goes by the acronym GVWR. The GVWR is the maximum weight a vehicle can safely handle, but a final-stage manufacturer cannot alter the suspension without voiding Ford's warranty to the end customer. After a few thousands miles of travel, the plaintiffs noticed the RV was constantly pulling to one side, so they took it to a Ford dealer because the warranty required service at a Ford dealership. The dealer determined the wheel alignment was not correct, but the Ford dealer said it couldn't adjust the alignment because it would require aftermarket parts, meaning replacement parts not made by Ford. However, installing aftermarket parts would void the Ford warranty. [GN] FORT WAYNE: Hotel Violates ADA Standards, Foster Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- Leland Foster, Individually, Plaintiff v. Fort Wayne Garden Hospitality, INC., an Indiana corporation for profit, Case No. 1:25-cv-00326 (N.D. Ind., June 18, 2025) is a class action suit brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all others similarly seeking injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff has patronized Defendant's hotel previously as a place of public accommodation. The hotel owned and operated by the Defendant has undergone extensive renovation and alteration by the Defendant (or its predecessor) and in the years 1995 and 2018 and is non-compliant with the remedial provisions of the ADA for newly designed and constructed or altered facilities. Mr. Foster is an individual diagnosed with cerebral palsy and permanently uses a wheelchair for mobility. The Plaintiff has difficulty grasping with his hands also, as a result of his disability. The Defendant operates and/or owns the Wyndham Garden Hotel. The property address is 5750 Challenger Parkway, Fort Wayne, Indiana in Allen County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF OWEN DUNN, JR. The Offices of Unit C 6800 W. Central Ave., Suite C-1 Toledo, OH 43617 Telephone: (419) 241-9661 Facsimile: (419) 241-9737 E-mail: obdjr@owendunnlaw.com GOOGLE LLC: Seeks to File Class Cert Memo Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Google Digital Advertising Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-07001 (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to file under seal memoranda of law relating to class certification, and motions to exclude expert testimony, and exhibits to the declaration of Justina K. Sessions. The Defendants include Google LLC, Alphabet Inc., and Youtube, LLC's. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PtRw4f at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Justina K. Sessions, Esq. Eric Mahr, Esq. Andrew J. Ewalt, Esq. FRESHFIELDS US LLP 855 Main Street Redwood City, CA 94063 Telephone: (650) 618-9250 E-mail: justina.sessions@freshfields.com eric.mahr@freshfields.com andrew.ewalt@freshfields.com - and - Craig M. Reiser, Esq. Bradley D. Justus, Esq. AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP 630 Fifth Avenue, 33rd Floor New York, NY 10111 Telephone: (212) 728-2200 E-mail: creiser@axinn.com bjustus@axinn.com HYUNDAI MOTOR: Kwiatkowski Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Molly Kwiatkowski, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC., a California Corporation, HYUNDAI OF GLENDALE, a California Company, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV13500 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 13, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-05511-AB-MAA. The Plaintiff asserts eight overlapping counts in the Complaint, for alleged: violation of the Lemon Law; violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; violation of the Lemon Law; breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; negligent repair; misrepresentation; and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Robert J. Herrington, Esq. Michael E. McCarthy, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1840 Century Park East, 19th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 586-7700 Facsimile: (310) 586-7800 Email: Robert.Herrington@gtlaw.com McCarthyME@gtlaw.com IHEARTMEDIA + ENTERTAINMENT: Ringler Sues Over Alleged Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------------ ADINA RINGLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IHEARTMEDIA + ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV14648 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 15, 2025) alleges Defendants' violation of the California Privacy Rights Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants disregarded the Plaintiff's and Class members' privacy rights in the PII by, among other things, (i) failing to implement reasonable security safeguards to prevent or timely detect the Data Breach; (ii) failing to detect the Data Breach when or after it occurred; (iii) failing to disclose to customers that it did not implement such reasonable security safeguards; and (iv) failing to provide sufficiently prompt, thorough, and accurate notice and information about the Data Breach. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and the Classes have been injured in several ways. Plaintiff and Class members (i) now know or should know that their PII was hacked and put up for sale on the dark web for purchase by malicious actors; (ii) face an imminent and ongoing risk of identity theft and similar cybercrimes; (iii) have expended and will continue to expend time and money to protect against cybercrimes; (iv) have lost value in their PII; and (v) did not receive the benefit of their bargain with Defendant regarding data privacy. iHeartMedia + Entertainment, Inc. operates as a multimedia company. The Company owns and operates radio stations and also manages outdoor and indoor events. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark D. Potter, Esq. James M. Treglio, Esq. Isabel Rose Masanque, Esq. Jason Kyle Masanque, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 100 Pine St., Ste 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 534-1911 Facsimile: (888) 422-5191 Email: mark@potterhandy.com jimt@potterhandy.com isabelm@potterhandy.com jasonm@potterhandy.com JANE TECHNOLOGIES: Bronstin Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jane Technologies, Inc. The case is styled as Asher Bronstin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jane Technologies, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01083-JPW (M.D. Pa., June 13, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Jane Technologies -- https://www.iheartjane.com/ -- is a cannabis retail tech company that provides its consumers with an online experience for shopping and reviews.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mt. Carmel Ave Glenside, PA 19038 Phone: (215) 225-5529 Fax: (888) 329-0305 Email: a@perronglaw.com JAV FOOD: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Alexandria Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- ERIKA ALEXANDRIA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. J.A.V. FOOD CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04555 (S.D.N.Y., May 30, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff was unable to complete the purchase of grocery products due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's website. Due to the Defendant's failure to build its website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. J.A.V. Food Corp. owns and operates the website, www.agatavalentina.com, which offers imported Italian and global food products. [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 JESUS EXPRESS: Arias-Chavez Sues Over Labor Law Breaches -------------------------------------------------------- CESAR ARIAS-CHAVEZ, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JESUS EXPRESS TAILORING CORP. and NEFTALI CHICAS-MARTINEZ, Jointly and Severally, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03046 (E.D.N.Y., June 1, 2025) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a seamster. Throughout Plaintiff's employment, he was not paid overtime wages, despite working in excess of 40 hours each week. Jesus Express Tailoring Corp owns and operates a tailoring company that makes custom clothing alterations to various articles of clothing, such as: dresses, suits, coats, pants, and shirts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon A. Thomas, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC 1 Glenlake Parkway, Suite 650 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (678) 862-9344 Facsimile: (678) 638-6201 E-mail: brandon@overtimeclaimslawyer.com KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Modification of Class Cert Order Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENNIE HAMILTON, ANTHONY KILLION, KRISTOPHER KACZANOWSKI, LEROY COKER, DARRELL BROWN, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, and the general public, v. KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC. dba Arizona Knight Transportation Inc.; KNIGHT PORT SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 5:21-cv-01859-MEMF-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Aug. 14, 2025, will move the Court to reconsider and modify its Order granting in part motion for class certification and granting request for judicial notice. Appoint Nathan & Associates, APC as co-class counsel. The Court's Order only appoints Righetti Glugoski, P.C. as Class Counsel, and omits co-counsel of record, Nathan & Associates, APC as being appointed as class counsel in its Order. On July 11, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed the notice of motion of class certification, motion for class certification, declaration of Reuben D. Nathan in support of Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and other supporting documents. Knight is a truckload carrier offering dry van, refrigerated, intermodal and brokerage services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=r8X4ql at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew Righetti, Esq. John Glugoski, Esq. RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C. 2001 Union Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 983-0900 E-mail: matt@righettilaw.com jglugoski@righettilaw.com - and - Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com KUEHNE + NAGEL: Faces Sullivan Suit Over Violation of ADA --------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN SULLIVAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KUEHNE + NAGEL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 9:25-cv-80749-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 15, 2025) alleges violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, and the Americans with Disability Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant for damages including but not limited to compensatory damages for lost wages, benefits, and mental pain and suffering, punitive damages, other intangible damages, and other compensation denied or lost at the statutory interest rate, attorneys' fees and costs for violating the Florida Civil Rights Act, and the ADA. Kuehne + Nagel, Inc. of United States provides logistics services. The Company offers supply chain consulting, industry and packaging solutions, customs clearance, trade compliance, river shipping, and ancillary services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher C. Copeland, Esq. CHRISTOPHER C. COPELAND, P.A. 1003 W. Indiantown Road, Suite 208 Jupiter, FL 33458 Telephone: (561) 691-9048 Facsimile: (866) 259-0719 Primary E-mail: Chris@CopelandPA.com Secondary E-mail: Carla@CopelandPA.com LAKEVIEW LOAN: Morrill Seeks to File Class Cert Reply Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Morrill v. Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC (LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING DATA BREACH LITIGATION), Case No. 1:22-cv-20955-DPG (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order permitting the filing of their reply to the Defendants response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under seal. The suit arises from an alleged data breach involving four separate Defendant entities. The breached data potentially includes the highly sensitive personally identifiable information of 5.8 million consumers. Lakeview operates as a mortgage finance company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1AM0md at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julie Braman Kane, Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON 255 Alhambra Circle – Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 476-7400 Facsimile: (305) 476-7444 E-mail: julie@colson.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ryan McGee, Esq. Ron Podolny, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com rmcgee@ForThePeople.com rpodolny@ForThePeople.com - and - Adam E. Polk, Esq. Simon Grille, Esq. Mikaela Bock, Esq. Kristen Palumbo, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California St, Ste 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com jelias@girardsharp.com sgrille@girardsharp.com kmacey@girardsharp.com - and - Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Dorothy P. Antullis, Esq. Nicolle B. Brito, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 (fax) E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com dantullis@rgrdlaw.com nbrito@rgrdlaw.com - and - M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL CORP. 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 777-7777 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com gharoutunian@justice4you.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com dlietz@milberg.com - and - Ryan D. Maxey, Esq. MAXEY LAW FIRM, P.A. 107 North 11th Street, Suite 402 Tampa, FL 33602 E-mail: ryan@maxeyfirm.com - and - Terry R. Coates, Esq. Dylan J. Gould, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 E. Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com dgould@msdlegal.com - and - Lori G. Feldman, Esq. GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC 102 Half Moon Bay Drive Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520 Telephone: (917) 983-9321 Facsimile: (888) 421-4173 E-mail: LFeldman@4-Justice.com - and - Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM, LLC 2754 Erie Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com LAKEVIEW SECURITY: Court Initiates Default Proceedings in Rojo -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YESINIA URIBE ROJO, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. LAKEVIEW SECURITY & INVESTIGATIONS, INC., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-05729-JPO-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah Cave entered an order to initiate default proceedings. The Defendant was required to obtain counsel by June 13, 2025. The Court provided Lakeview two extensions of time to obtain counsel. To date, no counsel has filed a notice of appearance for Lakeview despite the Court’s warning on May 15, 2025 that the Court may direct Plaintiff to initiate default proceedings against Lakeview if they failed to retain counsel by June 13, 2025. The Plaintiff requests a Certificate of Default from the Clerk of Court by Monday July 30, 2025, and to file a motion for default judgment in accordance with the individual practices of the Honorable J. Paul Oetken, Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and S.D.N.Y. Local Rule 55 by no later than Monday, July 7, 2025. Given Lakeview's default, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and motion for leave to file amended pleading are terminated. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close ECF Nos. 25 and 57. Lakeview is a New York based, full-service security and investigative firm. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Rm4U3j at no extra charge.[CC] LE-VEL BRANDS: Cahilig Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Jenavie Cahilig, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LE-VEL BRANDS, LLC; JASON CAMPER; SOPHARY LY; CLIFF GALLAGHER; JAYSON JORGENSEN; SHELLY HILL; SHANNON SCHMIDT; CHANTE MARKUS and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CV122181 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 13, 2025, and assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-05051. On May 8, 2025, Cahilig filed a Class Action Complaint which sets forth the following seven causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum Wage and Liquidated Damages; Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment; Failure to Keep Requisite Payroll Records; Failure to Provide Timely and Accurate Wage Statements; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; Unfair Competition; and Violations Cal. Lab. Code ("PAGA" claims).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Erin N. Bass, Esq. Nick S. Pujji, Esq. Jemuel S. Gascon, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 623-9300 Facsimile: (213) 623-9924 Email: erin.bass@dentons.com nick.pujji@dentons.com jemuel.gascon@dentons.com LEAFFILTER NORTH: Wright Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Leaffilter North, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Lawrence Wright, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Leaffilter North, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01080-KM (M.D. Pa., June 13, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. LeafFilter -- https://www.leaffilter.com/ -- provides gutter replacement, cleaning, and repairs in addition to installing gutter guards.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Max Morgan, Esq. THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC 1515 Market Street, Suite #1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (267) 587-6240 Fax: (215) 689-0875 Email: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com LENDIFY ASSOCIATES: Griffin Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lendify Associates LLC, et al. The case is styled as Heather Griffin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lendify Associates LLC, 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 8:25-cv-01282 (C.D. Cal., June 13, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Lendify Associates, LLC -- https://lendifyassociates.com/ -- offers financial services and loans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd Michael Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC 21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Phone: 323-306-4234 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com LEXISNEXIS RISK: Faces Smith Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- DYRA SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03199-SDG (N.D. Ga., June 6, 2025) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all individuals who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information that was compromised in a data breach publicly disclosed by Defendant in May 2025. The Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendant's failure to adequately secure and protect the Private Information entrusted to it, along with its corresponding duty to properly store and transmit that information. On May 24, 2025, the Defendant issued a public disclosure about the Data Breach and began notifying individuals whose Private Information was impacted. The Defendant owed Plaintiff and the Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to safeguard the Private Information it collected from unauthorized access. Despite soliciting, collecting, utilizing, and deriving benefit from this information, the Defendant breached its duty by failing to implement and maintain adequate security measures and protocols. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of herself, and all similarly situated customers, whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. is a data analytics provider that offers customers solutions to manage risk, make better decisions, and improve operations across various industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Cameron Tribble, Esq. THE BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC 31 Atlanta Street Marietta, GA 30060 Telephone: (770) 227-6375 Facsimile: (770) 227-6373 E-mail: ctribble@barneslawgroup.com - and - Sabita J. Soneji, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 254-6808 E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com LOS ANDES: Faces Tolentino Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------- JUAN MATEO TOLENTINO, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOS ANDES 112 RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a LOS ANDES RESTAURANT and VILMA GUIA, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03171 (E.D.N.Y., June 6, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, spread of hours pay, and statutory damages from the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants employed Plaintiff for workweeks longer than 40 hours and willfully failed to compensate him for all his time worked in excess of forty hours per week, at a rate of at least one and one-half times his regular hourly rates, in violation of the FLSA. The Defendants also failed to pay Plaintiff one additional hour of pay at the basic minimum wage rate for each day their spread of hours exceeded 10, says the suit. The Plaintiff further contends the Defendants' failure to provide with a written notice upon hire and furnish accurate statement of his wages each pay period. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants at its restaurants washing dishes and preparing food from October 2021 until April, 2025. The Defendants own and operate restaurants located in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 LUME DEODORANT: Allen Sues Over Unsafe Deodorant Products --------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LUME DEODORANT, LLC and HARRY’S, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-04575 (N.D. Cal., May 30, 2025) seeks for damages, injunctive relief and equitable relief against Defendants based on the manufacture, marketing and sale of LUME deodorant products that were defectively designed and/or manufactured and which caused Plaintiff and members of the proposed Classes to suffer personal injury, economic harm, and other damages. The Defendants manufacture and distribute a line of deodorants and antiperspirants marketed as safe for daily use, even on sensitive areas of the body. However, the Plaintiff and other consumers purchased and used these products and subsequently suffered adverse dermatological reactions due to ingredients known to cause skin irritation, particularly in individuals with sensitive skin. The Defendants failed to provide adequate warnings of these risks. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this class action and asserts claims for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty and merchantability, strict liability/manufacturing and design defect and failure to warn, negligence, negligent failure to warn, and for violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Headquartered in Salt Lake City, UT, Lume develops, designs, manufactures, markets, sells and warrants its personal care products throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Laura Grace Van Note, Esq. Alicyn B. Whitley, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Facsimile: (510) 891-7030 E-mail: sec@colevannote.com lvn@colevannote.com abw@colevannote.com MARGINEDGE CO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Spiller Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA SPILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARGINEDGE CO., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00457 (E.D. Va., June 13, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Spiller was employed by the Defendant as a client service specialist. Marginedge Co. provides software solutions. The Company designs and develops food and beverage tracking and analytics software. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. Samantha R. Galina, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 237-0413 Email: craig@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com samantha@butlercurwood.com MASIMO AMERICAS: Pleasants Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Charlie Pleasants, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MASIMO AMERICAS, INC., Case No. 30-2025-01482878-CU-NP-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 13, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-05408. The Plaintiff alleges that he is a former employee of Defendant. He further alleges that Defendant experienced a cyberattack in or around April 27, 2025 that purportedly impacted his information (the "Data Security Incident"). The Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and invasion of privacy on behalf of himself and a proposed nationwide class comprised of "all individuals residing in the United States whose PII was compromised in the Data Breach," which the Plaintiff alleges "includes thousands of individuals."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Vassi Iliadis, Esq. James Ettinger, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 785-4600 Facsimile: (310) 785-4601 Email: vassi.iliadis@hoganlovells.com jay.ettinger@hoganlovells.com - and - Adam Cooke, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 Thirteenth Street NW Washington, D.C. 20004 Phone: (202) 637-5600 Email: adam.a.cooke@hoganlovells.com META PLATFORMS: Tracks Online Browsing Activity, Vincent Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER VINCENT, WILLIAM BANEY, and DAWN MONTANEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. META PLATFORMS, INC.; ALPHABET INC.; and GOOGLE LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-04822-TSH (N.D. Cal., June 6, 2025) is a class-action lawsuit against the Defendants arising from revelations that Android device users, including Plaintiffs, have been subjected to systemic and malicious tracking of their online activity by Meta and Yandex Metrica who intentionally abused weaknesses in Android's software. According to the complaint, Meta and Yandex exploited vulnerabilities in the Android software to deanonymize users' identities and track their online browsing activity and communications without consent. Not only did Meta and Yandex actively breach users' privacy for their own profit, but Google negligently failed to stop them and misrepresented the privacy protections available to Android users. These actions and inactions have resulted in severe privacy violations for millions of Android users across the United States, says the suit. The Defendants' actions violated multiple laws, including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the Unfair Competition Law, and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Meta Platforms, Inc. is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Menlo Park, California. Meta owns and operates several prominent social media platforms and communication services, including Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Messenger and WhatsApp.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew W. Ruan, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 100 Tri-State International, Suite 128 Lincolnshire, IL 60069 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 E-mail: mruan@fklmlaw.com - and - Katrina Carroll, Esq. Kyle Shamberg, Esq. CARROLL SHAMBERG LLC 111 West Washington Street, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Office: (872) 215-6205 Mobile: (847) 848-1384 E-mail: katrina@csclassactions.com METRO CARE: Underpays Clinical Care Coordinators, Obaoye Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN OBAOYE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. METRO CARE MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a ESSEN HEALTH CARE, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04920 (S.D.N.Y., June 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, and failure to pay all due wages. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant, remotely from Maryland, as a clinical care coordinator from December 17, 2023, until August 27, 2024. Metro Care Management LLC, doing business as Essen Health Care, is an operator of a network of healthcare providers across New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edgar M. Rivera, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 MICHELINA LLC: Molina Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Michelina, LLC. The case is styled as Mayra Filomena Gabriel Molina, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Michelina, LLC, Case No. 25STCV17157 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 13, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Michelina -- https://www.michelinala.com/ -- is a French bakery that specializes in making high-quality sandwiches, tartines, and salads.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com MIDEA AMERICA: Barnhart Sues Over Defective Air Conditioners ------------------------------------------------------------ HEATHER BARNHART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDEA AMERICA CORP., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-08051 (D.N.J., July 6, 2025) alleges that the air conditioners sold and manufactured by the contains defect whereby pooled water does not drain quickly enough, in turn leading to mold growth. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant represented to the Plaintiff and the Class that the air conditioning units were reliable, merchantable, and in good repair. The defect caused the air conditioning units to fail to conform to the performance, durability, capability, and reliability that Defendant represented and were therefore of a substantially lesser quality and value than the Defendant represented. The Defendant knew or should have known that the air conditioning units could not conform to their representations because of the defect. The Defendant mispresented, concealed, and omitted material information concerning the defect in order to induce the Plaintiff and the Class to purchase the air conditioning units at a substantially higher price than what they would otherwise have paid, says the suit. Midea America Corporation distributes electronic products and services. The Company offers air conditioning, refrigeration, and laundry and dish washer appliances. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 Email: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com MM 879 INC: $995K Settlement in Cruz Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA CRUZ, et al., v. MM 879, INC., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01563-TLN-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Erica Grosjean entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class certification and approval of a class action settlement. 1. The Court preliminarily approves the terms of the settlement and the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and preliminary approval is granted. 2. The following settlement class is conditionally certified: "All non-exempt employees of MM 879, Inc., who performed work in California from April 6, 2007, through Jan. 18, 2019." 3. The Plaintiffs Angela Cruz, Maria Madrigal, Lourdes Baiz, and Christie Goodman are conditionally approved as the class representatives for the settlement class. 4. S. Brett Sutton and Brady Briggs of Sutton Hague Law Corporation, P.C. are conditionally approved as class counsel for the settlement class. 5. The Court conditionally approves ILYM Group, Inc. as the settlement administrator and payment of $7,950 to it as costs. 6. The Court approves, and authorizes the issuance of, the notice (as submitted to the Court) and the parties shall implement the notice schedule set forth in the settlement agreement 7. A final approval hearing is scheduled for Oct. 17, 2025, at 10 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. 8. A combined motion for final approval of the settlement, the class incentive award, and an award of attorney fees and costs shall be filed by no later than Sept. 17, 2025. 9. The settlement administrative shall file a report regarding the outcome of the notice process by no later than Sept. 17, 2025. The Plaintiffs Angela Cruz, Maria Madrigal, Lourdes Baiz, and Christine Goodman generally allege that they have suffered California Labor Code violations in connection with their employment as cleaners. They filed this case in the Fresno County Superior Court on April 6, 2011. The case was heavily litigated in state court for approximately four-and-a-half years before certain Defendants removed it to this Court on October 14, 2015. The proposed settlement class of an estimated 364 class members "includes all nonexempt employees of MM 879, Inc., who performed work in California from April 6, 2007, through January 18, 2019. The settlement provides for a gross amount of $995,000. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8NJasH at no extra charge.[CC] MONAHAN PRODUCTS: Faces Class Action Suit Over UPPAbaby Car Seats ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Consumers filed a class action lawsuit against Monahan Products LLC, the company that makes UPPAbaby car seats. Why: The class action alleges UPPAbaby sold defective car seats that put infants at risk of asphyxiation. Where: The UPPAbaby class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses UPPAbaby of selling car seats that put infants at risk of asphyxiation. Lead plaintiff Pamela Mossazadeh filed the class action complaint against Monahan Products, the company that makes UPPAbaby car seats, on May 29 in California federal court. The lawsuit alleges that Monahan sold defective child car seats under the UPPAbaby name brand, including the Mesa Max, Mesa V2 and Aria models. According to the plaintiffs, the car seats have a defect that causes the child's body to sink low in the seat, resulting in a "C" position with chin-to-chest posture. Numerous consumers have reported that their child experienced visible discomfort, excessive drooling, choking, crying, sweating and respiratory issues while in the car seats, the lawsuit states. Despite knowing about the defect, Monahan failed to disclose it to consumers, the plaintiffs say. Lawsuit: UPPAbaby car seats pose safety risk to infants The plaintiffs claim Monahan advertised the car seats as being free from defects and suitable for their intended use. However, the company had superior and exclusive knowledge that the car seats were sold with a defect that caused distress and discomfort to child occupants, the lawsuit claims. The defect poses a significant safety hazard to infants, as the "C" position and chin-to-chest posture can obstruct the airway, leading to difficulty breathing or even positional asphyxiation, especially in newborns with weak neck muscles, the plaintiffs say. The plaintiffs allege that the defect was present in each car seat at the time of sale and that Monahan had a duty to disclose the material facts regarding the defect to its customers. Despite this knowledge, the company continued to sell the car seats to unwitting consumers without providing a refund, the lawsuit claims. As a result, the plaintiffs and other consumers have suffered an ascertainable loss of money and property on the purchase or premium price they paid for the car seats, the lawsuit explains. The plaintiffs are looking to represent anyone in California who purchased an UPPAbaby Mesa Max, Mesa V2 or Aria car seat. They are suing for violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, breach of implied warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, fraudulent concealment or omission and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs are seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. In September 2022, UPPAbaby recalled approximately 14,400 of its All-Terrain RIDGE Jogging Strollers after a child's fingertip was amputated due to rear disc brake openings. What do you think of the allegations made in this UPPAbaby class action lawsuit? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiffs are represented by Cody R. Padgett, Shahin Rezvani and Nathan N. Kiyam of Capstone Law APC. The UPPAbaby car seat class action lawsuit is Mossazadeh, et al. v. Monahan Products LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-04862, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] NATIONAL RURAL: Fails to Manage 401(k) Pension Plan, Mullins Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN MULLINS and THOMAS SUNDERLIN, individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the 401(k) Pension Plan, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION and the INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00994 (E.D. Va., June 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) including breach of duties of loyalty and prudence, prohibited transactions with a party in interest, prohibited transactions with a fiduciary, failure to monitor fiduciaries, and co-fiduciary liability. This class action complaint alleges that the Defendants: (1) failed to prudently monitor and control the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) 401(k) Pension Plan administrative costs in the interests of Plan participants; (2) appropriated the extra fees from the Plan for their own benefit; and (3) diverted monies from the Plan to subsidize other expenses of NRECA and its member employers. The Defendants failed to act in the best interests of Plan participants and beneficiaries, ignored their fiduciary duty to control costs, unlawfully appropriated a portion of the Plan's fees for their own benefit, and squandered the Plan's bargaining power, causing participants to bear unreasonably high administrative costs. As a result of the Defendants' mismanagement and failure to control the Plan's costs, Plan participants have suffered millions of dollars in losses from excessive and improper fees. National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan service organization of approximately 900 rural electric cooperatives or systems in Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Noah Rich, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 2600 Virginia Avenue NW Suite 201 Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 333-4562 Email: noah.rich@baronbudd.com - and - Kelsey Elling, Esq. Roland Tellis, Esq. David Fernandes, Esq. Adam Tamburelli, Esq. Isaac Miller, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 839-2333 Email: kelling@baronbudd.com rtellis@baronbudd.com dfernandes@baronbudd.com atamburelli@baronbudd.com - and - Don Bivens, Esq. DON BIVENS PLLC 15169 N. Scottsdale Road Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (602) 708-1450 Email: don@donbivens.com NATIONWIDE LIFE: Funes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Life and Annuity Insurance Company. The case is styled as Terica Funes, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Nationwide Life and Annuity Insurance Company, Case No. 25STCV17294 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 13, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Nationwide Life and Annuity Insurance Company -- https://www.nationwide.com/ -- offers a diverse menu of fixed and variable products to help financial professionals cater solutions for their clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com NEW YORK: Cardew Loses Bid to Strike Class Cert Opposition ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT CARDEW, et al., v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, et al., Case No. 6:21-cv-06557-MAV-MJP (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Meredith A. Vacca entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for an order striking the Defendants' opposition and imposing associated fees and costs. The Court exercises its discretion to accept the Defendants' untimely opposition brief. The Plaintiffs shall have 30 days from the date of this Order to address the Defendants' opposition on the merits and to further support their motion for class certification if they deem necessary. No further briefing will be permitted. The Court will issue a decision as soon as practicable following Plaintiffs' additional submission. The Court finds that there is "good cause" to extend Defendants' response deadline and that their failure to meet the deadline was caused by "excusable neglect." The Court disagrees with Plaintiffs' assertion that the case will be significantly delayed if Defendants were allowed to respond. To the contrary, for purposes of judicial economy, the Court finds it more efficient to accept Defendants' opposition and permit a reply instead of issuing a whole new briefing schedule following the submission of a motion to decertify if the Court were to strike Defendants' opposition and grant Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for class certification. The Court also finds it relevant that Defendants' opposition was filed relatively soon after new defense counsel was reassigned the case On Aug. 30, 2021, the Plaintiffs commenced this putative class action alleging the Defendants' systemic and discriminatory failure to provide people with mobility-related disabilities who are incarcerated at Five Points Correctional Facility with reasonable accommodations. The Plaintiffs timely filed a motion for class certification on Feb. 15, 2023, pursuant to an amended scheduling/case management order issued by Magistrate Judge Mark W. Pedersen. New York is the department of the New York State government that maintains the state prisons and parole system. A copy of the Court's decision and order dated June 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UixWVc at no extra charge.[CC] NEWREZ LLC: Moody Seeks More Time to File Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANICE MOODY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. NEWREZ, LLC d/b/a SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING, Case No. 1:24-cv-05406-ELR-CMS (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time from June 20, 2025, until and including 30 days after the Court has decided Defendant's pending motion to strike and for judgment on the pleadings in which to move for class certification under Local Civil Rule 23.1(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c). In the alternative, the Plaintiff seeks an extension of time until and including Sept. 30, 2025, in which to file her motion for class certification. The Plaintiff has conferred with the Defendant regarding the relief requested in this Motion, and the Defendant consents to the requested extension. NewRez provides financial services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lEuGyq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew G. Rosendahl, Esq. KELLY GUZZO, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: matt@kellyguzzo.com O POSITIVE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to July 2 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES CONNOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. O POSITIVE LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company; RALPH LAUCELLA, an individual; MARC GRILL, an individual; and DOE 1 through and including DOE 10, Case No. 2:24-cv-07449-MWC-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Williams Court entered an order granting the parties' joint stipulation to extend the class certification deadline. The Court finds good cause to extend the class certification deadline for two weeks. The Court extends the class certification deadline to July 2, 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VeYsem at no extra charge.[CC] OVERSEAS WINE: Sharf Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Restaurant Staff --------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW SHARF, CRISTIAN AVALOS, LUIS AVALOS, JULIO BARRERA, BRIAN GEITZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OVERSEAS WINE SPIRITS PUB AND GRILL, INC. f/k/a KDC OVERSEAS LLC d/b/a Overseas Pub & Grill, KENNETH P. COOK and ASHLEY COOK, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-10050 (S.D. Fla., June 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as bartenders or cooks at any time between 2016 and 2024. Overseas Wine Spirits Pub and Grill, Inc., formerly known as KDC Overseas LLC, doing business as Overseas Pub & Grill, is a full-service restaurant and liquor store located in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Martin Saenz, Esq. THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 482-1475 Email: martin@legalopinionusa.com OXY USA: Rider Bid for Class Certification Overruled ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERRY RIDER, trustee of the Cherry Rider Family Trust and R.W. and CATHY LUCAS, co-trustees of the R.W. Lucas and Cathy Lucas Living Trust, individually and as representative plaintiffs on behalf of persons or concerns similarly situated, v. OXY USA, INC.; MERIT ENERGY COMPANY, LLC; and MERIT HUGOTON L.P, Case No. 6:23-cv-01274-KHV-TJJ (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Kathryn H. Vratil entered an order overruling the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification filed Jan. 9, 2025. The Court further entered an order that the Defendants' motion to strike the expert opinions of Paul Saas as an improper rebuttal witness and the Defendants' Daubert motion to exclude the opinions of Paul Saas, both filed Jan. 9, 2025, are overruled as moot. The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify the following class: "All persons or entities to whom Merit Energy Company, LLC, Merit Hugoton LP, and/or any related or affiliated entity (collectively "Merit") has paid royalties at any time since Dec. 2, 2017, under oil and gas leases in the Kansas Hugoton Field that were assigned to Merit by OXY USA, Inc. in or about 2014, except for those persons or entities who have received royalty payments from Merit exclusively for interests now or previously held by any of the 19 persons or entities who opted out of the class action settlement approved by the District Court of Stevens County, Kansas, on March 4, 2008, in the case of Opal Littell, et. al v. OXY USA, Inc., Case No. 98-CV-51, and excluding the United States of America insofar as its mineral interests are managed by the Office of Natural Resources Revenue." On Dec. 29, 2023, plaintiffs filed this suit. The Plaintiffs claim that both Merit and Oxy breached the Settlement by taking improper deductions from royalty payments in excess of what the Settlement allowed. The Plaintiffs claim that Merit is a successor or assign of Oxy and is bound by the Settlement, including the limitations on deductions. The Plaintiffs assert that Oxy also breached the Settlement because Section 7.3 provides that no assignment relieves Oxy of its obligations under the agreement. On Jan. 9, 2025, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. Oxy explores for, develops, produces, and markets crude oil and natural gas. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated June 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HN41cx at no extra charge.[CC] PATRIOT LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Bryan Suit Due July 17 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bryan v. Patriot (2010), LLC et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00415 (N.D.N.Y., Filed Mach 25, 2024), the Hon. Judge David N. Hurd entered an order granting request in Status Report insofar as and to the extent that the deadlines and schedules are extended as follows: (1) the deadline to file a motion for Class Certification is extended to July 17, 2025; (2) all Discovery shall be completed by Oct. 31, 2025; (3) Plaintiff Expert Disclosure Deadline is Aug. 4, 2025; (4) Defendants Expert Disclosure Deadline is Sept. 19, 2025; (5) Rebuttal Expert Disclosure Deadline is Oct. 3, 2025; and (6) dispositive Motions shall be filed by Dec. 10, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).[CC] PAYCOR INC: Bid to Reconsider March 28 Order Tossed --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLIN JOHNS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and JUAN BARRON, v. PAYCOR, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00264-DWD (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge David W. Dugan entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to reconsider the Court's memorandum & order dated March 28, 2025. Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider the Court’s Memorandum & Order dated March 28, 2025, which denied Defendant’s Amended Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Class Certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and denied as moot Defendant’s Motion to Strike New Arguments and Evidence from the Reply in Support of Class Certification. The Plaintiffs filed a Response in Opposition to, and the Defendant filed a reply in support of, the motion to reconsider. Paycor operates as a software company. A copy of the Court's memorandum & order dated June 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NKdu4p at no extra charge.[CC] PORSCHE AG: Klein Loses Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Allison Klein et al., v. Dr. Ing. H.C.F. Porsche AG, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-10079-MWC-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, deeming as moot the Defendants' motions to exclude experts, deeming as moot the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude expert, and deeming as moot the Defendants motion to file a sur-reply or strike. The Court agrees with the Defendants that the Plaintiffs have not reasonably addressed the purpose of a nationwide issue class. Plaintiffs speculate that "litigation is highly likely, if not guaranteed, in additional forums." Accordingly, the speculation does not explain why a nationwide class would be beneficial in this case. This is another example of Plaintiffs listing various classes and subclasses they wish to certify without providing the Court with adequate analysis. The Court has no basis to certify a nationwide class in this lawsuit. The Plaintiffs Klein, Lee, and Wu filed this action because of issues they experienced with their Porshe Macan vehicles. The Plaintiffs assert that Porsche Macans have two unrelated design defects: an engine-related oil leak and an upper control arm bushing that wears prematurely. The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following California class: "All persons who purchased a Porsche Macan vehicle, other than a wholly electric Macan, regardless of trim level, between Jan. 1, 2014, and present, within California." A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=thfSRn at no extra charge.[CC] POSTMEDS INC: $7.5MM Class Settlement in Reed Suit Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD REED, et al., v. POSTMEDS, INC., et al. (Post Meds, Inc. Data Breach Litigation), Case No. 4:23-cv-05710-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order granting the motion for final approval of class action settlement, and granting the motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards. The Court awards attorneys' fees in the amount of $1,875,000 and litigation expenses in the amount of $46,766.40. The Court further awards $1,500 as a service award to each of the 24 settlement class representatives. The parties and settlement administrator are directed to implement this Final Order and the Settlement Agreement in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The parties are further directed to file a short stipulated proposed final judgment of two pages or less within 21 days from the date of this order. The class is defined as: "All U.S. residents who were sent notice that their Private Information was potentially compromised as a result of the Data Incident experienced by PostMeds, Inc. d/b/a TruePill on or about Oct. 30, 2023." The proposed class comprises approximately two million individuals. Settlement Benefits: PostMeds will make a $7,500,000 payment into a non-reversionary settlement fund. PostMeds is a digital pharmacy that fulfills mail-order Prescriptions. A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=R4cT5k at no extra charge.[CC] PSOMI LLC: Caruso Suit Seeks to Recover Servers' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS CARUSO, for himself and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PSOMI LLC and CHRISTINA THEOFILOS, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 8:25-cv-01407 (M.D. Fla., May 30, 2025) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated servers, baristas and bartenders the proper minimum wage and overtime compensation for all hours worked. In or about February 2024, the Defendants hired Plaintiff to work as a non-exempt hourly-paid server/bartender/barista at PSOMI. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in this position until on or around May 11, 2025. Throughout their employment, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated bartenders/servers/baristas worked more than 40 hours during one or more workweeks without receiving time and one-half of their regular rate for each of those hours contrary to the FLSA. In addition, the Defendants paid Plaintiff and other similarly situated bartenders/servers/barista's a tip-credited minimum wage rather than the full statutory minimum wage for all hours worked, says the suit. Headquartered in Tampa, FL, PSOMI LLC is an enterprise engaged in the hospitality industry, and specifically in the operation of a restaurant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 237-2281 Facsimile: (407) 245-3383 E-mail: KimD@forthepeople.com PURFOODS LLC: Settlement Deal in Douglas Gets Initial OK -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL DOUGLAS, DOROTHY GOODON, DOROTHY ALEXANDER, STELLA KERITSIS, JOHNNIE JONES, YOLANDA BETTS, LOGAN ALDRIDGE, STEVEN D'ANGELO, CHRISTINE ASHE, VERNITA FORD, and DIANE YOUNG, v. PURFOODS, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00332-RGE-SBJ (S.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger entered a preliminary approval order as follows: 1. The Settlement Agreement provides for a Settlement Class defined as follows: "All residents of the United States who were sent notice that their personal information may have been accessed, stolen, or compromised as a result of the Data Incident." The Settlement Class specifically excludes: i) PurFoods and its respective officers and directors; ii) any Person who would otherwise be a member of the Settlement Class but who timely and validly requests exclusion from the Settlement Class; iii) the Judge and Magistrate Judge assigned to evaluate the fairness of this settlement, the Court's staff, and the Court’s immediate family members; and iv) any other Person found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of initiating, causing, aiding, or abetting the Data Incident or who pleads nolo contendere to any such charge. 2. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs will likely satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2)(A) and should be appointed as Representative Plaintiffs. Additionally, the Court finds that Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP; Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC; Siri & Glimstad LLP; and Federman & Sherwood will likely satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2)(A) and should be appointed as Settlement Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g)(1). 3. A Final Approval Hearing is set for Nov. 20, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. PurFoods delivers refrigerated ready-to-eat meals. A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Kannp8 at no extra charge.[CC] REPUBLIC SERVICES: Parties Must File Supplemental Joint Report -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BUDGET INNS OF PENSACOLA INC, v. REPUBLIC SERVICES INC, and ALLIED WASTE SERVICES OF NORTH AMERICA LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00540-MCR-ZCB (N.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge M. Casey Rodgers entered an order as follows: 1. The Court defers ruling on the personal jurisdiction issue and denies RSI's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, without prejudice to renewal by incorporation with any dispositive motion. 2. RSI's answer is due within 14 days. 3. The Parties are directed to confer and file a supplemental joint report within 14 days to include a joint proposed briefing schedule for a class certification motion, Daubert motions, and summary judgment motions, and an explanation of any additional depositions or disclosures deemed necessary. The Third Amended Complaint clarified the issues and parties and reasserts the same alter ego basis for jurisdiction as prior complaints. The Court finds it appropriate to defer this issue for now and take it up when the class certification and dispositive motions are also fully briefed, or until trial if necessary. Given the late stage of this case and the fact that discovery is already completed, there is no undue prejudice to RSI by denying the motion without prejudice to renewal. In this putative class action case, Budget Inns seeks to represent a class of Florida waste disposal customers challenging increased rates and fuel/environmental recovery fees charged by Defendants Republic Services Inc. and its Florida subsidiary, Allied Waste Services of North America, LLC, in connection with their provision of waste disposal services. The case was transferred to this District after a lengthy history in the District of South Carolina, where Budget Inns and other plaintiffs originally filed the case in 2022, seeking to certify a nationwide class. In October 2024, after completion of discovery, Judge Richard Mark Gergel denied the motion to certify a nationwide class and denied as moot RSI's motion for summary judgment on personal jurisdiction grounds. 1 He then severed and transferred the Florida claims to this District. Republic is a North American waste disposal company whose services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TymErg at no extra charge.[CC] RES 360 LLC: Bramlett Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against RES 360 LLC, et al. The case is styled as Veronica Bramlett, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. RES 360 LLC, Peach City Properties LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03312-MLB (N.D. Ga., June 13, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. RES 360 -- https://res360.co/ -- is an Atlanta-based Real Estate Solutions Company that specializes in creative solutions for homeowners with troublesome houses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan A. Giribaldo, Esq. PARDELL KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO PLLC 7500 Rialto Boulevard, Suite 1-250 Austin, TX 78735 Phone: (737) 310-3210 Email: bgiribaldo@pkglegal.com - and - Rachel Berlin Benjamin, Esq. BEAL SUTHERLAND BERLIN & BROWN LLC 2200 Century Parkway NE, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30345 Phone: (404) 688-2700 Email: rachel@beal.law RJ REYNOLDS: Faces Class Suit Over Carbon Neutrality Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that tobacco giant British American Tobacco (BAT) and several subsidiaries have overstated the apparent carbon neutrality of Vuse vaporizer devices and consumable products. The 47-page lawsuit says that BAT, R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Reynolds America Inc. have heavily promoted the Vuse Solo, Vuse Vibe, Vuse Ciro and Vuse Alto as the first-ever global carbon-neutral vape products, claiming that their production and use releases no net addition of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. However, the suit contends that the claims of carbon neutrality are misleading, as the four carbon emissions-offsetting forestry projects on which the representations overwhelmingly rely do not provide legitimate carbon reductions. In particular, the case alleges that the forestry projects -- the Guanare Forest Plantations Project in Uruguay and three Improved Forest Management (IFM) projects based in China -- fund routine commercial forestry activities that would have occurred regardless of the companies' involvement or otherwise serve to protect forested land whose risk of deforestation was negligible. According to the complaint, an item is considered "carbon neutral" if its production and use nets no additional release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. To achieve this, companies can balance, or "offset," carbon emissions by providing for emissions reductions elsewhere, often by purchasing "carbon credits" in environmental offset projects, the filing explains. Importantly, to constitute a legitimate carbon offset, projects must result in carbon reductions that would not have occurred without the existence of the initiative, the Vuse lawsuit states. In light of this, the suit asserts that the vape brand's claim of carbon neutrality is deceptive because it is based on four "ineffective and redundant" offset projects that fail to provide genuine environmental benefits. For one, the Guanare Forest Plantations Project purports to generate carbon credits through tree-planting efforts, the case says. However, the complaint argues that "these trees would have been planted regardless because the plantations would have been financially viable and established even without receiving financial incentives from carbon credits." In addition, the forest-protection initiatives in China -- namely, the Yunnan Xishuangbanna IFM Project, the Hubei Hongshan IFM Project and the Inner Mongolia Wu'erqihan IFM Project -- involve forests that were already at low risk of deforestation prior to the intervention, the filing alleges. "In short, as to these four projects, the carbon reductions would have occurred regardless of [the companies'] involvement or the projects' existence," the lawsuit states. "And because [the defendants'] carbon neutrality claims are predicated on the efficacy and legitimacy of these projects, [the companies'] carbon neutrality claims are false and misleading." The suit contends that BAT and its co-defendants market Vuse products as environmentally responsible in a bid to capitalize on growing public concern for the climate crisis. Consumers paid a premium price for vape products they were led to believe were carbon neutral, the case says. The complaint argues that Vuse customers would not have paid as much, or purchased the items at all, had they known the representations were false. The lawsuit looks to represent all California residents who, after May 28, 2021 and within the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased any Vuse-brand vaporizer device or consumable product -- including the Vuse Solo, Vuse Vibe, Vuse Ciro or Vuse Alto -- for purposes other than resale. [GN] ROBINHOOD: Renewed Bid for Class Cert Tossed w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Robinhood Order Flow Litigation, Case No. 4:20-cv-09328-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification is denied without prejudice. 2. The Defendants' motion to exclude the testimony of Michael A. Goldstein is denied without prejudice. 3. If the Court denies a motion for preliminary or final approval of the Parties' proposed settlement, or the Parties' proposed settlement is terminated for any other reason, and the Plaintiff intends to seek class certification, the Parties shall refile the motion for class certification briefing and the motion to exclude briefing within 14 days of such denial or termination, absent further order of the Court. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=D2TE5L at no extra charge.[CC] ROBLOX CORP: Computer Games Causes Addiction, Roy Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- TRAVEON ROY, SR. as Guardian ad Litem and on behalf of T.R., a minor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROBLOX CORPORATION; EPIC GAMES, INC.; GOOGLE LLC; SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC; and the FIRST DOE through ONE HUNDREDTH DOE, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV14346 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 15, 2025) is an action seeking to hold the Defendants accountable for causing and contributing to a public health crisis, amounting to a global epidemic, wherein minors suffer from addiction or disordered compulsion to Defendants' addictive and unreasonably dangerous gateway video gaming products. According to the complaint, the Defendants' Products known as Roblox and Fortnite include and incorporate mechanisms of operant conditioning, a form of behavioral manipulation that uses a system of rewards and punishments to influence behavior that targets the users' dopamine receptors and causes users to hyperfocus on using and overusing the Products. The operant conditioning incorporated into the Products, along with illegally retained and/or obtained personal information of the users/players, work in conjunction with one another and with microtransactions to market Roblox and Fortnite, and specifically its virtual currency. The addiction and disordered compulsion to using the Products causes profound harm, triggering an extraordinary sequela of catastrophic and life-altering injuries to users and their families. The Products are defective and unreasonably dangerous in that they were specifically designed, whether negligently and intentionally, to cause users, specifically minors, to become psychologically addicted2 to using, or to develop a disordered compulsion to using, video game products, specifically Defendants' Products. The Defendants failed to provide any warning to the users of the Products, or their caregivers, of the harm posed by using the Products, resulting in extraordinary detriment to users and their caregivers, including Plaintiff herein, says the suit. Roblox Corporation provides entertainment products and services. The Company designs and develops a wide range of online games such as internet three-dimensional and tutorial games for kids, teens, and adults. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anya Fuchs, Esq. BULLOCK LEGAL GROUP LLC 2000 Powell Street, Suite 825 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (833) 853-4258 Facsimile: (470) 412-6708 Email: anya@bullocklegalgroup.com e-filings@bullocklegalgroup.com - and - Robert C. Hilliard, Esq. Alex Hilliard, Esq. Bonnie Rickert, Esq. HILLIARD LAW 719 S. Shoreline Blvd. Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 882-1612 Facsimile: (361) 882-3015 Email: alex@hilliard-law.com brickert@hilliard-law.com ROCKET PHARMACEUTICALS: Artificially Inflated Stock Price, Ho Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ RONDOLPH HO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROCKET PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and GAURAV SHAH, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-10049 (D.N.J., June 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Rocket's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade Rocket securities at artificially inflated prices between February 27, 2025, to May 26, 2025. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose the true state of RPA501's safety and clinical trial protocol; notably, that Rocket knew Serious Adverse Events (SAEs), including death of participants enrolled in the study, were a risk. In particular, Rocket amended the trial's protocol to introduce a novel immunomodulatory agent to the pretreatment regimen without providing this critical update to shareholders. Such statements absent these material facts caused the Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Rocket's securities at artificially inflated prices. When the truth emerged, Rocket's stock price fell to $2.33 per share on May 27, 2025, a decline of about 37 percent in the span of just a single trading day. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's securities, the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biotechnology company with its principal executive offices located at 9 Cedarbrook Drive, Cranbury, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: aapton@zlk.com SAFEWAY INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Boren Due Feb. 23, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as APRIL BOREN, v. SAFEWAY, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00182-MJP (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Marsha J. Pechman entered an order granting Conditional Certification Briefing Schedule as follows: Case Event Deadline JURY TRIAL DATE: Oct. 19, 2026 Deadline for joining additional parties: June 20, 2025 The Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional July 17, 2025 Certification due by: The Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Aug. 18, 2025 Motion for Conditional Certification due by: The Plaintiff's Reply in support of Sept. 2, 2025 Conditional Certification due by: Reports from expert witness under March 23, 2026 FRCP 26(a)(2) due: The Plaintiff must file and note her Motion Feb. 23, 2026 for Class Certification in compliance with Local Civil Rule (LCR) 7(d)(4) by: Discovery completed by: May 22, 2026 Pretrial Conference: Oct. 14, 2026 Safeway is an American supermarket chain. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O1u73S at no extra charge.[CC] SALVATORE'S OF ELMONT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bonilla Says -------------------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL GALVEZ BONILLA; and CRISTIAN ARONY MARTINEZ DOMINGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SALVATORE'S OF ELMONT PIZZERIA & RESTAURANT INC.; SALVATORE'S PIZZERIA & RESTAURANT OF ELMONT INC.; VITO CORTESIANO; JOSEPH CAMPISI; and ANNA ARRIGO, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03177 (E.D.N.Y., June 6, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs Bonilla and Dominguez were employed by the Defendants as restaurant staff. Salvatore's of Elmont Pizzeria & Restaurant Inc. operates as a restaurant offering Italian classic pizzas and pastas, fresh salads, sandwiches, and desserts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Bid to Align Case Sched Tossed w/o Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J. et al., v. City and County of San Francisco, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-06524 (N.D. Cal., Filed Dec. 19, 2023), the Hon. Judge Lisa J. Cisneros entered an order denying without prejudice administrative motion to align case schedules to Defendants renewing that request after the Court resolves the pending motion for class certification in the related J.T. case, by either administrative motion or noticed motion. The nature of suit states Civil Rights Act.[CC] SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Bid to Align Sched in R.P. Tossed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as R.P. v. City and County of San Francisco, Case No. 3:24-cv-00522 (N.D. Cal., Filed Jan. 26, 2024), the Hon. Judge Lisa J. Cisneros entered an order denying without prejudice administrative motion to align case schedules to Defendants renewing that request after the Court resolves the pending motion for class certification in the related J.T. case, by either administrative motion or noticed motion. The nature of suit states Civil Rights Act.[CC] SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Class Settlement in Anderson Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEVON ANDERSON and BEVERLY L. SWEENEY on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, and SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY, and SAN FRANCISCO EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Case No. 4:20-cv-01149-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Donna M. Ryu entered an order certifying class and granting preliminary approval of class action settlement as modified: 1. Counts I, II, III, VI, and VII of the Complaint are certified pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of the Class defined as follows: "All current and former employees of the City and County of San Francisco who took a leave or an absence from their employment with the City to engage in qualified military service during the Settlement Class Period (i.e. Oct. 10, 2024 to June 18, 2025." 2. Count IV of the Complaint is certified pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) on behalf of a "Pension Subclass," which is defined as follows: "All members of the Class who (a) took a leave or absence from their employment with the City to engage in qualified military service during the Settlement Class Period while they were members of the San Francisco Employees' Retirement System Pension Plan, and (b) requested reemployment by the City after the period of military leave." 3. Counts XIII and XIV of the Complaint are certified pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of a "Long-Term Leave Subclass," which is defined as follows: "All current and former City employees who took leave or absence for a period greater than 30 days from their employment at the City to engage in qualified active-duty military service pursuant to the Annual Salary Ordinance during the Settlement Class Period." 4. Count V of the Complaint is certified pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) on behalf of an "Pension Interest Subclass," which is a subclass of the Pension Subclass, and is defined as follows: "All members of the Pension Class who purchased service credit for a period of military service." 5. Count XII of the Complaint is certified pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of a "Pension Pickup Subclass," which is a subclass of the Pension Subclass, and is defined as follows: "All members of the Pension Subclass who, under the Memorandum of Understanding between their union and the City that applied during the period of military leave, were entitled to have the City 'pick-up' all or part of the employee contribution to the San Francisco Employees' Retirement System Pension Plan on behalf of the employee." The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for final approval of the Settlement by no later than Oct. 23, 2025. The Court will hold a final fairness hearing on Dec. 11, 2025 at 1:00 PM. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0OmP6g at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: R. Joseph Barton, Esq. THE BARTON FIRM LLP 1633 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 200 Washington DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 734-7046 E-mail: jbarton@thebartonfirm.com - and - Michael J. Scimone, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 E-mail: mscimone@outtengolden.com The Defendants are represented by: David Chiu, Esq. Matthew K. Yan, Esq. Dante R. Taylor, Esq. SAN FRANCISCO CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 1390 Market Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 554-4267 Facsimile: (415) 554-4248 E-mail: Matthew.Yan@sfcityatty.org Dante.Taylor@sfcityatty.org SAZERAC CONSUMER: Pizarro Seeks to Seal Class Cert Exhibits ----------------------------------------------------------- Pizarro v. Sazerac Company, Inc., Case No. 7:23-cv-02751-KMK-AEK (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order sealing certain Exhibits ancillary to her reply memorandum in support of her motion for class certification. In light of Sazerac's designation of the documents as "Confidential" under the Protective Order, good cause exists to permit Plaintiff to file these documents under seal, the Plaintiff contends. In ruling on a motion to seal, the Court must balance the competing interests at stake, which include the public's interest in access to judicial documents, and the privacy interest of the party resisting disclosure. Sazerac is a privately held American alcoholic beverage company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TzX2gI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles D. Moore, Esq. REESE LLP 121 North Washington Avenue, Floor 2 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 SENSATA TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Wloch Says -------------------------------------------------------------- FRANKLIN WLOCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SENSATA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-11736 (D. Mass., June 13, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Personally Identifiable Information and Protected Health Information of the Plaintiffs and the Class Members. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that as a result of the Data Breach, which Defendant failed to prevent, the Private Information of Defendant's current and former employees, including Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members, were stolen, including their name, address, Social Security Number, date of birth, tax identification number, driver's license number or state-issued identification card number, passport number, other government-issued identification number, financial account information, payment card information, medical information, and health insurance information. The Defendant's failure to safeguard its Current/Former Employees' highly sensitive Private Information as exposed and unauthorizedly disclosed in the Data Breach violates its common law duty, Massachusetts law, and Defendant's implied contract with its Current/Former Employees to safeguard their Private Information. The Plaintiff and Class Members now face a lifetime risk of identity theft due to the nature of the information lost, which they cannot change, and which cannot be made private again. Sensata Technologies, Inc. designs, manufactures, and distributes sensors and electronic controls. The Company offers battery protectors, circuit breakers, thermal controllers, motor controls, airflow, automotive, and pressure sensors and switches. Sensata Technologies serves aircraft, automotive, electronics, semiconductor, and transportation markets worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina Xenides, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (929) 677-5144 Email: cxenides@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com - and - Randi Kassan, Esq. Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPLEOWITZ OSTROW, P.A. 1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com SENSATA TECHNOLOGIES: Lackner Files Suit in D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sensata Technologies Inc. The case is styled as James Lackner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sensata Technologies Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-11726 (D. Mass., June 13, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Sensata Technologies -- https://www.sensata.com/ -- is one of the world's leading suppliers of sensing, electrical protection, control and power management solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra R. Turner, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: cturner@milberg.com SHOPIFY (USA): Lazares Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Matthew Lazares, an individual, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated v. SHOPIFY (USA), INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25-CIV-03980 was removed from the Superior Court of San Mateo County, State of California, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 13, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-05050. The Complaint asserts one claim against Shopify on behalf of Plaintiff and putative class members for alleged unlawful business practices under California Business and Professions Code, California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). The Plaintiff contends that Shopify violated the UCL by misclassifying employees as exempt outside salespeople and requiring employees to sign certain agreements he characterizes as "un lawful" under California law. The Plaintiff alleges that the putative class members are entitled to compensatory damages, injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement, statutory and civil penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Rachel S. Brass, Esq. Joseph R. Rose, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP One Embarcadero Center Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415.393.8200 Facsimile: 415.393.8306 Email: rbrass@gibsondunn.com jrose@gibsondunn.com SHOPPERSCHOICE.COM LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW JAMES MCGONIGLE, V. SHOPPERSCHOICE.COM, L.L.C., Case No. 3:25-cv-00152-SDD-RLB (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Richard Bourgeois, Jr. entered an order cancelling the telephone scheduling conference set for June 26, 2025. The deadlines established below are based on the parties’ submissions in the Joint Status Report (R. Doc. 48) and are final deadlines. In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), the following deadlines are established: 1. The deadline to join other parties or to amend the pleadings is Sept. 2, 2025. 2. Exchanging initial disclosures required by F.R.C.P. 26(a)(1): June 20, 2025. 3. Filing a motion for class certification: Aug. 31, 2026. a. The Defendant's memorandum in opposition to class certification: Sept. 21, 2026. b. The Plaintiff's reply memorandum: Oct. 5, 2026. 4. Filing all discovery motions and completing all discovery except experts: July 17, 2026. Shopperschoice.Com retails household cooking appliances. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3GDLAA at no extra charge.[CC] SIRIUS XM RADIO: Stutsman Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Cynthia Stutsman and Michael Peterson, for themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SIRIUS XM RADIO LLC, Case No. 25-2-04588-31 was removed from the Superior Court of Washington, County of Snohomish, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 13, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01113. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a "class of consumers residing in Washington who never paid for a Sirius XM music plan subscription and who received emails from Sirius XM prior to July 1, 2024, which contained false or misleading pricing information in the subject line."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Tim D. Wackerbarth, Esq. 1301 2nd Avenue, Suite 2800 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 223-7000 Email: wackerbartht@ballardspahr.com - and - Lee A. Armstrong, Esq. Jennifer Del Medico, Esq. JONES DAY 250 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 326-3939 Facsimile: (212) 755-7306 Email: laarmstrong@jonesday.com jdelmedico@jonesday.com SMITH & WESSON: Ontario Court Certifies Mass Shooting Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Mach, writing for Law Times News, reports that The Ontario Court of Appeal has agreed to certify a class action that victims of a Toronto mass shooting brought against gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson, ruling that the plaintiffs satisfied the criteria for bringing their negligence claim as a class proceeding. A decision on June 23 overturned a lower court judgment, which found that while the plaintiffs' lawsuit against Smith & Wesson met some criteria to proceed as a class action, it did not meet other criteria required under the Class Proceedings Act. In a statement on behalf of the plaintiffs, potential class members, and the plaintiffs' counsel from Gowling WLG, Paliare Roland, and Michel Drapeau Law Office, Gowling partner Malcolm Ruby told Law Times, "The plaintiffs seek access to justice to advance their claim and for safer handguns and corporate accountability. "The Court of Appeal's decision reflects that handgun manufacturers have long known their products can be designed to prevent the type of unlawful use that led to the Danforth shooting," Ruby added. "The plaintiffs look forward to preparing their case for trial." The tragedy that spurred the lawsuit occurred in July 2018, when a man named Faisal Hussain shot 15 people on Toronto's Danforth Avenue, killing two of them. He used a gun manufactured by Smith & Wesson. In 2019, victims and their family members filed the proposed class action against Smith & Wesson, alleging the US gun manufacturer failed to implement a feature that would have prevented unauthorized users from firing the semiautomatic pistol Hussain used the previous summer. According to the plaintiffs, Smith & Wesson had pledged to implement such a feature in 2000 to settle civil claims arising out of gun violence in the US. The company said it would incorporate authorized user technology in its handguns by 2003. However, the plaintiffs said the company never followed through on its promise. In 2005, the US Congress passed legislation that more or less immunized gun manufacturers from civil liability to victims in cases involving the unauthorized use of a firearm. This legislation passed despite evidence that significant numbers of firearms were stolen each year. A motion judge decided the plaintiffs' bid for class certification in two stages. In the first stage in 2021, the judge ruled that the plaintiffs' negligence claim against Smith & Wesson satisfied the cause of action criterion under the Class Proceedings Act. However, in the second stage last year, the judge found that the lawsuit only satisfied two of the four remaining criteria. The judge dismissed the certification bid. The plaintiffs and Smith & Wesson both appealed. The plaintiffs argued that other claims they wanted to pursue against the gun manufacturer were also viable, while the gun manufacturer argued that the plaintiffs' negligence claim had no reasonable prospect of success. The OCA agreed with the motion judge's ruling on the plaintiffs' negligence claim. "The motion judge was not tasked with deciding whether the claim would be successful on its merits. He had to decide whether the claim was capable of success," the OCA's decision read. The appellate court said the motion judge's decision not to strike the negligence claim was based on a so-called Anns/Cooper analysis, which looks at whether harm to a plaintiff was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of a defendant's negligent action, whether the plaintiff and defendant are in a "close and direct" enough relationship that there is a duty of care, and whether there are policy considerations that could negate that duty of care. "When the facts of the case are subjected to that analysis, it is not plain and obvious that the defendant owed the plaintiffs no duty of care," the OCA said. "The defendant could reasonably have foreseen that the handguns it manufactured might be stolen, and that if they were, they might be used to harm other people. The foreseeability of that injury placed the defendant and the plaintiffs in a proximate relationship. And no policy considerations negate the resulting duty of care." The court added, "At the very least, it is not plain and obvious that these conclusions are false. It follows that the plaintiffs' claim in negligence is not doomed to fail." Unlike the motion judge, the OCA ruled that the plaintiffs satisfied all of the Class Proceedings Act criteria, paving the way for their lawsuit to receive class certification. Counsel for Smith & Wesson did not respond to a request for comment. [GN] SONY GROUP: Faces Suit Over Monopoly on Digital Game Sales ---------------------------------------------------------- Mark Tyson, writing for Tom's Hardware, reports that Dutch PlayStation gamers are up in arms about what they call the unfair 'Sony tax.' Their collective anger has been mobilized on June 24, 2025 in a class action suit against Sony, alleging monopolistic practices. In brief, legal representatives of the 'Fair PlayStation' campaign say that "consumers pay an average of 47% more for these digital versions than for exactly the same game on a physical disc" (machine translation used), as Sony leverages its monopoly on digital sales. Research undertaken by the Dutch collective indicates that Sony has been "exploiting its dominant position in the console market for at least ten years," with things made much worse by barring other app stores from the platform. It concludes that "at least 1.7 million Dutch PlayStation owners pay too much for digital games and in-game content." In total, Dutch consumers have thus had to shell out EUR435 million ($505 million) more than they should have done since 2013, according to campaigners. Wherever you live, though, new PlayStation 5 releases are expensive, and typically arrive at $69.99 in the U.S., for example. While Sony can easily control game pricing in its digital store, competing sellers of physical game media releases will often race to cut the margins they enjoy per game to aim for the volume market. This kind of healthy competition is being eroded by the introduction and promotion of the digital-only versions of consoles. Lucia Melcherts, chair of Stichting Massaschade & Consument, speaking as a representative of the 'Fair PlayStation' campaign, points out that many gamers have spent very large sums on buying games for the PlayStation. She reckons that Sony is taking away the magic as it "unilaterally imposes new conditions and demands more money without offering anything in return." That sounds like Sony is boiling the frog. The water got a little hotter in April, with Sony hiking prices of a wide range of its products as recently as April. The way that Sony could implement such price hikes illustrates the boldness of its alleged monopolistic behavior in 2025. Melcherts asserts that the purported 'Sony tax' has come about as the firm "can now afford to make decisions without having to worry much about what competitors, developers, or consumers are doing." This contrasts with how the digital-only console revolution was sold. With digital distribution reducing costs for the entertainment business, cheaper content was often implied. However, that doesn't work with walled-garden systems that block competing digital stores. In summary, the 'Fair PlayStation' campaign alleged that Sony is making double the margin on its digital sales, is enjoying the position of a monopolist with 80% of the Dutch console market, and maintains artificial walls around its on-console store. Sony's restrictive practices aren't good for developers and publishers, either. The first legal hearing is scheduled for later in 2025. Ultimately, the consumer action group hopes that the Dutch courts will uphold their claims and force Sony to open the sale of digital PlayStation content for other providers. [GN] STATE FARM: Class Cert Deadlines in Brown Suit Extended to July 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brown v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-04002 (W.D. Mo., Filed Jan. 4, 2023), the Hon. Judge M. Douglas Harpool entered an order granting motion for extension of time. The scheduling deadlines for motions for class certification and dispositive motions relating Plaintiff's individual claim, business records relevant to phase 1 (class certification only), Daubert motions relevant to phase 1 (class certification only) and dispositive motions relevant to phase 1 are extended to July 31, 2025. All other scheduling order deadlines will remain unchanged. The nature of suit states Insurance -- Diversity-Account Receivable. State Farm accused of funneling excess profits to parent ... State Farm Fire and Casualty Company is an insurance company and a subsidiary of State Farm Insurance. It was founded in 1935.[CC] STATE FARM: Class Cert Deadlines in M & M Suit Extended to July 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as M & M Rental Property LLC v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, Case No. 3:23-cv-05011 (W.D. Mo., Filed Feb 23, 2023), the Hon. Judge M. Douglas Harpool entered an order granting motion for extension of time. The scheduling deadlines for motions for class certification and dispositive motions relating Plaintiff's individual claim, business records relevant to phase 1 (class certification only), Daubert motions relevant to phase 1 (class certification only) and dispositive motions relevant to phase 1 are extended to July 31, 2025. All other scheduling order deadlines will remain unchanged. The nature of suit states Insurance -- Diversity-Account Receivable. State Farm accused of funneling excess profits to parent ... State Farm Fire and Casualty Company is an insurance company and a subsidiary of State Farm Insurance. It was founded in 1935.[CC] STITCH FIX: Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------- Stitch Fix, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended May 3, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in June 11, 2025, that on July 16, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted a Motion to Dismiss a class action lawsuit alleging violations of federal securities laws filed by certain of its stockholders in on August 26, 2022. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 13, 2024. The company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on November 8, 2024. A hearing on the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was held on March 27, 2025, and the motion is pending before the court. The suit named, as defendants, the company, certain of its officers and directors. Defendants filed an amended complaint on August 15, 2023. The lawsuit alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding its "Freestyle" offering between December 2020 and June 2022. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The company filed a motion to dismiss on November 1, 2023. Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to Motion to Dismiss on December 22, 2023, and the company filed a Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss on February 6, 2024. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was held on April 18, 2024. Stitch Fix is an online personal styling service in the United States and United Kingdom that uses recommendation algorithms and data science to personalize clothing items based on size, budget and style. SUBARU OF AMERICA: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due August 13 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANNY WESTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED et al., v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-05876-CPO-SAK (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Christine O'Hearn entered an amended scheduling order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion to certify class, and the Plaintiffs' motion to amend/correct motion to certify class were reinstated effective June 12, 2025. Any opposition shall be filed by Aug. 13, 2025. Any reply brief in further support of class certification shall be filed by shall be filed by Sept. 12, 2025. No further extensions of these deadlines will be granted. 2. The Defendants' summary judgment motion shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court no later than June 24, 2025. Any opposition shall be filed by Aug. 21, 2025. Any reply brief in further support of summary judgment shall be filed by Sept. 22, 2025. 3. Any Rule 702 Daubert expert motions intended to be decided in connection with summary judgment or class certification shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court by the Defendants no later than June 24, 2025. Any opposition shall be filed by Aug. 21, 2025. Any reply brief in further support of Rule 702 Daubert expert motions shall be filed by Sept. 22, 2025. Subaru wholesales and markets new and used cars. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NAOErG at no extra charge.[CC] SUNGAGE FINANCIAL: Beatty Sues Over Alleged Financial Fraud ----------------------------------------------------------- CAMERON BEATTY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNGAGE FINANCIAL, LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability company; NBT BANK, N.A., a New York Corporation; SUNMADE ENERGY, LLC, a California limited liability company; PG&E CORPORATION, a California Corporation, PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-at-00443 (E.D. Cal., May 30, 2025) arises from Defendants' alleged financial fraud scheme targeting Plaintiff and other homeowners in California. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) with murky and false disclosures showing 0% annual percentage rates and no finance charges, while substantial loan proceeds portions--often $20,000+--as undisclosed finance charges and dealer fees paid to Defendants rather than for solar equipment or installation. As a result of the Defendants' unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and Class Members suffer financial harm, like inflated long-term debt, failed home sales, threats to their credit score, recorded liens on immovable fixtures to their homes based on fraudulent loans, and loss of tax credit benefits. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks damages, restitution, rescission, lien expungement, and injunctive relief under federal and state law, to hold Defendants accountable for their systematic exploitation. Headquartered in Boston, MA, Sungage Financial, LLC offers finance products nationwide for residential solar panels and conducts business all over California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason M. Ingber, Esq. INGBER LAW GROUP 3580 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1260 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 805-8373 E-mail: ji@jasoningber.com SYNERGY INSPECTIONS: Hodge Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN HODGE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SYNERGY INSPECTIONS, LLC and FIRMSO, LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-00177 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Frank Volk entered an order as follows: 1. That Plaintiff's motion is granted in part as to default and class certification; 2. That the class is certified as molded therein; 3. That Brian Hodge is appointed class representative; 4. That Anthony J. Majestro and Greg A. Hewitt are jointly appointed as class counsel; 5. That class counsel is directed to file, on or before July 1, 2025, a plan for providing notice to the class pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2); and 6. That the Court reserves judgment on the amount of damages for the purposes of default judgment pending the delivery of notice and an evidentiary hearing to be set at a later date upon request. This requirement is clearly satisfied in this case. Each of the potential class members in this action is an employee whose employment was allegedly terminated without the requisite notice under the WARN Act. Although each class member is entitled to bring a separate suit for resulting damages, principles of judicial economy warrant the use of the class action to adjudicate all such claims together. Otherwise, dozens of nearly identical lawsuits would flood the Court’s docket, wasting the resources of both the judicial system and the affected parties. Accordingly, the Court finds that this class action is superior to other available methods of adjudication for the class members’ claims. Because the Court is unable to determine the amount of damages sought from the Complaint alone, an evidentiary hearing is appropriate. Accordingly, Mr. Hodge's Motion is granted. Mr. Hodge proposes the following class definition: "All employees of each Defendant, at any work site or location in West Virginia, who were entitled to and did not receive proper WARN notice." Mr. Hodge and the proposed class members were, until March 15, 2024, employees of the Defendant companies. On that date, Defendants allegedly terminated the employment of Mr. Hodge and all other employees without providing the required notice under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notice Act (the "WARN Act"). Mr. Hodge asserts there were no "unforeseen business circumstances" exempting the Defendants from providing the requisite notice. Synergy provides various construction support and inspection services. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tRqWG7 at no extra charge.[CC] TABLEONE BSNYC: Espinal Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELO ESPINAL, CONOR DOTY, and NICOLE GUIDETTI, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. TABLEONE BSNYC LLC, d/b/a/ BAR SPREZZATURA, KIMPTON HOTEL & RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC d/b/a KIMPTON HOTEL, Case No. June 18, 2025) seek damages in the amount of Plaintiffs respective unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated (double) damages as provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act for overtime violations, attorneys' fees and costs, post-judgment. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and the other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Mr. Espinal has been employed by Defendants as a barback at Bar Sprezzatura from its opening in September 2024 through the present. Ms. Doty has been employed by Defendants as a bartender at Bar Sprezzatura from September 2024 through the present. Kimpton Hotel became the owner of Defendant Table One. Managers at the Restaurant report directly to managers and employees of Defendant Kimpton Hotel. Kimpton Hotel's employees have day to day authority and control over the Restaurant, including the ultimate plenary authority to hire, fire, and set the terms of employment for Plaintiffs and other employees at the Restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. Michael DiGiulio, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 981-9587 TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due May 5, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH HOWINGTON, et al., v. TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING CO., LTD., et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-05684-VKD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Virginia K. Demarchi entered a case scheduling order as follows: Deadline to file motion to amend Aug. 15, 2025 pleadings, if any: Deadline for substantial completion of Dec. 12, 2025 document production: Deadline for completion of fact discovery April 10, 2026 relevant for class certification, including depositions: The Plaintiffs file class certification May 5, 2026 motion: The Defendants file opposition to class July 7, 2026 Certification: The Plaintiffs file reply re class Aug. 25, 2026 Certification: Hearing on plaintiffs' class Sept. 15, 2026, certification motion: 10:00 a.m. Taiwan is a Taiwanese multinational semiconductor contract manufacturing and design company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8lzjHk at no extra charge.[CC] TARGET CORP: Pre-certification Discovery Extended to July 18 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDEN KELLY, v. TARGET CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-01301-RBS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge R. Barclay Surrick entered an order granting the Parties' Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and amendind the Scheduling Order of April 4, 2025, as follows: 1. The deadline for pre-certification factual discovery shall be extended from June 25, 2025, to July 18, 2025. 2. The deadline for class certification expert discovery shall be extended from Aug. 18, 2025, to Sept. 10, 2025. 3. By Oct. 1, 2025, the Parties will submit a proposed briefing schedule for the Plaintiff's class certification motion. 4. Within 14 days from when the Court enters its order on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, the Parties will submit a proposed schedule for any necessary additional discovery on the class and/or damages, including merits expert discovery. Target is an American retail corporation that operates a chain of discount department stores and hypermarkets. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=efSZm4 at no extra charge.[CC] TEXTRON AVIATION: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CBP Air Logistics LLC v. Textron Aviation Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-01049 (M.D. Fla., Filed June 16, 2025), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports -- class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery -- class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Airplane Product Liability. Textron designs and delivers aviation experience for customers.[CC] TRICOLOR HOLDINGS: Campos Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jose Luis Campos, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRICOLOR HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; TRICOLOR CALIFORNIA AUTO GROUP, LLC d.b.a. GANAS AUTO, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV07938 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 13, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-05410. On June 12, 2025, Defendants were served with a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). The FAC filed in the State Court Action alleges the following causes of action: failure to pay all overtime wages; minimum wage violations; meal period violations; rest period violations; wage statement violations; waiting time penalties; failure to reimburse employees for necessary business expenditures; unfair competition; breach of contract; and civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Eugene Ryu, Esq. Carter L. Norfleet, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310.552.5000 Fax: 310.552.5001 Email: Gene.Ryu@klgates.com Carter.Norfleet@klgates.com UNITED AIRLINES: Removes Bell Suit to N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of CHRISTOPHER BELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Circuit Court of the State of Illinois, County of Cook, Case No. 2025CH04453, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 6, 2025. The clerk of court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-06307. United Airlines, Inc. provides domestic and international airline services. The Company offers bookings, reservations, trips, trip insurance, and transportation for passengers. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Elizabeth B. McRee, Esq. Katelyn E. Nicasio, Esq. JONES DAY 110 North Wacker Drive Suite 4800 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 782-3939 Facsimile: (312) 782-8585 Email: emcree@jonesday.com knicasio@jonesday.com UNITED NATURAL: Faces NYSM Organics Breach of Contract Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- United Natural Foods, Inc. (UNFI) disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended May 3, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 10, 2025, that the company was named in a putative class action lawsuit filed on November 3, 2024 captioned "NYSM Organics LLC v. United Natural Foods, Inc.," and is pending in the Rhode Island Superior Court. In the amended complaint, which was filed on December 30, 2024, the plaintiff alleged that the company took prompt-pay discounts improperly and asserts claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. In an order dated June 5, 2025, the court dismissed the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act claim. The company's answer to the Amended Complaint was due to be filed on June 16, 2025. United Natural Foods, Inc. and its subsidiaries is a distributor of natural, organic, specialty, produce and conventional grocery and non-food products, and provider of support services to retailers, primarily throughout the United States and Canada. UNITED NATURAL: Faces Securities Suit over SEC Disclosures ---------------------------------------------------------- United Natural Foods, Inc. (UNFI) disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended May 3, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 10, 2025, that the company and its officers, namely, J. Alexander Miller Douglas, John Howard and Chris Testa are named in a putative securities class action that was originally filed on March 29, 2023. On March 7, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and the company's response were due June 13, 2025. In case "Dan Sills, et al. v. United Natural Foods, Inc., et al.," pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the plaintiffs allege that defendants violated federal securities laws by making materially false and/or misleading statements and failing to disclose material facts about UNFI's business, operations and prospects. The defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on December 21, 2023, and on September 13, 2024, the court issued an opinion granting in part and denying in part the motion. On October 28, 2024, the Company answered the complaint denying the allegations. United Natural Foods, Inc. and its subsidiaries is a distributor of natural, organic, specialty, produce and conventional grocery and non-food products, and provider of support services to retailers, primarily throughout the United States and Canada. UNITED STATES: Cabrera Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANARIA CABRERA, et al., Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, et al., Case No. e 1:25-cv-01909-DLF (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following Class: "All individuals enrolled, as of May 29, 2025, in Job Corps programs at centers operated by contractors that were subject to the suspension of Job Corps program operations announced by the Department of Labor on that date." The Plaintiffs further request that the Court appoint all named Plaintiffs as class representatives and Public Citizen Litigation Group and the Southern Poverty Law Center as class counsel. Department of Labor administers federal labor laws to guarantee workers' rights to fair, safe, and healthy working conditions. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NgUAvc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael T. Kirkpatrick, Esq. Adam R. Pulver, Esq. PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION GROUP 1600 20th St. NW Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 588-1000 E-mail: apulver@citizen.org mkirkpatrick@citizen.org - and - Arthur Ago, Esq. Aaron S. Fleisher, Esq. Scott D. McCoy, Esq. Sam Boyd, Esq. Carli Raben, Esq. Michael Tafelski, Esq. Diego A. Soto, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 1101 17th St. NW Ste. 705 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 536-9719 Facsimile: (202) 971-9205 E-mail: arthur.ago@splcenter.org aaron.fleisher@splcenter.org scott.mccoy@splcenter.org sam.boyd@splcenter.org carli.raben@splcenter.org michael.tafelski@splcenter.org diego.soto@splcenter.org UNITED STATES: Coker et al. Sue Over Labor Law Violations --------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN COKER, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00582-SLP (W.D. Okla., May 30, 2025), is a class action seeking for a declaratory judgment, back pay, and other relief to remedy the willful and unlawful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Back Pay Act. The Plaintiffs are current and former employees of Defendant United States Government at the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, at the Federal Correctional Institution El Reno. They have worked in excess of the hourly levels specified in the FLSA. However, the Defendant does not compensate Plaintiffs for the time that Plaintiffs spend performing daily work outside of their regularly scheduled 8-hour shifts. Moreover, the Defendant has deprived Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees of overtime compensation by failing to compensate them for the time that Defendant has suffered or permitted them to spend engaged in pre-shift and post-shift activities, the suit says. FCI El Reno is a medium security correctional facility in in El Reno, OK. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew R. Dowdell, Esq. Austin P. Bond, Esq. Regan E. Rule, Esq. 15 W. 6th St., Suite 2601 Tulsa, OK 74119 Telephone: (918) 200-9626 E-mail: abond@bondgill.com mdowdell@bondgill.com rrule@bondgill.com - and - Sara L. Faulman, Esq. Patrick J. Miller-Bartley, Esq. McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 833-8855 Facsimile: (202) 452-1090 E-mail: slf@mselaborlaw.com pmb@mselaborlaw.com UNITED STATES: Mora Bid to Reconsider Dismissal of FOIA Claim OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIAN SANCHEZ MORA, et al., v. U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, Case No. 1:24-cv-03136-BAH (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Beryl Howell entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider dismissal of Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") Claim. The Court further entered an order that the plaintiffs' FOIA claim against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Count Three), is reinstated, and DHS is thus reinstated as a defendant in this case. The Plaintiffs -- three immigration attorneys and three individuals, each of whom filed FOIA requests with defendant U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") -- originally filed this putative class-action lawsuit in the Northern District of California, alleging, in three counts, violations of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") (in Counts One and Two) and the FOIA (in Count Three) by defendants CBP and U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"). Customs prevents people from entering the country illegally or bringing anything harmful or illegal into the United States. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated June 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8YSUaz at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTOWAN HAGANS, v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01671-ACR (D.D.C.), the Defendant Joe Page III ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadlines for him to respond to the Complaint and the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel until July 31, 2025, the date the other defendants' responses are due pursuant to Rule 12(a)(3) and the Court's June 12, 2025 Minute Order. The proposed extensions of time would further judicial efficiency and preserve the Parties' resources without posing harm to anyone else. United States Parole Commission grants, alters, and revokes paroles to federal criminals and supervises parolees. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4aHghR at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Brian L. Schwalb, Esq. Chad Copeland, Esq. Matthew R. Blecher, Esq. Honey C. Morton, Esq. Conrad Z. Risher, Esq. CIVIL LITIGATION DIVISION 400 6th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 417-5394 E-mail: conrad.risher@dc.gov USAA INSURANCE: Filing for Class Cert. in Kujawa Due May 4, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA CHARLES KUJAWA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. USAA INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:25-cv-00768-GAM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Gerald Austin McHugh entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. All factual discovery shall be completed by Jan. 9, 2026. 2. Expert disclosures, if any, shall be due by Feb. 6, 2026. 3. Rebuttal or supplemental expert reports, if any, shall be produced as promptly as possible after the need for such reports is identified, and must be served sufficiently in advance of the motion for class certification deadline to allow for a meaningful response. 4. Class certification motions shall be due by May 4, 2026. 5. Opposition to class certification motion shall be due by June 1, 2026. 6. Dispositive motions, if any, shall be due at a date set by the Court upon resolution of the motion for class certification. USAA sells all the standard homeowners insurance coverages, including liability, contents, dwelling, additional structures, and loss of use. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1oNE87 at no extra charge.[CC] VETERANS ALLIANCE: Seeks Denial of Mitchell Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VETERANS ALLIANCE, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00617-ART-CLB (D. Nev.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order: (i) affirmatively denying class certification pursuant to Lawson v. Grubhub, Inc., 13 F.4th 908, 913 (9th Cir. 2021), Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935, 939 (9th Cir. 2009), Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a-b), and 29 U.S.C. section 207(h)(2), and (ii) redefining the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and Geiger v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc., No. 18-cv-158-DMG (GJSx), 2019 WL 8105374 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2019). Because of the significant presence of uninjured putative class and collective members, the Court should deny certification of the Kentucky class and redefine the FLSA collective. Veterans requests that the Court grant its motion and deny certification of the Kentucky Class. Further, Veterans requests that the collective by redefined to exclude putative members (1) bound by arbitration agreements and/or (2) who were paid overtime at a rate equal to or greater than would be owed under Plaintiff’s theory of liability. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=busTba at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Ariel E. Stern, Esq. AKERMAN LLP 1635 Village Center Circle, Suite 200 Las Vegas, NV 89134 Telephone: (702) 634-5000 Facsimile: (702) 380-8572 E-mail: ariel.stern@akerman.com - and - Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum, Esq. Anthony D. Sbardellati, Esq. AKERMAN LLP 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 6400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 688-9500 Facsimile: (213) 627-6342 E-mail: sarah.kroll-rosenbaum@akerman.com anthony.sbardellati@akerman.com VINEYARD VINES: Harrington Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Angee Harrington, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VINEYARD VINES, LLC, a Connecticut limited liability company, Case No. 25-2-14683-9 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 13, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01115. The Plaintiff alleges that Vineyard Vines violated Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA") and Washington's Consumer Protection Act ("CPA") by sending marketing emails to Washington consumers with false and misleading information in the subject lines. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, and attorney's fees and costs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kaleigh N. Boyd, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101-3147 Phone: (206) 682-5600 Email: kboyd@tousley.com - and - Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq. James Lamarca, Esq. WADE KILPELA SLADE LLP 6425 Living Place, Suite 200 Pittsburgh, PA 15206 Fax: (206) 682-2992 Phone: (412) 314-0515 Email: ek@waykayslay.com jlamarca@waykayslay.com - and - Evan E. North, Esq. NORTH LAW PLLC 1900 Market Street, Suite 800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (202) 921-1651 Email: evan@northlawpllc.com The Defendants are represented by: Damon C. Elder, Esq. Andrew DeCarlow, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 274-6400 Email: damon.elder@morganlewis.com andrew.decarlow@morganlewis.com VISA INC: Judge Dismisses Class Action Suit Over Vanilla Gift Cards ------------------------------------------------------------------- PYMNTS reports that Visa defeated a proposed class action lawsuit that alleged that the company did not warn consumers that its prepaid Vanilla gift cards could be drained by thieves. The judge hearing the case ruled Monday, June 23, that it was unreasonable for consumers to believe that gift cards were impervious to scams or that Visa's logo on the cards ensured no scams would occur, Reuters reported.. In addition, the judge said that news coverage and online comments about "card draining" scams disproved plaintiffs' claims that Visa did not provide adequate warnings on the packaging of the Vanilla cards, according to the report. "No reasonable consumer would expect the allegedly 'widespread' practice of third-party scams affecting prepaid cards to somehow not affect one of the industry's major suppliers," U.S. District Judge Gregory Woods wrote, per the report. Card draining is a scam in which criminals deplete the value of gift cards before they are used, PYMNTS reported in July. This scam is the latest iteration among a proliferation of gift card scams. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) said in August that gift card draining and other gift card fraud is a growing crime. The most common types of gift card fraud include card tampering, in which criminals manipulate gift card packaging to steal card information before the card is sold and then drain the funds after a consumer purchases and loads money onto the card; online attacks, in which criminals gain access to online gift card accounts through phishing or hacking; and victim-assisted fraud, in which criminals trick individuals via phone or online into purchasing gift cards and sharing the redemption codes, ICE said at the time. "Gift card draining techniques not only affect retailers, but also our Nation's economy and jeopardize our Nation's national security and public safety," ICE said. Gift cards have become an attractive target for fraudsters due to their easily monetizable nature, PYMNTS reported in November 2023. Gift cards provide fraudsters with a level of anonymity, as they can be sent electronically or used directly in-store, and there are generally no chargeback options, which makes it virtually impossible to recover funds. [GN] VMWARE INC: Court OKs Settlement in Shareholder Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Broadcom Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended May 3, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in June 11, 2025, that the parties have agreed to settlement terms and in March 2025 the California Court approved the settlement of a March 31, 2020 securities class action lawsuit filed against VMware, Inc. and certain former officers of VMware in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On November 22, 2023, Broadcom completed the acquisition of VMware, Inc. in a cash-and-stock transaction. On September 18, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging that VMware's statements about backlog and the related internal controls during the period from August 2018 through February 2020 were materially misleading. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted with leave to amend on September 10, 2021. On October 8, 2021, the plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Consolidated Complaint based on the same alleged disclosure deficiencies. The defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint was filed on November 5, 2021. On April 2, 2023, the California Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss finding that the plaintiffs had adequately stated claims under Sections 10 and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Broadcom Inc. designs, develops and supplies a broad range of semiconductor and infrastructure software solutions with a focus on complex digital and mixed signal complementary metal oxide semiconductor-based devices and analog III-V based products. VOLVO CARS: Levine Seeks to Schedule Status Conference ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as FREDRICK SCOTT LEVINE and DOUGLAS W. MURPHY, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v. VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC; and VOLVO CAR USA, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-03760-CCC-JBC (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to schedule a status conference to discuss the Plaintiffs' pending motion for class certification and the status of the case. On Aug. 15, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs re-moved on August 31, 2022. Briefing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was completed on Dec. 16, 2022. The Plaintiffs’ counsel conferred with counsel for the Defendants, who advised that the Defendants do not agree that this motion should be filed, but that they do not intend to incur the expense of preparing and filing opposition papers. Volvo manufactures, markets, and sells automobiles. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VEhvAn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony M. Christina, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601-2301 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 E-mail: achristina@lowey.com - and - Patrick J. Vallely, Esq. Edward F. Haber, Esq. SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP One Boston Place, Suite 2600 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 439-3939 E-mail: pvallely@shulaw.com ehaber@shulaw.com WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Casillas Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROSARIO CASILLAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 15, 2025) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Casillas was employed by the Defendants as a staff. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. is a multi-channel retailer. The company operates physical stores such as grocery stores, supermarkets, hypermarkets, department and discount stores. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arby Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC 450 North Brand Blvd., Suite 900 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 Email: aa@calljustice.com WALGREEN CO: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Polk Suit Due Oct. 17 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Polk v. Walgreen Co., Case No. 6:25-cv-00473 (D. Or., Filed March 20, 2025), the Hon. Judge Ann L. Aiken entered an order granting the parties' Joint Proposed Joint Case Management Schedule and adopting the proposed deadlines as follows: -- Amendments to Pleadings or Joinder July 11, 2025 of Parties to be completed by: -- The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Oct. 17, 2025 Certification to be filed by: -- Dispositive Motions are due by: March 19, 2026 -- Rule 26(a) Disclosures are due by: July 23, 2025 -- Discovery is to be completed by: Nov. 14, 2025 The suit alleges Diversity-Employment Discrimination. Walgreens is an American pharmacy store chain.[CC] WALGREEN EASTERN: Faces Monks Suit Over Late Payment of Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- JAMIE MONKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALGREEN EASTERN CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 25CV1456 (Mass. Super., June 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for late payment of wages in violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act. The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant since 2020 and he was promoted to the salaried position of store manager in March 2023. Walgreen Eastern Co., Inc. is a pharmacy and store chain, doing business in Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond Dinsmore, Esq. Ryan B. Guers, Esq. HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC One Monarch Place, Suite 1340 Springfield, MA 01144 Telephone: (413) 785-1400 Facsimile: (860) 218-9555 Email: rdinsmore@hayberlawfirm.com rguers@hayberlawfirm.com WALT DISNEY: Settles Gender Discrimination Class Suit for $43.25MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top class Actions reports that The Walt Disney Co. agreed to a $43.25 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it violated California's Equal Pay Act by paying women less than men for similar work. The Disney settlement benefits women who worked in a "covered position" for Disney in California between April 1, 2015, and Dec. 28, 2024. Covered positions are salaried, full-time, non-union positions below the level of vice president with a job level of B1-B4, T1-T4, TL, P1-P6, P2L-P5L, M1-M3, A1-5, E0, E1 or E1X. The settlement does not include individuals working in Hulu, ESPN, Pixar, 21st Century (Fox), FX, National Geographic, Bamtech or ILM; employees in the HR compensation job family; in-house employment counsel; or any paralegals and legal assistants involved in assisting with the case. The class action lawsuit alleged Disney systematically paid women less than men for similar work. This Disney gender discrimination allegedly violated California's Equal Pay Act. The Walt Disney Co. is a global entertainment company that operates theme parks, resorts, cruise lines, television networks and more. Disney has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $43.25 million to resolve the equal pay allegations. Under the terms of the Disney settlement, class members can receive a cash payment. Class members are guaranteed to receive at least $200. Exact payment amounts may be higher and will vary depending on the number of participating class members and other factors. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Aug. 16, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Disney gender discrimination settlement is scheduled for Sept. 15, 2025. No claim form is required to benefit from the settlement. Class members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive a settlement payment. Class members who wish to update their address on file with the settlement administrator can do so on the settlement website. Who's Eligible Women who worked in a "covered position" for The Walt Disney Co., ABC, Disneyland Resort, Disney Television Animation, Walt Disney Animation Studios, Disney Channel, Disney Junior, Disney XD, Disney Television Animation, Disney Music Publishing, Disney Publishing Worldwide, Disney Theatrical Productions, Lucasfilm, Marvel Studios, Searchlight Pictures or 20th Century Studios in California between April 1, 2015, and Dec. 28, 2024. A covered position is any salaried, full-time, non-union position below the level of vice president, with a job level of B1-B4, T1-T4, TL, P1-P6, P2L-P5L, M1-M3, A1-5, E0, E1 or E1X. Potential Award $200+ Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form Deadline 09/15/2025 Case Name Rasmussen, et al. v. The Walt Disney Co., et al., Case No. 19STCV10974, in the California Superior Court for Los Angeles County Final Hearing 09/15/2025 Settlement Website RasmussenvTWDCSettlement.com Claims Administrator Rasmussen v. The Walt Disney Co. c/o CPT Group Inc. 50 Corporate Park Irvine, CA 92606 RasmussenvTWDC@cptgroup.com (888) 801-2208 Class Counsel Lori Andrus ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP Christine Webbe COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC James Kan GOLDSTEIN BORGEN DARDARIAN & HO Defense Counsel Felicia Davis PAUL HASTINGS LLP [GN] WELLS FARGO: Class Cert Bid Filing in Kirkpatrick Due August 9 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID A. KIRKPATRICK, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., doing business as Wells Fargo Home Mortgage and HSBC BANK USA, N.A., Case No. 5:24-cv-00169 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Frank Volk entered an order granting the joint motion to amend the current scheduling order as follows: June 21, 2025 Deadline for written fact discovery related to class certification. July 25, 2025 Deadline for plaintiffs to serve expert reports supporting class certification. Aug. 9, 2025 Deadline to serve motion for class certification Aug. 25, 2025 Deadline for defendants to depose Plaintiff's expert witnesses on class certification. Aug. 25, 2025 Deadline for the Defendants to serve expert reports supporting class certification. Sept. 13, 2025 Deadline for response to motion for class certification. Nov. 10, 2025 Deadline for Plaintiff to depose Defendants expert witnesses on class certification Nov. 20, 2025 Deadline for Plaintiff's reply supporting their motion for class certification. Dec. 15, 2025 Hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Wells operates as a bank. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VIMU6j at no extra charge.[CC] WESTGATE RESORTS: Amended Class Complaint Dismissed w/o Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE HELMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Westgate Resorts, Inc.; Westgate Resorts, Ltd, Westgate Myrtle Beach, LLC; Central Florida Investments, Inc; John Doe Corporations 1-25, Case No. 4:24-cv-04154-JD (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Joseph Dawson III entered an order granting the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. -- The Plaintiff Jane Helms's Amended Class Action Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. -- Because all these deficiencies are potentially curable, and amendment would not necessarily be futile, Helms is granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint within 21 days of the date of this Order. The Amended Complaint fails to state a plausible breach-of-contract claim under Florida law. Accordingly, both Counts I and II must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. However, Helms is granted leave to amend the complaint to address these issues. On Oct. 30, 2024, Helms sued Westgate, alleging breach of contract (Count I); breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count II); and violation of the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act (Count III). Helms also seeks certification of a class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defined as: "All individuals within the State of South Carolina who worked as commission-only salespersons for the Defendants within the applicable statute of limitations who had "reserve funds" held by the Defendants that were wrongfully withheld by the Defendants upon the conclusion of said salesperson's employment with the Defendants." Westgate operates as a resort development company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gWTjJN at no extra charge.[CC] WEXFORD HEALTH: Parties Must Confer Response Partial Redaction -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN SPURLOCK; HEATHER SMITH; and SHAWN ZMUDZINSKI, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INCORPORATED, Case No. 3:23-cv-00476 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert Chambers entered an order directing the Plaintiffs and the Defendant to confer as to the partial redaction of the Defendant's response in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the attached expert report. Pending is Defendant's motion to seal various portions of its response in opposition to the motion for class certification and exhibit attached thereto. The Defendant moved to seal certain sections of its brief and the entirety of a lengthy expert report. Plaintiffs did not file a response before the deadline. The Court finds that the public has received sufficient notice via the public filing of the memoranda detailing the Defendant's request to seal. The Court has considered less drastic alternatives to sealing and finds that partial redaction is appropriate. The Court finds that the expert report and Defendant’s response brief contain highly sensitive medical information that is unrelated to any claim in this action. In particular, the report and brief describe certain diagnoses that are highly sensitive, unrelated to the Plaintiffs' claims, and not helpful to a member of the public following these proceedings. Partial redaction of irrelevant medical information is narrowly tailored to protect the Plaintiffs' compelling interest in the confidentiality of sensitive medical records. The parties should reach agreement on redaction of information that is sensitive and irrelevant to the Plaintiffs' claims. The Defendant is directed to file partially redacted versions of its brief and expert report by 5 p.m. on June 25, 2025. The Court directs the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented parties. Wexford is an American healthcare services company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q2H8us at no extra charge.[CC] WHOLE FOODS: Fact Discovery Completion in Silberstein Due May 15 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Silberstein v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-04229 (E.D.N.Y., Filed June 14, 2024), the Hon. Judge Joan M. Azrack entered an order approving the parties' proposed schedule as follows: (1) Completion of fact discovery by: May 15, 2026 (2) Final date to complete first step Nov. 14, 2025 in class certification motion practice by: (3) Exchange of expert reports by March 18, 2026 (4) Exchange of rebuttal expert April 17, 2026 reports by: (5) Completion of expert discovery by: June 17, 2026 (6) The final date to take the first June 24, 2026 step in dispositive motion practice consistent with the Individual Practice Rules of District Judge Joan M. Azrack shall be: The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Whole Foods is the entity that owns and operates the Whole Foods Market chain of supermarkets. It's a subsidiary of Amazon, having been acquired in 2017.[CC] WM WHOLESALE: Hernandez Seeks to Continue Class Cert. Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSUE HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WM WHOLESALE, LLC d/b/a CAKE BRAND, a Delaware limited liability company, And AK FUTURES, LLC d/b/a CAKE BRAND, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 8:24-cv-02553-RGK-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order continuing the Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class certification from June 30, 2025 to 90 days after the Court issues a decision on the Defendant's currently-pending motion to stay discovery, which is set for hearing before the Court on June 30, 2025. On June 13, 2025, the Plaintiff's counsel met and conferred with Defendant’s counsel telephonically regarding the relief sought in this ex parte application. The Defendant's counsel did not object to Plaintiff’s request for a continuance of Plaintiff's deadline to file his Motion for Class Certification to 90 days after the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s Stay Motion. The Plaintiff filed this action on behalf of similarly situated consumers who purchased the Defendants' delta-8 and delta-10 vape products purportedly derived from legal hemp. WM is a wholesaler of commercial hemp vaping products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OVDPF6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. Brittany S. Scott, Esq. Joel D. Smith, Esq. Aleksandr "Sasha" Litvinov, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 166 Geary Street, Ste. 1500-1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 839-7000 E-Mail: yeremey@skclassactions.com brittany@skclassactions.com joel@skclassactions.com sasha@skclassactions.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Pamela Prescott, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (949) 612-9999 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com pamela@kazlg.com XACTUS LLC: Bid for Class Cert in Cinner Amended to Sept. 5 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YAAKOV CINNER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. XACTUS, LLC and CREDIT PLUS, LLC, individually and as successor in interest to CREDIT PLUS, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-04531-JMY (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge John Milton Younge entered an order granting the Parties' Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order as follows: Event Deadline The Plaintiff's motion for class Sept. 5, 2025 Certification: The Defendants' opposition to motion for Oct. 3, 2025 class certification: The Plaintiff's reply in support of motion Oct. 24, 2025 for class certification: Close of fact discovery: Oct. 24, 2025 Expert Deadlines Expert Report(s): Nov. 14, 2025 Rebuttal Report(s): Dec. 19, 2025 Expert Depositions: Jan. 16, 2026 Xactus is a fintech specializing in verification solutions for the mortgage and financial services industries. A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lQjTaY at no extra charge.[CC] ZUFFA LLC: Must File Class Cert Reply by July 18 ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAJAN JOHNSON, CLARENCE DOLLAWAY, AND TRISTAN CONNELLY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. ZUFFA, LLC, TKO Operating Company, LLC f/k/a Zuffa Parent LLC (d/b/a Ultimate Fighting Championship and UFC), and ENDEAVOR GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-01189-RFB-BNW (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Richard F. Boulware, II entered an order granting joint scheduling stipulation regarding Zuffa's reply in support of motion to deny class certification or, in the alternative, strike class allegations. Zuffa and Plaintiffs Kajan Johnson, Clarence Dollaway, and Tristan Connelly, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, stipulated to continue to deadline for Zuffa to file its reply to Plaintiffs’ response to Zuffa's Motion to Deny Class Certification or, In The Alternative, Strike Class Allegations (ECF No. 179) from June 17, 2025, to July 18, 2025. Zuffa is a former American sports promotion company that specialized in mixed martial arts (MMA). A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q0ZACL at no extra charge.[CC] ********* 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 ***