250715.mbx

250715.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, July 15, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 140 Headlines 1245 VINE OWNER LLC: Anthonyson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. 3M COMPANY: Barteck Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois 3M COMPANY: Chappell Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama 3M COMPANY: Clemons Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama 3M COMPANY: Johnson Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama 3M COMPANY: King Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ACACIA NETWORK: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition AHOLD DELHAIZE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Ankus Alleges ALL-AMERICAN CONSTRUCTION: Robinson Suit Removed to E.D. California AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Bid Extension Sought in Wilson Suit AMAZON.COM INC: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid ARCHERY TRADE: Conspires to Fix Products' Prices, Babst Alleges AZ AIR CONDITIONING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Westmiller Says BANK OF AMERICA: Nguyen Loses Bid for Class Certification BLUE-GRACE GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Woolbright Says BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Removes Valencia Suit to N.D. Calif. BONE & JOINT: Class Gets Certification in Ollerman Suit BONE & JOINT: Class Gets Certification in Tesky Suit BONE & JOINT: Class Gets Certification in Tessmer Lawsuit BROOKSIDE FARMS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Whittle Alleges BROOKSIDE FARMS: Whittle Seeks Approval of Notice to Workers BURGER KING: Renewed Bid for Sanctions Tossed w/o Prejudice CABARRUS EYE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Clay Suit Alleges CAMRISE LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Trippett Says CAPSTONE GREEN: $2.25MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 13 CAPSTONE GREEN: Final Settlement Hearing in Spitzer Set for Nov. 13 CARILION HEALTHCARE: Accord Seeks Unpaid Wages Under VOWA, FLSA CONNECTWISE LLC: Data Breach Claims Dismissed with Leave to Amend CONNEXION POINT: Briefing Deadlines Extended to Sept. 30 DREXEL BUILDING: Court Tosses Bid for Initial OK of Settlement EFFORTLESS OFFICE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Wallis Says EPISOURCE LLC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Alcor Alleges FPL FOOD: Data Breach Case Goes to Arbitration GROCERY DELIVERY: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Response GROVE CITY: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked, Zirkle Suit Alleges J. M. SMUCKER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Shelton Alleges JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Seeks Extension of Daubert Bids KRISPY KREME: Robison Files Suit in M.D. North Carolina LIBERTY MUTUAL: Harrison Seeks to Suspend Class Cert Deadline LUMEN TECH: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Civelli Due Oct. 14 MARITIME EXPLORATIONS: Appeal Filed in Buddenhagen Case MARKETSOURCE INC: August18 Hearing for Bid to Strike Class Cert Set MARKETSOURCE INC: Seeks to Suspend Class Cert Dates in Brum Suit MFM CONTRACTING: Appellate Court Modifies Class Certification Order MICROMOBILITY.COM: Barron Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid MONEYLION TECHNOLOGIES: Sues Over Improper Interest Loan Charges NATIONAL GENERAL: Bid For Reconsideration Tossed NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to August 7 NIKE INC: Ma Suit Removed to W.D. Washington NORTH BUNCOMBE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Walker Alleges OHANA MILITARY: Consolidated Reply in Camp Class Suit Due Oct. 17 OHANA MILITARY: Consolidated Reply in Powell Suit Due Oct. 17 PATSY'S ITALIANA: Hoti Seeks More Time to File Opposition Reply PETCO HEALTH: Spurbeck Sues Over Drop in Share Price PLANITROI LLC: Cartagenova Suit Removed from State Court to D.N.J. PLY GEM SPECIALTY: Jameson Suit Removed to D. South Carolina PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Shubkagel Class Cert Filing Due Feb. 20, 2026 PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN: Stickle Suit Removed to D. South Carolina QUICK BOX: $5.5MM Class Settlement in Tan Suit Gets Final Nod QUIKAID INC: Wilson Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid QUTEN RESEARCH: Class Cert Bid Filing in Swetala Due August 3, 2026 REAL BROKERAGE: Faces Suit Over Real Estate Broker Conspiracy SHOMA GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Castillo Alleges SMITH & WESSON: Faces Privacy Act-Related Suit SONIC INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Brennan Suit Due May 15, 2026 SONOS INC: App Diminished Device Performance, Bornemann Says SPECTRUM PHARMA: $15.95MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 20 TAL EDUCATION: 2023 Securities Class Suit Discovery Ongoing TASKUS INC: $17.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 16 TC HEARTLAND: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Briefing Schedule TICKETMASTER LLC: Smith Sues Over Improper Ticket Sales TIP-TOP ROOFING: Seeks to Correct Class Cert Opposition Brief TRADERCODES LLC: Wilson Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid UNITED STATES: E.O No. 14160 Violates Citizenship Clause, Suit Says UNITED STATES: Must File Class Cert Reply by July 16 UPLIFTING RESULTS: Faces Butler Over Misleading GLP-1 Booster Ads UPMC: Harrington Has Until Sept. 8 to File Opposition Reply WALL & ASSOCIATES: Customers Have Until Dec. 10 to File Claims ZANDER GROUP: Jones' Bids to Quash Subpoenas in ERISA Suit Granted ********* 1245 VINE OWNER LLC: Anthonyson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 1245 VINE OWNER LLC. The case is styled as Patricia Anthonyson, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. 1245 VINE OWNER LLC, Case No. 25STCV18879 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 26, 2025). The case type is stated as "Landlord-Tenant Habitability (e.g., bed bugs, mold, etc.) (General Jurisdiction)." 1245 Vine Owner LLC is a Property Owner.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Prescott W. Littlefield, Esq. KEARNEY LITTLEFIELD LLP 655 N Central Ave., Fl 17 Glendale, CA 91203-1439 Phone: 213-473-1900 Fax: 213-473-1919 Email: pwl@kearneylittlefield.com 3M COMPANY: Barteck Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Aaron Barteck, et al., and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 2025LA000692 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on June 26, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00965-MHH. The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or selling aqueous film forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs. In relevant part, Plaintiffs allege that 3M and certain other Defendants sold AFFF containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS"). Moreover, each Plaintiff expressly alleges that he "regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter" and allegedly suffered injury "as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel I. Rottenberg, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 71 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 782-0600 Email: drottenberg@mayerbrown.com 3M COMPANY: Chappell Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Terry Chappell, et al., and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2025-902319.00 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit Jefferson County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on June 26, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01018-NAD. The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or selling aqueous film forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs. In relevant part, Plaintiffs allege that 3M and certain other Defendants sold AFFF containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS"). Moreover, each Plaintiff expressly alleges that he "regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter" and allegedly suffered injury "as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: M. Christian King, Esq. Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq. W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. Jacob M. Salow, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203-3200 Phone: (205) 581-0700 Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com jsalow@lightfootlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Clemons Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Terry L. Clemons, et al., and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2025-902039.00 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit Jefferson County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on June 26, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01022-ACA. The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or selling aqueous film forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs. In relevant part, Plaintiffs allege that 3M and certain other Defendants sold AFFF containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS"). Moreover, each Plaintiff expressly alleges that he "regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter" and allegedly suffered injury "as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: M. Christian King, Esq. Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq. W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. Jacob M. Salow, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203-3200 Phone: (205) 581-0700 Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com jsalow@lightfootlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Johnson Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Adolphus Johnson, et al., and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2025-902041.00 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit Jefferson County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on June 26, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01020-ACA. The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or selling aqueous film forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs. In relevant part, Plaintiffs allege that 3M and certain other Defendants sold AFFF containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS"). Moreover, each Plaintiff expressly alleges that he "regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter" and allegedly suffered injury "as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: M. Christian King, Esq. Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq. W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. Jacob M. Salow, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203-3200 Phone: (205) 581-0700 Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com jsalow@lightfootlaw.com 3M COMPANY: King Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama --------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Thomas K. King, et al., and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2025-902321.00 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit Jefferson County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on June 26, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01023-AMM. The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or selling aqueous film forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs. In relevant part, Plaintiffs allege that 3M and certain other Defendants sold AFFF containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS"). Moreover, each Plaintiff expressly alleges that he "regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter" and allegedly suffered injury "as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: M. Christian King, Esq. Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq. W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. Jacob M. Salow, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203-3200 Phone: (205) 581-0700 Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com jsalow@lightfootlaw.com ACACIA NETWORK: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Neor et al., v. Acacia Network, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-04814-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting two-week extension of time to submit Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. Acacia is a human services organization in New York City. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TefDOO at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Peter T. Shapiro, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich Street, 11th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 232-1322 E-mail: Peter.Shapiro@lewisbrisbois.com AHOLD DELHAIZE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Ankus Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ JON ANKUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AHOLD DELHAIZE SERVICE, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00533 (M.D.N.C., June 27, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. Accordingly, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information -- about its current and former employees. But the Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiency protected computer systems in a data breach, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim. The Defendant is the parent company of numerous retail grocery stores throughout the United States – including Food Lion, Giant Lion and THE GIANT Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Wilkerson, Esq. WILKERSON JUSTUS PLLC PO Box 54 Asheville, NC 28802 Telephone: (828) 316 6902 E-mail: dwilkerson@wilkersonjustus.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 n. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263 1100 Facsimile: (872) 263 1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com ALL-AMERICAN CONSTRUCTION: Robinson Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Calvin Robinson, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. ALL-AMERICAN CONSTRUCTION, INC. a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CV011635 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 26, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01801-CSK. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, nine total causes of action, seven of which are for various violations of the California Labor Code, one for "Unfair Competition" under California Business & Professions Code section 17200, and one for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") for violations of the Labor Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Aaron B. Silva, Esq. Matthew H. Green, Esq. MURPHY AUSTIN ADAMS SCHOENFELD LLP 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 850 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 446-2300 Facsimile: (916) 503-4000 Email: asilva@murphyaustin.com mgreen@murphyaustin.com AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Bid Extension Sought in Wilson Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH FRAME-WILSON, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00424-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order regarding extension of class certification and Daubert briefing deadlines: Filing Proposed The Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion Nov. 7, 2025 to certify class; Plaintiffs' response in opposition to Amazon's Daubert motion; Plaintiffs' Daubert motion(s): Amazon's reply in support of Amazon's Dec. 15, 2025 Daubert motion; Amazon's response(s) in opposition to Plaintiffs' Daubert motion(s): The Plaintiffs' reply(ies) in support of Jan. 13, 2026 Plaintiffs' Daubert motion(s): Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bpYIi9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq. Kelly Fan, Esq. Anne F. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com barbaram@hbsslaw.com annej@hbsslaw.com kellyf@hbsslaw.com - and - Zina G. Bash, Esq. Jessica Beringer, Esq. Shane Kelly, Esq. Alex Dravillas, Esq. Roseann Romano, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500 Austin, TX, 78701 Telephone: (512) 690-0990 E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com ajd@kellerpostman.com roseann.romano@kellerpostman.com - and - Alicia Cobb, Esq. Steig D. Olson, Esq. David D. LeRay, Esq. Nic V. Siebert, Esq. Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Esq. Elle Mahdavi, Esq. Adam B. Wolfson, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 1109 First Avenue, Suite 210 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 905-7000 E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com steigolson@quinnemanuel.com davidleray@quinnemanuel.com nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com ellemahdavi@quinnemanuel.com The Defendant is represented by: John A. Goldmark, Esq. MaryAnn Almeida, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com JohnGoldmark@dwt.com MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com - and - Karen L. Dunn, Esq. William A. Isaacson, Esq. Amy J. Mauser, Esq. Meredith Dearborn, Esq. Kyle Smith, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1047 Telephone: (202) 223-7300 Facsimile: (202) 223-7420 E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com wisaacson@paulweiss.com amauser@paulweiss.com ksmith@paulweiss.com mgoodman@paulweiss.com mdearborn@paulweiss.com AMAZON.COM INC: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER BROWN, et al., v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-00965-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order regarding class certification briefing schedule: 1. The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their class certification motion is extended to Nov. 24, 2025. 2. The deadline for Amazon to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion, and file any Daubert motions, is March 9, 2026. 3. The deadline for the Plaintiffs' reply brief, and any Daubert motions and oppositions, is May 9, 2026. 4. The deadline for Amazon's Daubert reply briefs and oppositions is July 17, 2026. 5. The deadline for the Plaintiffs' Daubert reply briefs is Sept. 15, 2026. Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Uqd9hK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq. Anne F. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com barbaram@hbsslaw.com annej@hbsslaw.com - and - Zina G. Bash, Esq. Jessica Beringer, Esq. Shane Kelly, Esq. Alex Dravillas, Esq. Roseann Romano, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500 Austin, TX, 78701 Telephone: (512) 690-0990 E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com ajd@kellerpostman.com roseann.romano@kellerpostman.com - and - Alicia Cobb, Esq. Steig D. Olson, Esq. David D. LeRay, Esq. Nic V. Siebert, Esq. Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Esq. Adam B. Wolfson, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 1109 First Avenue, Suite 210 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 905-7000 E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com steigolson@quinnemanuel.com davidleray@quinnemanuel.com nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com The Defendant is represented by: John A. Goldmark, Esq. MaryAnn Almeida, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com JohnGoldmark@dwt.com MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com - and - Karen L. Dunn, Esq. William A. Isaacson, Esq. Amy J. Mauser, Esq. Meredith Dearborn, Esq. Kyle Smith, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1047 Telephone: (202) 223-7300 Facsimile: (202) 223-7420 E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com wisaacson@paulweiss.com amauser@paulweiss.com ksmith@paulweiss.com mgoodman@paulweiss.com mdearborn@paulweiss.com ARCHERY TRADE: Conspires to Fix Products' Prices, Babst Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- ERICK BABST, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ARCHERY TRADE ASSOCIATION, INC; BOWTECH INC.; BPS DIRECT, LLC d/b/a BASS PRO SHOPS; CABELA’S LLC; DICK’S SPORTING GOODS, INC.; HOYT ARCHERY, INC.; JAY’S SPORTING GOODS; KINSEY’S OUTDOORS, INC.; LANCASTER ARCHERY SUPPLY, INC.; MATHEWS ARCHERY, INC.; and PRECISION SHOOTING EQUIPMENT, INC., Case No. 0:25-cv-02721 (D. Minn., June 27, 2025) seeks treble damages, injunctive relief, and other relief pursuant to the federal antitrust laws for alleged anticompetitive conduct. The Plaintiff brings this suit against Defendants for their unlawful contract, combination, or conspiracy to fix the prices of Archery Products sold throughout the United States. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' contract, combination, and conspiracy to exchange competitively sensitive information, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury to their property and have been deprived of the benefits of free and fair competition on the merits. Absent the conspiracy to exchange competitively sensitive information, the Plaintiff and Class Members would have paid less for Archery Products, says the suit. The Manufacturer Defendants are brands in the archery industry. Similarly, the Retailer Defendants are among the sporting goods retailers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Michelle J. Looby, Esq. Anthony J. Stauber, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 So. Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail:dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com mlooby@gustafsongluek.com tstauber@gustafsongluek.com AZ AIR CONDITIONING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Westmiller Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ROBIN WESTMILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AZ AIR CONDITIONING AND HEATING, INC.; APEX SERVICE PARTNERS, LLC; DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV18922 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 30, 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 Westmiller was employed by the Defendants as a staff. AZ Air Conditioning And Heating, Inc. provides plumbing, heating, air-conditioning, and similar work. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew Lewis, Esq. DREW LEWIS, PC 3010 Lava Ridge Ct. Ste. 120 Roseville, CA 95661 Telephone: (833) 600-7400 Email: drew@drewlewis.law BANK OF AMERICA: Nguyen Loses Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELLE NGUYEN, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 5:23-cv-04999-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Casey Pitts entered an order re: class certification and sealing: Because Nguyen cannot satisfy the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a), the Court denies her motion for class certification. The denial is without prejudice to any future motion to certify a class that might be filed by a different class representative. Because the Court's ruling on Nguyen's typicality necessitates denying the motion, the Court declines to consider the other Rule 23(a) or 23(b)(3) factors at this time. The Court grants the parties' sealing motion in full. The parties shall file on the public docket redacted versions of Exhibits 2 and 3 and unredacted copies of Exhibits 9 through 15. The Court concludes that Nguyen's claims are not typical of those of the class and therefore denies the motion without prejudice to the filing of a subsequent motion for class certification by a different class representative. The Court further grants the consolidated sealing motion. The Plaintiff sues the defendant on behalf of a putative class of former Bank employees who allege that the Bank failed to pay them for accrued but unused vacation time upon their termination. Nguyen moves for certification of certification of three putative classes. Nguyen moves for certification of the following three classes: Violation of State Statutes Class: "All persons who terminated employment with Bank of America in a Covered State with a positive vacation balance for which they were not paid during the relevant limitations period." Breach of Contract Class: "All persons who terminated employment with Bank of America in the United States with a positive vacation balance for which they were not paid during the relevant limitations period." California Subclass: "All persons who terminated employment with Bank of America in the state of California with a positive vacation balance for which they were not paid during the relevant limitations period." Named plaintiff and proposed class representative Elle Nguyen worked at the Bank as a Loan Officer from February 2017 through May 2020. Bank of America offers saving and current account, housing and auto loans, online banking, mortgage, credit and debit cards, investment planning, and corporate finance services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MAlSbv at no extra charge.[CC] BLUE-GRACE GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Woolbright Says ------------------------------------------------------------ MATTHEW WOOLBRIGHT; and SOPHIA SHUGART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BLUE-GRACE GROUP, LLC d/b/a Blue-Grace Logistics, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-01692 (M.D. Fla., June 30, 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. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as sales representatives. Blue-Grace Group, LLC provides transportation management services. The Company offers trucload, shipping, supply chain management, logistics, and related services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Reena I. Desai, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP Alexandra M. Robinson, Esq. 4700 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 215-6870 Email: rdesai@nka.com arobinson@nka.com - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 622 Banyan Trail, Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Removes Valencia Suit to N.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of DARIN VALENCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM FREMONT, INC.; BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM ANIMAL HEALTH USA INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda (Case No. 25CV121239) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 30, 2025, 2025. The clerk of court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-05491 to the proceeding. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. manufactures pharmaceutical products. The Company offers over-the-counter and prescription medicines such as capsules, nasal sprays, tablets, and inhalation powder. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Shannon Bettis Nakabayashi, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4615 Telephone: (415) 394-9400 Facsimile: (415) 394-9401 E-mail: Shannon.Nakabayashi@jacksonlewis.com - and - Isabella L. Shin, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 160 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 400 San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 579-0404 Facsimile: (408) 454-0290 E-mail: Isabella.Shin@jacksonlewis.com BONE & JOINT: Class Gets Certification in Ollerman Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kenneth Ollerman v. Bone & Joint Clinic, S.C., Case No. 3:23-cv-00189 (W.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge James D. Peterson entered an order as follows: 1. The following class is certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23: "All current and former patients and employees of Bone & Joint residing in the United States whose Private Information was potentially impacted by the Data Incident and were sent notice of the Data Incident." 2. The court approves Raina Borrelli of Strauss Borrelli PLLC, Danielle L. Perry of Mason LLP, and Ken Grunfeld of Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert as class counsel. 3. The Plaintiffs' renewed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement is granted. 4. The claims administrator may have until July 17, 2025, to send out the class notices, giving members 60 days to opt out of the class or file an objection and 90 days to file a claim. 5. The parties may have until Dec. 1, 2025, to file a motion for final approval and a motion for fees and costs. 6. The court will hold a fairness hearing on Jan. 7, 2026, at 10:00 am. These consolidated proposed class actions arise from a cyberattack on defendant Bone & Joint Clinic, S.C. The Plaintiffs allege that the Clinic's failure to adequately protect its computer network allowed cybercriminals to steal personal information of current and former Clinic patients and employees. On Aug. 9, 2024, the court denied without prejudice Linman's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the parties' proposed settlement and asked the parties to address numerous concerns. Under the agreement, the Clinic is to pay $575,000 to establish a common settlement fund, which will be used to pay attorney fees, litigation expenses, an incentive award to the plaintiffs, the cost of notice and administrative expenses, and payments to class members. The settlement agreement and plaintiffs' brief in support of the motion for preliminary approval estimate the following amounts for fees and expenses: -- $191,475 for attorney’s fees; -- $20,000 for litigation expenses; -- $120,929 for administrative costs; and -- $2,000 per representative for named plaintiffs' incentive awards (for a total of $10,000 in service awards). Bone is a multispecialty clinic offering orthopedics, sports medicine, spine, pain management, podiatry, and physical therapy. A copy of the Court's order dated July 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=drDW6P at no extra charge.[CC] BONE & JOINT: Class Gets Certification in Tesky Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEITH TESKY, MARK TESSMER, KENNETH OLLERMAN, CHRISTOPHER VANGOETHEM, and KAL TESKY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. BONE & JOINT CLINIC, S.C., Case No. 3:23-cv-00184 (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge James D. Peterson entered an order as follows: 1. The following class is certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23: "All current and former patients and employees of Bone & Joint residing in the United States whose Private Information was potentially impacted by the Data Incident and were sent notice of the Data Incident." 2. The court approves Raina Borrelli of Strauss Borrelli PLLC, Danielle L. Perry of Mason LLP, and Ken Grunfeld of Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert as class counsel. 3. The Plaintiffs' renewed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement is granted. 4. The claims administrator may have until July 17, 2025, to send out the class notices, giving members 60 days to opt out of the class or file an objection and 90 days to file a claim. 5. The parties may have until Dec. 1, 2025, to file a motion for final approval and a motion for fees and costs. 6. The court will hold a fairness hearing on Jan. 7, 2026, at 10:00 am. These consolidated proposed class actions arise from a cyberattack on defendant Bone & Joint Clinic, S.C. The Plaintiffs allege that the Clinic's failure to adequately protect its computer network allowed cybercriminals to steal personal information of current and former Clinic patients and employees. On Aug. 9, 2024, the court denied without prejudice Linman's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the parties' proposed settlement and asked the parties to address numerous concerns. Under the agreement, the Clinic is to pay $575,000 to establish a common settlement fund, which will be used to pay attorney fees, litigation expenses, an incentive award to the plaintiffs, the cost of notice and administrative expenses, and payments to class members. The settlement agreement and plaintiffs' brief in support of the motion for preliminary approval estimate the following amounts for fees and expenses: -- $191,475 for attorney’s fees; -- $20,000 for litigation expenses; -- $120,929 for administrative costs; and -- $2,000 per representative for named plaintiffs' incentive awards (for a total of $10,000 in service awards). Bone is a multispecialty clinic offering orthopedics, sports medicine, spine, pain management, podiatry, and physical therapy. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated July 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FXuHoY at no extra charge.[CC] BONE & JOINT: Class Gets Certification in Tessmer Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tessmer, Mark, v. Bone & Joint Clinic, S.C., Case No. 3:23-cv-00187 (W.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge James D. Peterson entered an order as follows: 1. The following class is certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23: "All current and former patients and employees of Bone & Joint residing in the United States whose Private Information was potentially impacted by the Data Incident and were sent notice of the Data Incident." 2. The court approves Raina Borrelli of Strauss Borrelli PLLC, Danielle L. Perry of Mason LLP, and Ken Grunfeld of Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert as class counsel. 3. The Plaintiffs' renewed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement is granted. 4. The claims administrator may have until July 17, 2025, to send out the class notices, giving members 60 days to opt out of the class or file an objection and 90 days to file a claim. 5. The parties may have until Dec. 1, 2025, to file a motion for final approval and a motion for fees and costs. 6. The court will hold a fairness hearing on Jan. 7, 2026, at 10:00 am. These consolidated proposed class actions arise from a cyberattack on defendant Bone & Joint Clinic, S.C. The Plaintiffs allege that the Clinic's failure to adequately protect its computer network allowed cybercriminals to steal personal information of current and former Clinic patients and employees. On Aug. 9, 2024, the court denied without prejudice Linman's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the parties' proposed settlement and asked the parties to address numerous concerns. Under the agreement, the Clinic is to pay $575,000 to establish a common settlement fund, which will be used to pay attorney fees, litigation expenses, an incentive award to the plaintiffs, the cost of notice and administrative expenses, and payments to class members. The settlement agreement and plaintiffs' brief in support of the motion for preliminary approval estimate the following amounts for fees and expenses: -- $191,475 for attorney's fees; -- $20,000 for litigation expenses; -- $120,929 for administrative costs; and -- $2,000 per representative for named plaintiffs' incentive awards (for a total of $10,000 in service awards). Bone is a multispecialty clinic offering orthopedics, sports medicine, spine, pain management, podiatry, and physical therapy. A copy of the Court's order dated July 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4Du91G at no extra charge.[CC] BROOKSIDE FARMS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Whittle Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- CELESTE WHITTLE; J.S.J., a minor child by Celeste Whittle, Parent and Next Friend; A.V.S., a minor child by Celeste Whittle, Parent and Next Friend; JESSE SERRANO; ESPERANZA SERRANO; HORACIO SERRANO; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BROOKSIDE FARMS, LLC; WILLIAM G. FRITZ (individually); and JOSH FRITZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00713 (W.D. Mich., June 26, 2025) alleges violation of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Workforce Opportunity Wage Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as farm workers. Brookside Farms, LLC is a family-owned fruit farm specializing in blueberries and other seasonal offerings. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ilina Krishen, Esq. FARMWORKER LEGAL SERVICES, A Division of Michigan Advocacy Program 350 E Michigan Ave, Suite 310 Kalamazoo MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 492-7190 Email: ikrishen@farmworkerlaw.org - and - Kara K. Moberg, Esq. FARMWORKER LEGAL SERVICES, A Division of Michigan Advocacy Program 350 E Michigan Ave, Suite 310 Kalamazoo MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 492-7190 Email: kmoberg@farmworkerlaw.org - and - Melissa Moeinvaziri, Esq. FARMWORKER LEGAL SERVICES, A Division of Michigan Advocacy Program 350 E Michigan Ave, Suite 310 Kalamazoo MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 492-7190 Email: mmoeinvaziri@farmworkerlaw.org BROOKSIDE FARMS: Whittle Seeks Approval of Notice to Workers ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CELESTE WHITTLE; J.S.J., a minor child by Celeste Whittle, Parent and Next Friend; A.V.S., a minor child by Celeste Whittle, Parent and Next Friend; JESSE SERRANO; ESPERANZA  SERRANO; HORACIO SERRANO; on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,   v.  BROOKSIDE FARMS, LLC; WILLIAM G. FRITZ (individually); JOSH FRITZ (individually), Case No. 1:25-cv-00713-HYJ-SJB (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for approval of notice to similarly situated workers. The Plaintiffs request that the Court authorize their counsel to distribute the proposed notice and consent to sue form to all similarly situated workers, defined as: "All U.S. workers (as that term is defined at 20 C.F.R. section 655.103) who worked more than 40 hours in at least one workweek in which they were employed by the Defendants to perform any job task listed in an H-2A clearance order which authorized work on Brookside Farms, or any job task actually performed by any H-2A worker at Brookside Farms, from June 26, 2022 to present." The Plaintiffs also request that the Court order the Defendant to provide the Plaintiffs with the full name, all known physical addresses (including permanent addresses), telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses for each similarly situated worker. The Plaintiffs ask the Court to toll the statute of limitations for similarly situated workers from the filing of this motion until the end of the opt-in period. The Plaintiffs request that the Court entered an order: 1. Granting the Plaintiffs' Motion with respect to the group of similarly situated workers; 2. Directing the Defendants to provide to Plaintiffs within 14 days, in computer readable electronic format (such as a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet), the full names, all known physical addresses (including permanent addresses), telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses for each similarly situated worker; 3. Directing the Plaintiffs to provide to Defendant within five days a Spanish translation of Plaintiffs' proposed Notice for approval; 4. Authorizing the Plaintiffs to distribute the proposed Notice and consent to sue form to all similarly situated workers through all practical and necessary means; and 5. Allowing similarly situated workers to execute consent forms electronically to join the collective action within six months of the date by which Defendant produces to Plaintiffs the requested contact information Brookside is a family-owned fruit farm specializing in blueberries and other seasonal offerings. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=T92D3U at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ilina Krishen, Esq. Kara K. Moberg, Esq. Melissa Moeinvaziri, Esq. FARMWORKER LEGAL SERVICES 350 E Michigan Ave, Suite 310 Kalamazoo MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 492-7190 E-mail: ikrishen@farmworkerlaw.org kmoberg@farmworkerlaw.org mmoeinvaziri@farmworkerlaw.org BURGER KING: Renewed Bid for Sanctions Tossed w/o Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Coleman, et al., v. Burger King Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-20925 (S.D. Fla., Filed March 28, 2022), the Hon. Judge Roy K. Altman entered an order denying the renewed motion for sanctions without prejudice. The Court says that Burger King cannot use Rule 11 as a substitute to substantively attack the merits of the Plaintiffs' case. The Plaintiffs have elected, at their own peril, to choose the facts they want to allege in their pleadings. If their allegations don't survive the crucible of class certification and summary judgment, Burger King will be fully justified in seeking whatever sanctions they may be entitled to under law and equity. But Burger King can't use Rule 11 to short-circuit these proceedings and declare themselves the victor before we adjudicate the Plaintiff's claims on their merits. The nature of suit states torts -- personal property -- other fraud. Burger King is an American multinational chain of hamburger fast food restaurants.[CC] CABARRUS EYE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Clay Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- TODD CLAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff CABARRUS EYE CENTER, P.A., Defendant, Case No. 25CV00491 1-120 (N.C. Super., Cabarrus Cty., June 26, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for protect the Plaintiff's and the Class's sensitive Personally Identifiable Information and Protected Health Information (collectively, "Private Information") and that was impacted in a data breach.. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to use reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information they maintained for the Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. As a result of the Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. The Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries, including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and, theft of personal and financial information. Cabarrus Eye Center, P. a. provides eye care services. The Company offers cataract eye surgery, permanent eyeliner, glaucoma treatment, laser vision correction, and other related services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig D. Justus, Esq. WILKERSON JUSTUS PLLC P.O. Box 54 Asheville, NC 28802 Telephone: (828) 373-0464 Email: cjustus@wilkersonjustus.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 879-8200 Facsimile: (786) 879-7520 Email: mweekes@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.comh CAMRISE LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Trippett Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALFRED TRIPPETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAMRISE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05399 (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://djinyc.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. Camrise LLC was founded in 2014. The company's line of business includes the retail sale of radios, televisions, and other consumer electronics. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 Email: Gevyfirm@gmail.com CAPSTONE GREEN: $2.25MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 13 --------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. announced that the United States District Court for the Central District of California has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of securities of Capstone Green Energy Corporation (OTCPK: CGEH): SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES, REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES, AND AWARDS TO PLAINTIFFS TO: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Capstone Green Energy Corporation ("Capstone") securities between November 11, 2020 and October 4, 2023, inclusive, and were allegedly damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"). PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, AS YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, that the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") has been preliminarily certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, and Awards to Plaintiffs (the "Notice"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $2,250,000 in cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing will be held on November 13, 2025 at 10:00 A.M., before the Honorable Hernan D. Vera, United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, First Street Courthouse, 350 W. 1st Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, Courtroom 5B, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated April 4, 2025 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses, and awards to Plaintiffs should be approved. The Court reserves the right to hold the Settlement Hearing telephonically or by other virtual means. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice and Proof of Claim Form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Thomas Spitzer v. Robert C. Flexon et al., No. 2:23-cv-08659, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, Media, PA 19063, Toll Free Number: (866) 274-4004, Fax: (610) 565-7985, Email: info@strategicclaims.net. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.strategicclaims.net/capstone. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form to the Claims Administrator postmarked no later than October 23, 2025 or submitted electronically by 11:59 P.M. ET on October 23, 2025. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than October 23, 2025 by the Claims Administrator, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of litigation expenses, and/or awards to Plaintiffs, must be filed with the Clerk of the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than October 23, 2025: Clerk's Office United States District Court for the Central District of California Clerk of the Court Brian D. Karth First Street Court House 350 W. 1st Street Angeles, CA 90012 Lead Counsel Pomerantz LLP Brenda Szydlo, Esq. 600 Third Avenue, 20th Fl. New York, NY 10016 The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. Jonathan Stern, Esq. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Fl. New York, NY 10016 Defendants' Counsel Latham & Watkins LLP Colleen C. Smith 12670 High Bluff Drive San Diego, CA 92130 Latham & Watkins LLP Kathryn George 330 N Wabash Ave, Ste. 2800 Chicago, IL 60611 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS, OR THEIR COUNSEL REGARDING THIS SUMMARY NOTICE. ALL QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS SUMMARY NOTICE, THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, OR YOUR ELIGIBILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO LEAD COUNSEL OR THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: Pomerantz LLP Attn: Brenda Szydlo, Esq. 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 Email: bszydlo@pomlaw.com The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. Attn: Jonathan Stern, Esq. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 Email: jstern@rosenlegal.com Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: Thomas Spitzer v. Robert C. Flexon et al., No. 2:23-cv-08659 c/o Strategic Claims Services 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205 P.O. Box 230 Media, PA 19063 Toll-Free Number: (866) 274-4004 Fax: (610) 565-7985 info@strategicclaims.net www.strategicclaims.net/capstone Dated: June 5, 2025 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CAPSTONE GREEN: Final Settlement Hearing in Spitzer Set for Nov. 13 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Capstone Green Energy Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period ending March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 26, 2025, that the United States District Court for the Central District of California scheduled a final settlement hearing for the Spitzer securities class suit on November 13, 2025. On October 13, 2023, a putative securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Spitzer v. Flexon, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-08659, naming certain of the Company's current and former directors and officers as defendants. The suit alleges various claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 based on allegedly false and misleading statements and allegedly inadequate disclosure regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects and the circumstances leading up to the restatement of the Company's quarterly and annual financial statements. The suit is purportedly brought on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between June 14, 2021, and September 22, 2023, and seeks to recover unspecified compensatory damages and other relief, including attorney's fees. The Company is not a named respondent in this matter and has not engaged legal counsel. The parties reached agreement on a settlement amount and on April 4, 2025, the parties filed an unopposed motion for the court to approve settlement and notice procedures. A preliminary hearing date was held on June 5, 2025, and a final settlement hearing date has been set for November 13, 2025. Expenses up to the $1.3 million insurance deductible amount have either been incurred or accrued. Capstone Green Energy builds microturbine energy systems and battery storage systems that allow customers to produce power on-site in parallel with the electric grid or stand-alone when no utility grid is available. Capstone Green offers microturbines designed for commercial, oil and gas, and other industrial applications. CARILION HEALTHCARE: Accord Seeks Unpaid Wages Under VOWA, FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- ANITA ACORD and CRYSTAL SMITH, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CARILION HEALTHCARE CORPORATION d/b/a CARILION CLINIC, Defendant, Case No. 7:25-cv-00421-RSB-CKM (W.D. Va., June 27, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages from Carilion pursuant to the Virginia Overtime Wage Act and Fair Labor Standards Act. Acord worked for Carilion in Roanoke, Virginia. Smith worked for Carilion in Rocky Mount, Virginia. The Plaintiffs and the other Patient Care Employees regularly work more than 40 hours a week. Accordingly, Carilion pays Plaintiffs and the other Patient Care Employees by the hour. But Carilion does not pay them for all the hours they work. Instead, Carilion automatically deducts 30 minutes a day from these employees' hours for so called "meal periods". The Plaintiffs and the other Patient Care Employees are thus not paid for this time. But Plaintiffs and the other Patient Care Employees do not actually receive bona fide meal periods. Instead, Carilion requires Plaintiffs and the other Patient Care Employees to remain on duty and perform compensable work throughout their shifts, including during so called "meal periods," and/or subjects them to work interruptions during their "meal periods," asserts the suit. Additionally, Carilion requires the Patient Care Employees to clock in and out for their shifts via its timekeeping system, but Carilion automatically rounds their clock in and clock out punches to the nearest quarter hour for its own primary benefit. Acord worked for Carilion as a registered nurse from approximately March 2006 until November 2023 20. Smith worked for Carilion as a housekeeper from approximately October 2022 until February 2024. The putative FLSA collective of similarly situated employees is defined as: "All hourly Carilion employees who received a meal period deduction, had their punch times rounded, and/or received a bonus that was not included in their regular rate of pay at any time during the past 3 years through final resolution of this action (FLSA Collective Members)." The putative Virginia class of similarly situated employees is defined as: "All hourly Carilion employees in Virginia who received a meal period deduction, had their punch times rounded, and/or received a bonus that was not included in their regular rate of pay at any time during the past 3 years through final resolution of this action (Virginia Class Members)." Carilion touts itself as a "comprehensive network of hospitals, primary and specialty physician practices and other complementary services” with more than 250 locations "from Shenandoah and the Highlands to far southwest Virginia."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Harris D. Butler, III, Esq. Craig J. 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 E-mail: harris@butlercurwood.com craig@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com samantha@butlercurwood.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com CONNECTWISE LLC: Data Breach Claims Dismissed with Leave to Amend ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jack Feathers, et al., Plaintiffs, v. On Q Financial LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. CV-24-00811-PHX-SMB (D. Ariz..), Judge Susan M. Brnovich of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted ConnectWise LLC's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' consolidated class action complaint without prejudice, except for the negligence per se claim, which was dismissed with prejudice. The court also granted plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint within 30 days. The case stems from a data breach at On Q Financial LLC, a mortgage lender that collected and maintained personally identifiable information (PII) of approximately 211,000 individuals, including social security numbers and sensitive health information . ConnectWise LLC provided On Q Financial with ScreenConnect, a remote access software with a vulnerability exploited by hackers before a patch was applied. On February 20, 2024, On Q Financial received notification from ConnectWise about the vulnerability, but malicious actors had already accessed and exfiltrated plaintiffs' PII, which was posted on the dark web by the ransomware group Bianlian. On March 29, 2024, On Q Financial notified affected individuals of the breach. The case is a putative class action, seeking to represent approximately 211,000 individuals whose PII was compromised. The court has not ruled on class certification, and the question of whether a nationwide class is certifiable remains pending, to be addressed if plaintiffs move for certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Plaintiffs Jack Feathers, Barbara Squier, Brian Eitemiller, and Isaiah Castellaw alleged that ConnectWise failed to take reasonable steps to secure their PII, causing injuries such as invasion of privacy, theft of PII, diminished value of PII, lost time mitigating the breach's consequences, and increased risk of future harm . They asserted claims for negligence, negligence per se, and declaratory relief, arguing that ConnectWise's defective ScreenConnect software enabled the breach . ConnectWise moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), contending that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing due to insufficient injury, traceability, and redressability, and that the negligence claim failed because ConnectWise owed no duty to plaintiffs and no cognizable damages were alleged.Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a defendant may move to dismiss an action for “lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim, a complaint must meet the requirements of Rule 8(a)(2). Rule 8(a)(2) requires a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief Judge Brnovich observed that plaintiffs satisfied the injury-in-fact requirement for Article III standing. According to the court, the theft and public disclosure of plaintiffs' PII on the dark web constituted a concrete, intangible harm. The court also determined that plaintiffs' allegations of fraudulent credit card charges and unauthorized credit activity demonstrated a credible threat of identity theft, sufficient for standing. Additionally, the time spent monitoring financial accounts was deemed a mitigation harm establishing injury-in-fact . The court further held that the alleged diminished value of PII was sufficient for standing, given detailed allegations about the PII market, though it declined to recognize the dark web as a legitimate market . The court also found that plaintiffs' injuries were fairly traceable to ConnectWise's conduct. It determined that the ScreenConnect vulnerability directly enabled the breach, establishing a plausible line of causation. However, the court ruled that plaintiffs' declaratory relief claim was not redressable against ConnectWise, as the company did not maintain plaintiffs' PII, and the patched software eliminated any immediate threat of repeated injury . Therefore, the court dismissed the declaratory relief claim for lack of standing. Regarding the negligence claim, the court applied Arizona law after a choice-of-law analysis, noting that the alleged injury and conduct occurred in Arizona. The court found that plaintiffs failed to allege a cognizable duty owed by ConnectWise, as there was no special relationship or public policy basis under Arizona law, including Arizona Revised Statutes Sections 12-681 and 44-1373 or Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Additionally, the court held that plaintiffs' alleged damages—-lost time, emotional distress, diminished PII value, future monitoring costs, and future risk of fraud—were not cognizable under Arizona negligence law, as they lacked present, non-speculative harm . Consequently, the court dismissed the negligence claim. The court noted that plaintiffs abandoned their negligence per se claim, dismissing it with prejudice . However, it granted leave to amend the negligence and declaratory relief claims, finding no prejudice to ConnectWise and acknowledging the possibility that plaintiffs could cure the deficiencies.. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hmpjQc CONNEXION POINT: Briefing Deadlines Extended to Sept. 30 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARYANN CRUZ individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. CONNEXION POINT, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company, and INTEGRITY, LLC., f/k/a INTEGRITY MARKETING GROUP, a Texas Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:24-cv-00966-TC-DBP (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Tena Campbell entered an order granting motion to continue hearing and extending briefing deadlines to Sept. 30, 2025. The Court further entered an order that the Defendants' response to the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification shall be submitted by no later than Aug. 11, 2025. The Plaintiffs' reply briefing shall by submitted by no later than Sept. 10, 2025. The Plaintiff brings this wage and hour employment action individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals against their joint employers, Defendants Connexion Point, LLC and Integrity LLC for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiffs request to bring their claim as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), which would mean that all Customer Care Representatives (CCRs) or others bearing similar job titles or job duties could opt into this action as co-plaintiffs. On June 26, 2025, after the court had already scheduled a hearing on the Defendants' motion to dismiss for July 8, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a 23-page motion for conditional certification. On June 27, 2025, the Plaintiffs moved to continue the July 8, 2025, hearing to a date after the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification is fully briefed, seeking to argue both motions in one hearing. Connexion develops and builds technology solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated July 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NQDqQa at no extra charge.[CC] DREXEL BUILDING: Court Tosses Bid for Initial OK of Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMBER KIDD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DREXEL BUILDING SUPPLY, INC. and DREXEL SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00356-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge William M. Conley entered an order denying without prejudice the parties' motion for preliminary approval of their settlement, and motion to certify a class and collective. The parties may have until July 24, 2025, to file renewed motions. The settlement agreement excludes claims relating to the Focus on Fitness program, explaining that those claims likely lacked merit. That explanation is acceptable for purposes of preliminary approval. But the settlement agreement and notice also narrow the first claim relating to altered punch-in times to only employees at the Jackson, Wisconsin location who already received back pay for unpaid overtime. The parties do not explain why they narrowed that claim. This is important because the release in the settlement agreement states that class and collective members are releasing all wage, hour and other Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") claims. Thus, it appears that the parties are intending that class and collective members who did not work at the Jackson location would be releasing claims relating to altered punch-in times despite those claims not being included in the settlement. The parties must adequately explain their reasons for narrowing this claim before the court will preliminarily approve the settlement. The Plaintiff Amber Kidd filed this proposed collective and class action against the defendants. The Plaintiff contends that defendants owed unpaid wages under the FLSA and Wisconsin law. Drexel specializes in a wide range of building materials and design services. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated July 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SyB9DS at no extra charge.[CC] EFFORTLESS OFFICE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Wallis Says ------------------------------------------------------------ LORI R. WALLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EFFORTLESS OFFICE ENTERPRISES, LLC; and NEVADA HEART & VASCULAR CENTER LLP, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01149 (D. Nev., June 26, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Personally Identifiable Information and Protected Health Information of the Plaintiff and the Class Members. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to adequately protect the Plaintiff's and Class Member's Private Information, and failed to encrypt or redact highly sensitive data. The unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to the Defendants' negligent and/or careless act and omissions and its utter failure to protect its patients' sensitive data. The Defendants maintained the Private Information in a reckless manner. The Private Information was maintained on and accessible from the Defendants' network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. Effortless Office Enterprises, LLC is a hybrid managed services provider that delivers and fully supports secure cloud products and services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan R. Ring, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 3100 W. Charleston Blvd., Ste. 208 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Tel: (725) 235-9570 Email: nring@stranchlaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Tel: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com athomas@cohenandmalad.com EPISOURCE LLC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Alcor Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL ALCORN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EPISOURCE LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-05877 (C.D. Cal., June 27, 2025) seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the injuries Episource inflicted on Plaintiff and over 5.4 million others due to the Defendant's inadequate data security, which resulted in the private information of Plaintiff and those similarly situated to be exposed to unauthorized third parties (the Data Breach). On Feb. 6, 2025, Episource detected unusual activity on its information technology systems. Episource was able to confirm that an authorized threat actor had accessed the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members. The actual Data Breach occurred from January 27, 2025, to February 6, 2025. The data that Episource exposed to the public is unique and highly sensitive. For one, the exposed data included personal identifying information and protected health information of current and former patients of Episource's clients, like health insurance data (such as health plans/policies, insurance companies, member/group ID numbers, and Medicaid-Medicare-government payor ID numbers); health data (such as medical record numbers, doctors, diagnoses, medicines, test results, images, care, and treatment); and other personal data (such as Social Security number (in limited instances) or date of birth) (Private Information). The Plaintiff and Class Members provided this information to Episource with the understanding Episource would keep that information private in accordance with both state and federal laws. Episource is a technology firm that provides services to doctors, health plans, and other health companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frederick A. Rispoli, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 18100 Von Karman Ave., Ste. 200 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (213) 757-6072 Facsimile: (213) 757-6172 E-mail: Frederick.rispoli@forthepeople.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. Antonio Arzola, Jr., Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL: 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Facsimile: (813) 222-4736 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com ararzola@forthepeople.com FPL FOOD: Data Breach Case Goes to Arbitration ---------------------------------------------- Chief Judge R. Stan Baker of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia granted FPL Food LLC's motion to compel arbitration in the case captioned as MARIE TAYLOR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FPL FOOD LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 4:24-cv-149 (S.D. Ga.). The court ordered the parties to individually submit the underlying dispute to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement and stayed and administratively closed the case. The case arose from a data breach involving personally identifiable information of FPL Food LLC employees and former employees. According to the complaint, "FPL Food LLC mishandled Plaintiff's personally identifiable information, resulting in a data breach." FPL is a producer of fresh beef with its principal place of business in Augusta, Georgia. Plaintiff Marie Taylor is a former employee of Defendant. The personally identifiable information that the defendant obtained from current and former employees "included their names, addresses, Social Security numbers, employee benefits information, and other sensitive information." The complaint alleges that "while collecting the PII, Defendant agreed to safeguard and protect such PII and keep such PII secure and confidential." In 2024, Defendant learned of a data breach during which an unknown actor accessed Plaintiff's PII. Defendant sent plaintiff and class members a notice informing them of this breach. The letter noted that "our investigation revealed that some documents accessed may have contained information including your name, address, Social Security number, and employee benefits information." On the day plaintiff started her employment with defendant, "she and Defendant entered an Agreement to Arbitrate, which consisted of the following language: Agreement to Arbitrate: Except as specifically set forth herein, I, Marie Taylor (handwritten) (Employee), agree to resolve any and all disputes or claims related in any manner whatsoever to my employment at FPL Food (Company) including, but not limited to, any claims against Company, its officers, shareholders, employees, or agents, by binding arbitration." The arbitration agreement specified that "disputes or claims related to my employment include, but not limited to, claims or charges based upon federal or state statutes, including, but not limited to, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and any other civil rights statute, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act or other wage statutes, the WARN Act, claims based upon tort or contract laws, or any other federal or state law affecting employment in any manner whatsoever." Regarding class actions, the agreement contained a provision stating "No Joinder of Parties: Employee understands that class and collective actions are not permitted under this Agreement and covenants that Employee will not pursue any class or collective actions or serve as class representative against Company but rather will pursue all claims individually via arbitration as outlined herein." The arbitration procedures section provided that "Company and Employee agree that arbitration pursuant to this Agreement shall be in accordance with the applicable rules of the American Arbitration Association or the National Arbitration Forum. The parties, however, specifically agree that the AAA or NAF class action rules are excluded from this Agreement in that class actions or collective actions are not permitted under this Agreement." Plaintiff's Claims and Class Action Status Plaintiff filed this putative class action suit against defendant on July 17, 2024. The complaint alleges that "because of the data breach, Plaintiff and class members have suffered injuries including: (i) lost or diminished value of PII; (ii) out-of-pocket expenses associated with the prevention, detection, and recovery from identity theft, tax fraud, and unauthorized use of their PII; (iii) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach, including but not limited to lost time, (iv) the disclosure of their private information, and (v) the continued and certainly increased risk to their PII." Plaintiff seeks to represent the class of "all individuals whose PII was accessed and acquired in the data incident that is the subject of the Notice of Data Breach that Defendant sent to Plaintiff and Class Members on or around July 3, 2024." On behalf of this prospective class, plaintiff asserts three claims against defendant: "negligence (Count I); breach of implied contract (Count II); and declaratory judgment (Count III)." In its motion to compel arbitration, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's "claims belong in arbitration" because plaintiff "agreed, in writing, to arbitrate any and all disputes or claims she has against FPL." Defendant also contends that "the Court should not decide any arbitrability challenges that Taylor raises because the Arbitration Agreement delegates arbitrability questions, like scope or enforceability, to the arbitrator by incorporating the rules of the American Arbitration Association and the National Arbitration Forum." Plaintiff's Opposition Arguments Plaintiff, on the other hand, argues that "the arbitration agreement is substantively unconscionable and unenforceable because it includes a class action waiver" and, therefore, "Plaintiff's claims must proceed in this Court." Plaintiff also argues that "this issue of unconscionability cannot be delegated to an arbitrator because the arbitration agreement require a court, not an arbitrator, to determine whether the class action waiver is enforceable." Plaintiff's specific argument regarding delegation states that "the arbitration agreement provides that a court, not an arbitrator, must determine whether the class action waiver is enforceable because the agreement specifically excludes class action rules under the AAA and the NAF." Plaintiff contends that "had the arbitration agreement not specifically excluded the AAA and NAF class action rules, it may have been possible for an arbitrator to determine whether the class action waiver is enforceable." Court's Findings and Ruling The Court noted that "the Arbitration Agreement here provides that it is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act." The court explained that "the FAA embodies a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements" and "requires courts rigorously to enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms, including terms that specify with whom the parties choose to arbitrate their disputes and the rules under which that arbitration will be conducted." The Court explained that "a court undertakes a two-step inquiry to determine (1) whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute in question and, if they did, (2) whether legal constraints external to their agreement foreclose arbitration." Regarding delegation of arbitrability questions, the Court stated that "unless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise, the question of whether the parties agreed to arbitrate is to be decided by the court, not the arbitrator." However, "when the parties' contract delegates the arbitrability question to an arbitrator, a court may not override the contract. In those circumstances, a court possesses no power to decide the arbitrability issue." The Court noted that "parties may delegate threshold arbitrability questions to the arbitrator, so long as the parties' agreement does so by clear and unmistakable evidence." Upon careful examination of the Arbitration Agreement, the Court found that the agreement "provides that Company and Employee agree that arbitration pursuant to this Agreement shall be in accordance with the applicable rules of the AAA or the NAF. The parties, however, specifically agree that the AAA or NAF class action rules are excluded from this Agreement in that class actions or collective actions are not permitted under this Agreement." The Court determined that under Rule 7(a) of the AAA rules, "the arbitrator shall have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, scope, or validity of the arbitration agreement or to the arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim." The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has held that "where the parties expressly incorporate the AAA rules into an arbitration provision, this alone serves as a clear and unmistakable delegation of questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator." Accordingly, the Court found that "based on the incorporation of the AAA rules into the Arbitration Agreement, Plaintiff and FPL clearly and unmistakably agreed to broadly delegate questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator." The Court concluded that "the parties' exclusion of the AAA and NAF rules governing class arbitrations does not negate the parties' delegation of the authority to decide arbitrability -- including, specifically, the validity of the Arbitration Agreement in light of the inclusion of a provision that one party claims is unconscionable -- to an arbitrator." Therefore, the Court granted FPL's motion to compel arbitration. The Court found that "plaintiff's data-breach claims are subject to the parties' agreement to arbitrate" and that "an arbitrator must determine whether the Arbitration Agreement is enforceable despite the inclusion of what Plaintiff contends is an unconscionable class action waiver." The Court ordered the parties to individually submit the underlying dispute to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement. In addition, the Court directed the Clerk of Court to stay and administratively close this case. The parties are directed to file a joint report on the status of the arbitration proceeding ninety days from the date of this order, every 90 days thereafter, and within ten days of completion of arbitration proceedings. GROCERY DELIVERY: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Response --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Erin Wilson, on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Grocery Delivery E-Services USA Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-03262-VMC (N.D. Ga.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint motion for: (1) extension of time to respond to the complaint and (2) extension of time for the plaintiff to file a motion for class certification. The Plaintiff filed this class action complaint, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act on behalf of a national class. The Defendant requested, and the Plaintiff agreed, to extend the Defendant's deadline to respond to the Complaint to provide the Defendant sufficient time to investigate the allegations in the Complaint and determine how to proceed. The Plaintiff agreed subject to agreeing to an extension of the deadline for class certification. Although the Defendant has now obtained records reflecting the text messages and evidence that suggests the Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate, Defendant requires additional time to complete its initial investigation including to evaluate whether to seek to compel plaintiff to arbitrate. Grocery specializes in providing online grocery delivery services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ly13Wt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Valerie Chinn, Esq. CHINN LAW FIRM, LLC 245 N. Highland Ave., Suite 230 #7 Atlanta, GA 30307 Telephone: (404) 955-7732 Facsimile: (404) 745-8605 E-mail: vchinn@chinnlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael A. Caplan, Esq. Jarred A. Klorfein, Esq. CAPLAN COBB LLC 75 Fourteenth Street NE, Suite 2700 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 596-5600 Facsimile: (404) 596-5604 E-mail: mcaplan@caplancobb.com jklorfein@caplancobb.com GROVE CITY: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked, Zirkle Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA ZIRKLE, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v. GROVE CITY PA OPCO, LLC D/B/A ORCHARD MANOR NURSING AND REHABILITATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-00181-SPB (W.D. Pa., June 27, 2025) is a collective action arising from the Defendant's practices and policies of failing to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for all hours worked, including meal periods during which they performed work and were not completely relieved from duty and overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant classified Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees as non-exempt and paid them an hourly wage. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees regularly worked more than 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff estimates that she worked on average, approximately 50 to 70 hours or more per work week during her employment with Defendant. From February 2024 through January 2025, the Defendant employed Plaintiff as a certified nursing assistant. The Defendant operates a nursing and rehabilitation facility in Grove City, Pennsylvania under the fictitious name Orchard Manor Nursing and Rehabilitation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Building, Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com J. M. SMUCKER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Shelton Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- ALAINE SHELTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE J. M. SMUCKER COMPANY c/o CT Corporation System; and J.M. SMUCKER LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-01334 (N.D. Ohio, June 26, 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. Plaintiff Shelton was employed by the Defendants as a staff. The J. M. Smucker Company is a manufacturer of food and beverage products, operating a manufacturing plants across the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Lori M. Griffin, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Building, Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Telephone: 216-696-5000 Facsimile: 216-696-7005 Email: matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com lori@lazzarolawfirm.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Seeks Extension of Daubert Bids -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAREFIRST OF MARYLAND, INC., GROUP HOSPITALIZATION AND MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., and CAREFIRST BLUECHOICE, INC., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00629-JKW-LRL (E.D. Va.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting unopposed motion to extend Daubert deadlines pertaining to the Plaintiffs' class certification experts. Specifically, J&J request that the Court: (1) extend the existing deadline for J&J's Daubert motions relating to the Plaintiffs' class certification experts by one week (from Aug. 6, 2025, to Aug. 13, 2025), and (2) extend the existing deadline for responses in opposition to these Daubert motions by one week (from Sept. 17, 2025, to Sept. 24, 2025). The depositions of the Plaintiffs' class certification experts Rena Conti, Laura Craft and Michael Malecki are currently scheduled for Aug. 5, 2025, Aug. 6, 2025, and Aug. 7, 2025, respectively. Johnson is an American multinational pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical technologies corporation. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PhbeqX at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: George G. Gordon, Esq. Julia E. Chapman, Esq. Katherine Unger Davis, Esq. Forrest E. Lovett, Esq. Judah Bellin, Esq. Christina Guerola Sarchio, Esq. Katherine A. Helm, Esq. Amanda K. Antons, Esq. DECHERT LLP Cira Centre, 2929 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 Telephone: (215) 994 4000 Facsimile: (215) 994-2222 E-mail: george.gordon@dechert.com julia.chapman@dechert.com katherine.ungerdavis@dechert.com forrest.lovett@dechert.com Judah.bellin@dechert.com christina.sarchio@dechert.com khelm@dechert.com amanda.antons@dechert.com KRISPY KREME: Robison Files Suit in M.D. North Carolina ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation. The case is styled as Heather Robison, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-00507 (C.D. Cal., June 25, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Krispy Kreme -- http://www.krispykreme.com/-- is an American multinational doughnut company and coffeehouse chain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Michael Dowling, Esq. DOWLING PLLC P.O. BOX 27843 RALEIGH, NC 27611 Phone: (919) 529-3351 Email: mike@dowlingfirm.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Harrison Seeks to Suspend Class Cert Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cristina Harrison, v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-00703-O (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order suspending the deadline under Local Rule 23.2 until such time the Parties can confer and propose a joint schedule. Accordingly, Harrison requests that the Court suspend the 90-day deadline for the Plaintiff to move for class certification under Local Rule 23.2 and permit the Parties to propose a new deadline, which will allow time to coordinate discovery on class allegations and defenses, resolve any disputes, conduct non-party discovery if necessary, and take relevant depositions. Given the nature and scope of the discovery required, Harrison anticipates that 90 days will not be sufficient time to conduct the investigation necessary for the Court to make an informed decision on class certification. As of this filing, Liberty Mutual has not yet been served, opposing counsel has not entered an appearance, and the Court has not issued a scheduling order. On July 3, 2025, the Plaintiff filed suit alleging the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by initiating, or causing to be initiated, recorded or artificial voice calls to Harrison without his prior express written consent. Harrison seeks to represent a class of similarly situated individuals defined as: "All persons in the United States (1) who are not Liberty Mutual customers, (2) whom Liberty Mutual called or caused to be called using a prerecorded or artificial voice, (3) on their cell phone, (4) within the four years prior to the filing of this action through the date class notice is sent." Liberty is an American diversified global insurer. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W8Yyyy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Hood, Esq. THE HQ FIRM, P.C. 7533 S Center View CT #4424 West Jordan, UT 84084 Telephone: (385) 440-4126 E-mail: Alexander.Hood@thehqfirm.com LUMEN TECH: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Civelli Due Oct. 14 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Civelli, et al., v. LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01739 (D. Or., Filed Nov. 24, 2023), the Hon. Judge Adrienne Nelson entered an order granting the parties' Joint Motion for Extension of Discovery and PTO Deadlines: -- Submission of plaintiffs' motion for Oct. 14, 2025 class certification is: -- Submission of defendants' response to Dec. 2, 2025 the plaintiffs' motion for class certification is: -- Submission of the plaintiffs' reply Dec. 30, 2025 in support of motion for class certification is: -- Fact discovery completion: March 30, 2026 -- Exchange initial expert reports: April 28, 2026 -- Exchange rebuttal expert reports: May 26, 2026 -- Expert discovery completion: June 29, 2026 -- Filing dispositive motions: Aug. 11, 2026 -- The deadline to file the joint Aug. 18, 2026 ADR report is: The suit alleges contract related violations. Lumen is an American telecommunications company.[CC] MARITIME EXPLORATIONS: Appeal Filed in Buddenhagen Case ------------------------------------------------------- Paul S. Buddenhagen file an appeal on May 22 2025, to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware from the Final Order and Judgment of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware dated April 29, 2025 (Case No. 2019-0258-NAC). The case is captioned as PAUL S. BUDDENHAGEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and Derivatively on Behalf of MARITIME EXPLORATIONS, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. BARRY L. CLIFFORD; and THE ESTATE OF ROBERT T. LAZIER, Defendants-Appellees, and MARITIME EXPLORATIONS, INC., Nominal Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 228,2025. Maritime Explorations, Inc. is involved in treasure hunting and salvage of sunken ships. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard L. Renck, Esq. Tracey E. Timlin, Esq. Michael B. Gonen, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 1201 N. Market St., Ste. 501 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 657-4900 Email: RLRenck@duanemorris.com TTimlin@duanemorris.com MBGonen@duanemorris.com The Defendants are represented by: Peter B. Ladig, Esq. BAYARD, P.A. 600 N. King Street, Suite 400 P.O. Box 25130 Wilmington, DE 19899 Telephone: (302) 429-4219 Email: pladig@bayardlaw.com - and - Samuel T. Hirzel II, Esq. Gilliam L. Andrews, Esq. HEYMAN ENERIO GATTUSO & HIRZEL LLP 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 462-7315 Email: gandrews@hegh.law MARKETSOURCE INC: August18 Hearing for Bid to Strike Class Cert Set ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brum, et al., v. MarketSource, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00241 (E.D. Cal., Filed Feb. 3, 2017), the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an order setting hearing for motion to strike the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification for Aug. 18, 2025. The nature of suit states Diversity-Employment Discrimination. MarketSource is a marketing services company providing sales and promotional solutions for brands.[CC] MARKETSOURCE INC: Seeks to Suspend Class Cert Dates in Brum Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER BRUM and MICHAEL CAMERO, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. MARKETSOURCE, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS MARYLAND MARKETSOURCE, INC., a Maryland corporation; ALLEGIS GROUP; INC., a Maryland corporation; and DOES, 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:17-cv-00241-DAD-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order as follows: -- Suspending all deadlines associated with Plaintiffs' renewed class certification motion, including Defendants' current July 14, 2024, opposition deadline, and -- vacating the Aug. 4, 2025, hearing, pending the Court's ruling on Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiffs' renewed motion. The Defendants request that the Court first consider and resolve Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiffs’ renewed motion, which Defendants have noticed for hearing on August 18, 2025, which is the first available date that could be noticed in accordance with L.R. 230(b) and this Court’s Standing Order. Because the Plaintiffs filed their motion on June 30, 2025, the Defendants' present opposition(s) to the Plaintiffs' renewed motion is July 14, 2024. L.R. 230(c). But any opposition would be moot if the Court were to grant the Defendants' motion to strike the Plaintiffs' renewed motion. MarketSource is a marketing services company providing sales and promotional solutions for brands. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=M4UeX1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Michael S. Kun, Esq. Kevin D. Sullivan, Esq. THOMPSON COBURN LLP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 282-2500 Facsimile: (310) 282-2501 E-mail: mkun@thompsoncoburn.com kdsullivan@thompsoncoburn.com MFM CONTRACTING: Appellate Court Modifies Class Certification Order ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as HOPE IDAHOSA et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. MFM CONTRACTING CORP., Defendant-Appellant, NETWORK OF PATROLS, INC., etc., Defendant-Respondent, Index No. 654637/21, Case No. 2024-03801, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department -- with justices Webber, J.P., Friedman, Kapnick, Higgitt, Michael -- modified the order of Justice Shlomo S. Hagler of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 3, 2024, which had granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The appellate court "unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the motion for certification with respect to the third cause of action for wage notice violations and deny the request for social security numbers of the proposed class members, and otherwise affirmed, without costs." The appellate court determined that the lower court "properly exercised its discretion insofar as it granted plaintiffs' motion for certification of the proposed class with respect to the prevailing wage claims." Defendant contended that "the motion should have been denied because the record evidence shows that the named plaintiffs and the proposed class members were not 'flaggers,' but were 'crossing guards,' for which there is no prevailing wage schedule promulgated by the Comptroller." However, the court explained that "any assessment of the merits at this juncture is a limited threshold inquiry to eliminate sham or spurious claims." The court stated that "only where there is definitive and conclusive evidence vitiating plaintiffs' key factual assertions, which is apparent on the face of the record, may the class certification motion be denied on that basis." The court found that "the record does not so plainly refute plaintiffs' claim that they are entitled to prevailing wages because they were assigned and performed safety tasks, including tasks on defendant's public works construction sites, so as to show that the claim is spurious or a sham." Regarding defendant's argument about failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the court ruled that "plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies is not a reason to deny the motion." The court noted that "even if it would provide a valid legal basis for dismissal of all the claims asserted by the named plaintiffs, the issue is not properly decided in the limited merits assessment applicable at this juncture." The court "correctly found that the record establishes the numerosity, commonality, and typicality required under CPLR 901, and that the class action mechanism is appropriate for such claims." The court denied certification for wage notice claims, explaining that "the court should not have granted class certification for the wage notice claims, which are based on the alleged failure to provide a notice of pay rate and pay day as required by Labor Law Section 195(1), and seek liquidated damages, plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under Labor Law Section 198(1-b)." The court determined that "where, as here, defendant pleaded a Labor Law Section 198 statutory affirmative defense to the wage notice claim, the court should have declined to grant certification by applying the CPLR 901(b) prohibition against class actions seeking liquidated damages." The court modified the order regarding class member information. The court noted that "to the extent the court ordered defendants to provide the names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses of all class members, as well as social security numbers for all class members whose notice is returned as undeliverable without a forwarding address, the order is modified to deny the request for social security numbers." The court explained that it "otherwise properly granted the request for phone numbers and email addresses, which is a reasonable request to expedite class notification." This case maintains its class action status for prevailing wage claims only. The wage notice violation claims were denied class certification due to the prohibition against class actions seeking liquidated damages under CPLR 901(b). A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qMK9yk MICROMOBILITY.COM: Barron Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barron et al., v. micromobility.com Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-04703-PKC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order modifying the schedule for filing class certification, granting through and including Sept. 30 to file their motion and, with it, disclose expert opinion in support. The Plaintiffs promptly served their First Requests for Production of Documents to the micromobility.com Defendants on Dec. 10, 2024. Micromobility.com provides dockless intra urban transportation solutions. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IayArE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Kanovitz, Esq. Jon Loevy, Esq. Julia Rickert, Esq. Heather Lewis Donnell, Esq. Anand Swaminathan, Esq. Isaac Green, Esq. LOEVY & LOEVY 311 N. Aberdeen St., 3rd Floor Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (312) 243-5900 E-mail: mike@loevy.com MONEYLION TECHNOLOGIES: Sues Over Improper Interest Loan Charges ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOHNATHAN BURKHARDT; and DEVEN BURKHARDT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MONEYLION TECHNOLOGIES INC.; ML PLUS, LLC; and MONEYLION OF FLORIDA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00693-TKW-ZCB (N.D. Fla., May 22, 2025) alleges violation of the Military Lending Act. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants are engaged in a brazen and calculated scheme where the Defendants and their lending subsidiaries, systematically exploit highly vulnerable borrowers through unlawful, deceptive, and coercive practices designed to extract exorbitant finance charges under the false pretense of offering legitimate loans. For close to a decade, the Defendants have used this scheme to disguise illegal interest charges as "Turbo Fees," "Tips," and "Monthly Membership Fees," and trap borrowers into a deliberately rigged ecosystem, where access to basic credit is conditioned on payment of astronomical charges that borrowers are required, misled, or coerced to pay, says the suit. Moneylion Technologies Inc. provides financial technology solutions. The Company offers a mobile banking and financial membership platform to deliver mobile banking, lending, and investment solutions. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Janet R. Varnell, Esq. Brian W. Warwick, Esq. Christopher J. Brochu, Esq. Jeffrey L. Newsome, Esq. Pamela Levinson, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. 400 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 Facsimile: (352-504-3301 Email: jvarnell@vandwlaw.com bwarwick@vandwlaw.com cbrochu@vandwlaw.com jnewsome@vandwlaw.com plevinson@vandwlaw.com ckoerner@vandwlaw.com jesquibel@vandwlaw.com service@vandwlaw.com - and - Kevin Abramowicz, Esq. Kevin Tucker, Esq. Chandler Steiger, Esq. Jessica Liu, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 503 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Telephone: (412) 223-5740 Facsimile: (412) 626-7101 Email: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com jliu@eastendtrialgroup.com NATIONAL GENERAL: Bid For Reconsideration Tossed ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDD KING, et al., v. NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00313-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Donna M. Ryu entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for reconsideration. The court has considered the Defendants' argument regarding Article III standing and predominance and finds that it does not change the outcome of the order granting class certification. By allegedly failing to make the statutorily-mandated cross-offer, the Defendants denied class members the option of purchasing a lower-priced policy, whether or not they would have chosen that policy over the one they ultimately selected. For purposes of Article III standing, it is sufficient for the Plaintiffs to demonstrate a method of common proof that class members purchased a policy from the Defendants, and that the Defendants unlawfully failed to disclose lower-price policy options to class members. The Plaintiffs have done so here. On May 5, 2025, the court certified a class brought by the Plaintiffs Diedre King and Edd King against Defendants National General Insurance Company, Integon National Insurance Company, Integon Preferred Insurance Company, and MIC General Insurance Corporation alleging violations of section 1861.16(b) of the California Insurance Code. On May 12, 2025, Defendants filed a timely motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the class certification order. The Plaintiffs bring a claim under the "unlawful" prong of the California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), alleging that the class was harmed because the Defendants failed to discharge their statutory duty to cross-offer the lowest rate Good Driver Discount insurance policy to the class, and therefore the class paid more for their policies than they should have. National is a property and casualty insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OyTvk3 at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to August 7 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABDUL SHABAZZ, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC d/b/a RIGHTPATH SERVICING, Case No. 5:24-cv-00498-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge John M. Gallagher entered a third amended scheduling order: Motions for summary judgment, Daubert motions, and motions for class certification if any, shall be filed by Aug. 7, 2025. Responses shall be filed no later than Sept. 5, 2025. Motions and responses shall be filed in the form prescribed in Judge Gallagher's Policies and Procedures. Nationstar specializes in residential mortgages, refinancing, and other related services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nCEpyk at no extra charge.[CC] NIKE INC: Ma Suit Removed to W.D. Washington -------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Harrison Ma, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. NIKE, INC., Case No. 25-2-16073-4 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for King County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on July 1, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01235. The Plaintiff alleges that Nike violated Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA") and the Consumer Protection Act ("CPA") by sending marketing emails to Washington consumers with false and misleading subject lines. The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Walter Smith, Esq. SMITH & DIETRICH LAW OFFICES, PLLC 1226 State Avenue N.E., Suite 205 Olympia, WA 98506 Email: walter@smithdietrich.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com - and - Lynn A Toops, Esq. Ian R. Bensberg, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Email: ltoops@cohenmalad.com ibensberg@cohenmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Vanessa Soriano Power, Esq. Jenna M. Poligo, Esq. Gabrielle Lindquist, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 600 University Street, Ste. 3600 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 624-0900 Facsimile: (206) 386-7500 Email: vanessa.power@stoel.com jenna.poligo@stoel.com gabrielle.lindquist@stoel.com NORTH BUNCOMBE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Walker Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- TANYA WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTH BUNCOMBE FAMILY MEDICINE, P.A., Defendant, Case No. 25CV003836-100 (N.C. Super., Buncombe Cty., June 25, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for protect the Plaintiff's and the Class's sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI") (collectively, "Private Information") and that was impacted in a data breach (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach'"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to use reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information they maintained for the Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. As a result of the Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. The Plaintiff and the Class Members have allegedly suffered and will continue to suffer injuries, including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and, theft of personal and financial information. North Buncombe Family Medicine, P.A. offers family health & primary care for all life stages. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig D. Justus, Esq. WILKERSON JUSTUS PLLC P.O. Box 54 Asheville, NC 28802 Telephone: (828) 373-0464 Email: cjustus@wilkersonjustus.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 879-8200 Facsimile: (786) 879-7520 Email: mweekes@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.comh OHANA MILITARY: Consolidated Reply in Camp Class Suit Due Oct. 17 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTHA JENNIFER CAMP, ADAM CAMP, WILLIAM E. THOMPSON, and JUANITA THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. OHANA MILITARY COMMUNITIES, et al. Case No. 1:24-cv-00003 (D. Haw.), the Hon. Judge Leslie Kobayashi entered an order modifying briefing schedule for motion for class certification as follows: -- Memoranda in Opposition due Oct 3, 2025 -- Consolidated Reply due Oct. 17, 2025 The Parties further agree and stipulate that the Initial Fact Discovery deadline will not apply to the depositions of the proposed Class Plaintiffs, who will be made available for deposition on mutually agreeable dates in August (currently contemplated to be during the weeks of August 11 and/or August 18, 2025). The Plaintiffs will complete any supplemental production as soon as practical, but in no event later than July 25, 2025. Ohana provides real estate services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2ygtV5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James J. Bickerton, Esq. Bridget G. Morgan-bickerton, Esq. Emily Walker, Esq. BICKERTON LAW GROUP 745 Fort Street, Suite 801 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 599-3811 Facsimile: (808) 694-3090 E-mail: bickerton@bsds.com morgan@bsds.com walker@bsds.com - and - Wayne D. Parsons, Esq. WAYNE PARSONS LAW OFFICE Dillingham Business Center 1406 Colburn Street, Suite 201 C Honolulu, HI 96817 Telephone: (808) 845-2211 Facsimile: (808) 843-0100 E-mail: wparsons@hawaii.rr.com - and - Carlos D. Perez-mesa, Jr., Esq. Shannon M. Wong, Esq. CLAY IWAMURA PULICE & NERVELL Topa Financial Center, Bishop Street Tower 700 Bishop Street, Suite 2100 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 535-8400 Facsimile: (808) 535-8446 E-mail: cperez-mesa@paclawteam.com swong@paclawteam.com The Defendants are represented by: Joachim P. Cox, Esq. Randall C. Whattoff, Esq. Kamala S. Haake, Esq. COX FRICKE A LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP LLP 800 Bethel Street, Suite 600 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 585-9440 E-mail: jcox@cfhawaii.com rwhattoff@cfhawaii.com khaake@cfhawaii.com - and - Kenneth M. Sorenson, Esq. Sydney Spector, Esq. Alanna r. Horan, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 616-4222 Facsimile: (202) 616-4473 E-mail: Alanna.R.Horan@usdoj.gov OHANA MILITARY: Consolidated Reply in Powell Suit Due Oct. 17 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLEOPHAS C. POWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., v. OHANA MILITARY COMMUNITIES, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00184-LEK-KJM (D. Haw.), the Hon. Judge Leslie Kobayashi entered an order modifying briefing schedule for motion for class certification as follows: -- Memoranda in Opposition due Oct 3, 2025 -- Consolidated Reply due Oct. 17, 2025 The Parties further agree and stipulate that the Initial Fact Discovery deadline will not apply to the depositions of the proposed Class Plaintiffs, who will be made available for deposition on mutually agreeable dates in August (currently contemplated to be during the weeks of August 11 and/or August 18, 2025). The Plaintiffs will complete any supplemental production as soon as practical, but in no event later than July 25, 2025. Ohana provides real estate services. A copy of Court's order dated July 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VDHQoX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James J. Bickerton, Esq. Bridget G. Morgan-bickerton, Esq. Emily Walker, Esq. BICKERTON LAW GROUP 745 Fort Street, Suite 801 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 599-3811 Facsimile: (808) 694-3090 E-mail: bickerton@bsds.com morgan@bsds.com walker@bsds.com - and - Wayne D. Parsons, Esq. WAYNE PARSONS LAW OFFICE Dillingham Business Center 1406 Colburn Street, Suite 201 C Honolulu, HI 96817 Telephone: (808) 845-2211 Facsimile: (808) 843-0100 E-mail: wparsons@hawaii.rr.com - and - Carlos D. Perez-mesa, Jr., Esq. Shannon M. Wong, Esq. CLAY IWAMURA PULICE & NERVELL Topa Financial Center, Bishop Street Tower 700 Bishop Street, Suite 2100 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 535-8400 Facsimile: (808) 535-8446 E-mail: cperez-mesa@paclawteam.com swong@paclawteam.com The Defendants are represented by: Joachim P. Cox, Esq. Randall C. Whattoff, Esq. Kamala S. Haake, Esq. COX FRICKE A LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP LLP 800 Bethel Street, Suite 600 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 585-9440 E-mail: jcox@cfhawaii.com rwhattoff@cfhawaii.com khaake@cfhawaii.com - and - Kenneth M. Sorenson, Esq. Sydney Spector, Esq. Alanna r. Horan, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 616-4222 Facsimile: (202) 616-4473 E-mail: Alanna.R.Horan@usdoj.gov PATSY'S ITALIANA: Hoti Seeks More Time to File Opposition Reply --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hoti, et al. v. Patsy's Italiana Restaurant Inc., et al, Case No. 1:24-cv-06991-JGLC-HJR (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting a five-day extension for the Plaintiff's reply to the Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of a collective. This is the Plaintiffs' first request for an extension of time for this filing. The current deadline for the Plaintiffs' reply is July 14. The Plaintiffs seek an extension to July 18 to file their reply papers. The Defendants consent to this extension request. The Plaintiffs seek an additional five days to respond to the Defendants' opposition because the Defendants filed their opposition after the close of business, two days after the scheduled deadline for the Defendants' opposition, and, with the current holiday weekend, the Plaintiffs need more time to respond. Patsy's is an old school style Italian restaurant. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DJPyND at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael DiGiulio, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM, LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 3 2 Broadway, Suite 601 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 688-2548 E-mail: www.jk-llp.com PETCO HEALTH: Spurbeck Sues Over Drop in Share Price ---------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA SPURBECK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PETCO HEALTH AND WELLNESS COMPANY, INC.; JOEL D. ANDERSON; R. MICHAEL MOHAN; RONALD V. COUGHLIN, JR.; SABRINA SIMMONS; BRIAN LAROSE; and MICHAEL NUZZO, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-01667-BEN-VET (S.D. Cal., June 30, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than the Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Petco securities between January 14, 2021 and June 5, 2025, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Petco's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Petco's pandemic-related tailwinds were unsustainable, as was its business model of selling primarily premium and/or high-grade pet food; (ii) accordingly, the strength of Petco's differentiated product strategy was overstated; (iii) Defendants downplayed the true scope and severity of the foregoing issues, the magnitude of changes needed to rectify those issues, and the likely negative impacts of their mitigation strategy on Petco's comparable sales metric; (iv) accordingly, the Defendants overstated Petco's ability to deliver sustainable, profitable growth; and (v) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Petco's stock price fell $0.84 per share, or 23.2%, to close at $2.78 per share on June 6, 2025. 22. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, alleges the suit. Petco Health and Wellness Company, Inc. operates as a pet health and wellness company. The Company provides pet health services, including veterinary care, grooming, and training, as well as offers pet nutrition products and supplies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com PLANITROI LLC: Cartagenova Suit Removed from State Court to D.N.J. ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSE CARTAGENOVA and DHARIAN SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. PLANITROI, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. MRS-L-1208-25 (May 27, 2025) was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County to the United States District Court, District of New Jersey on July 27, 2025. The New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No. Case No. 2:25-cv-12230. The Plaintiffs assert claims for violations of the Millville-Dallas Airmotive Plant Job Loss Notification Act (the NJ WARN Act) for allegedly giving less than 90 days' notice of the transfer of operations, termination of operations, or mass layoffs. Since 2001, PlanITROI has been providing global Reverse Logistics, IT Asset Disposition (ITAD), and Asset Recovery Services for OEMs.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Ryan S. Carlson, Esq. Jennifer L. Casazza Carter, Esq. NUKK-FREEMAN & CERA, P.C. 26 Main Street, Suite 202 Chatham, NJ 07928 Telephone: (973) 665-9100 Facsimile: (973) 665-9101 E-mail: rcarlson@nfclegal.com jcarter@nfclegal.com PLY GEM SPECIALTY: Jameson Suit Removed to D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as William G. Jameson and Bill Lane on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Ply Gem Specialty Products, LLC and Cornerstone Building Brands Services, Inc., Case No. 2025-CP-29-00546 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas for Lancaster County, State of South Carolina, to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina on June 26, 2025, and assigned Case No. 0:25-cv-06223-MGL. The Complaint in the State Court Action alleges that Defendants improperly the designed and manufactured certain windows. The Complaint purports to state causes of action for Negligence/Gross Negligence; Breach of Warranty; Defective Product-Defective Design as to Ply Gem; Defective Product-Defective Manufacture; and Defective Product-Failure to Warn.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kirby D. Shealy III, Esq. W. Taylor Stanley, Esq. ADAMS AND REESE, L.L.P. 1221 Main Street, Suite 1200 Columbia, SC 29201 Phone: 803-254-4190 Facsimile: 803-779-4749 Email: Kirby.shealy@arlaw.com Taylor.stanley@arlaw.com PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Shubkagel Class Cert Filing Due Feb. 20, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEITH SHUBKAGEL, v. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:25-cv-02155-HLT-GEB (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Gwynne E. Birzer entered a phased scheduling order: All fact discovery must be commenced or served in time to be completed by Jan. 16, 2026. All discovery must be completed by June 5, 2026. Any motion for leave to join additional parties or to otherwise amend the pleadings must be filed by Aug. 26, 2025. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification must be filed by Feb. 20, 2026. The Defendant's opposition to class certification must be filed by April 24, 2026. The Plaintiff's reply in support of class certification must be filed by June 5, 2026. On July 1, 2025, the undersigned U.S. Magistrate Judge, Gwynne E. Birzer, conducted a scheduling conference in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16. Plaintiff Keith Shubkagel appeared through counsel Edwin Elliott, Esq. by phone. Progressive Direct Insurance Company appeared through counsel Allison White, Esq. by phone This is a class action on behalf of Plaintiff and all other similarly situated Kansas claimants who received loss payments for a totaled vehicle from Defendant based on valuation reports prepared by Mitchell International, Inc. to determine the loss vehicle's actual cash value ("ACV"). The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's use of Mitchell's Vehicle Valuation Reports and their application of the Projected Sold Adjustments to determine ACV reduced the claim payments for the Plaintiff and class members' total loss vehicles and that this practice injured Plaintiff and members of the class and violated Defendant’s contractual obligations under the Policy. Progressive underwrites auto, fire, marine, and casualty insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated July 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2BPOvG at no extra charge.[CC] PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN: Stickle Suit Removed to D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Shawn Stickle, and all others similarly situated v. PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2025-CP-40-03360 was removed from the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas, Richland County, to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina on June 26, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-06262-SAL. The Plaintiff's putative class action Complaint asserts two causes of action against Progressive, breach of contract and bad faith denial of insurance benefits. The Plaintiff's claims stem from his allegation that Progressive improperly denied payment for the full amount of Plaintiff's, minor E.S.'s, and the putative class's Medical Payments ("Med Pay") claims under various Progressive policies of insurance.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: J. R. Murphy, Esq. Wesley B. Sawyer, Esq. MURPHY & GRANTLAND, P.A. P.O. Box 6648 Columbia, SC 29260 Phone: 803-782-4100 Email: jrmurphy@murphygrantland.com wsawyer@murphygrantland.com QUICK BOX: $5.5MM Class Settlement in Tan Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEANNE TAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. QUICK BOX, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01082-LL-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Linda Lopez entered an order: -- granting the Plaintiff's motions for final approval of class action settlements; -- granting the Plaintiff's motions for attorney fees, costs, and incentive awards; and -- denying as moot Konnektive's sealing motion. The Order incorporates both settlement agreements, including the exhibits and definitions. For the settlement with Quick Box, class counsel shall receive one-third of the $5,500,000 common fund—$1,833,333—as their reasonable fees, $119,618 as their costs, and Ms. Tan shall receive a $3,000 award. For the settlement with Konnektive, class counsel shall receive one-third of either the $2,000,000 or $5,000,000 common fund—$666,666 or $1,666,666—as their reasonable fees, $259,307 as their costs, and Ms. Tan shall receive a $3,000 award. For the final amount of this common fund only, if Judge Leshner finds that Plaintiff proved any of her CLRA claims against Konnektive by a preponderance of the evidence and that no affirmative defense applies, Konnektive shall pay $5,000,000; conversely, if Plaintiff does not prove any CLRA claim or Konnektive is otherwise found not liable due to one of its defenses, Konnektive shall instead pay $2,000,000 into the common fund The parties may consent to Judge Leshner's jurisdiction for resolving any disputes over the full execution of this Order and Final Judgment by signing and lodging the attached consent form by July 10, 2025. The Court, finding no reason to delay entering this Order, directs the Clerk to enter Final Judgment. This action is dismissed with prejudice. The Court preliminarily certified the settlement class as: "All consumers in the U.S. who, during the class period, were billed for products sold, shipped, or caused to be sold or shipped by any of the Defendants under the La Pura, La'Pura, La' Pura, LaPura or any similar brand name, including any La Pura Product marketed or otherwise promoted by Rocket Management Group." Excluded from the settlement class are: (i) jurists and mediators who are or have presided over the action, the Plaintiff's counsel, and the Defendants' counsel, their employees, legal representatives, heirs, successors, assigns, or any members of their immediate family; (ii) any government entity; (iii) the Quick Box and Konnektive Parties and any entity in which the Quick Box and Konnektive Parties have a controlling interest, any of their subsidiaries, parents, affiliates, and officers, directors, employees, legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, or any members of their immediate family; and (iv) any persons who timely opt out of the settlement class. The Plaintiff's settlement agreement with Quick Box is signed and dated October 2023. In consideration for class members releasing their claims against it, Quick Box agreed to pay $5,500,000 into a common fund. Quick is a Business-to-Business (B2B) company offering last-mile delivery. A copy of the Court's order dated July 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=11afMe at no extra charge.[CC] QUIKAID INC: Wilson Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Erin Wilson, on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. QuikAid, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-03238-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting unopposed motion to extend the time for the Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification. The Plaintiff filed this class action complaint, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act on behalf of a national class. The Defendant has not yet responded to the complaint and the Plaintiff will need to conduct discovery and secure expert testimony before a motion for class certification can be filed. Quikaid focuses exclusively on Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) claims. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PaTq9k at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com QUTEN RESEARCH: Class Cert Bid Filing in Swetala Due August 3, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY SWETALA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and the general public, v. QUTEN RESEARCH INSTITUTE, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00620-JLT-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe entered a preliminary class certification scheduling order of as follows: Status Conference: Aug. 4, 2025 Amendments to Pleadings: Sept. 5, 2025 Written Discovery Cutoff: June 1, 2026 Motion Filing Deadline: Aug. 3, 2026 Opposition Deadline: Nov. 6, 2026 Reply Deadline: Feb. 26, 2027 Motion Hearing: March 16, 2027 Quten is a company that specializes in the development and marketing of dietary supplements. A copy of the Court's order dated July 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eJUMMe at no extra charge.[CC] REAL BROKERAGE: Faces Suit Over Real Estate Broker Conspiracy ------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN CWYNAR, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. THE REAL BROKERAGE, INC., a Delaware corporation, REAL BROKER LLC, d/b/a REAL, A Texas limited liability company, REALTY ONE GROUP INC., an Arizona corporation, KEMPA AND ASSOCIATES LLC d/b/a REALTY ONE GROUP EXCEL, an Illinois limited liability company, VANGUARD PROPERTIES, INC., a California corporation, and UMRO REALTY CORP d/b/a THE AGENCY, a California corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-07289 (N.D. Ill., June 27, 2025) alleges that the Defendants engaged in and facilitates a conspiracy that has perpetuated anticompetitive measures in the real estate broker services market within Illinois and nationwide. According to the complaint, the Defendants and their co-conspirators adopted and implemented anticompetitive practices that harmed consumers and homebuyers by, among other things, increasing and artificially sustaining the commissions paid to real estate brokers as part of residential real estate transactions. Because brokers' commissions are incorporated into the price of a home, Defendants' anticompetitive practices have burdened homebuyers nationwide with increased home prices and unnecessarily high costs in residential real estate transactions. The Defendants and their co-conspirators are members of the National Association of Realtors (NAR), a national trade association that offers advantages to its members, including access to the primary Multiple Listing Services (MLSs) with detailed information on properties available for sale. NAR and its members establish and enforce rules, policies, and practices that are adopted by NAR's 1,400+ local associations and their affiliated MLSs. According to NAR's website, more than 1.5 million real estate professionals across thousands of different brokerages and real estate firms are members of NAR. The Defendants are residential real estate brokerages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan Meyers, Esq. Paul T. Geske, Esq. William Kingston, Esq. Colin Primo Buscarini, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 Facsimile: (312) 275-7895 E-mail: emeyers@mcgpc.com pgeske@mcgpc.com wkingston@mcgpc.com cbuscarini@mcgpc.com - and - Jonathan M. Jagher FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 923 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 234-6487 E-mail: jjagher@fklmlaw.com - and - Matthew W. Ruan, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 100 Tri-State International, Ste. 128 Lincolnshire, IL 60069 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 E-mail:mruan@fklmlaw.com SHOMA GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Castillo Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- ANTONIO CASTILLO; ALEXANDER MENDEZ; JOSE MIGUEL LOPEZ; NICHOLAS LOVE; RAUL CASTRILLO; JAVIER EXPOSITO; JESSICA COBAS; MARGARELYS FLORES; NALLELY FERNANDES; MARIANGEL VILLAREAL; ZHUO CHOI; ANGELICA GIANOS; JHOEL GUSTAVO FRAILE HERRERA; ALMARY LABARCA; HUSSEIN KARIM KARIM; LISABETH REVILLA; MARICELLYS DEL CARMEN CASTRILLO FLORES; JOSE ARMANDO RODRIGUEZ; CARLEIDY DURAN; YAMIRELLYS SABBAGH; JESIKA NAVAS URRIBARRI; JULIANA CHACON; MARIA GABRIELA RODRIGUEZ; JENNIFER RAMOS; GABRIELA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SHOMA GROUP, LLC d/b/a SHOMA BAZAAR; SHOMA BAZAAR ONE, LLC; MASOUD SHOJAEE; PAUL J. PRICE; and STEPHANIE SHOJAEE, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-22347-RKA (S.D. Fla., May 23, 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. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as restaurant staff. Shoma Group, LLC d/b/a Shoma Bazaar is a community hub for local happenings, where an unprecedented collection of local chefs set the standard for culinary excellence in Miami. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andres F. Vidales, Esq. 9300 S. Dadeland Blvd., 4th Floor Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 670-1101 Facsimile: (305) 670-1161 Email: andres.vidales@qpwblaw.com reginald.clyne@qpwblaw.com cecilia.quevedo@qpwblaw.com sofia.arcila@qpwblaw.com SMITH & WESSON: Faces Privacy Act-Related Suit ---------------------------------------------- Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 20, 2025, that ity was named in a putative class action lawsuit filed on April 4, 2025 in the U.S. District for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Privacy Act, invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, fraud/deceit/misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of implied contract and fair dealing, trespass to chattels, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs allege that after they clicked on the "reject all" cookies button, its website enabled third parties to place cookies and similar tracking technologies on their browsers and devices and/or to transmit their user data to third parties for their financial gain and other purposes. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages (including statutory damages), punitive damages, nominal damages, restitution, disgorgement of revenues and profits, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. Smith & Wesson Brands is a manufacturer and designer of handguns (including revolvers and pistols), long guns (including modern sporting rifles), handcuffs, firearm suppressors, and other firearm-related products for sale. SONIC INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Brennan Suit Due May 15, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH BRENNAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SONIC, INC., d/b/a SONIC DRIVE-IN, A Delaware corporation, Case No. 5:25-cv-00280-HE (W.D. Okla.), the hon. Judge Joe Heaton, entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. Initial Disclosures shall be made by: July 11, 2025; 2. Motions to Join additional parties to be filed: Aug. 1, 2025; 3. Motions to Amend pleadings to be filed: Oct. 1, 2025; 4. Expert Disclosures or Reports to be served by: Feb. 15, 2026; 5. Rebuttal Expert Disclosures and Reports to be served by April 1, 2026; 6. All Discovery to be completed: May 1, 2026; 7. Motion for Class Certification to be filed: May 15, 2026; 8. Opposition to the Motion for Class Certification to be filed: June 15, 2026; 9. Reply in support of Motion for Class Certification to be filed: July 1, 2026; 10.Subsequent Case Management Conference: to be set following the court's ruling on Class Certification. Sonic is an American drive-in fast-food chain. A copy of the Court's order dated July 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jUfhQt at no extra charge.[CC] SONOS INC: App Diminished Device Performance, Bornemann Says ------------------------------------------------------------ ROBERT BORNEMANN; JOHN BIRD; TOMAS FLORES; CHRISTOPHER SCHOLER; GREGORY BRACCO; TYLER RAY; CHASE CARBONELL; CHRISTOPHER SHIMELD; MATT LOCHSTAMPFOR; ABDUL FAHM; WALLY GOODMAN; ROB BERLINGER; FRANK CHINCHAR; and LEONARD ELLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SONOS, INC., Defendant, Case 2:25-cv-04656 (C.D. Cal., May 22, 2025) alleges violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Act. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, Sonos caused the Plaintiffs and class members to download and install the App Redesign without informing them that the App Redesign would diminish the performance of their Sonos Devices. Plaintiffs and Class Members did not give permission for Sonos to damage and/or disrupt their Sonos Devices via the App Redesign -- nor could they -- as Sonos omitted material information to Plaintiffs and Class Members regarding the App Redesign. Sonos's conduct has caused the Plaintiffs and class members economic damages. Because the Sonos App is necessary to install and use Sonos Devices, in whole or in part, the defects in the App Redesign lowered the value of Sonos Devices. The Class members, including the Plaintiffs, have additionally suffered the impaired use of their Sonos Devices. Immediately after installing the App Redesign, their ability to control their Sonos Devices became slower and they lost many preexisting features of the App, and they should be compensated for such reduction in function, the suit alleges. Sonos, Inc. designs, develops, and produces audio products. The Company offers charging cradles, music players, alternating current adapters, controllers, wireless speakers, and loudspeakers. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com SPECTRUM PHARMA: $15.95MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 20 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the proposed Settlement in the Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Litigation: JOSE CHUNG LUO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. SPECTRUM PHARAMCEUTICALS, INC., et al. Defendants. CLASS ACTION Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-01612-CDS-BNW SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. ("SPECTRUM") COMMON STOCK BETWEEN MARCH 7, 2018, AND AUGUST 5, 2021, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD") THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada ("Court"), that the above-captioned action ("Litigation") has been certified as a class action, except for certain Persons and entities who are excluded from the Class by definition as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated May 9, 2025 ("Stipulation") and the detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"). The Stipulation and Notice can be viewed at www.SpectrumPharmaceuticalsSecuritiesSettlement.com. YOU ARE ALSO HEREBY NOTIFIED that International Trading Group, Inc. ("Lead Plaintiff"), and defendants Spectrum, Joseph W. Turgeon, Kurt A. Gustafson, Francois J. Lebel, and Thomas J. Riga ("Defendants") have reached a proposed settlement of the Litigation on behalf of the Class for $15.95 million in cash ("Settlement"). If approved by the Court, the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Litigation. YOU ARE ALSO HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on October 20, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Cristina D. Silva at the United States District Court, District of Nevada, Lloyd D. George Federal Courthouse, 333 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Las Vegas, NV 89101, to determine whether: (1) the Settlement of the Litigation as set forth in the Stipulation for $15.95 million in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered dismissing the Litigation with prejudice; (3) to award Lead Plaintiff’s Counsel attorneys’ fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice) and, if so, in what amounts; (4) to award Lead Plaintiff its costs and expenses in representing the Class out of the Settlement Fund and, if so, in what amount; and (5) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court may decide to change the date and/or time of the Settlement Hearing, conduct the hearing by video or telephonic conference, or otherwise allow Class Members to appear at the hearing by telephone or videoconference, without further written notice to the Class. It is important that you check the Settlement website, www.SpectrumPharmaceuticalsSecuritiesSettlement.com, before making any plans to attend the Settlement Hearing. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or telephonic appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement website. Also, if the Court requires or allows Class Members to participate in the hearing by telephone or videoconference, the access information will be posted to the website. IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED SPECTRUM COMMON STOCK BETWEEN MARCH 7, 2018, AND AUGUST 5, 2021, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS ARE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION. To share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than October 1, 2025) or electronically via the Settlement website (no later than October 1, 2025). Failure to submit your Proof of Claim by October 1, 2025, will subject your claim to rejection and preclude you from receiving any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Litigation. If you are a Class Member and do not request exclusion from the Class (as described below), you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Litigation, including, but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim. The Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder (including your right to object to the Settlement), the Proof of Claim, the Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for the capitalized terms used in this Summary Notice), and other important documents, may be accessed online at www.SpectrumPharmaceuticalsSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by writing to: Spectrum Pharmaceuticals Securities Settlement Claims Administrator c/o Verita Global P.O. Box 301171 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1171 Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the Clerk of the Court. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of Claim, may be made to Lead Counsel: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Ellen Gusikoff Stewart 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 1-800-449-4900 settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY SEPTEMBER 29, 2025, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. IF YOU PROPERLY EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM THE CLASS, YOU WILL NOT BE BOUND BY ANY RELEASES, JUDGMENTS, OR ORDERS ENTERED BY THE COURT IN THE LITIGATION AND YOU WILL NOT RECEIVE ANY BENEFITS FROM THE SETTLEMENT. EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE CLASS IS THE ONLY OPTION THAT MAY ALLOW YOU TO BE PART OF ANY OTHER CURRENT OR FUTURE LAWSUIT AGAINST DEFENDANTS CONCERNING THE CLAIMS BEING RESOLVED BY THE SETTLEMENT. IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY LEAD COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES NOT TO EXCEED 30% OF THE $15.95 MILLION SETTLEMENT AMOUNT AND EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $200,000, PLUS INTEREST ON BOTH AMOUNTS, AND/OR THE REQUEST FOR AN AWARD TO LEAD PLAINTIFF PURSUANT TO 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4). ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO LEAD COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL BY SEPTEMBER 29, 2025, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. DATED: June 16, 2025 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA TAL EDUCATION: 2023 Securities Class Suit Discovery Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- TAL Education Group disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the annual period ending February 28, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 16, 2025, that the 2023 securities class suit discovery ongoing in the United States District Court for the New Jersey. On March 29, 2023, a complaint of putative securities class action was filed against the Company and an executive in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "2023 Class Action"). The complaint alleges that the Company made misrepresentations and misleading disclosures between June 14, 2022 and March 14, 2023 about its compliance with Chinese laws and regulations. On October 16, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which named the Company and several executives as co-defendants. On December 17, 2024, all individual defendants were dismissed from this case. The case now proceeds to discovery with the Company as the sole remaining defendant. TAL Education Group to is an offshore holding company that offers comprehensive tutoring services to K-12 students covering core academic subjects as well as learning products, contents, technologies, services and other learning resources for learners and customers. TASKUS INC: $17.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 16 ----------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK HUMBERTO LOZADA and OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. TASKUS, INC., BRYCE MADDOCK, JASPAR WEIR, BALAJI SEKAR, AMIT DIXIT, MUKESH MEHTA, SUSIR KUMAR, JACQUELINE D. RESES, and BCP FC AGGREGATOR L.P., Defendants. Case No. 1:22-cv-01479 CLASS ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED TASKUS CLASS A COMMON STOCK BETWEEN JUNE 11, 2021 AND JANUARY 19, 2022, BOTH INCLUSIVE. THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court") and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that a hearing will be held on October 16, 2025, at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Gary Stein, U.S. Magistrate Judge, in Courtroom 9A at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement of the claims in the above-captioned litigation (the "Litigation") for the sum of $17,500,000 in cash (the "Settlement") should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Settlement Class should be certified for purposes of the Settlement; (3) whether, thereafter, this Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated May 27, 2025 (the "Stipulation"); (4) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and therefore should be approved; and (5) the reasonableness of the application for payment of attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection with this Litigation together with the interest earned thereon (and any payment to the Plaintiffs pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 in connection with his representation of the Settlement Class). The Court may change the date of this hearing, or hold it remotely, without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. The Litigation has been preliminarily certified as a class action on behalf of a Settlement Class of all Persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired TaskUs Class A common stock either: (i) between June 11, 2021 and January 19, 2022, both inclusive, or (ii) pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO Registration Statement or Secondary Offering Registration Statement, except for certain Persons or entities excluded from the Settlement Class, as defined in the full Long-Form Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Long-Form Notice"), which is available as described below. If the Settlement is approved, it will resolve all claims in the Litigation. Capitalized terms that are not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Long-Form Notice and/or Stipulation. A detailed description of the Litigation, including important information about your rights and options, is in the detailed Long-Form Notice available at www.TaskUsSecuritiesLitigation.com or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: TaskUs Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc., P.O. Box 4518, Portland, OR 97208-4518, or (888) 864-4860. If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim") online at www.TaskUsSecuritiesLitigation.com or by mail postmarked no later than October 6, 2025. Failure to timely submit a Proof of Claim will subject your claim to possible rejection and may preclude you from receiving any payment from the Settlement. If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion electronically submitted or postmarked by August 21, 2025, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Long-Form Notice referred to above. All Members of the Settlement Class who do not timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Litigation pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Stipulation. Any objection to the Settlement, Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be mailed or delivered to the Clerk of Court and counsel for the Parties at the addresses below such that it is received no later than September 25, 2025 Court: Clerk of the Court UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007 Lead Counsel: Joseph A. Fonti BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 300 Park Avenue, Suite 1301 New York, New York 10022 Emailed copy to taskussettlement@bfalaw.com Counsel for Defendants: Jonathan K. Youngwood SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10017 Emailed copy to jyoungwood@stblaw.com PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may contact counsel for Plaintiffs at the address listed above, email taskussettlement@bfalaw.com, call (888) 879-9418, or go to the following website: www.TaskUsSecuritiesLitigation.com. DATED: July 7, 2025 BY THE COURT: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Judge John P. Cronan TC HEARTLAND: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Briefing Schedule ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL GARCIA individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TC HEARTLAND, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-04192-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Parties asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to modify class certification briefing schedule: Event Proposed Date Deadline for Defendant to File Opposition to July 29, 2025 Motion for Class Certification, File Daubert Motions in Opposition to Motion for Class Certification, and Disclose Rebuttal Reports in Opposition to the Plaintiff's Class Certification Experts: Deadline for the Plaintiff to File Reply in Sept. 9, 2025 Support of Motion for Class Certification, Oppositions to Defendant's Daubert Motions, and Daubert Motions to Exclude Defendant's Class Certification Experts: Class Certification and Daubert Hearing: Nov. 19, 2025 Fact Discovery Cutoff: Dec. 23, 2025 Expert Discovery Cutoff: Jan. 28, 2026 Pretrial Conference: May 27, 2026 Trial: June 8, 2026 TC Heartland provides packaged food products. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZY3Fty at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan Gudino, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Hwy Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 The Defendant is represented by: Alexander M. Smith, Esq. Kelly M. Morrison, Esq. Dean N. Panos, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 515 S. Flower Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2054 Telephone: (213) 239-5100 Facsimile: (213) 239-5199 E-mail: asmith@jenner.com kmorrison@jenner.com dpanos@jenner.com TICKETMASTER LLC: Smith Sues Over Improper Ticket Sales ------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN P. SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TICKETMASTER, LLC; VIVID SEATS, LLC; and SEATGEEK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01337 (D. La., June 30, 2025) is an action concerning a policy between and among the Defendants of funneling customers to and through TicketMaster to purchase tickets to various sporting and cultural events and venues. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, when a customer purchases tickets to an event through Vivid or SeatGeek, they automatically get diverted to TicketMaster to procure the actual tickets, without their knowledge or consent. In other words, such customers have no choice but to do business with TicketMaster if they hope to see their chosen event. As a result of the Defendants' actions, the Plaintiff and other members of the Class have been damaged in that they not only lost the purchase prices due to the Defendants' failure to refund ticket prices, but also by violating a fundamental tenant of American capitalism that consumers are free to do, or not to do business with any entity of their choosing, says the suit. Ticketmaster L.L.C. operates as a ticket distribution company. The Company buys, transfers, and sells tickets for live music, sporting, arts, theater, and family events. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc R. Michaud, T.A., Esq. MICHAUD CONSUMER LAW, LLC 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 2900 New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: (504) 910-6775 Facsimile: (504) 910-6953 TIP-TOP ROOFING: Seeks to Correct Class Cert Opposition Brief ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Vriens and Steve Smith, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Tip-Top Roofing & Construction, LLC, Pacific Contractors, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06797-DCN (D.S.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to substitute -- or, in the alternative, correct -- the docket entry for its opposition brief erroneously filed as "Valim Construction, LLC's Opposition re Motion to Stay." Valim requests the Court to: a. Direct the Clerk to modify the docket event and text for ECF No.712 to read “Response in Opposition re Motion to Certify Class" or, if the Clerk prefers, to seal the Subject Filing and accept the identical PDF re filed contemporaneously as Exhibit A to this motion; b. Confirm that any reply deadlines run from the entry of the corrected docket text (or the new ECF number), so that no party is prejudiced; and c. Retain the original filing date for purposes of timeliness. Pursuant to Local Civ. Rule 7.02, counsel has conferred with all counsel of record. Plaintiffs and all appearing Defendants consent to the relief requested. Correcting the docket will promote clarity and avoid confusion regarding briefing deadlines. A hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify Class has not been scheduled. No party will be prejudiced, and no substantive changes are sought. On May 16, 2025, counsel for Valim attempted to file its opposition to class certification. The Defendants include Builders FirstSource – Southeast Group, LLC, Carolina Custom Carpentry, LLC, Quad K. LLC, JJL Construction, LLC, CAC Carpentry, LLC, Alpha Construction of SC, LLC, Good Luck Incorporated, South Atlantic Framing, Inc., SRC Construction, LLC, Jalisco Framing, LLC, Mendoza Construction, LLC, VL Contractor, LLC, 84 Lumbar Company, LP, Varanda Contracting Group, Inc., Tomech, LLC dba Firm Foundation Coastal Carolinas, Valim Construction, LLC, Ram Construction SC, LLC, Gold Star Construction, LLC, Probuild East, LLC, Archer Exteriors, Inc., Americo Roofing Concepts, Inc., Contract Exteriors, LLC, Holy City Exteriors, LLC, SR Construction, LLC, Robert Helms Construction, Inc., Quick Roofing, LLC, Monarch Company, LLC, Accurate Building Company, LLC, Southend Exteriors, Inc., Above the Sky Roofing, Inc., ABC Supply Co., Inc., SRS Distribution, Inc. f/k/s Superior Distribution, Contract Lumber, Inc., BMC East, LLC, USLBM-Professional Builders Supply a/ k/a US LBM Holdings, LLC a/k/a US LBM, LLC, and DR Horton. Tip-Top is a locally owned and operated full service roofing company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YolbG5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Justin O'Toole Lucey, Esq. Mandee Funai, Esq. JUSTIN O'TOOLE LUCEY, P.A. 415 Mill Street Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 849-8400 E-mail: jlucey@lucey-law.com mfunai@lucey-law.com The Defendants are represented by: C. Clay Olson, Esq. James W. Saxton, Esq. GORDON & REES, LLP 677 King Street, Suite 450 Charleston, SC 29414 Telephone: (843) 278-5900 E-mail: colson@grsm.com jsaxton@grsm.com - and - John T. Crawford, Jr., Esq. Kimila L. Wooten, Esq. Jason Michael Imhoff, Esq David L. Paavola, Esq. KENISON, DUDLEY & CRAWFORD, LLC 325 W. McBee Avenue, Suite 301 Greenville, SC 29601 Telephone: (864) 242-4899 Facsimile: (864) 242-4844 E-mail: crawford@conlaw.com wooten@conlaw.com paavola@conlaw.com - and - Allen Leland DuPre, Esq. LYLES & ASSOCIATES, LLC 2113 Middle Street, Suite 202 Sullivan's Island, SC 29482 Telephone: (843) 577-7730 - and - Kevin W. Mims, Esq. Whidbee S. Perrin, Esq. Rachel N. Stewart, Esq. LUZURIAGA MIMS, LLP 1156 King Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (843) 410-4713 E-mail: kmims@lmlawllp.com wperrin@lmlawllp.com rstewart@lmlawllp.com - and - Matthew Laney Trippett Boineau James D. Smith, Jr., Esq. MCANGUS GOUDELOCK & COURIE LLC 1320 Main Street, 10th Floor Columbia, SC 29211 Telephone: (803) 779-2300 E-mail: jsmith@mgclaw.com - and - J. Edward "Ward" Bradley, Esq. Lynn G. Ivey, Esq. Sally J. Inabinet, Esq. MOORE BRADLEY MYERS, P.A. West Columbia, SC 29171 Telephone: (803) 796-9160 - and - Philip P. Cristaldi, III, Esq. Scott H. Winograd, Esq. ROSS & CRISTALDI, LLC 765 Long Point Road, Ste. 101 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 329-4040 E-mail: pcristaldi@rclawsc.com swinograd@rclawsc.com - and - L. Dean Best, Esq. BEST LAW, PA 999 Lake Hunter Circle, Suite D Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 793-4744 E-mail: dean@bestlawsc.co - and - Jared H. Garraux, Esq. Heyward Grimball, Esq. Lindsey Birchmore, Esq. Benjamin E. Nicholson, Esq. Cameron D. Berthelsen, Esq. James H. Elliott, Jr., Esq RICHARDSON PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, P.A. 1900 Barnwell Street (29201) Columbia, SC 29202 Telephone (803) 771-4400 E-mail: jgarraux@richardsonplowden.com lbirchmore@richardsonplowden.com cberthelsen@richardsonplowden.com jelliott@richardsonplowden.com bnicholson@richardsonplowden.com - and - Steven P. Hughes, Esq. Witt Cox, Esq. HOWELL, GIBSON & HUGHES, P.A. 25 Rue Du Bois, Lady's Island Beaufort, SC 29901 Telephone: (843) 522-2400 E-mail: sphughes@hghpa.com wcox@hghpa.com - and - Emily C. Sheets, Esq. Kathy A. Carlsten, Esq. COPELAND, STAIR, VALZ & LOVELL LLP 40 Calhoun Street, Suite 400 Charleston, SC 29401 Telephone: (843) 727-0307 E-mail: kcarlsten@csvl.law esheets@csvl.law - and - Alicia N. Bolyard, Esq. Caitlin Plocica, Esq. RESNICK & LOUIS, P.C. 146 Fairchild Street, Suite 130 Charleston, SC 29492 E-mail: abolyard@rlattorneys.com cplocica@rlattorneys.com - and - John A. "Jay" Jones, Esq. W. Duffie Powers, Esq. Ronald G. Tate, Jr., Esq. Alexander G. Mende, Esq. Shelley Sunderman Montague, Esq. Eleanor L. Jones, Esq GALLIVAN WHITE BOYD 40 Calhoun Street, Suite 315 Charleston, SC 29401 Telephone: (843) 414-8070 E-mail: jjones@gwblawfirm.com dpowers@gwblawfirm.com rtate@gwblawfirm.com amende@gwblawfirm.com smontague@gwblawfirm.com ejones@gwblawfirm.com - and - James Ceth Land, Esq. Thomas B. Boger, Esq. WALL TEMPLETON & HALDRUP, P.A. Charleston, SC 29402 E-mail: Tommy.boger@walltempleton.com Jamie.land@walltempleton.com - and - Michael L. Leech, Esq. CLAWSON AND STAUBES, LLC 126 Seven Farms Drive, Suite 200 Charleston, SC 29492 E-mail: mleech@cslaw.com - and - J. Christian Greene, Esq. John E. Rogers, Esq. THE WARD LAW FIRM, P.A. Spartanburg, SC 29304 E-mail: jrogers@wardfirm.com cgreene@wardfirm.com - and - Stephen P. Hughes, Esq. William H. Cox, III, Esq. HOWELL, GIBSON & HUGHES, P.A. Beaufort, SC 29901 E-mail: sphughes@hghpa.com wcox@hghpa.com Attorney(s) for TOMTECH, LLC and R & B Construction Services LLC, are: Franklin H. Turner, III, Esq. Kristen A. Soucy, Esq. Francis M. Ervin, II, Esq. ROGERS TOWNSEND, LLC 1221 Main Street, Suite 1400 Columbia, SC 29202 Telephone: (843) 771-7900 E-mail: Trey.turner@rogerstownsend.com Kristen.soucy@rogerstownsend.com Francis.Ervin@rogerstownsend.com Attorney(s) for JDR Contracting Services, LLC, are: Brent M. Boyd, Esq. MURPHY & GRANTLAND, P.A. Columbia, South Carolina 29260 Telephone: (803) 782-4100 E-mail: bboyd@murphygrantland.com TRADERCODES LLC: Wilson Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Erin Wilson, on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Tradercodes, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03211-ELR (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to extend the time for the Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification. The Plaintiff filed this class action complaint, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act on behalf of a national class. The Defendant has not yet responded to the complaint and the Plaintiff will need to conduct discovery and secure expert testimony before a motion for class certification can be filed. Tradercodes is a software engineering company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eMkw4k at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com UNITED STATES: E.O No. 14160 Violates Citizenship Clause, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- "BARBARA;" "SARAH," by guardian, parent, and next friend "SUSAN;" and "MATTHEW," by guardian, parent, and next friend "MARK;" on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated v. DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States, in his official capacity; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY, in their official capacity; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; SECRETARY OF STATE, in their official capacity; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, in their official capacity; CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES; ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES, in their official capacity, Case No. 1:25-cv-00244-JL-AJ (D.N.H., June 27, 2025) seeks to enjoin Executive Order No. 14160, 90 Fed. Reg. 8449 (Jan. 29, 2025), entitled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship" (the Order), because it allegedly violates the Citizenship Clause, as well as the birthright citizenship statute. Plaintiff Barbara is a citizen of Honduras. She currently resides in New Hampshire with her husband and three minor children. Barbara has an asylum application pending with USCIS and has resided in the United States since 2024. Her husband, the father of her child, is not a U.S.-citizen or lawful permanent resident. She and her husband are expecting their fourth child in October 2025. Plaintiff Barbara fears that under the Order, her child will be denied U.S. citizenship at birth. She fears her child will be unjustly denied the security, rights, and opportunities that come with U.S. citizenship, leaving their future in doubt, the suit says. DHS is a cabinet-level department of the United States federal government. Its components include U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection. DOS is a cabinet-level department of the United States federal government. DOS is responsible for the issuance of passports to United States citizens.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cody Wofsy, Esq. Hannah Steinberg, Esq. Stephen Kang, Esq. Spencer Amdur, Esq AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS’RIGHTS PROJECT 425 California Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 343-0770 E-mail: cwofsy@aclu.org hsteinberg@aclu.org skang@aclu.org samdur@aclu.org - and - Morenike Fajana, Esq. Ashley Burrell, Esq. Elizabeth Caldwell, Esq. NAACPLEGAL DEFENSE& EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 40 Rector St., FL 5, New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 217-1690 E-mail: fajana@naacpldf.org aburrell@naacpldf.org bcaldwell@naacpldf.org - and - Morgan Humphrey, Esq. Mide Odunsi, Esq. NAACPLEGAL DEFENSE& EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 700 14th Street NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 249-2193 E-mail: mhumphrey@naacpldf.org modunsi@naacpldf.org - and - Carol Garvan, Esq. Zachary L. Heiden, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MAINE FOUNDATION P.O. Box 7860 Portland, Maine 04112 Telephone: (207) 619.8687 E-mail: cgarvan@aclumaine.org heiden@aclumaine.org - and - Adriana Lafaille, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF MASSACHUSETTS,INC. One Center Plaza, Suite 850 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 482-3170 E-mail: alafaille@aclum.or - and - SangYeob Kim, Esq. Gilles R. Bissonnette, Esq. Henry R. Klementowicz, Esq. Chelsea Eddy, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 18 Low Avenue Concord, NH 03301 Telephone: (603) 224-5591 E-mail: sangyeob@aclu nh.org gilles@aclu-nh.org henry@aclu-nh.org chelsea@aclu-nh.org - and - Noor Zafar, Esq. Grace Choi, Esq. Lee Gelernt, Esq. OmarJadwat, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT 125 Broad St., 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2660 E-mail: nzafar@aclu.org wjunaid@aclu.org gchoi@aclu.org lgelernt@aclu.org ojadwat@aclu.org - and - Norm Eisen, Esq. Tianna Mays, Esq. DEMOCRACY DEFENDERS FUND 600 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, No. 15180 Washington, D.C. 20003 Telephone: (202) 594-9958 E-mail: norman@statedemocracydefenders.org tianna@statedemocracydefenders.org - and - Christopher M. Lapinig, Esq. Kimberly Wei Leung, Esq. Winifred Kao, Esq. ASIAN LAW CAUCUS 55 Columbus Ave., San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 896-1701 E-mail: christopherl@asianlawcaucus.org kimberlyl@asianlawcaucus.org winifredk@asianlawcaucus.org UNITED STATES: Must File Class Cert Reply by July 16 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as APPALACHIAN VOICES, et al., v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01982 (D.D.C., Filed June 25, 2025), the Hon. Judge Paul L. Friedman entered an order as follows: The Defendants shall file their response to plaintiffs' motion in Support of Class Certification on or before July 16, 2025. The Plaintiffs shall file their reply in support of their motion for preliminary injunction on or before July 18, 2025. The Plaintiffs shall file their reply in support of their motion in support of class certification on or before July 21, 2025. The parties shall appear for oral argument on July 23, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 29 in the William B. Bryant Annex to the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse at 333 Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. The suit alleges violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is a federal agency tasked with protecting human health and the environment.[CC] UPLIFTING RESULTS: Faces Butler Over Misleading GLP-1 Booster Ads ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Butler and Maria Alaimo, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Uplifting Results Labs, Inc., Case No. 8:25-cv-01396 (C.D. Cal., June 27, 2025) alleges that Supergut falsely and misleadingly advertises prebiotic powder called the "GLP-1 Booster" as increasing GLP-1 levels and it being a "natural alternative" to, or providing the "same" health benefits as, medications such as Ozempic and Wegovy. The Plaintiffs seek monetary and injunctive relief against Defendant for violating the California Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and New York General Business Law. GLP-1 is a hormone naturally produced by the human body. It serves many functions, including slowing digestion, increasing the sensation of satiety after eating, telling the pancreas when to release insulin, and stopping glucose from entering the bloodstream. Medicines such as Ozempic and Wegovy are GLP-1 agonists— synthetic versions of GLP-1. They are a medicine used to manage type-2 diabetes and are also extremely effective weight loss medications. While naturally-occurring GLP-1 is quickly processed by enzymes in the body, giving it a half-life of only 1-2 minutes, GLP-1 agonists are designed to resist enzymes, giving them half-lives as long as 7 days. The Defendant's false and misleading statements caused Plaintiffs and members of the proposed classes to pay a price premium for the prebiotic fiber blend advertised as GLP-1 Booster. Had they known the truth, the Plaintiffs and members of the proposed classes would not have purchased the prebiotic fiber blend or would have paid significantly less, says the suit. Supergut sells prebiotic powders, blends, and snack bars on its website, https://www.supergut.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Caleb L. Marker, Esq. Ryan J. Ellersick, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 6420 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1080 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (877) 500-8780 E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com ryan.ellersick@zimmreed.com - and - Raphael Janove, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 500 7th Ave., 8th Fl. New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (646) 347-3940 E-mail: raphael@janove.law UPMC: Harrington Has Until Sept. 8 to File Opposition Reply ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HARRINGTON v. UPMC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00497 (W.D. Pa., Filed April 8, 2020), the Hon. Judge W. Scott Hardy entered an order granting unopposed motion for extension of time to file reply to the Defendants' brief in opposition to class certification. -- The Plaintiffs shall file their Reply to Defendants' Briefs in Opposition to Class Certification on or before Sept. 8, 2025. The nature of suit states Civil Rights. [CC] UPMC is an American integrated global nonprofit health enterprise. WALL & ASSOCIATES: Customers Have Until Dec. 10 to File Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Notice is given to all individuals who were individual customers of Wall and Associates, Inc. (fka E. Kenneth Wall and Associates, Inc. and dba Mayfair Tax Help & Relief, Inc.; Mayfair Tax Help, Inc .; and Mayfair Tax, Inc.) between January 1, 2013, and March 31, 2023. The matter of Commonwealth of Virginia v. Wall and Associates, Inc. et al., Case No. CL17-407, was filed in Fauquier Circuit Court and tried in April 2024. The Court has ordered restitution for eligible individuals who were individual customers of Wall & Associates, Inc. between January 1, 2013, and March 31, 2023. The Court has set up an identification process to ascertain those individuals who may be entitled to restitution in accordance with Virginia Code Sec. 59.1-205 and the Orders of the Court. Those consumers who believe that they may be entitled to restitution are directed to register with the Claims Administrator within 160 days of the initial publication of this Notice, no later than December 10, 2025. Those consumers who do not register within the prescribed time will be ineligible to be considered for restitution under the action styled Commonwealth of Virginia v. Wall and Associates, Inc., et al., Case No. CL17-407. Registration may be completed, and other inquiries may be directed to: Verus LLC P.O. Box 6535 Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 WallConsumerClass@VerusLLC.com (609) 283-5393 www.WallConsumerClass.com ZANDER GROUP: Jones' Bids to Quash Subpoenas in ERISA Suit Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, WILLIAM H. "Chip" JONES, II, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. ZANDER GROUP HOLDINGS, et al., Defendants, Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, Case No. 8:24CV428 (D. Neb.), granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Subpoena for Documents and the Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena. The Court quashed both the document subpoena and deposition subpoenas directed to Plaintiff's former attorneys and their law firm, finding the requested information irrelevant and protected by attorney-client privilege. Plaintiff Jones initiated a class action lawsuit against Defendants in the Middle District of Tennessee on July 12, 2023, arising from alleged "malfeasance" regarding his rights under two deferred-compensation plans under the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 1001, et seq. Plaintiff worked as the IT manager for Defendant Zander Insurance Agency from June 2010 to October 2014. The Agency was a partnership owned by two trusts, one of which held 100% of the shares of Defendant Zander Group Holdings, Inc., which was created for establishing the Zander Group Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("ESOP"). Defendant Jeffrey J. Zander was the president of the Holding Company and trustee of the two trusts, while Defendant Joshua Vollet was the Executive Vice President and oversaw the ESOP. During his employment, Plaintiff became a member of his employers' 401(k) Plan on January 1, 2011, and joined the ESOP on September 1, 2011. Plaintiff resigned from his employment in October 2014. In 2016, he rolled his funds from the 401(k) Plan into another qualified ERISA retirement plan, assuming at this time his account within the 401(k) Plan was fully closed. Plaintiff maintains that, under the ESOP, his awarded shares of Company stock were held in a trust account maintained by the ESOP to be paid out once he reached an age eligible to draw the funds without penalty, and that 80% of his ESOP shares became vested as a result of his four years of qualifying service. In November 2021, Mr. Zander, Mr. Vollet, and other individual defendants "decided to push out" ESOP members who were not current employees through an ESOP stock repurchase. Mr. Vollet sent Plaintiff a letter on November 12, 2021, stating: "The Zander Group Holdings Board of Directors has approved an ESOP stock repurchase for terminated ESOP participants. You are eligible to participate in this repurchase. You have 30 days from the date of this notice to consider accepting this offer. If accepted, you will get a 100% immediate payout of the vested balance to redeem all of your ESOP stock. If the offer is not accepted during the 30-day period, the offer will terminated." Because Plaintiff did not want to accept the ESOP stock repurchase offer, he did not return the enclosed documentation. He alleges the ESOP stock repurchase "offer" was not actually an offer, but was instead compulsory. On December 13, 2021, Mr. Vollet sent Plaintiff an email noting he had not returned the paperwork. Plaintiff responded the same day stating, "I'm not selling. I'm keeping the funds with you guys." On December 16, 2021, Mr. Vollet responded, identifying three options available to terminated ESOP participants, and "remaining a participant in the ESOP is not an option." On December 17, 2021, Peter Langdon, an attorney at McGrath North retained by Plaintiff, wrote to Mr. Vollet and Mr. Lewis, reiterating that Plaintiff did not want to sell his ESOP stock and requested a copy of the Plan document. The plan documents were not provided. On January 14, 2022, Plaintiff received a "Transaction Confirmation" indicating that $781,879.76 had been transferred to the 401(k) Plan on December 31, 2021. Previously, in December 2015, Plaintiff had received advice from McGrath North attorney Joan Cannon about an earlier cashout offer. Ms. Cannon advised: "This cash-out offer is optional. It is not mandatory and they cannot cash-out you out without your consent. Your account will stay in the ESOP until you elect a cash-out (distribution)." Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint contains seven claims against defendants: (1) "Lack of Notice" in violation of Section 204(h) of ERISA; (2) breach of fiduciary duty in violation of Section 502(a) of ERISA; (3) ERISA Plan document penalty for failure to furnish documents; (4) interference with Plaintiff's rights under ERISA in violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 1140; (5) ERISA equitable and injunctive relief; (6) breach of the ESOP contract; and (7) unjust enrichment. He seeks to represent a class of "All ESOP Participants whose accounts were rolled over on around December 31, 2021 in violation of the ESOP's terms and ERISA protections." Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing at its core, Plaintiff's lawsuit is founded on his wish that the terms of his retirement plan had been different so he could stay invested in the stock of a highly successful privately-held company he no longer works for. They contend Plaintiff lacks Article III standing because he was the intervening cause of his own alleged injury. Defendants argue the terms of the Plan are clear: former employees have no right to remain invested in company stock, and Plaintiff cites to sections of ERISA that do not apply to the Plan, misreads statutory provisions to fashion claims that stretch ERISA beyond its bounds, and advances state law claims that are preempted by ERISA. During discovery, Plaintiff provided some documents and information regarding McGrath for which attorney-client privilege had been waived because he had previously shared those communications with third parties. Specifically, in December 2015, he forwarded two emails from Joan Cannon to his former colleague about the ESOP cashout offer. Defendants served interrogatories asking about the basis of Plaintiff's belief for his positions. When asked if he believed his assets would remain in the ESOP after receiving certain communications, Plaintiff answered he understood assets would remain in the ESOP based on prior legal advice. Defendants issued subpoenas to McGrath North and attorneys Ms. Cannon and Mr. Langdon. The Document Subpoena requested five categories of documents, including "All documents and communications relating to the work you performed for Mr. Jones related to Zander," and "All communications between you and Mr. Jones relating to Zander." The Deposition Subpoena identified seven topics for examination covering similar ground. Magistrate Judge Nelson found Defendants had not demonstrated the information sought from McGrath North was relevant. Upon reviewing Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, he stated it was unconvinced that the substance of the limited engagement and legal advice Plaintiff received from Ms. Cannon in 2015 and Mr. Langdon in 2021 is relevant to the underlying lawsuit. He explained that Plaintiff alleges the actions Defendants took in November 2021 and December 2021 violated the terms and plain language of the ESOP and ERISA. Whatever Plaintiff believed his options were, and why he believed what he believed, are irrelevant to whether Defendants' actions violated the terms of the ESOP, ERISA or any other law. Defendants argued they made McGrath North's legal advice relevant by asserting Plaintiff lacked Article III standing because he caused his own injury. Magistrate Judge Nelson was not convinced that Defendants' standing argument renders McGrath North's legal advice to Plaintiff relevant. He noted that in opposing the motion to dismiss, Plaintiff did not assert he relied on legal advice from McGrath North, instead arguing his standing was "plainly presented in the Second Amended Complaint. Magistrate Judge Nelson found the information remained protected by attorney-client and work-product privileges. Under federal common law governing privilege issues, the attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between a client and his attorney made for the purpose of facilitating the rendering of legal services to the client. Defendants asserted Plaintiff waived these privileges by previously disclosing certain emails to third parties and by placing their advice "at issue" in the litigation. Magistrate Judge Nelson agreed Plaintiff's disclosures certainly waived his claims of privilege as to those emails themselves. However, the Court found those disclosures were not made in this litigation, and there is nothing to suggest Plaintiff is actually relying on any of the advice he received to advance his claims. Magistrate Judge Nelson said this is not a situation where he has placed his outside legal advice 'at issue' in the underlying lawsuit. Hence, he rejected Defendants' argument that Plaintiff put his attorneys' advice "at issue" merely by responding to interrogatories that he relied on "prior legal advice." Regarding the deposition subpoenas, Magistrate Judge Nelson applied the three-prong Shelton test: (1) no other means exist to obtain the information than to depose opposing counsel; (2) the information sought is relevant and nonprivileged; and (3) the information is crucial to the preparation of the case. He found Defendants had not made the required showing, explaining that the limited work and legal advice provided to Plaintiff by the McGrath North attorneys has little to no relevance to the underlying litigation. Moreover, to the extent the firm has any marginally relevant information, such information is privileged and is not 'crucial' to the underlying case." In light of the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Nelson concluded that because Defendants have not demonstrated the documents sought from McGrath North are relevant or that any documents sought are nonprivileged, the document subpoena directed to the firm is properly quashed. Similarly, the deposition subpoenas directed to McGrath North and its attorneys are properly quashed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3)(A). Accordingly, both motions to quash are granted. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Swk1A6 ********* 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 ***