---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, July 25, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 148

                            Headlines

1STDIBS.COM INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Williams Says
AFLAC INCORPORATED: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Sandoro Says
AMAG PHARMA: Class Settlement in Maher Gets Initial Approval
AMAZON.COM INC: Wins Dismissal of Class Suit Over Prime Video Ads
AMAZON.COM.DEDC: Filing for Renewed Class Cert Bid Due August 15

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Must Provide Discovery Records by August 15
ANN MARIE ALLEN: Court Tosses Medina SAC with Prejudice
ARCHERY TRADE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Equipment Price Fixing
ASB BANK: Claimants Offer $300MM Class Settlement in Breach Suit
BARCLAYS PLC: Knapp Appeals Denied Reconsideration Bid to 2nd Cir.

BARNARD CONSTRUCTION: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Feb. 27, 2026
BEVERLY TEACHERS: Strike Led to Uncertainty, Stress, Suit Claims
BLIBAUM AND ASSOCIATES: Court Limits Discovery in Dixon
BRIDGES EXPERIENCE: Little Sues Over Data Breach
CBRE INC: Collantes Sues Over Unpaid Wages

CLARK COUNTY, NV: Sued Over Short-Term Rental Regulatory Scheme
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Faces Suit Over Unreturned NDT Remains
DAVE'S TOWING: Appeals Ruling in Civil Suit to Ky. Ct. of Appeals
DOORDASH INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over DashPass Charges
DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Dixon Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages

EAST OHIO GAS: Arble Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class
ENFIN CORP: Abdul-Aziz Sues Over Undisclosed Fees on Solar Loans
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Court OKs Bid to Consolidate Cases
ERIE INDEMNITY: Piazza Balks at Inadequate Computer Security System
ETSY INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Unlawful Data Tracking

ETSY INC: White Sues Over Disclosed Users' Info to Third Parties
EXXON MOBIL: Appeals Court Rejects Discrimination Claims
FINEST VITAMINS: Faces Class Suit Over Supplement's False Ads
FOR THE PEOPLE: Straw Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
FORD MOTOR: Dolan Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid

GUAYNABO, PR: Delgado Appeals Suit Dismissal to 1st Circuit
H & H INVESTMENT: Property Has Architectural Barriers, Pardo Says
HEARTLAND DENTAL: Faces Class Suit Over AI Telephone Services
HOUSE OF ASTORIA: Faces Alvarado Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
KANAWHA COUNTY BOE: Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Exhibit

KERING EYEWEAR: $25K Settlement in Campbell Gets Initial Approval
KRISPY KREME: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Thompson Suit Says
KRISPY KREME: Leodler Sues Over Misleading Company Statements
KROGER CO: Faces Class Suit Over Fruit & Grain Bars' False Ads
L'INDUSTRIE WV: Valencia Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers

LIC DEVELOPMENT: Grey Appeals Court Order in Civil Suit to N.Y.
LOBLAW COMPANIES: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Meat Packaging Weight
MARKETSOURCE INC: Bid to Strike Renewed Class Cert Motion Tossed
META PLATFORMS: Illegally Collects Users' Data, Woodward Claims
METALS COMPANY: Court Dismisses Point12 Class Suit

MOSHY GAMING: Hurst Sues Over Illegal Operation of Online Casino
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Athlete Suit May Get Class Cert, Judge Says
NEW YORK, NY: Bid to Rectify Discovery Deficiencies Tossed
NVIDIA CORP: Plaintiffs Seek to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal
NVIDIA CORP: Plaintiffs Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action

NVIDIA CORPORATION: ADR Session Extended to Dec. 3
ORTHOPAEDIC SPECIALISTS: Goodman Files Suit in Conn. Super. Ct.
OXY USA: Rider Appeals Class Certification Order to 10th Circuit
PACIFIC RIM: Dela Cruz Wins Class Certification Bid
PHILADELPHIA HOTEL: Swartz Sues Over Inaccessible Property

PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Bartee Seeks to File Supplemental Notice
PROVIDENCE ST. JOSEPH: Bid to Dismiss Clarke Lawsuit Tossed
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: McCauley Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
R.J. REYNOLDS: Faces Class Suit Over Vaporizer Devices False Ads
RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Ball Sues Over Unprotected Private Info

RAMAPO MANOR: Faces Doherty Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
RAVALLI COUNTY, MT: Appeals Court Order in Leonard Suit to 9th Cir.
RC FL SHOPPES: Property Has Architectural Barriers, Saenz Says
RESTORIX HEALTH: Faces Wells Suit Over Clients' Compromised Info
RUGS.COM LLC: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid in Perkins Suit

SELECT MEDIA: Discloses Sensitive Info to Third Parties, Suit Says
SHENZHEN SMOORE: Faces H.H. Suit Over Anticompetitive Scheme
SHERRYL RANATZA: Miller's Bid for TRO, Prelim. Injunction Tossed
SMEG USA: Senior Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
SPARKLE AND SWAG: Williamson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation

SPIRIT AIRLINES: Seeks Reversal of Magistrate Judge's Order
TBMF ONE: Payne Balks at Property's Architectural Barriers
TICKETMASTER LLC: Class Cert Hearing in Madrigal Set for Dec. 8
TIGER SUGAR: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Wills Suit Alleges
TIO NACHO: Faces Fernandez Suit Over Blind's Access to Website

TRE MONELLI: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fernandez Claims
TREACE MEDICAL: Court Names Rolnick Kramer as Lead Plaintiff
UNITED STATES: Immigrants Sues Over Unlawful Courthouse Arrests
URBAN ATELIER: Faces Pesantez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
VAN LEEUWEN: Faces Wills Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store

VESTA MINE: Bid to Permit Supplemental Briefing Tossed
VIRGINIA: Files an Appeal From Court Order in Mattocks Suit
WOODS GROVE: Hernandez Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
WS NUTRITION: Senior Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
YUMMYEARTH INC: Senior Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Co. Still Receives Exposure Claims


                            *********

1STDIBS.COM INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Williams Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DARNELL WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated Plaintiff v. 1stdibs.com, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-07371 (N.D. Ill., July 1, 2025) is a civil rights action
against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://1stdibs.com,
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers
that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using
keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive
and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy,
incorrectly formatted lists, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link
texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels
for interactive elements, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of
adequate labeling of form fields, redundant links where adjacent
links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that
transactions be performed solely with a mouse.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
1stdibs' policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.

1stdibs.com, Inc. operates the website that offers a selection of
products, such as sofas, chairs, wardrobes, tables, lamps,
pendants, sculptures, mirrors, clocks, paintings, earrings,
bracelets, necklaces, watches, dresses, jackets, boots, sandals,
bags, and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alison Chan, Esq.
          EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
          68-29 Main Street
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Telephone: (630) 478-0856
          E-mail: achan@ealg.law

AFLAC INCORPORATED: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Sandoro Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID SANDORO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AFLAC INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No.
4:25-cv-00211-CDL (M.D. Ga., July 1, 2025) is an action against the
Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
individuals' highly valuable personally identifiable information
and protected health information.

By collecting and storing individuals' PII and PHI, the Defendant
has a resulting duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard
the PII and PHI with which it was entrusted against unauthorized
access and disclosure through reasonable and adequate security
measures. Despite Defendant's duty to safeguard the PII and PHI
with which it was entrusted, and the foreseeability of a data
breach, Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive information stored
by Defendant on its computer system was accessed and acquired by
unauthorized third parties during a data breach that occurred on or
around June 12, 2025, says the suit.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to
implement and follow basic, standard security procedures,
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI are now in the hands of
cybercriminals, asserts the suit.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class, brings claims
for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and
declaratory judgment, seeking damages, with attorneys' fees, costs,
and expenses, and appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief.

Aflac Incorporated provides supplemental health insurance products
in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Withers, Esq.
          WITHERS LAW FIRM PC
          8 East Liberty Street
          Savannah, GA 31401
          Telephone: (912) 447-8400
          E-mail: TWithers@witherslawfirmpc.com

               - and -

          Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246  
          E-mail: nickc@lcllp.com
                  gary@lcllp.com

AMAG PHARMA: Class Settlement in Maher Gets Initial Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ACHEL MAHER, et al,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, V. AMAG
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00152-JXN-JBC (D.N.J.), the
Hon. Judge Julien Xavier Neals entered an order:

-- granting preliminary approval of class action settlement,

-- certifying a settlement class for settlement purposes,

-- approving the parties' proposed notice program,

-- setting a final approval hearing date, and

-- granting related relief.

  1. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), the
     Settlement Class, defined as follows, is preliminarily
     certified for the purpose of settlement only:
     "All natural persons who took, were prescribed, purchased,
     paid for, or otherwise incurred out-of-pocket costs in
     connection with treatment with Makena in the United States,
     from March 8, 2019 through the date of Preliminary Approval."

  2. The Settlement Class excludes: (1) Any judge presiding over
     the Litigation, their staff and their immediate family
     members; (2) Defendant; (3) any of Defendant's subsidiaries,
     parents or affiliates, and its and their officers, directors,

     employees, legal representatives, heirs, successors, or
     assigns; (4) Class Counsel and counsel for Defendant; and (5)

     any persons who timely exclude themselves from the Settlement

     Class in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section
     VI of the Settlement Agreement.

  3. The Plaintiffs Rachael Maher, Marina Gomez, Rebecca Torres,
     Brittany Bonds, Teresa Faughnan, Ebony Odommorris, Molly
     O'Hara, and Brandy Silas are appointed as Class
     Representatives of the Settlement Class.

  4. Richard M. Paul III, Laura C. Fellows, Bruce D. Greenberg,
     and Stuart Talley are appointed as Class Counsel for the
     Settlement Class.

  5. The Court stays this Action pending final approval of the
     Settlement, and enjoins, pending final approval of the
     Settlement, any actions brought by the named Plaintiffs
     concerning a Released Claim.

  6. The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on Jan. 12, 2026

     at 10:30 am.

AMAG is an American pharmaceutical company developing products that
treat iron deficiency anemia (IDA) in adult patients.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 11, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tANMzi at no extra
charge.[CC]

AMAZON.COM INC: Wins Dismissal of Class Suit Over Prime Video Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yuvraj Malik of Stocktwits reports that a judge on Wednesday, July
16, dismissed a proposed class action lawsuit against Amazon.com's
decision to feature ads on Prime Video for paid subscribers unless
they pay extra for ad-free viewing, according to a Reuters report.

Amazon introduced ads on its streaming service in the U.S. in early
2024, gradually expanding the ad-supported model to more users
domestically and in select international markets.

The streaming service began showing ads by default to users on its
base tier, which costs $8.99 per month, and rolled out an ad-free
viewing plan for $11.98. The prices for the annual plans were
similarly bumped up.

In February, Amazon faced a proposed lawsuit in a Seattle court,
which alleged that the company violated the terms of its agreement
and Washington state consumer protection laws.

Plaintiffs said Amazon had led them to believe the Prime Video
would remain ad-free as per their existing subscription plans.

According to the report, U.S. District Judge Barbara Jacobs
Rothstein concluded, however, that the ads were a "benefit
modification" specifically contemplated and authorized by Amazon
and the subscribers.

The dismissal comes as Amazon expands its Prime Video business by
introducing ads and adding more live sports content. The moves are
aimed at boosting revenue and user base at a time when streaming
growth has slowed from its peak during the COVID lockdown era.

Amazon does not break down the revenue from Prime Video. In 2024,
the company's Subscription Services, which include Prime Video and
other Prime services, accounted for about 7% of the company's total
revenue.

AMZN shares are up 1.7% year-to-date. [GN]

AMAZON.COM.DEDC: Filing for Renewed Class Cert Bid Due August 15
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VACCARO v.
AMAZON.COM.DEDC, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-11852-GC-TJB (D.N.J.), the
Hon. Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni entered an order setting the
following deadlines regarding the Plaintiff's renewed motion for
class certification:

  -- Deadline to file renewed motion:           Aug. 15, 2025

  -- Deadline to file opposition brief:         Sept. 12, 2025

  -- Deadline to file reply brief:              Sept. 26, 2025

Amazon.com.dedc offers towing mirrors, air suspension, retainer
clips kits, and wheel chocks.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 11, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KbEikJ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER LLC
          9 Tanner Street, Suite 101
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Telephone: (856) 685.7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685.7417
          E-mail: mmiller@swartz-legal.com

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Must Provide Discovery Records by August 15
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Debra Duke, v. American
Express Company, Case No. 4:23-cv-00125-RM-LCK (D. Ariz.), the Hon.
Judge Lynnette Kimmins entered an order granting the Plaintiff's
motion to compel.

-- On or before Aug. 15, 2025, Defendant American Express shall
    provide the following discovery to Plaintiff: records
    reflecting each attempt by Defendant or a vendor on
    Defendant's behalf to place a pre-recorded or artificial voice

    call to a phone number (not identified as a landline in
    Defendant's records) for which Defendant's records reflect at
    least one instance of a wrong party/never call notation on an
    account associated with the phone number, for all Amex
    accounts during the class period.

The Court further entered an order that the following deadlines
will govern the remainder of the pretrial litigation period:

   1. The Plaintiff shall file her motion for class certification
      and disclose class experts on or before Oct. 17, 2025.

   2. The Defendant shall respond to the motion for class
      certification and disclose rebuttal class experts on or
      before Nov. 21, 2025.

   3. The Plaintiff may file a reply regarding the motion for
      class certification on or before Dec. 5, 2025.

   4. The parties' deadline for initial expert disclosures,
      separate and apart from experts related to class
      certification, is Nov. 14, 2025.


   5. The deadline for general rebuttal expert disclosures, if
      any, is Dec. 5, 2025.

   6. All discovery shall be completed on or before Dec. 19, 2025.


   7. Dispositive motions are due forty-five (45) days after the
      Court issues a final ruling on the motion for class
      certification.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated the requested
information is relevant. And Defendant has not demonstrated that
producing it has significant privacy implications or is unduly
burdensome.

Duckworth's deposition revealed that the 3,133 numbers disclosed by
Defendant had been gathered through a process that almost certainly
reduced the data set requested by Plaintiff and ordered by the
Court in September 2024.

Thus, Defendant's production did not mirror what the Court believed
it represented or what the Plaintiff requested, and it excluded
possible members of the intended class that could be covered under
the TCPA.

The Complaint alleges that Defendant violated the "Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by making pre-recorded calls to consumers'
phone numbers without first obtaining their prior express consent."


As to herself, Plaintiff alleges that she received unwanted calls
on her cell phone from Defendant beginning in August 2022 up to
Nov. 1, 2022. She repeatedly notified Defendant to stop calling her
and that she was not a customer.

The Plaintiff seeks to bring a claim on behalf of a class that she
identified, in a court hearing, as "all persons who received a
prerecorded call to their cellular telephone number using an
artificial voice or prerecorded voice who are not account holders
of defendant."

American is an American bank holding company and multinational
financial services corporation that specializes in payment cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 11, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fCyk8L at no extra
charge.[CC]

ANN MARIE ALLEN: Court Tosses Medina SAC with Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAWN HEPIKIYA MEDINA,
JUSTIN HORTON, MADELAINE THOMPSON, LUKE MELVIN LEWIS, MARCOS
HERNANDEZ, DENISE ANN BEIERLE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. THE HON. ANN MARIE MCIFF ALLEN, THE
HON. JEREMIAH HUMES, THE HON. CHRISTINE JOHNSON, THE HON. THOMAS
LOW, and THE HON. MATTHEW BELL, in their official capacities, Case
No. 4:21-cv-00102-DN (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge David Nuffer entered
an order granting the Defendants second motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' second amended complaint, filed Sept. 27, 2022, with
prejudice under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and
12(b)(1).

Six individuals and on behalf all others similarly situated brought
claims alleging that their constitutional rights were violated
after they were arrested and held in custody on the sole condition
of posting a monetary bail amount.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 11, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oOrDuH at no extra
charge.[CC]

ARCHERY TRADE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Equipment Price Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit alleges the Archery Trade Association (ATA) has
conspired with numerous manufacturers, distributors and retailers,
including Bass Pro Shops, Dick's Sporting Goods and Cabela's, among
others, to artificially inflate the prices of bowhunting and
archery equipment.

According to the 79-page antitrust lawsuit, the ATA and its
"co-conspirators" have since at least 2014 engaged in a coordinated
scheme to raise the prices of and prevent price competition at the
retail level for archery products such as bows, arrows, arrowheads,
targets and related accessories. The suit contends that the
defendants -- which include manufacturers Bowtech, Hoyt Archery and
Mathews Archery, among others—have set an artificial price floor
for the sale of these products by collectively implementing minimum
advertised pricing (MAP) policies and working together to ensure
retailers charge at or above the established rates.

The case claims that the ATA has facilitated the agreement to
restrict price competition through MAP policies, and repeatedly
pushed its members -- some of the most prominent archery product
manufacturers, distributors and retailers in the United States—to
jointly enforce the policies industry-wide.

For example, retail members make efforts to withhold business
dealings from manufacturers that do not adopt or enforce MAP
policies and attempt to work instead with those that do, the
complaint charges.

The alleged agreement between the ATA and its members and their
coordinated enforcement of MAP policies violate federal and state
antitrust laws and have had a large-scale impact on the industry,
the filing contends.

"First, by eliminating the ability of competing retailers to
attract customers by publicly advertising lower retail prices, MAPs
reduce retailers' incentives to compete on price because those
lower prices do not entice incremental business to shop at the
retailer. Second, whatever limited incentives to offer discounts on
retail prices remain after MAPs are adopted, MAPs set an
artificially high retail price from which price negotiations are
initiated, ensuring that actual transaction prices will be higher
than would otherwise be the case."

The archery price-fixing lawsuit alleges that as a result of the
foregoing, consumers have paid more for archery products than they
would have absent the anticompetitive conduct, while the defendants
have reaped supracompetitive profits.

"In general, bows can cost consumers hundreds of dollars; arrows
can cost more than $100 for six-packs; arrowheads can cost around
$40 for 3-packs; and targets range in cost from $50 to hundreds of
dollars," the suit explains, adding that retail profit margins are,
generally speaking, "about 27% on bows and 40% on other Archery
Products."

As the case tells it, the ATA provides numerous opportunities for
its members to meet and coordinate their apparent MAP policy
enforcement efforts, including through exclusive annual trade shows
and a members-only online discussion forum called ATA Connect. The
ATA's Board of Directors and Retail Council, which is led by the
former's retail members, are also knowingly involved in and support
the promotion of these practices, the complaint claims.

The filing asserts that in recent years, concerns that the success
of the allegedly anticompetitive agreement would "draw legal
scrutiny" led the ATA to scrub its website of any "potentially
problematic references" to its pivotal role in the coordinated
implementation and enforcement of industry-wide MAP policies.

The bowhunting and archery products involved in the case include
bows such as compound bows, recurve bows, longbows and crossbows,
as well as their components; arrows (minus the arrowhead) and
components such as the shaft, fletching and nock; arrowheads, or
arrowpoints, including broadheads and field points; targets,
including bag targets, foam targets and 3D targets; and accessories
such as bow cases, arrow quivers, sights, scopes and stabilizers.

The lawsuit looks to represent all individuals and entities in the
United States or its territories that, at any time since January 1,
2014, directly purchased archery products manufactured or
distributed by an ATA member. [GN]

ASB BANK: Claimants Offer $300MM Class Settlement in Breach Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gyles Beckford of RNZ reports that claimants in a class action law
suit against the ANZ and ASB banks have offered to settle a
four-year case for breaches of credit laws for more than $300
million.

The offer has been disclosed at the finance and expenditure select
committee hearing into proposed amendments to the credit contracts
and consumer finance act (CCCFA), to close loopholes which might
expose banks and other financial services companies to action for
historic minor breaches of the laws.

The law suit involves more than 150,000 customers of the two banks
affected between 2015 and 2019 over breaches of the laws for not
making proper disclosures resulting in overcharging of fees and
interest.

"We're making this offer to protect our clients and the country
from the uncertainty National [government] will create if it pushes
these amendments through," the lawyer leading the class action
Scott Russell said.

The consumer group claims proposed changes to the act could
retrospectively undermine their legal action.

"If passed, the amendments would apply retrospectively specifically
targeting the class action. They would allow the banks to argue for
reduced refunds or to erase them altogether - effectively giving
them a free pass for misconduct between 2015 and 2019."

The class action was being jointly funded by Australia-based
litigation funder CASL and New Zealand litigation funder LPF Group,
which would take a percentage of any settlement or court award.

Settlement rejected

ANZ speedily rejected the settlement offer as a "stunt".

"The proposed settlement appears to be primarily driven by the
financial interests of the litigation funders and the proposed
resolution does not reflect the nature or scale of the underlying
issue," the bank said in a statement.

"The litigation funders are worried because their claim is not just
or equitable but instead involves them getting a potential windfall
from unclear and bad law."

The banking industry has also claimed that the loopholes if not
fixed might result in a $13 billion threat to the financial
system.

One of the class action counsel Davey Salmon KC told the select
committee the industry's claims were not real.

"There is not a menace here."

"Nor is there a major exposure for the banks, it is not said by the
banks . . . that there is a high level of risk from this claim. The
sum sought will not affect the viability or the balance sheets
materially of either defendant bank.

"The plaintiffs have in recent times sent an indicative proposal
for a settlement in the order of $306 and $309 million."

ANZ and ASB have already paid more than $43m to recompense affected
customers in a settlement with the Commerce Commission back in
2020. [GN]

BARCLAYS PLC: Knapp Appeals Denied Reconsideration Bid to 2nd Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY KNAPP, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing the lawsuit entitled Jeffrey Knapp, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Barclays PLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-2583, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks compensation for the Securities sold pursuant to a defective
registration statement filed by the Defendants in violation of the
Securities Act of 1933.

On Nov. 17, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which
the Defendants moved to dismiss on Jan. 17, 2024.

On Mar. 13, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.

On Apr. 8, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' consolidated second amended class action complaint,
which Judge Lewis J. Liman granted on Mar. 21, 2025.

The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs' failure to state a claim
to relief does not appear to be the product of inartful pleading
but rather substantive issues with the Plaintiffs' claims that
would make repleading futile. The second amended complaint is
therefore dismissed with prejudice.

On Apr. 18, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration, which Judge Liman denied on June 3, 2025.

The appellate case is entitled May v. Barclays PLC, Case No.
25-1631, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on July 2, 2025. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants JEFFREY KNAPP, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Mazin A. Sbaiti, Esq.
          SBAITI & COMPANY PLLC
          2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 4900w
          Dallas, TX 75201

Defendants-Appellees BARCLAYS PLC, et al. are represented by:

          Jeffrey Thomas Scott, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004

BARNARD CONSTRUCTION: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Feb. 27, 2026
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB MCCOY, Individually
and for Others Similarly Situated, v. BARNARD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-02575-DDD-TPO (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge
Timothy P. O'Hara entered an amended scheduling order as follows:

-- The Defendant shall file any motions       July 24, 2025
    for extension of time and/or motions
    to stay discovery no later than:

-- The Plaintiff shall file a response        July 31, 2025.
    to any motions for extension of time
    and/or motions to stay discovery filed
    by the Defendant no later than:

-- The Deadline for Joinder of Parties        Jan. 6, 2025
    and Amendment of Pleadings:

-- Class Discovery Cut-off:                   Jan. 30, 2026

-- Class Certification Motion Deadline:       Feb. 27, 2026

The Plaintiff brings the instant suit as a class action against
Barnard to recover unpaid wages under Colorado Wage Claim Act
(CWCA), the Colorado Minimum Wage Act (CMWA), and their
implementing regulations (COMPS Orders). McCoy alleges that Barnard
utilized policies whereby it knowingly subjected McCoy and his
hourly colleagues to working off the clock without pay, including
overtime hours.

McCoy brings his claims on behalf of himself and the following
proposed class:

    "All miners and similar job titles in Colorado who worked at
    any time during the past 6 years through final resolution of
    this action ("Miners")."

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from Dec. 5, 2022,
until Sept. 27, 2023, at Defendant's Chimney Hollow project located
in Larimer County, Colorado.

Barnard is a large heavy-civil construction company.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 11, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tjCPRm at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alyssa J. White, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          E-mail: awhite@mybackwages.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey H. McClelland, Esq.
          Katherine M. Svinarich, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 3500
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (303) 861-7760
          Facsimile: (303) 861-7767
          E-mail: Jeffrey.McClelland@lewisbrisbois.com

BEVERLY TEACHERS: Strike Led to Uncertainty, Stress, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Molly Farrar, writing for Boston.com, reports that two families
filed a class action lawsuit against the Beverly teachers union
after a historic 12-day strike last year, claiming the strike
financially cost parents and caused emotional distress.

Janelle Donahue, who has three children in the Beverly Public
Schools, and Erica Kostro, who has a high schooler, are asking the
Essex Superior Court to order parents to be compensated for the
strike.

"Each day that went by brought more acrimony, uncertainty, and
stress," the lawsuit filed in Essex Superior Court said, noting one
student's AP test schedule and her varsity basketball games.

The 10th grade student, represented by her parent, also "quickly
became bored and restless." She was "disturbed" when she saw
teachers picketing, the lawsuit read. "She did not understand why
her teachers seemed happy not to be teaching and not being in the
classroom with her."

Public employees, including teachers, are prohibited from striking
or encouraging a strike under state law. One bill in the
legislature last year would give public sector workers, with the
exception of public safety employees, the ability to go on strike
after six months of negotiations. The Massachusetts Teachers
Association supports the legalization of teacher strikes.

Lawsuit accuses four educators' unions of encouraging strikes

The lawsuit names the Beverly Teachers Association as part of the
MTA, which did not reply to a request for comment. The lawsuit
alleges that the BTA planned their strike in advance and defied
court orders to return to work.

Teachers unions in Malden, Brookline, and Newton -- which have all
previously held strikes of their own -- are also named as
defendants and accused of conspiring and aiding and abetting, the
lawsuit alleges.

The claims against the Malden Education Association, the Brookline
Educators Union, and the Newton Teachers Association include
pro-strike, supportive social media messages and donations to
strike funds.

The MTA is accused of encouraging strikes, with leadership speaking
at rallies and congratulating educators on social media. The suit
alleges that MTA President Max Page personally donated $500 to the
Beverly strike fund, citing a GoFundMe.

"MTA is liable as an affiliate union for encouraging, supporting,
and ratifying the illegal and tortious behavior of its local union
and its members," the lawsuit said.

Boston-based lawyer Ilya Feoktistov and Daniel Suhr, a lawyer based
in Chicago, represent the parents. The pair also represent Newton
parents suing for damages related to the 11-day educators' strike
there in early 2024. Suhr filed a similar lawsuit against the
Chicago Teachers Union for their 2022 strike, which was
unsuccessful, he said Wednesday, July 16.

"The judge basically said that the state's collective bargaining
law preempted any common law claims by parents," he said. "We think
that's wrong, and we're appealing."

The parents are suing for $17 million and asking the courts to
rescind the collective bargaining agreement that teachers described
as a "massive victory," the lawsuit said. The lawsuit said the 16
percent contractual increase to wages through 2027 amounts to $12
million.

Through court injunctions to send teachers back to work, judges can
impose fines on the unions. The BTA paid at least $110,000 in fines
from the first day of the strike but didn't have any additional
funds to pay, according to court documents. They incurred at least
$350,000 in fines overall.

When asked about the Beverly suit, Suhr said the teachers' actions
teaches students "that they can ignore rules that are inconvenient
to their selfish goals."

"When teachers go on an illegal strike, they are placing their own
demands ahead of their students' needs. Teachers have a
responsibility to be in the classroom, and families face real harm
when that responsibility is intentionally and illegally
disregarded," Suhr said. "The unions' unlawful behavior here sets a
terrible example for young, impressionable students who admire and
respect their teachers." [GN]

BLIBAUM AND ASSOCIATES: Court Limits Discovery in Dixon
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dixon et al., v. Blibaum
and Associates, P.A. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00029-JRR (D. Md.),
the Hon. Judge Chelsea J. Crawford entered an order limiting
discovery beyond the Plaintiffs to only the rental licensure status
of Henderson-Webb's other Maryland properties and any failureto-pay
rent actions filed by Blibaum within the timeframes set out in the
class definitions.

Specifically, with respect to Class 1, the Plaintiffs may obtain
information regarding any failure-to pay rent actions filed by
Blibaum in Maryland within one year of the filing of the instant
lawsuit.

With respect to Class 2, the Plaintiffs may obtain information
regarding the rental licensure status of Henderson-Webb's other
Maryland properties within three years of the filing of the instant
lawsuit.

The Court may order further discovery of debt collection
activities, rental ledgers, etc., if the aforementioned discovery
reveals evidence that other properties lacked valid rental
licenses. The parties should jointly advise the Court whether such
discovery is appropriate upon completion of this initial phase of
discovery and indicate whether an extension of discovery is
warranted in light of this Order.

The parties do not appear to dispute that the named Plaintiffs are
entitled to discovery regarding their specific factual allegations
relating to The Bluffs and the period during which The Bluffs
allegedly operated without a license. Nothing in this Order is
intended to contravene any agreement or understanding between the
parties with regard to such discovery, which the Court understands
is already underway.

The Plaintiffs allege that between July 7, 2022, and July 6, 2023,
Henderson-Webb operated The Bluffs without a valid rental license.

The Plaintiffs entered a lease to reside at The Bluffs on Sept. 14,
2022, and fell behind on rent payments thereafter.

The Plaintiffs do not specifically allege that Henderson-Webb
operates or manages other unlicensed properties in Maryland, nor do
Plaintiffs specifically allege that Blibaum has engaged in debt
collection activities for other unlicensed properties. Rather, the
Complaint includes two class definitions that establish classes of
tenants who resided in any unlicensed property and were subject to
collection activities for unlicensed rent, and/or who made rent
payments during a period in which a property was unlicensed. Id. ¶
29. Specifically, the classes are defined as follows:

Class 1 -- Defendant Blibaum and Associates, P.A.

    "All tenants of any Unlicensed Property who were sued in a
    failure-to-pay rent case or otherwise had collection efforts
    directed towards them with respect to Unlicensed Rent by the
    Defendant Blibaum and Associates, P.A. within one year of the
    filing of this lawsuit."

Class 2 -- Defendant Hendersen-Webb, Inc.

    "All tenants of any Unlicensed Property who, within three
    years of the filing of this lawsuit: a) made rental payments
    through a payment portal set up by Defendant Hendersen-Webb,
    Inc. or its agents that provided purported rental balances
    during any Unlicensed Period, and/or b) who did not timely
    make one or more rental payments for Unlicensed Rent and had
    other collection activities directed towards them by the
    Defendant Hendersen-Webb, Inc. or its agents regarding the
    Unlicensed Rent, including providing past due notices,
    telephone calls asserting an unpaid balance, notices of intent

    to file failure to pay rent actions, or the filing of failure
    to pay rent actions."

Blibaum is a law firm that performed debt collection services on
behalf of Henderson-Webb.

A copy of the Court's memorandum dated July 11, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8akRQ1 at no extra
charge.[CC]

BRIDGES EXPERIENCE: Little Sues Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------
Hayden Little, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BRIDGES EXPERIENCE, INC., Case No. 7:25-cv-01292-BO-RN
(E.D.N.C., July 2, 2025), is brought on behalf of all persons who
entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable
Information ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI")
(collectively "Private Information") that was impacted in a data
breach that Defendant publicly disclosed in June 2025 (the "Data
Breach" or the "Breach"), arising from Defendant's failure to
properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was
entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and
transfer that information.

Recently, Defendant learned that an unauthorized third-party gained
access to its IT Network on or about December 2, 2024, to on or
about January 22, 2025. In response, Defendant launched an
investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach.
The investigation determined that on or about June 3, 2025, certain
files were accessed and/or acquired by the unauthorized
third-party.

Upon information and belief, the following types of Private
Information may have been affected in the Data Breach: name, Social
Security number, medical information. On June 26, 2025, Defendant
issued a notice of public disclosure and started sending out notice
letter to individuals impacted. Defendant failed to take
precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information
secure.

The Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all
reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information
collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant
solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from Plaintiff
and Class Members Private Information, yet breached its duty by
failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices.

As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice
process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was
exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered
and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses
caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or
diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the
Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing
identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff's personal data was compromised.

The Defendant is a clinical experience software platform that works
with students, universities, and hospitals to facilitate the
clinical rotations process.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
          WILKERSON JUSTUS PLLC
          PO Box 54
          Asheville, NC 28802
          Phone: (828) 316-6902
          Facsimile: (828) 257-2767
          Email: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Mariya Weekes, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Phone: (954) 647-1866
          Fax: (786) 879-7520
          Email: mweekes@milberg.com

               - and -

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A.
          1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 525-4100
          Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com

CBRE INC: Collantes Sues Over Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------
Cristine Collantes, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CBRE, INC.; CBRE GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, Case No. 25CV467831 (Cal. Super. Ct., June
10, 2025), is brought to recover, among other things, unpaid wages,
unreimbursed business expenses, benefits, interest, attorneys'
fees, costs and expenses, and penalties pursuant to Labor Codes

Through this action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a
systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the California
Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders,
all of which contribute to Defendants' deliberate unfair
competition. The Plaintiff is informed and believe, and thereon
alleges, that Defendants have increased their profits by violating
state wage and hour laws by, among other things: failing to pay all
wages (including minimum wages and overtime wages); failing to
provide lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof;
failing to authorize or permit lawful rest breaks or provide
compensation in lieu thereof; failing to reimburse necessary
business-related costs; failing to provide accurate itemized wage
statements; failing to pay wages timely during employment; and
failing to pay all wages due upon separation of employment, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants during the relevant time
periods.

The Defendants provide services or goods throughout
California..[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: (949) 379-6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
          Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com

CLARK COUNTY, NV: Sued Over Short-Term Rental Regulatory Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
GREATER LAS VEGAS SHORT-TERM RENTAL ASSOCIATION; JACQUELINE FLORES;
LOUIS KOORNDYK; ESTRELITA KOORNDYK; HAAN'S PROPERTIES LLC; LK'S
PROPERTIES LLC; THOMAS M. MCKANNON, DEBRA HANSEN; JOHN HANSEN, TROY
UEHLING; PHILIP JOHNSON; SAMUEL HANKINS; LISA HANKINS; 5402 PALM
MESA LLC; and AIRBNB, INC., Plaintiffs v. CLARK COUNTY, a political
subdivision of the State of Nevada, and AARON D. FORD, in his
official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Nevada,
Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01173 (D. Nev., June 30, 2025)
challenges provisions of Clark County's short-term rental
regulatory scheme and Nevada's Assembly Bill 363, together, (the
"Challenged Provisions") on the basis that they unconstitutionally
burden Plaintiffs' property and liberty rights guaranteed by U.S.
and Nevada law.

According to the complaint, the Challenged Provisions burden these
fundamental rights and upend this enduring tradition by making it
unduly burdensome, and in some cases impossible, for Plaintiffs and
similarly situated Nevadans to operate their property as short-term
rentals. They impose these burdens through an arbitrary and onerous
labyrinth of interlocking regulations. The Challenged Provisions
further encumber Plaintiffs' rights by imposing unlawful and
burdensome requirements on platforms, such as Airbnb, that assist
residents in getting their properties to the short term rental
market.

As a result, the Challenged Provisions strip Plaintiffs of their
core property rights to lease and to include others on their
properties without just compensation; violate Plaintiffs' deeply
rooted fundamental right to operate their homes on a short-term
basis; and ignore an array of other constitutional and statutory
guarantees including the rights to be free from unreasonable
searches and seizures and excessive fines. Because the Challenged
Provisions impose unjustified and unconstitutional burdens on
fundamental property and liberty interests, and do so for
illegitimate, arbitrary, and irrational reasons, they violate both
U.S. and Nevada law, says the suit.

Plaintiff Greater Las Vegas Short-Term Rental Association is a
community-driven non-profit advocacy group that represents the
interests of owners and patrons of short-term rental homes
throughout the greater Las Vegas area.

Clark County is a political subdivision of the State of
Nevada.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark A. Hutchison, Esq.
          Shannon R. Wilson, Esq.
          Ramez Ghally, Esq.
          HUTCHISON & STEFFEN, PLLC
          Peccole Professional Park
          10080 West Alta Drive, Suite 200
          Las Vegas, NV 89145
          Telephone: (702) 385-2500
          Facsimile: (702) 385-2086
          E-mail: mhutchison@hutchlegal.com
                  swilson@hutchlegal.com
                  rghally@hutchlegal.com    

               - and -

          Paul D. Clement, Esq.
          CLEMENT & MURPHY, PLLC
          706 Duke Street
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (202) 742-8900
          E-mail: paul.clement@clementmurphy.com

CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Faces Suit Over Unreturned NDT Remains
------------------------------------------------------------
PAINTERS DC #30 REALTY, LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
CONSTELLATION ENERGY GENERATION, LLC, a Pennsylvania Limited
Liability Company, NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation, COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation,
and NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, an ggency of the United States,
Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-07176 (N.D. Ill., June 26, 2025) is a
class action against the Defendants for declaratory judgment,
breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of the Illinois Public
Utilities Act.

Commonwealth Edison Company's ("ComEd's") customers have paid
several hundred million dollars into two nuclear decommissioning
trust funds ("NDTs") established to fund the decommissioning of two
nuclear power generation units which it built in Zion, Illinois.
Under Illinois law, any amounts remaining in these trusts after
payment of reasonable decommissioning costs are required to be
refunded to ComEd and distributed to ComEd's customers as soon as
practicable.

The two Zion units were decommissioned in 2023. Approximately $65
million, or more, remains in the trusts (the "NDT remainder").
These remaining amounts are required under ILCS 5/8-508.1(c)(3)(ii)
and (iii) and Illinois Commerce Commission Orders to be paid to
ComEd and returned to ComEd's customers.

The Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment and affirmative order
that:

   -- decommissioning is complete;

   -- with the completion of decommissioning, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission lacks jurisdiction over the NDTs, if it ever
had any;

   -- the current successor of ComEd with respect to the NDTs,
Constellation Energy Generation LLC, and the NDT trustee, Northern
Trust Corporation, are required to refund the NDT remainder to
ComEd or directly to a fund for payment to ComEd's customers
pursuant to further order of the Court; and

   -- if the NDT remainder is paid to ComEd, then ComEd shall pay
the money into a fund for payment to ComEd's customers pursuant to
further order of the Court.

In addition, the Plaintiffs seek affirmative relief against ComEd
for breach of fiduciary duties and violation of the Illinois Public
Utilities Act, 220 ILCS 5/5-201, because ComEd had a duty to return
the excess funds to its customers.

Plaintiff Painters DC #30 Realty, LLC is an electricity customer of
ComEd, and as such has a beneficial interest in the amounts
remaining in the Zion trusts.

Constellation Energy Generation, LLC is a Pennsylvania limited
liability company with its headquarters in Baltimore, Maryland.
Constellation Energy Generation is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Constellation Energy Corporation. CEG was spun off from Exelon
Corporation in early 2022, and is now independent from Exelon
Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
          Matthew E. Van Tine, Esq.
          MILLER LAW LLC
          53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1320
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 332-3400
          E-mail: MMiller@millerlawllc.com
                  MVanTine@millerlawllc.com

               - and -

          Daniel J. Sponseller, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL J. SPONSELLER
          409 Broad Street, Suite 200
          Sewickley, PA 15143
          Telephone: (412) 741-4422
          E-mail: dsponseller@sponsellerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Brandon M. Anderson, Esq.
          JACOBS, BURNS, ORLOVE & HERNANDEZ LLP
          1 N. LaSalle, Suite 1620
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 327-3461
          E-mail: BAnderson@jbosh.com

DAVE'S TOWING: Appeals Ruling in Civil Suit to Ky. Ct. of Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVE'S TOWING SERVICE, INC. is taking a cross appeal from a court
order in the lawsuit entitled Scott O'Loughlin, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Dave's Towing Service, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
17-CI-5454, in the Jefferson Circuit Court, Louisville, Kentucky.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant improperly impounded
vehicles by failing to comply with Louisville Metro's Private
Towing Ordinance.

The appellate case is entitled Dave's Towing Service, Inc. vs.
Scott O'Loughlin, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, et al., Case No. 25-0842, in the Kentucky Court
of Appeals, filed on July 3, 2025. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees SCOTT O'LOUGHLIN, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Robert Lawrence Astorino, Jr., Esq.
          STEIN WHATLEY ATTORNEYS PLLC
          2525 Bardstown Rd., #101
          Louisville, KY 40205
          Telephone: (502) 553-4750
          Facsimile: (502) 459-2687

                  - and -

          Joseph Donald Satterley, Esq.
          SATTERLEY & KELLEY PLLC
          8700 Westport Road, Suite 202
          Louisville, KY 40242
          Telephone: (855) 385-9532
          Facsimile: (502) 814-5500

Defendant-Appellant DAVE'S TOWING SERVICE, INC. is represented by:

          Nader George Shunnarah, Esq.
          SHUNNARAH LAW FIRM
          916 Lily Creek Road, Suite 201
          Louisville, KY 4024
          Telephone: (502) 200-9000

                  - and -

          Mark B. Wallace, Esq.
          WALLACE LAW LLC
          7403 St. Andrews Church Road
          Louisville, KY 40214
          Telephone: (502) 937-1125
          Facsimile: (502) 937-1117

DOORDASH INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over DashPass Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a Caviar
accountholder has filed a proposed class action lawsuit in which
she claims to have been charged by DoorDash without her knowledge
or authorization for a monthly DashPass subscription with a
deliberately complicated cancellation process.

The 15-page lawsuit alleges that DoorDash, which owns and operates
food delivery service Caviar, has misled the plaintiff and other
consumers into believing the DashPass subscription service
advertised on the Caviar app could be easily "cancel[led]
anytime."

The suit also contends that defendant Apple Payments Services has
allowed the credit cards of Apple Pay users to be charged without
Face ID verification or any other form of authentication, despite
advertising that the mobile wallet service requires such
verification to authorize a payment.

The plaintiff, a New York resident, says that in May of this year,
her credit card account showed a $9.99 charge for a DashPass
subscription from DoorDash. According to the case, the consumer
does not have a DoorDash account and has never subscribed to the
DashPass service offered by Caviar. In addition, the plaintiff's
Caviar account did not indicate an active DashPass subscription,
the complaint states.

What's more, the filing asserts that the consumer never entered her
credit card information into the Caviar app, opting instead to use
Apple Pay because of its ostensible Face ID verification
requirements.

The plaintiff claims that at no point did she use Face ID
verification to authorize an Apple Pay payment for a DashPass
subscription.

Per the suit, a call to DoorDash customer support confirmed that
the company had no record of the consumer ever having purchased a
DashPass subscription. The plaintiff says that when she requested
the charge be reversed, she was informed that DoorDash "had no way
of doing so" and that the "only way to resolve the issue was to
cancel her credit card."

The DashPass subscription lawsuit alleges that DoorDash has
intentionally designed the cancellation process to be "immensely
difficult."

"In fact, based on the reports of other users who were charged for
DashPass without their consent, if [the plaintiff] were to cancel
her credit card, the only way to stop DoorDash from charging the
new card would be to call the credit card company and block any and
all charges from DoorDash or Caviar indefinitely," the case
relays.

The lawsuit looks to represent all consumers who received
unauthorized charges for a DashPass subscription via Apple Pay
during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN]

DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Dixon Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Demetrius Dixon and Rajendra Rajcooar, individually, and on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. DYCOM
INDUSTRIES, INC., a Florida Corporation and UTILIQUEST LLC, a
Georgia Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
25STCV167866 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 10, 2025), is
brought for recovery of penalties under the Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), seeking monetary relief against
Defendants on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees to
recover, among other things, civil penalties, attorney's fees and
costs and expenses pursuant to Labor Codes.

The Plaintiff is informed and believes. and thereon alleges. That
Defendants have increased their profits by violating state wage and
hour laws by, among other things: Failing to pay all wages owed,
including minimum wage and overtime; Failing to provide lawful meal
periods or compensation in lieu thereof, Failing to authorize or
permit lawful rest periods or provide compensation in lieu thereof;
Failing to reimburse for business expenses; Willfully failing to
provide accurate semi-monthly itemized wage statements; and Failing
to pay all wages due upon separation of employment, says the
complaint.

The 22. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a Special Project
Technician from October 2022 through on June 2024.

DYCOM provides specialty contracting services to the
telecommunications infrastructure and utility industries in the
United States and California, offering services like engineering,
construction, maintenance, and installation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Isandra Fernandez, Esq.
          Anthony L. Draper, Esq.
          Minh Tam Do, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: (949) 387-7200
          Fax: (949) 387-6676
          Email: staff@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 isandra@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 anthony@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 minh@jameshawkinsaplc.com

EAST OHIO GAS: Arble Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHANIE ARBLE, et al.,
v. THE EAST OHIO GAS COMPANY d/b/a DOMINION ENERGY OHIO, et al.,
Case No. 5:24-cv-00747-BYP (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order granting amended motion for
court-facilitated notice to potential opt-in Plaintiffs pursuant to
29 U.S.C. section 216(b):

  (1) Recognizing, as an initial determination, the Plaintiff's
      proposed FLSA class defined as:

      "All current and former hourly employees and those working
      in call center positions who were required to log on to and
      boot up the Defendants' systems and applications prior to
      the start of their shifts that were employed by either the
      Defendant at any time in the period measured from three
      years prior to the filing of the Complaint to the present
      who did not receive any compensation for hours worked over
      40 hours in a workweek or overtime payment at a rate of one
      and one-half times their Regular Rate of Pay for all hours
      worked in a workweek in excess of 40 (hereinafter referred
      to as "SSPs" or "similarly-situated employees")."

  (2) Implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
      the Plaintiff's FLSA claim is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-
      mail) to the Plaintiff's proposed class as set forth above;
      and,

  (3) Requiring the Defendants to, within 14 days of this Court's
      order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by providing

      a list in electronic and importable format, of the names,
      addresses, and e-mail addresses of all potential opt-in
      plaintiffs who worked for the Defendants in the time frame
      specified by the Plaintiff as set forth in part (1).

The action seeks for unpaid overtime wages brought pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and filed as a collective action.

The Plaintiff Arble filed this action on April 26, 2024 and
subsequently added Dominion Energy, Inc. as a party on July 8,
2025, alleging that Defendants failed to pay her and similarly
situated individuals for all wages earned, including overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their respective
regular rates for the hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.

Dominion is a natural gas company.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 11, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AhTCEO at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rachel Sabo Friedmann, Esq.
          Dominick A. Kocak, Esq.
          THE FRIEDMANN FIRM LLC
          3740 Ridge Mill Drive
          Hilliard, OH 43026
          Telephone: (614) 610-9756
          Facsimile: (614) 737-9812
          E-mail: Rachel@TFFLegal.com
                  Dominick@TFFLegal.com

ENFIN CORP: Abdul-Aziz Sues Over Undisclosed Fees on Solar Loans
----------------------------------------------------------------
KHALIL ABDUL-AZIZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated and for the benefit of the general public,
Plaintiff v. ENFIN CORP., HATCH BANK, and DOES 1-10, Defendants,
Case No. 3:25-cv-01745-JO-AH (S.D. Cal., July 8, 2025), accuses the
Defendants of the Truth in Lending Act, state consumer protection
laws and common law, including by failing to disclose to Plaintiff
and the proposed Class the existence of a hidden fee Defendants
retained as part of the financing of residential solar panel
systems.

Despite the express requirement that it disclose any added charges
in connection with the solar financing agreements they offered to
customers, as to Plaintiff and the Class, Defendants elected to
conceal the hidden fee as part of the total loan principal,
omitting this material information and falsely representing that
the total loan amount went to pay for the actual cost of the solar
panel systems and installation.

Headquartered in Irvine, CA, EnFin Corp. offers residential solar
installation and home energy efficiency project loans. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roger N. Heller, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: rheller@lchb.com

                  - and -

          Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          222 2nd Avenue South, Suite 1640
          Nashville, TN 37201-2379
          Telephone: (615) 313-9000
          Facsimile: (615) 313-9965
          E-mail: mchalos@lchb.com

                  - and -

          Brad Ponder, Esq.
          PONDER LEGAL GROUP
          3221 M Street, NW
          Upper Floor
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (888) 201-0305
          Facsimile: (202) 988-2135
          E-mail: brad@ponderlegalgroup.com

EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Court OKs Bid to Consolidate Cases
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYLER BAKER; JENNIFER
BOZUE; LAURA BROOKMAN; ERIC HEARD; EDWIN WOODBURNE; and ROBERTA
WRIGHT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-04004-VMC-RDC (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Regina Cannon
entered an order granting the motions to consolidate and directing
the Clerk to:

  (1) File this Order in each of the above-captioned cases;

  (2) Close Case Nos. 1:24-cv-04033-VMC-RDC and 1:25-cv-02649-VMC-
      RDC; and

  (3) Consolidate Case Nos. 1:24-cv-04033-VMC-RDC and 1:25-cv-
      02649-VMC-RDC with Case No. 1:24-cv-04004-VMC-RDC (the "Lead

      Case").

The parties are advised to review any orders entered in the Lead
Case, and all future filings in these consolidated cases shall be
filed in the Lead Case.

If any party has not yet filed a Certificate of Interested Persons
("CIP"), as required by this Court's Local Rules, then such party
must do so by July 18, 2025.

Finally, the parties are ordered to file a proposed consolidated
and amended scheduling order to address all remaining pretrial
deadlines in the respective cases (e.g., class certification and
opposition, fact discovery and expert discovery, summary judgment,
etc.) by July 25, 2025.

Equifax offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and
analytical solutions.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 11, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WgGnZQ at no extra
charge.[CC]

ERIE INDEMNITY: Piazza Balks at Inadequate Computer Security System
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Piazza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Erie Indemnity Company, and Erie Insurance
Company, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00178 (W.D. Pa., June 27,
2025) seeks redress for Defendants' unlawful, willful and wanton
failure to protect the personal identifiable information of
thousands of individuals that was exposed in a major data breach of
Defendants' network in violation of its legal obligations.

In June 2025, an unknown actor gained access to Defendants'
inadequately protected computer systems. As a result, Plaintiff and
the Class Members have had their personal identifiable information,
including their names and Social Security numbers, exposed. In
carrying out its business, the Defendants obtains, collects, uses,
and derives a benefit from the PII of Plaintiff and the Class. As
such, the Defendants assumed the legal and equitable duties to
those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from
unauthorized access and intrusion.

Due to Defendants' negligence, cybercriminals obtained everything
they need to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial
and personal lives of thousands of individuals. The Defendants
betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and the other Class Members by
failing to properly safeguard and protect their personal
identifiable information and thereby enabling cybercriminals to
steal such valuable and sensitive information, alleges the suit.

Erie Indemnity Company engages in the insurance business and
operates as an attorney-in-fact. It manages affairs at the Erie
Insurance Exchange for the benefit of the policyholders.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Randi Kassan, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
           GROSSMAN, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 741-5600
          E-mail: rkassan@milberg.com

               - and -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
                  jaw@federmanlaw.com

ETSY INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Unlawful Data Tracking
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that a California man has filed a class
action lawsuit against Etsy Inc.

Why: The plaintiff alleges Etsy violated California privacy law by
using trackers to collect users' data without their consent.

Where: The Etsy class action was filed in California federal
court.

A new class action lawsuit filed against Etsy alleges the company
violated California privacy law by using trackers to collect users'
data without their consent.

Plaintiff Austin White filed the class action complaint against
Etsy in California federal court, alleging violations of California
privacy law.

According to the lawsuit, Etsy violated California's Invasion of
Privacy Act by using trackers on its website, etsy.com, to collect
users' data without their consent.

White claims Etsy installed tracking technologies, such as Google
Ads, Facebook Pixel and TikTok Tracker, on its website, which
collected detailed user information, including IP addresses,
browser and device type, pages visited and geolocation.

White alleges that Etsy failed to disclose this data collection in
its privacy policy, which misled users into thinking their data was
not being shared with third parties.

"Defendant omitted material facts from its privacy policy and/or
site interface and failed to inform users that their activities
would be tracked across the internet and linked to unique
identifiers for advertising and profiling purposes," the Etsy class
action states.

The lawsuit seeks to represent all California residents who
accessed Etsy's website and had their data collected by the
trackers.

White is suing for violations of CIPA and California's Unfair
Competition Law and is seeking statutory damages and injunctive
relief to prevent Etsy from continuing to use the trackers without
consent.

Another class action lawsuit filed in California federal court
accuses Meta of illegally collecting non-anonymized browsing
information from Android users.

The plaintiff is represented by Reuben D. Nathan of Nathan &
Associates APC and Ross Cornell of Law Offices of Ross Cornell
APC.

The Etsy data privacy class action lawsuit is White v. Etsy Inc.,
Case No. 4:25-cv-05644-KAW, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. [GN]

ETSY INC: White Sues Over Disclosed Users' Info to Third Parties
----------------------------------------------------------------
AUSTIN WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ETSY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:25-cv-05644 (N.D. Cal., July 3, 2025) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of California Penal Code and
California's Business and Professions Code.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of disclosing
customers' user information to third parties without prior consent.
According to the complaint, the Defendant installed, executed,
embedded, or injected tracking technologies on its website to
collect and disclose customers' user information to third parties.
The user data collected via the website were utilized by third
parties for their own independent purposes tied to broader
advertising ecosystems, profiling, and data monetization
strategies. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the
Plaintiff and similarly situated customers suffered damages.

Etsy, Inc. is a global e-commerce marketplace firm, headquartered
in Brooklyn, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
         NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
         2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200
         Newport Beach, CA 92663
         Telephone: (949) 270-2798
         Email: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com

                 - and -

         Ross Cornell, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC
         40729 Village Dr., Suite 8 - 1989
         Big Bear Lake, CA 92315
         Telephone: (562) 612-1708
         Email: rc@rosscornelllaw.com

EXXON MOBIL: Appeals Court Rejects Discrimination Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Golden of HR Dive reports that a former laboratory technician
for Exxon Mobil failed to show that the employer fired her on the
basis of her sex in part because she lacked evidence to counter the
company's claim that its decision hinged upon her poor performance,
the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held in a Monday, July 14,
decision.

The plaintiff's first and only performance review placed her in the
lowest-ranked performance category. Exxon gave her the option of
either taking a separation agreement or resigning immediately. She
chose the latter, per court documents, and sued the company for
discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, alleging Exxon erred in
its evaluation process and treated her less favorably than two male
co-workers who held the same title, work location and managers. A
district court ruled in favor of Exxon and the 7th Circuit
affirmed, finding that the two male employees were not proper
comparators and that the plaintiff had not shown that Exxon's
decision was pretextual.

Dive Insight:

In its decision, the 7th Circuit repeatedly referenced Exxon's
performance documentation of the plaintiff, at one point noting
that she "did not fare well in comparison" to other employees in
her cohort of "Management Assigned Category" workers, a category
that included new hires with three or more years of relevant
experience before joining Exxon.

The company's policy dictated that MAC employees who received the
lowest performance category rating be given the
separation-agreement-or-resignation offer. The court noted that the
plaintiff did not cite any evidence to show that her performance
was comparable to other such employees. Instead, the plaintiff "was
ranked last in that unchallenged process," it said.

"Other than the fact that [the plaintiff] is a member of a
protected class, there is no evidence in the record from which a
reasonable juror could infer that she was terminated because of her
sex," the 7th Circuit wrote.

Employers have successfully used documentation as a defense against
discrimination claims in the past. In 2019, for example, the 11th
Circuit held that Lowe's did not discriminate against a worker on
the basis of his age or disability when it fired him following a
series of investigations in response to complaints about the
plaintiff from other employees.

Management-side attorneys have repeatedly stressed the importance
of thorough documentation, including of performance issues, in
defending against lawsuits. A speaker at SHRM's 2024 annual
conference told attendees that effective documentation covers a
number of bases, including clear expectations of the employee,
descriptions of needed adjustments, and detailed plans or action
items, among other elements. [GN]

FINEST VITAMINS: Faces Class Suit Over Supplement's False Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit claims that Nutriflair Premium Berberine+ with
Ceylon Cinnamon is falsely advertised as providing 1,200mg of
berberine per serving.

According to the 35-page lawsuit, the packaging for Nutriflair's
Premium Berberine+ with Ceylon Cinnamon is prominently labeled with
the promise of "1200MG PER SERVING" in the same font and color as
"Berberine+," leading consumers to reasonably assume that each
serving of the supplement contains 1,200mg of berberine.

However, the complaint alleges that third-party laboratory analyses
have revealed that the Nutriflair berberine supplements contain
only between 170mg and 222mg per serving, around 978mg to 1,030mg
less than the advertised 1,200mg.

Per the complaint, berberine is a compound primarily associated
with the treatment of type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, canker
sores and high cholesterol, and has recently achieved popularity as
a weight loss aid. When consumers look to buy berberine herbal
dietary supplements, dosage is a material factor in their
decision-making process, as they must rely on the
dosage-per-serving representations made by the supplement
producers, the filing states.

Had consumers known that Nutriflair's berberine supplements did not
contain the advertised 1,200mg of berberine, they either would not
have purchased the supplements or would have paid significantly
less for them, the lawsuit contends.

Additionally, the lawsuit states that the FDA mandates that an
accurate measure of "100% of the volume or weight" of dietary
ingredients like berberine must be "declared on the label" of the
products, and that failure to do so violates both FDA regulations
and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). Per the
complaint, Nutriflair knew or should have known about the
discrepancy between its advertised and supposed actual berberine
content in its supplements and has knowingly deceived consumers
while violating the law.

The Nutriflair class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone who,
while in California or any state with similar laws, purchased
Nutriflair's Premium Berberine+ with Ceylon Cinnamon for personal
use and not for resale within the applicable statute of limitations
period. [GN]

FOR THE PEOPLE: Straw Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
AMELIA STRAW, LUCIA GARCIA, and SARINA DALE, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated individuals, known and
unknown, Plaintiffs v. FOR THE PEOPLE HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC d/b/a
The Duplex and The Revolver, FTPHG, LLC d/b/a The Duplex and The
Revolver, LEQOINNE RICE, individually, and CHRISTOPHER SCARDINA
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-07383 (N.D. Ill., July
1, 2025) arises from the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Chicago Minimum
Wage Ordinance, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

The complaint is brought over Defendants' a) unlawful retention of
gratuities intended for and the property of Defendants' employees
arising under the FLSA, the IMWL, the CMWO and the IWPCA; b)
failure to provide its employees with an accounting of gratuities
received from customers arising under the FLSA, the IMWL, the CMWO
and the IWPCA; c) failure to preserve records of gratuities
received from customers and how and to whom such gratuities were
distributed arising under the FLSA, the IMWL, the CMWO and the
IWPCA; d) failure to provide its employees with a correct and
accurate paycheck stub arising under the IWPCA; e) failure to pay
Plaintiff Straw and other similarly situated employees at least the
federal, Illinois and Chicago-mandated minimum wages for all
compensable time arising under the FLSA, the IMWL and the CMWO; and
f) failure to pay Plaintiff Straw and other similarly situated
employees required overtime wages for all time worked in excess of
40 hours in individual work weeks arising under the FLSA, the IMWL
and the CMWO.

Plaintiff Straw was employed as a server by Defendant from
approximately June 3, 2024 to July 3, 2024 as a server at the
Defendants' restaurant, The Duplex.

For The People Hospitality Group, LLC operates a restaurant known
as "The Duplex" and a bar known as "The Revolver," that are both
located in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
          WORKERS' LAW OFFICE
          1341 W. Fullerton Ave, Suite 147
          Chicago, IL 60614
          Telephone: (312) 725-3696
          E-mail: cwilliams@workers-law-office.com

               - and -

          Keren Salim, Esq.
          GRASSROOTS LAW & ORGANIZING FOR WORKERS
          1 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1275
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (888) 610-7752
          E-mail: keren@glow.law

FORD MOTOR: Dolan Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES DOLAN and JAMES
MORRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00512-REP (E.D.
Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
second unopposed motion for enlargement of time to file motion for
class certification to 30 days after the Court rules on the
Defendant's forthcoming motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' second
amended complaint.

Ford is an American multinational automobile manufacturer.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 11, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MaNvAZ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Drew D. Sarrett, Esq.
          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
          Mark C. Leffler, Esq.
          Adam W. Short, Esq.
          John J. Maravalli, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          626 E. Broad Street, Suite 300
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 905-9900
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: drew@clalegal.com
                  lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  craig@clalegal.com
                  mark@clalegal.com
                  adam@clalegal.com
                  john@clalegal.com

                - and -

          W. Randolph Robins, Jr., Esq.
          LANTZ & ROBINS, P.C.
          4900 Augusta Avenue, Suite 120
          Richmond, VA 23230
          Telephone: (804) 404-7870
          E-mail: rrobins@lantzrobins.com

                - and -

          Leland Belew, Esq.
          Ryan P. McMillan, Esq.
          Mitchell M. Breit, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
          GROSSMAN PLLC
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          E-mail: lbelew@milberg.com
                  rmcmillan@milberg.com
                  mbreit@milberg.com

                - and -

          John R. Fabry, Esq.
          THE CARLSON LAW FIRM
          1717 N. 1-35, Suite 305
          Round Rock, TX 78664
          Telephone: (512) 671-7277
          Facsimile: (512) 238-0275
          E-mail: jfabry@carlsonattorneys.com

                - and -

          Mark Miller, Esq.
          WALLACE MILLER
          150 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 261-6193
          E-mail: mrm@wallacemiller.com

GUAYNABO, PR: Delgado Appeals Suit Dismissal to 1st Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
NELSON TORRES-DELGADO is taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing his lawsuit entitled Nelson Torres-Delgado, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Angel
L. Adan, Warden, MCD Guaynabo, et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:25-cv-01054-MAJ, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Puerto Rico.

Plaintiff Nelson Torres-Delgado, on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated individuals, brings this action seeking redress
for the systematic disenfranchisement of eligible voters housed in
the Special Housing Unit (SHU) at MDC Guaynabo during the November
3, 2024, Puerto Rican gubernatorial election.

On May 23, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction, which Judge
Maria Antongiorgi-Jordan granted on June 12, 2025.

The Court thus finds that the Plaintiff was required to exhaust MDC
Guaynabo's internal procedures before bringing his claims
challenging prison conditions. Beyond the claims regarding prison
conditions, the Plaintiff has not stated any other claim upon which
relief can be granted. The deficiencies in the Plaintiff's
complaint have not been cured by the filing of the amended
complaint. The case is dismissed without prejudice in its
entirety.

The appellate case is entitled Torres-Delgado v. Adan, et al., Case
No. 25-1622, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit, filed on July 2, 2025. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant NELSON TORRES-DELGADO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Edwin Prado-Galarza, Esq.
          PRADO, NUNEZ & ASSOCIATES, PSC
          403 Del Parque Street, 8th Floor
          San Juan, PR 00907
          Telephone: (787) 977-1411

Defendants-Appellees ANGEL L. ADAN, Warden, MCD Guaynabo, et al.
are represented by:

          Juan Carlos Reyes-Ramos, Esq.
          Enrique Silva Aviles, Esq.
          U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          350 Carlos Chardon Ave
          Torre Chardon, Ste. 1201
          San Juan, PR 00918
          Telephone: (787) 766-5656
                     (787) 282-1896

H & H INVESTMENT: Property Has Architectural Barriers, Pardo Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. H & H INVESTMENT & REAL
ESTATE INC. and FRESH & SAVE MEAT MARKET CORP. d/b/a FRESH & SAVE
MEAT MARKET, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-22907 (S.D. Fla., June 27,
2025) is an action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Plaintiff Pardo uses a wheelchair to ambulate and has very limited
use of his hands and cannot operate any mechanisms which require
tight grasping or twisting of the wrist. He has lower paraplegia,
which inhibits him from walking or otherwise ambulating without the
use of a wheelchair.

The Plaintiff found the commercial property and commercial market
and restaurant business located within the commercial property to
be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered
architectural barriers at the commercial property and commercial
market and restaurant business located within the commercial
property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the
premises. The barriers to access at Defendants' commercial property
and commercial market and restaurant business has each denied or
diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and
market and restaurant and has endangered his safety in violation of
the ADA, says the suit.

H & H INVESTMENT & REAL ESTATE INC., owns, operates and/or oversees
the commercial property.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
          ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
          7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104
          Miami, FL 33144
          Telephone: (786) 361-9909
          Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
          E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com

HEARTLAND DENTAL: Faces Class Suit Over AI Telephone Services
-------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Busch, writing for drbicuspid.com, reports that dental
service organization Heartland Dental was sued in a class action
lawsuit, which claims the DSO allegedly uses a telephone service
that employs artificial intelligence (AI) to analyze patient phone
calls without patients' knowledge.

Megan Lisota, a patient of the Heartland Dental-supported Tru
Family Dental, claimed in a lawsuit filed on July 3 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, that her phone calls to the dental practice were
monitored by RingCentral AI without her knowledge or consent.

Lisota is requesting a jury trial in the case, which she claims
violates the U.S. Wiretap Act. The lawsuit includes U.S. residents
who had any phone contact with Heartland Dental or any of its
DSO-managed dental clinics.

"Plaintiff and the Class have suffered harm because of
Defendants’ violation of the Federal Wiretap Act," according to
the lawsuit.

Within the last two years, Lisota called Tru Family Dental several
times. During the calls, she claimed she identified herself and
inquired about making appointments to receive dental treatment.

Currently, Heartland Dental is affiliated with more than 1,700
dental practices.

Heartland allegedly allowed RingCentral, which uses AI to
transcribe, summarize, and analyze calls, to listen in on the calls
and analyze them in real time. However, neither the DSO nor the
practice reportedly informed Lisota and other patients. Also,
Lisota claimed she had no reason to believe that a third party was
eavesdropping and analyzing her calls.

Furthermore, the lawsuit alleges that RingCentral uses patient
calls for its own purposes. It reportedly uses patient calls to
train its AI models and develop products and services for other
customers, according to the lawsuit. [GN]

HOUSE OF ASTORIA: Faces Alvarado Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
ZENON MAYA ALVARADO, on behalf of himself, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOUSE OF
ASTORIA RESTAURANT & LOUNGE INC., and ALI A. MOHAMAD, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03599 (E.D.N.Y., June 27, 2025) is an
action on behalf of the Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, to recover damages for Defendants'
egregious, systemic, and continuous violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay proper
overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation,
failure to furnish proper wage statements, and failure to furnish
proper wage notice.

The Plaintiff was employed to perform work within Defendants'
commercial kitchen from November 5, 2022 through January 8, 2025.

House of Astoria Restaurant & Lounge Inc. owns and operates an
upscale hookah restaurant and lounge in Astoria, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Avraham Y. Scher, Esq.
          Robert Kansao, Esq.
          Jon Norinsberg, Esq.
          JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
          825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 227-5700

KANAWHA COUNTY BOE: Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Exhibit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as G.T., by his Parents
Michelle and Jamie T., K.M. by his Parents Danielle and Steven M.,
on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals, and
The Arc of West Virginia, v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE COUNTY
OF KANAWHA, Case No. 2:20-cv-00057 (S.D.W. Va.), the Defendant asks
the Court to enter an order granting motion to leave to file a
supplemental exhibit to its response in opposition to the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification filed on June 13, 2025.


On June 13, 2025, the Defendant responded in opposition to the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The briefing schedule
on the Renewed Motion is now complete.

In the pendency of the Renewed Motion, on July 10, 2025, the West
Virginia Department of Education (WVDE) released its findings from
its 2025 Annual Desk Audit of Defendant’s compliance with the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and related
regulations.

The Defendant requests leave to file this record as a supplemental
exhibit to its Response in Opposition, designated herein as Exhibit
25.

The Defendant oversees the educational programs and services for
students in the South Charleston.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 11, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MABh8Y at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lydia C. Milnes, Esq
          Blaire L. Malkin, Esq
          MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE, INC.
          E-mail: lydia@msjlaw.org
                  blaire@msjlaw.org

                - and -

          Robin Hulshizer, Esq.
          Kirstin Scheffler Do, Esq.
          Karen Frankenthal, Esq.
          Jaime Zucker, Esq
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          E-mail: robin.hulshizer@lw.com
                  kirstin.shchefflerdo@lw.com
                  karen.frankenthal@lw.com
                  jaime.zucker@lw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          J. Mark Adkins, Esq.
          Richard S. Boothby, Esq.
          Gabriele Wohl, Esq.
          William M. Lorensen, Esq.
          BOWLES RICE LLP
          600 Quarrier Street
          Charleston, WV 25325-1386
          Telephone: (304) 347-1100
          E-mail: madkins@bowlesrice.com
                  rboothby@bowlesrice.com
                  gwohl@bowlesrice.com
                  wlorensen@bowlesrice.com

KERING EYEWEAR: $25K Settlement in Campbell Gets Initial Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STACEY CAMPBELL,
individually, and as a representative of other aggrieved employees,
v. KERING EYEWEAR USA, INC., a Corporation, and DOES 1 through 250,
inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-10398-MCS-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Mark Scarsi entered an order granting preliminary approval of
class action settlement.

The Court conditionally certifies the Settlement Class for
settlement purposes only. The Settlement Class shall consist
of:

    "all current and former Brand Ambassadors of Kering Eyewear
    USA, Inc. employed in California between Feb. 9, 2020, and the

    date of preliminary approval."

The Court further entered an order:

-- Conditionally appointing Stacey Campbell as Class
    Representative.

-- conditionally appointing Brent S. Buchsbaum as Class Counsel.

-- Approving the proposed Notice Plan as to form and
    content.

-- Setting the final approval hearing for Oct. 27, 2025,
    at 9:00 a.m.

The Court concludes that the proposed settlement as a whole appears
fair and reasonable. Satisfied that conditional certification of
the Settlement Class is proper and
that the settlement is fair, the Court preliminarily approves of
the settlement.

The parties reached a classwide settlement that would provide class
members a gross fund of $25,000.00.

Kering is a seller of eyewear products,

A copy of the Court's order dated July 11, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sIy3YE at no extra
charge.[CC]

KRISPY KREME: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Thompson Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY THOMPSON, DUANE HOPSON, JAMES LONG, and SUZZETTE KATZMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. KRISPY KREME DOUGHNUT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-00562 (M.D.N.C., July 3, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
implied contract, unjust enrichment, and injunctive/declaratory
relief.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected
health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals stored within its network systems following a data
breach discovered on November 29, 2024. The Defendant also failed
to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals
about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the
Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through
access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third
parties.

Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation is a multinational doughnut and
coffee house chain owner, headquartered in Winston-Salem, North
Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Jean S. Martin, Esq.
       Francesca K. Burne, Esq.
       MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
       201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
       Tampa, FL 33602
       Telephone: (813) 559-4908
       Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
       Email: jeanmartin@forthepeople.com
              fburne@forthepeople.com

                - and -

       Amber L. Schubert, Esq.
       SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
       2001 Union St., Ste. 200
       San Francisco, CA 94123
       Telephone: (415) 788-4220
       Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
       Email: aschubert@sjk.law

KRISPY KREME: Leodler Sues Over Misleading Company Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH LEODLER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KRISPY KREME, INC., JOSH
CHARLESWORTH, and JEREMIAH ASHUKIAN, Defendants, Case No.
3:25-cv-469 (W.D.N.C., June 30, 2025) is a federal securities class
action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all investors who purchased
or otherwise acquired Krispy Kreme securities between March 26,
2024 to May 7, 2025, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused
by Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants provided investors with
material information concerning Krispy Kreme's financial growth and
stability. Defendants' statements included, among other things,
confidence in Krispy Kreme's expanded national partnership with
McDonald's restaurants with phased rollouts beginning in the second
half of 2024, and nationwide availability at participating
restaurants expected by the end of 2026. Moreover, the Defendants
publicly reported impressive financial results, outlooks, and
guidance to investors, all while using dishonest advertising
practices.

The complaint further notes that the Defendants provided these
overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same
time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements
and/or concealing material adverse facts related to the demand for
Krispy Kreme products at McDonald's locations. Specifically, the
Defendants failed to disclose that lower demand at McDonald's
locations accounted for the declining average weekly sales per
store; and the partnership with McDonald's was not profitable
thereby causing Krispy Kreme to pause expansion into new McDonald's
locations. Such statements absent these material facts caused
Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Krispy Kreme
securities at artificially inflated prices, the complaint asserts.

Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Krispy Kreme's
revelation. The price of Krispy Kreme's common stock declined from
a closing market price of $4.33 per share on May 7, 2025 to $3.26
per share on May 8, 2025, a decline of about 25% in the span of
just a single day. Investors have sustained significant damages as
a result of Defendants' fraudulent statements. The Plaintiff seeks
to recover those damages by way of this lawsuit.

Krispy Kreme, Inc. together with its subsidiaries, produces
doughnuts in the United States and internationally. It operates in
three segments: U.S., International, and Market Development.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ranchor Harris, Esq.
          RANCHOR HARRIS LAW
          1784 Heritage Center Drive, Suite 204-E
          Wake Forest, NC 27587
          Telephone: (919) 249-5006
          Facsimile: (919) 589-4845
          E-mail: ranchor@ranchorharris.com

               - and -

          Adam M. Apton, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: aapton@zlk.com

KROGER CO: Faces Class Suit Over Fruit & Grain Bars' False Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Mary Antossyan filed a
class action lawsuit against The Kroger Co.

Why: Antossyan claims Kroger falsely advertises its Simple Truth
Fruit & Grain Bars as containing no preservatives.

Where: The Kroger class action lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles
County Superior Court in California.

A new nationwide class action lawsuit accuses The Kroger Co. of
falsely advertising its Simple Truth Fruit & Grain Bars as
containing no preservatives when they actually contain citric
acid.

In a complaint filed May 2 in Los Angeles County Superior Court in
California, plaintiff Mary Antossyan argues that the citric acid
used in Kroger's Simple Truth bars acts as a preservative. She
contends Kroger's decision to label its Simple Truth bars as
containing "no preservatives" was therefore misleading.

"Plaintiff has been deprived of her legally-protected interest to
obtain true and accurate information about the consumer products
she buys as required by California Law," the Kroger class action
lawsuit says.

Antossyan wants to represent a nationwide class and California
subclass of consumers who bought Simple Truth Fruit & Grain Bars in
the four years prior to the filing of the Kroger Simple Truth bars
class action lawsuit.

FDA regards citric acid as a preservative, Kroger class action
claims

According to the lawsuit, Kroger's Simple Truth Fruit & Grain bars
aren't preservative-free because the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) regards citric acid as a preservative.

Antossyan claims she purchased the bars based on the "no
preservatives" label, expecting to avoid the negative effects of
preservatives. She says she would not have bought the product had
she known it contained citric acid.

The lawsuit claims Kroger's actions have deprived consumers of the
ability to make informed choices about the products they purchase.

Antossyan claims Kroger is guilty of violating California's Unfair
Competition Law and False Advertising Act. She demands a jury trial
and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of
actual and punitive damages for herself and all class members.

In another pending class action lawsuit, Kroger is facing
allegations it sold organic roasted seaweed products contaminated
with cadmium, arsenic and lead.

The plaintiff is represented by Todd M. Friedman and Adrian R.
Bacon of the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.

The Kroger Simple Truth class action lawsuit is Mary Antossyan et
al. v. The Kroger Co., Case No. 2:25-cv-05165, in the Superior
Court of California for Los Angeles County. [GN]

L'INDUSTRIE WV: Valencia Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN VALENCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. L'INDUSTRIE WV, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-05520 (S.D.N.Y., July 3, 2025) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law, and
declaratory relief.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.lindustriebk.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not
limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.

L'Industrie WV, LLC is a company that sells online goods and
services in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Rami Salim, Esq.
       STEIN SAKS, PLLC
       One University Plaza, Suite 620
       Hackensack, NJ 07601
       Telephone: (201) 282-6500
       Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
       Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com

LIC DEVELOPMENT: Grey Appeals Court Order in Civil Suit to N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM GREY is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit
entitled William Grey, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LIC Development Owner, LP,
Defendant, Case No. 151699/2022, in the Lower Court of New York.

The case type is stated as Civil Action-General.

The appellate case is entitled William Grey vs. LIC Development
Owner, LP, Case No. 25-04182, in the New York Appellate Division's
First Judicial Department, filed on July 2, 2025. [BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner WILLIAM GREY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Roger Alan Sachar, Esq.
          NEWMAN FERRARA LLP
          1140 Sixth Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 619-5400

LOBLAW COMPANIES: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Meat Packaging Weight
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a Manitoba woman, who blew the whistle on a
case in which Loblaw sold underweight meat across 80 stores in
Western Canada, has filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against
the grocery chain over allegations it consistently overcharges for
meat and seafood by including the packaging weight in the final
price tag.

Plaintiff Iris Griffin's claim, filed in the Manitoba Court of
King's Bench last week, names Loblaw Companies Ltd., Loblaws Inc.,
T&T Supermarket Inc. and Provigo Distribution Inc. as defendants.

It alleges that since at least 2023, "rather than weighing only the
edible portion, they have included the packaging weight in the
prices charged to customers."

"This practice is deceptive and misleading and violates Canadian
food regulations, which require accurate net quantity labelling,"
the claim reads in part.

The court filing also alleges the companies have continued the
practice, "either deliberately, or at minimum recklessly," and
failed to correct the issue despite consumer complaints, media
coverage and reports to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, "at a
time when many are already struggling with the rising cost of
food."

Griffin says she hopes her challenge in court holds the industry
and stores accountable.

"They're making profit off of the backs of Canadians, one plastic
tray at a time," Griffin said in an interview.

CBC News has reached out to Loblaw for comment.

In November 2023, Griffin purchased ground beef at a Loblaw-owned
Superstore in Winnipeg, CBC News reported earlier this year. The
Hecla Island resident determined the meat in the package was 134
grams short and that its plastic tray had made up for the missing
weight, amounting to an overcharge of almost eight per cent.

Under federal regulations, net weights for packaged food used for
pricing can't include the packaging.

Griffin's statement of claim says her complaint to the food
inspection agency did not trigger any enforcement action —
including fines — or follow-up inspections. It relied "instead on
Loblaw's assurance that the issue had been resolved," the claim
states in part.

About a year later, Griffin shared her experience as part of a CBC
News investigation that found packages of underweight meat being
sold in Loblaw locations, along with one store owned by Sobeys and
a Walmart.

Loblaw apologized for the errors at the time, saying that it had
refreshed its in-store training.

Following the publication of the story, a company spokesperson told
CBC that Loblaw was offering a discount on selected meat products
at "the impacted stores." The company did not specify which stores
were involved.

The court filing accuses the grocery chain of breach of contract,
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of the federal
Competition Act and breach of provincial consumer protection
legislation in Manitoba and seven other provinces.

"Loblaw's conduct violated the trust of consumers to inflate their
profits," the claim alleges.

"Loblaw's actions are part of a pattern of willful disregard for
their customers and the law."

If certified, a class action would seek general and punitive
damages and restitution for affected customers in British Columbia,
Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland and
Labrador and Prince Edward Island.

"Punitive damages are necessary to appropriately condemn Loblaw's
actions and serve as a sufficient deterrent to prevent Loblaw from
engaging in these practices in the future."

Another claim for a proposed class action was filed in Federal
Court earlier this year against Loblaw, Sobeys and Walmart,
alleging they misrepresented the weight of meat products by
including the weight of the packaging, or by "other similarly
deceptive means." [GN]

MARKETSOURCE INC: Bid to Strike Renewed Class Cert Motion Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER BRUM, et al., v.
MARKETSOURCE, INC., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00241-DAD-JDP (E.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an order denying the
Defendants' motion to strike the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for
class certification for failure to adhere to the standard for a
motion for reconsideration.

The court also therefore denies the Defendants' motion to suspend
deadlines pending resolution of the motion to strike as having been
rendered moot by this order.

However, it appears that the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class
certification does not comply with the court's standing order,
which requires that "prior to filing a motion in a case in which
the parties are represented by counsel, counsel shall engage in a
prefiling meet and confer to discuss thoroughly the substance of
the contemplated motion and any potential resolution" and a "notice
of motion shall contain a certification by counsel filing the
motion that meet and confer efforts have been exhausted, with a
very brief summary of meet and confer efforts."

Accordingly, plaintiffs are ordered to comply with the court's
requirement by filing a certification within ten days of the date
of entry of this order indicating whether any aspects of their
renewed motion can be narrowed or withdrawn following counsels'
meet and confer efforts.

The Defendants shall have fourteen days following the filing of the
plaintiffs' certification to file any opposition to the plaintiffs'
renewed motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs shall have
seven days thereafter to file any reply.

On June 30, 2025, the plaintiffs filed their renewed motion for
class certification.

On July 3, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to strike
plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification, arguing that in
their renewed motion plaintiff failed to meet the standard
applicable to motions for reconsideration.

On July 8, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants'
motion to strike, arguing that because the court explicitly granted
plaintiffs the right to file a renewed motion for class
certification, plaintiffs are not required to meet the standard
applicable to motions for reconsideration. In the court's order
resolving the Plaintiffs' initial motion for class certification,
the court specifically stated that plaintiffs' motion was
“denied, without prejudice to its renewal."

MarketSource is a marketing services company providing sales and
promotional solutions for brands.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 11, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vXtdQU at no extra
charge.[CC]

META PLATFORMS: Illegally Collects Users' Data, Woodward Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JANET WOODWARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. META PLATFORMS, INC. and GOOGLE LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-05622 (N.D. Cal., July 3, 2025) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of
Privacy Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law, right to
privacy under the California Constitution, intrusion upon seclusion
under California Common Law, breach of contract, breach of duty of
good faith and fair dealing, restitution based on quasi-contract,
breach of third-party beneficiary contract, negligence, and
declaratory judgment.

The case arises from the Defendants' practice of gaining
unauthorized access to millions of Android devices through Meta's
apps, like Facebook and Instagram. Due to this, the Defendants were
able to track, intercept, collect, and monetize massive amounts of
sensitive data pertaining to specific individuals as those
individuals used their internet browsers. As a result of the
Defendants' conduct, the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered
numerous injuries.

Meta Platforms, Inc. is a technology company, headquartered in
Menlo Park, California.

Google LLC is a technology company headquartered in Mountain View,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
         HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
         715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300
         Berkeley, CA 94710
         Telephone: (510) 725-3000
         Email: shanas@hbsslaw.com

                 - and -

         Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
         Whitney K. Siehl, Esq.
         455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410
         Chicago, IL 60611
         Telephone: (708) 628-4949
         Email: dank@hbsslaw.com
                whitneys@hbsslaw.com

METALS COMPANY: Court Dismisses Point12 Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as POINT12 DIVERSIFIED FUND,
LP and KYLE AUTRY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. TMC The Metals Company, et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-05991-EK-PK (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Eric Komitee entered
an order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint
in its entirety.

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close this
case.

The plaintiffs lack statutory standing to challenge certain of the
alleged misstatements. And the complaint does not adequately allege
falsity or scienter as to any of the alleged misstatements.

Because the plaintiffs have failed to allege any misstatements or
omissions by TMC or the individual defendants that survive a motion
to dismiss — and therefore have not alleged a primary violation
— the Section 20 claims against Barron and Leonard must also be
dismissed.

The Plaintiffs contend that TMC and its predecessor violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by falsely claiming that certain
private funds had “fully committed” to invest $330 million in
TMC’s public equity (via a private investment in public equity,
or “PIPE,” transaction), even though only about one-third of
that money ultimately materialized.

The corporate defendant in this case touted its ability to mine the
deep seafloor for the metals used in batteries for electric
vehicles and other products. Formerly known as DeepGreen Metals,
the company merged with a special purpose acquisition company, or
SPAC, and began trading on the NASDAQ under a new name — The
Metals Company, ticker symbol TMC — in September 2021.

The stock opened at $12.45 on its initial public offering. But it
declined substantially in the following weeks when the market began
questioning, among other things, TMC’s cash position and the
environmental repercussions of seafloor mining.

TMC is a Canadian deep sea mining exploration company.

A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated July 11, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C0aT4T
at no extra charge.[CC]

MOSHY GAMING: Hurst Sues Over Illegal Operation of Online Casino
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMY HURST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MOSHY GAMING LLC, d/b/a MOOZI CASINO,
Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00491-ECM-KFP (M.D. Ala., July 3, 2025)
is a class action against the Defendant for declaratory judgment
and violation of Alabama Gambling Loss Recovery Statute.

The case arises from the Defendant's operation of an illegal online
casino in violation of Alabama law. According to the complaint, the
Defendant advertises itself as a "social casino" website to avoid
gambling regulations and reassure potential players that it offers
casino-style games purely for entertainment, without real-money
stakes. The Defendant claims it is a "free-play" casino. However,
this representation is false and misleading. In practice, it
enables users to engage in real-money gambling through its system
of Sweeps Coins, deceiving consumers into believing they are
participating in harmless gameplay when, in fact, they are wagering
something of value for the chance to win tangible prizes. The
Plaintiff seeks all available remedies at law and equity, including
damages, restitution, declaratory, and injunctive relief.

Moshy Gaming LLC, doing business as Moozi Casino, is a gambling
website owner and operator, headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         David L. Selby, II, Esq.
         Matthew J. Ford, Esq.
         BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
         3000 Riverchase Galleria, Suite 905
         Birmingham, AL 35244
         Telephone: (205) 988-9253
         Facsimile: (205) 733-4896
         Email: dselby@baileyglasser.com
                mford@baileyglasser.com

                  - and -

         Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
         EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
         1925 Century Park E., #1700
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (305) 975-3320
         Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Athlete Suit May Get Class Cert, Judge Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Carolina Journal reports that a federal judge signaled that she
is likely to expand a University of North Carolina tennis player's
lawsuit against the NCAA to cover other college tennis players
across the country. Reese Brantmeier challenges the college sports
governing agency's rules against student-athletes accepting prize
money.

"It is highly likely the Court will grant the motion for class
certification," US Chief District Judge Catherine Eagles wrote in a
text order Tuesday, July 15. That order arrived eight days after
Eagles' July 7 hearing on the motion to turn Brantmeier's lawsuit
into a class-action case.

Brantmeier and Maya Joint are the case's current plaintiffs. Joint
is a professional tennis player who had planned to play for the
University of Texas in 2024 before deciding instead to turn pro.

Eagles' order said Brantmeier and Joint "SHALL present a draft
proposal about class notice to the defendant within five business
days. The proposal shall include a proposed notice to both the
injunctive and damages class members, a method for its
distribution, a schedule for opting out of the damages class, and
any and all other matters requiring resolution related to notice."

The plaintiffs and NCAA "shall meet and confer" no later than July
29.

"If and when the Court grants the motion for class certification,
the parties can expect to be required to promptly file a Joint
Submission on Class Notice containing their joint proposal or, if
they do not agree in full, dueling proposals with short briefs
directed to items of disagreement," Eagles wrote.

A court filing from February suggests Brantmeier hopes the lawsuit
will apply to any college tennis player who has competed in NCAA
tennis since March 19, 2020. The suit would add any player ruled
ineligible to play because of existing prize-money restrictions.

"Under long-standing amateurism regulations, the NCAA prohibits
Tennis Student-Athletes from accepting cash awards, bonuses, and
other monetary prizes (collectively, 'Prize Money') awarded by
third parties for their performance in non-NCAA competitions, such
as the U.S. Open Tennis Championships," Brantmeier's lawyers
wrote.

With limited exceptions, "the NCAA bylaws provide that a
Student-Athlete forfeits eligibility and is barred from
intercollegiate competition in the sport of tennis if they accept
Prize Money in connection with non-NCAA tennis competitions," the
court filing continued.

"Plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of themselves and proposed
Damages and Injunctive Relief classes from the application and past
effects of the NCAA's Prize Money Rules, to compensate class
members for past forfeited amounts and to allow them to retain
Prize Money for their performances in non-NCAA competitions without
losing their collegiate eligibility," Brantmeier's lawyers added.

"Going back decades, the highest and most prestigious levels of
non-NCAA competition tennis have been open to college
Student-Athletes, including, but not limited to, the Olympics, the
U.S. Open Tennis Championships, Wimbledon, the Australian Open and
the other tennis tournaments," the court filing added. "These
competitions include substantial Prize Money for player
compensation. For example, the 2024 U.S. Open offered $75 million
in total compensation to players, with prize money for reaching the
first round or ‘main draw' reaching $100,000."

"Those benefits, however, are all but foreclosed to prospective and
current Student-Athletes. The NCAA's arbitrary rules restrict the
amount of Prize Money that Student-Athletes competing in Tennis may
accept, causing anticompetitive harm to the markets for their labor
and reducing their earning ability," Brantmeier's lawyers argued.

Brantmeier, a UNC junior, was a member of the school's 2023
national championship team. She was "ranked No. 2 in singles and
No. 1 in doubles" in the February 2024 college tennis rankings.

While still in high school, she competed in the 2021 US Open and
won $48,913 in prize money. "However, due to the NCAA's Prize money
restrictions, Brantmeier was forced to forfeit much of that money
to maintain her collegiate eligibility," according to the court
filing.

The NCAA challenged expenses Brantmeier attempted to claim for the
2021 tournament, including the cost of the hotel room the
16-year-old shared with her mother. Only after Brantmeier made a
$5,100 charitable contribution related to the challenge did the
NCAA clear her to play for UNC in 2023.

Brantmeier signaled last November that she was narrowing the focus
of her lawsuit to cover only tennis players affected by NCAA
prize-money restrictions. Eagles had rejected an injunction that
would have covered athletes in multiple college sports.

"The NCAA has long instituted a money first, student-athletes
second approach in its operations, rules, and regulations. For over
a century, from its inception until July 1, 2021, the NCAA
prohibited the gifted student-athletes at its member institutions3
from receiving any compensation for their athletic performance and
services beyond an athletic scholarship and certain other
educational-related benefits," Brantmeier's lawyers wrote last
fall.

At the same time, the NCAA "has generated billions of dollars in
income," according to the suit. Brantmeier's lawyers highlight
recent changes that have allowed athletes to benefit from payments
linked to the use of their names, images, and likenesses.

"Plaintiffs seek to lift the veil of hypocrisy on the NCAA's
practice of allowing primarily Division I football and men's
basketball student-athletes, who play profit-generating sports in
the Power Conferences, to receive virtually all of the pay-for-play
money distributed by Collectives while prohibiting student-athletes
who compete in Tennis from accepting Prize Money earned in non-NCAA
competitions, including but not limited to the US Open Tennis
Championships, the Australian Open, Roland Garros a/k/a the French
Open, and the Championships, Wimbledon," the amended complaint
argued.

In a separate document filed in November, NCAA lawyers objected to
Brantmeier's request to have her case cover all NCAA Division I
tennis players after she dropped an earlier class-action request.

The original proposed injunction would have applied to any NCAA
athlete competing in individual sports, defined by the NCAA as
women's bowling, cross country, women's equestrian, fencing, golf,
gymnastics, rifle, skiing, swimming and diving, tennis, indoor and
outdoor track and field, women's triathlon, and wrestling.

"A mandatory preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, and
the Court is not persuaded that Ms. Brantmeier has shown a
likelihood of success on the merits for all of the Individual
Sports," Eagles wrote in October 2024. [GN]

NEW YORK, NY: Bid to Rectify Discovery Deficiencies Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as United Probation Officers
Association et al., v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-00218-RA-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gabriel W.
Gorenstein entered an order denying plaintiffs' motion to either
seek to rectify any purported deficiencies in the discovery process
or move for sanctions on the understanding that they will get no
further discovery.

Because the Plaintiffs allowed themselves 5-1/2 weeks to make this
motion from the date the parties reached an impasse, and given the
intervening holiday weekend, any response shall be due Sept. 12,
2025.

Any reply shall be filed by Sept. 26, 2025. The Court assumes that
the disposition of the proposed motion will affect the plaintiff's
class certification motion.

Based on this assumption, the Court is not requiring briefing on
the class certification motion until the disposition of the
sanctions motion. If the Court's assumption is incorrect,
plaintiffs should inform the Court forthwith.

Finally, the Court notes that the motion for class certification
has been referred to the Judge Gorenstein.

New York comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets
the Atlantic Ocean.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 11, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AO5Mis at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Yetta G. Kurland, Esq.
          THE KURLAND GROUP
          85 Broad Street 28th floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 253-6911
          Facsimile: (212) 614-2532
          E-mail: kurland@kurlandgroup.com

NVIDIA CORP: Plaintiffs Seek to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re NVIDIA Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 4:18-cv-07669-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order to consider whether the Defendants
material should be sealed in regard to the Plaintiffs' motion to
certify class, appoint class representatives, and appoint class
counsel and certain exhibits attached to the Declaration of Matthew
L. Mustokoff in support of the Motion.

In compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)-(e), redacted and
unredacted versions of the above listed documents accompany this
Motion.

The Plaintiffs also attach a declaration identifying the material
that Defendants have designated "CONFIDENTIAL".

NVIDIA is a multinational technology company that develops,
markets, and sells graphics processing units ("GPUs").

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 11, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i3cVPO at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew L. Mustokoff, Esq.
          Jamie M. McCall, Esq.
          Nathan A. Hasiuk, Esq.
          Nathaniel C. Simon, Esq.
          Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: mmustokoff@ktmc.com
                  jmccall@ktmc.com
                  nhasiuk@ktmc.com
                  nsimon@ktmc.com
                  skaplan@ktmc.com

                - and -

          Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq.
          John J. Rizio-Hamilton, Esq.
          Preethi Krishnamurthy, Esq.
          Michael M. Mathai, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 819-3472
          E-mail: jonathanu@blbglaw.com
                  johnr@blbglaw.com
                  preethi@blbglaw.com
                  michael.mathai@blbglaw.com

NVIDIA CORP: Plaintiffs Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re NVIDIA Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 4:18-cv-07669-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs,
on Nov. 6, 2025, will move the Court for an order:

     -- certifying this action against the Defendants as a class
        action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
        ("Rule") 23;

     -- appointing Lannebo and PGB as Class Representatives; and

     -- approving the Plaintiffs' selection of Kessler Topaz
        Meltzer & Check, LLP ("KTMC") and Bernstein Litowitz
        Berger & Grossmann LLP ("BLBG") as Class Counsel.

The case is a securities fraud action against NVIDIA and its CEO
Jensen Huang. During the Class Period, the Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements to investors about the
impact of cryptocurrency mining sales on NVIDIA's core gaming
business, systematically downplaying the Company's substantial
dependence on volatile crypto-related revenues.

NVIDIA is a multinational technology company that develops,
markets, and sells graphics processing units ("GPUs").

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 11, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lanXIL at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew L. Mustokoff, Esq.
          Jamie M. McCall, Esq.
          Nathan A. Hasiuk, Esq.
          Nathaniel C. Simon, Esq.
          Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: mmustokoff@ktmc.com
                  jmccall@ktmc.com
                  nhasiuk@ktmc.com
                  nsimon@ktmc.com
                  skaplan@ktmc.com

                - and -

          Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq.
          John J. Rizio-Hamilton, Esq.
          Preethi Krishnamurthy, Esq.
          Michael M. Mathai, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 819-3472
          E-mail: jonathanu@blbglaw.com
                  johnr@blbglaw.com
                  preethi@blbglaw.com
                  michael.mathai@blbglaw.com

NVIDIA CORPORATION: ADR Session Extended to Dec. 3
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re NVIDIA Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 4:18-cv-07669-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.  entered an order granting the Parties'
Joint Stipulation as follows:

  1. The deadline by which the Parties are to hold the ADR session

     is extended from Sept. 26, 2025, to Dec. 3, 2025.

on March 25, 2025, the Court held an Initial Case Management
Conference and ordered that the parties meet and confer regarding
mediation and file a Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Selecting ADR
Process by April 1, 2025.

On March 31, 2025, the Court entered an order setting September 26,
2025, as the deadline by which the Parties are to hold the ADR
session.

NVIDIA is a multinational technology company that develops,
markets, and sells graphics processing units ("GPUs").

A copy of the Court's order dated July 11, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ygq1iK at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew L. Mustokoff, Esq.
          Andrew L. Zivitz
          Nathan A. Hasiuk, Esq.
          Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: mmustokoff@ktmc.com
                  azivitz@ktmc.com
                  nhasiuk@ktmc.com
                  skaplan@ktmc.com

                - and -

          Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq.
          John J. Rizio-Hamilton, Esq.
          Michael M. Mathai, Esq.
          Sarah K. Schmidt, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 819-3472
          E-mail: jonathanu@blbglaw.com
                  johnr@blbglaw.com
                  michael.mathai@blbglaw.com
                  sarah.schmidt@blbglaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Patrick E. Gibbs, Esq.
          Amanda A. Main, Esq.
          John C. Bostic, Esq.
          Brett De Jarnette, Esq.
          Sarah M. Lightdale, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          3175 Hanover Street
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
          Telephone: (650) 843-5000
          Facsimile: (650) 849-7400
          E-mail: pgibbs@cooley.com
                  amain@cooley.com
                  jbostic@cooley.com
                  bdejarnette@cooley.com
                  slightdale@cooley.com

                - and -

          Scott A. Edelman, Esq.
          Jed M. Schwartz, Esq.
          Andrew B. Lichtenberg, Esq.
          Olivia S. Choe, Esq.
          MILBANK LLP
          55 Hudson Yards
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 530-5000
          Facsimile: (212) 530-5219
          E-mail: sedelman@milbank.com
                  jschwartz@milbank.com
                  alichtenberg@milbank.com
                  ochoe@milbank.com

ORTHOPAEDIC SPECIALISTS: Goodman Files Suit in Conn. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Orthopaedic
Specialists of Connecticut. The case is styled as Mary Goodman, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Orthopaedic
Specialists of Connecticut, Case No. DBD-CV25-6055275-S (Conn.
Super. Ct., Danbury Cty., June 10, 2025).

The case type is stated as "M90 - Misc - All other."

Orthopaedic Specialists of Connecticut --
https://ctorthopaedic.com/ -- is an orthopedic clinic in
Brookfield, Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Oren Faircloth, Esq.
          SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
          745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10151
          Phone: (772) 783-8436
          Fax: (646) 417-5967
          Email: ofaircloth@sirillp.com

OXY USA: Rider Appeals Class Certification Order to 10th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHERRY RIDER, trustee of the Cherry Rider Family Trust, et al. are
taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion for class
certification in the lawsuit entitled Cherry Rider, trustee of the
Cherry Rider Family Trust, et al., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Oxy USA, Inc., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 6:23-cv-01274-KHV-TJJ, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.

On Jan. 9, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class. On
the same day, the Defendants also filed a motion to strike and a
motion to exclude the expert opinions of Paul Saas as an improper
rebuttal expert.

On June 18, 2025, Judge Kathryn H. Vratil overruled the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify class. The Defendants' motion to strike and
motion to exclude the expert opinions of Paul Saas are overruled as
moot.

The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have not established that
the proposed class satisfies all requirements of Rule 23.

The appellate case is entitled Cherry Rider, trustee of the Cherry
Rider Family Trust, et al. v. Oxy USA, Inc., et al., Case No.
25-603, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit, filed on July 2, 2025. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners CHERRY RIDER, trustee of the Cherry Rider
Family Trust, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          David G. Seely, Esq.
          Ryan K. Meyer, Esq.
          Emily K. Arida, Esq.
          FLEESON, GOOING, COULSON & KITCH, LLC
          1900 Epic Center, 301 N. Main
          Wichita, KS 67202
          Telephone: (316) 267-7361

                 - and -

          Erick E. Nordling, Esq.
          KRAMER, NORDLING & NORDLING, LLC
          209 E. 6th St.
          Hugoton, KS 67951
          Telephone: (620) 544-4333

Defendants-Respondents OXY USA, INC., et al. are represented by:

          Daniel M. McClure, Esq.
          James V. Leito, IV, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
          1550 Lamar, Suite 2000
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 651-5151
          Email: dan.mcclure@nortonrosefulbright.com
                 james.leito@nortonrosefulbright.com

                 - and -

          Robert W. Coykendall, Esq.
          Will B. Wohlford, Esq.
          Jonathan A. Schlatter, Esq.
          MORRIS, LAING, EVANS, BROCK & KENNEDY, CHTD.
          300 N. Mead, Suite 200
          Wichita, KS 67202
          Telephone: (316) 262-2671
          Email: rcoykendall@morrislaing.com
                 wwohlford@morrislaing.com
                 jschlatter@morrislaing.com

                 - and -

          James M. Armstrong, Esq.
          FOULSTON SIEFKIN, LLP
          1551 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 100
          Wichita, KS 67206
          Telephone: (316) 291-9576
          Email: jarmstrong@foulston.com

                 - and -

          Mark Rodriguez, Esq.
          Maryam Ghaffar, Esq.
          BECK REDDEN LLP
          1221 McKinney Street, Suite 4500
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 951-3700
          Email: mrodriguez@beckredden.com
                 mghaffar@beckredden.com

PACIFIC RIM: Dela Cruz Wins Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN DELA CRUZ JR.,
MARTIN DELA CRUZ, and CHRISTOPHER LEEDELRIO, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated, v. PACIFIC RIM
LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00009 (D.N. Mar. I.), the
Hon. Judge Ramona V. Manglona entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify class under Rule 23 for their Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the "WARN Act") claim
and defines the class as:

    "All former employees of Pacific Rim or its affiliates who
    were assigned to work at the construction site of the IPI
    casino & resort in Garapan in 2018 and whose employment was
    terminated with an effective termination date from Oct. 2,
    2018 to Oct., 31 2018.

The Court further entered an order appointing Cong Nie of Banes
Horey Nie & Miller, LLC to be class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Accordingly, the Court found that Plaintiffs have met their burden
to meet the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy have
been met under Rule 23(a), and the preclusive adjudication,
predominance, and superiority inquiries respectively of Rule
23(b)(1)(B) and (b)(3) are satisfied.

On June 14, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed the instant action against
the Defendant.

On March 5, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class
under Rule 23 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiffs allege that around July 25, 2018, Pacific Rim's
management instructed all of its construction employees for the IPI
site, including the Plaintiffs, to stop going to the site until
further notice.

Then around September 25, 2018, that Pacific Rim signed a Notice of
Mutual Termination with IPI regarding its construction contract,
and that the employees' status with Pacific Rim would be changed to
layoff effective Oct. 25, 2018, unless they were otherwise informed
prior to Oct. 25, 2018. Pacific Rim did not call those employees
back to work on the IPI site or any other work site after Oct. 25,
2018.

The Plaintiffs allege that Pacific Rim was covered by the WARN Act
and effected a mass layoff as defined by the WARN Act, and
therefore, should have given sixty-day notice to all employees
affected by the mass layoff. Pacific Rim’s management gave notice
to the employees

Pacific is a company engaged in the business of construction in the
CNMI.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 11, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QaOi5f at no extra
charge.[CC]

PHILADELPHIA HOTEL: Swartz Sues Over Inaccessible Property
----------------------------------------------------------
Helen Swartz, individually, and on behalf of individuals similarly
situated v. PHILADELPHIA HOTEL ASSOCIATES LP, a Pennsylvania
limited partnership, Case No. 2:25-cv-02959-NIQA (E.D. Pa., June
12, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, damages, attorneys'
fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's
inaccessible property.

On the night of March 21, 2024, the Plaintiff was an overnight
hotel guest of the Defendant's property, and she plans to return to
the property to avail herself of the goods and services offered to
the public at the property. The Plaintiff has encountered
architectural barriers at the subject's property. The barriers to
access at the property have endangered her safety and protected
access to Defendant's place of public accommodation.

The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing, and continuing
threat of discrimination from the Defendant's non-compliance with
the ADA with respect to this property as described but not
necessarily limited to the allegations contained in this complaint.
Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that she will continue
to be subjected to discrimination in violation of the ADA by the
Defendant. Plaintiff desires to visit the Defendant's place of
business again on future occasions, not only to avail herself of
the goods and services available at the property but to assure
herself that this property is in compliance with the ADA so that
she and others similarly situated will have full and equal
enjoyment of the hotel and its amenities without fear of
discrimination.

The Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by
denying her access to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods,
services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations
of the buildings, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, uses an
electric scooter for mobility and qualifies as an individual with
disabilities as defined by the ADA.

Philadelphia Hotel Associates LP owns and/or operates the
DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Philadelphia Airport which is a hotel
located in Island Avenue, Philadelphia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David S. Dessen, Esq.
          DESSEN MOSES & ROSSITTO
          600 Easton Road
          Willow Grove, PA 19090
          Phone: 215-658-1400
          Email: ddessen@dms-lawyer.com

               - and -

          Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF OWEN DUNN, JR.
          The Offices of Unit C
          6800 W. Central Ave., Suite C-1
          Toledo, OH 43617
          Phone: (419) 241-9661
          Facsimile: (419) 241-9737
          Email: obdjr@owendunnlaw.com

PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Bartee Seeks to File Supplemental Notice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LILLIAN BARTEE and LISA
BLEDSOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED INSURANCE COMPANY and PROGRESSIVE
CASUALTY COMPANY, Ohio Corporations, Case No. 4:22-cv-00342-MTS
(E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
motion for leave to file notice of further supplemental authority.

The Plaintiffs move the Court for leave to submit, as supplemental
authority in support of their motion for class certification, the
recent Court of Appeals of Ohio decision in Davenport, et al. v.
Progressive Direct Insurance Company, et al.

In a prior notice of supplemental authority, the Plaintiffs
notified the Court of the Ohio County Court of Common Pleas
decision to certify a similar class of Progressive insureds
concerning materially similar claims challenging Progressive’s
negotiation adjustment.

The Court of Appeals concluded "the trial court did not abuse its
discretion by finding that the common issues predominate," noting
that "four federal circuit courts have held that insureds'
challenge to a line-item deduction as categorically improper is a
common, predominating liability issue."

The Court of Appeals briefly summarized each case to show they "are
all distinguishable from this case and do not lend support to
Progressive's contention that the trial court here abused its
discretion in granting class certification."

The Ohio court got it right -- fourteen courts were well within
their discretion in granting class certification, precisely because
class treatment is eminently reasonable, which is presumably why
the Eighth Circuit has already twice denied 23(f) petitions seeking
to overturn orders granting class certification in Chadwick v.
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Case No. 4:21-cv-01161-DPM (E.D.
Ark.) (where a jury subsequently entered a class-wide verdict
adopting full-scale plaintiff's theory of the case) and Knight v.
Case No. 4:22-cv-00342-MTS.

The Eighth Circuit's denial of the 23(f) petitions in Chadwick and
Knight were previously filed as supplemental authority.

The Plaintiffs suggest that Davenport provides compelling support
for granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

Progressive operates as an insurance firm. The Company underwrites
motor vehicle insurance policies.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 11, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1FDNQ8 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          Edwin E. Elliott, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 N.E. 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                  edwine@shamisgentile.com

                - and -

          Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
          NORMAND PLLC
          3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Telephone: (407) 603-6031
          E-mail: ed@normandpllc.com

                - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (786) 289-9471
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

                - and –

          Joshua Jacobson, Esq.
          JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC
          2277 Lee Rd, Ste. B
          Winter Park FL, 32789
          Telephone: (407) 720-4057
          E-mail: josh@jacobsonphillips.com

                - and -

          Hank Bates, Esq.
          Lee Lowther, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          519 W 7th St
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
          E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com
                  llowther@cbplaw.com

PROVIDENCE ST. JOSEPH: Bid to Dismiss Clarke Lawsuit Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK CLARKE, an
individual; CHRISTINE BAUKNECHT, an individual; MARY ANN DAVIS, an
individual; FREDA LORRIAINE TAYLOR, an individual, v. PROVIDENCE
ST. JOSEPH HEALTH; PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES; PROVIDENCE HEALTH
AND SERVICES – WASHINGTON D/B/A PROVIDENCE; PROVIDENCE ST. MARY
MEDICAL CENTER; AND PROVIDENCE MEDICAL GROUP D/B/A PROVIDENCE
MEDICAL GROUP SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON NEUROSURGERY, A/K/A PMG
NEUROSCIENCE INSTITUTE, WALLA WALLA A/K/A NEUROSCIENCE INSTITUTE
D/B/A PROVIDENCE, Case No. 2:24-cv-00434-TOR (E.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge Thomas Rice entered an order denying the Defendants' motion
to dismiss:

The Court agrees with other districts that have concluded that
there is no point in a dismissal or a stay where a plaintiff swears
to opt out of the class and is not proposing any type of class
competition with the first-filed class action.

The Defendants' concern of inconsistent rulings if this case is not
at least stayed does not persuade the Court. Such a risk exists
regardless of whether the matter is stayed or not as Plaintiffs
will not be bound by any judgments in the Angulo matter.

The Plaintiffs bring this action alleging various state law claims
against Defendants. Defendants now seek a dismissal of the
Plaintiffs' action or alternatively a stay of proceedings under the
"first to file" rule based on parallel pending litigation, Angulo
v. Providence Health & Servs. Washington, No. 4:25- CV-05029-SAB,
involving similar issues and similar defendants currently before
Judge Stanley Bastian in the Eastern District of Washington.

Angulo was originally filed as a class action in King County
Superior Court on May 13, 2022, and was later removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington by the
defendants.

The plaintiffs in Angulo moved to certify the classes presented in
their complaint on December 29, 2023.

The case was transferred to the U.S. Eastern District of Washington
on March 19, 2025.


Providence provides the full range of diagnostic, treatment, care
and support services.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 11, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f0uS5e at no extra
charge.[CC]

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: McCauley Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA MCCAULEY, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-12213 (D.N.J., June 27, 2025) is a class action against the
Defendant for alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Virginia Overtime Wage Act.

The complaint alleges that Quest's bonus pay scheme violates the
federal and state laws by failing to compensate Plaintiff McCauley
and the other Hourly Employees at least one and a half times their
regular rates of pay -- based on all remuneration -- for all hours
worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

Plaintiff McCauley was hired by the Defendant as a medical
technologist in Virginia from approximately September 2022 through
July 2023. Throughout her employment, Quest paid McCauley under its
bonus pay scheme.

Quest Diagnostics Incorporated is an American clinical
laboratory.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-4635
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: crodriguez@bergermontague.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

R.J. REYNOLDS: Faces Class Suit Over Vaporizer Devices False Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that three consumers filed a class action
lawsuit against R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company, Reynolds America Inc. and British American Tobacco p.l.c.
(BAT).

Why: The plaintiffs claim the companies falsely advertised their
Vuse-brand vaporizer devices as being carbon neutral.

Where: The Vuse class action was filed in California federal
court.

A new class action lawsuit alleges that the companies behind Vuse
vapes falsely advertised their products as being carbon neutral.

Plaintiff Vanessa Bell and two others filed the Vuse class action
lawsuit against R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company, Reynolds America and British American Tobacco on May 28 in
California federal court.

According to the Vuse vape class action, the defendants falsely
advertised their vaporizer devices and consumable products,
including the Vuse Solo, Vuse Vibe, Vuse Ciro and Vuse Alto, as
being carbon neutral.

Carbon neutrality claims based on flawed offset projects, Vuse
class action alleges

The plaintiffs allege that the carbon neutrality claims were based
on flawed carbon offset projects that failed to provide genuine
carbon reductions.

The Vuse class action lawsuit alleges that the defendants' carbon
neutrality claims were false and misleading because the offset
projects they relied on did not provide genuine carbon reductions.

The plaintiffs claim that the projects either involved tree
planting that would have occurred anyway or forest protection
measures for forests that were not at risk of deforestation.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants' false claims misled
consumers into believing that Vuse products were environmentally
superior, causing them to pay a premium for the products.

The Vuse vapes class action lawsuit asserts claims for violations
of state consumer protection laws, breach of express and implied
warranties, unjust enrichment and fraud. The plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of all California residents who purchased
Vuse-brand vaporizer devices or consumable products since May 28,
2021.

Earlier this year, a class action lawsuit accused Apple of making
false carbon neutral claims to market certain Apple Watch series.

The plaintiffs are represented by Amber L. Schubert of Schubert
Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP, Fletch Trammell of Trammell P.C. and Don
Bivens and Teresita T. Mercado of Don Bivens PLLC.

The Vuse class action lawsuit is Bell, et al. v. R.J. Reynolds
Vapor Company, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-04521, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California. [GN]

RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Ball Sues Over Unprotected Private Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA BALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES OF RICHMOND, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00519-RCY (E.D. Va., July 8, 2025)
seeks monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief
arising from Defendant's failure to safeguard the personally
identifiable information of its patients which resulted in
unauthorized access to its information systems between April 2,
2024, and April 6, 2024, and the compromised and unauthorized
disclosure of that private information.

Moreover, the deficiencies in the Defendant's Data Breach Notice
exacerbate the circumstances for victims of the data breach: (1)
Defendant waited nearly 15 months to notify Plaintiff and Class
Members of the data breach; (2) Defendant's security systems were
so insufficient, that Defendant does not know the exact date that
the data breach occurred, and can only provide a time period that
spans multiple days; (3) Defendant fails to state whether it was
able to contain or end the cybersecurity threat, leaving victims to
fear whether the Private Information that Defendant continues to
maintain is secure; and (4) Defendant fails to state how the breach
itself occurred.

Headquartered in North Chesterfield, VA, Radiology Associates of
Richmond, Inc. provides radiology and imaging services for
patients. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Lee A. Floyd, Esq.
           Justin M. Sheldon, Esq.
           BREIT BINIAZAN, PC
           2100 East Cary Street, Suite 310
           Richmond, VA 23223
           Telephone: (804) 351-9040
           Facsimile: (804) 351-9170
           E-mail: Lee@bbtrial.com
                   Justin@bbtrial.com

                   - and -

           Leanna Loginov, Esq.
           SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
           14 NE First Avenue, Suite 705
           Miami, FL 33132
           Telephone: (305) 479-2299
           E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com

RAMAPO MANOR: Faces Doherty Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
NOAH DOHERTY and LYNN LEANDRE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RAMAPO MANOR NURSING
CENTER, INC., and CARERITE CENTERS, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:25-cv-05483 (S.D.N.Y., July 2, 2025) is a class action against
the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

Mr. Doherty has been employed by the Defendants as a licensed
practical nurse at the Ramapo Manor facility since on or about
March 25, 2025, while Ms. Leandre served as a nurse supervisor from
approximately February 22, 2023, until May 2023, after which time
she was promoted to nurse manager.

CareRite Centers, LLC is a company that operates rehabilitation and
healthcare centers across the State of New York.

Ramapo Manor Nursing Center, Inc. is a nursing home facility owner
and operator in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
       Brett Gallaway, Esq.
       Lee Shalov, Esq.
       Jason Giaimo, Esq.
       McLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP
       260 Madison Avenue
       New York, NY 10016
       Telephone: (212) 448-1100
       Email: bgallaway@mclaughlinstern.com
              lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com
              jgiaimo@mclaughlinstern.com

RAVALLI COUNTY, MT: Appeals Court Order in Leonard Suit to 9th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
COUNTY OF RAVALLI, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
in the lawsuit entitled Keith Leonard, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. County of
Ravalli, et al., Defendants, Case No. 9:21-cv-00089-DLC, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Montana.

The case type is stated as Civil, Private.

On Jan. 12, 2024, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants filed their
respective motions for summary judgment.

On June 27, 2024, Judge Kathleen L. DeSoto entered findings and
recommendations (F&R) regarding the Plaintiffs' and Defendants'
motions for summary judgment.

On June 2, 2025, Judge Dana L. Christensen entered an Order
adopting in part and rejecting in part Judge DeSoto's F&R. The F&R
is adopted as to Counts Three, Six, Seven, and Nine. The F&R is
rejected as to the remaining Counts. It is further ordered that the
Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is denied. It is
further ordered that the Defendants' motion for summary judgment is
granted in part and denied in part. The Defendants are granted
summary judgment on Counts Three, Six, Seven, and Nine. The
Defendants are denied summary judgment on all remaining Counts.

The appellate case is entitled Leonard, et al. v. County of
Ravalli, et al., Case No. 25-4156, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 3, 2025.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on July 8, 2025;

   -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on August 12, 2025; and

   -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on September 11, 2025.
[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees KEITH LEONARD, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Timothy M. Bechtold, Esq.
          BECHTOLD LAW FIRM PLLC
          P.O. Box 7051
          Missoula, MT 59807

                 - and -

          Phil Telfeyan, Esq.
          EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW
          400 7th Street NW, Suite 602
          Washington, DC 20004

Defendants-Appellants COUNTY OF RAVALLI, et al. are represented
by:

          Maureen Lennon, Esq.
          Mitchell A. Young, Esq.
          Molenda Lee McCarty, Esq.
          MONTANA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
          County Litigation Group
          2715 Skyway Drive
          Helena, MT 59602

RC FL SHOPPES: Property Has Architectural Barriers, Saenz Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS SAENZ, Plaintiff v. RC FL SHOPPES AT 104 LLC, KONING
RESTAURANTS INTERNATIONAL, L.C. D/B/A PIZZA HUT #012351, SUNSHINE
RETAIL INVESTMENTS LLC D/B/A FRESCO Y MAS #287, HAMMOCKS GRILL,
INC. D/B/A HAMMOCKS GRILL, and CDT FOOD SERVICES LLC D/B/A SUBWAY,
Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-22904 (S.D. Fla., June 27, 2025) is a
class action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation
expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Plaintiff Saenz is an individual with disabilities as defined by
and pursuant to the ADA. Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate.
Plaintiff, CARLOS SAENZ, has very limited use of his hands and
cannot operate any mechanisms which require tight grasping or
twisting of the wrist. He also has a great deal of trouble walking
or otherwise ambulating without the use of a wheelchair.

The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at the Defendants' commercial plaza property,
grocery store business, and restaurant businesses. The barriers to
access at Defendants' commercial plaza property, grocery store
business, and restaurant businesses have each denied or diminished
Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial plaza property and
businesses within it and have endangered his safety in violation of
the ADA, says the suit.

RC FL SHOPPES AT 104 LLC owns a commercial plaza property in Miami,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
          ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
          7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104
          Miami, FL 33144
          Telephone: (786) 361-9909
          Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
          E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com

RESTORIX HEALTH: Faces Wells Suit Over Clients' Compromised Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH WELLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RESTORIX HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-01204 (D. Nev., July 3, 2025) is a class action against the
Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied
contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected
health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals stored within its network systems following a data
breach that occurred on or between May 7, 2024, and May 29, 2024.
The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and
similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result,
the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was
compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown
and unauthorized third parties.

Restorix Health, Inc. is a healthcare services company,
headquartered in Metairie, Louisiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Mark J. Bourassa, Esq.
       Jennifer A. Fornetti, Esq.
       Valerie S. Christian, Esq.
       Joseph P. Waldman, Esq.
       THE BOURASSA LAW GROUP
       2350 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite 100
       Las Vegas, NV 89102
       Telephone: (702) 851-2180
       Facsimile: (702) 851-2189
       Email: mbourassa@blgwins.com
              jfornetti@blgwins.com
              vchristian@blgwins.com
              jwaldman@blgwins.com

RUGS.COM LLC: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid in Perkins Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
RUGS.COM, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order denying its
motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Sarah Perkins,
et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Rugs.com, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-00019-JHC, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is
brought over the Defendant's consumer protection law violation.

On Jan. 13, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to compel
arbitration, which Judge John H. Chun denied on June 3, 2025.

The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs did not unambiguously
manifest assent to the Defendant's Terms of Use, and they are not
bound by the arbitration provision contained therein.

The appellate case is entitled Perkins, et al. v. Rugs.com, LLC,
Case No. 25-4155, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, filed on July 3, 2025.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on July 8, 2025;

   -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on August 12, 2025; and

   -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on September 11, 2025.
[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees SARAH PERKINS, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Beth Ellen Terrell, Esq.
          Blythe H. Chandler, Esq.
          Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          936 N. 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103

                 - and -

          Eleanor Michelle Drake, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE, PC
          1229 Tyler Street, NE Suite 205
          Minneapolis, MN 55413

                 - and -

          Sophia Rios, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE, PC
          8241 La Mesa Boulevard, Suite A
          La Mesa, CA 91942
          Telephone: (619) 489-0300

Defendant-Appellant RUGS.COM, LLC is represented by:

          Robert J. Guite, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP
          4 Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111

SELECT MEDIA: Discloses Sensitive Info to Third Parties, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
S.M., J.M., P.B., A.L., and S.L., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SELECT MEDIA LLC D/B/A
FANSLY, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-11856-FDS (D. Mass., June 27,
2025) is a class action against the Defendant for invasion of
privacy; breach of confidence; negligence; breach of implied
contract; and violations of the Video Privacy Protection, the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the New York Gen. Bus. Law,
the Massachusetts Right to Privacy Law, the California Invasion of
Privacy Act and the California Unfair Competition Law.

According to the complaint, Fansly is an online service which
allows users of its website -- www.fansly.com -- to upload and view
pornographic videos, as well as subscribe to independent
pornographic producers directly through its platform. While some of
the content hosted on Fansly can be viewed without paying for a
subscription, any person who wishes to browse even its free content
must register for an account on the Website to gain access.

The Plaintiffs used Defendant's Website to privately view
pornographic media from the comfort of their own homes. Given the
confidential nature of pornography usage, when Plaintiffs used the
Website, they assumed that Fansly would do its utmost to keep their
use of its service private. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to
Plaintiffs and other visitors to the Website, Fansly does not keep
sensitive information about their Website visitors private.
Instead, the Defendant collects and transmits information related
to individuals' use of the Website, including the specific
pornographic videos that they watch, to third party advertisers,
including Alphabet Inc., through the use of surreptitious online
tracking tools, says the suit.

Select Media LLC, d/b/a Fansly, is a subscription-based social
platform.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christina Xenides, Esq.
          SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
          1005 Congress Avenue, Suite 925-C36
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 265-5622
          E-mail: cxenides@sirillp.com

               - and -

          Mason A. Barney, Esq.
          Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
          Sonjay C. Singh, Esq.
          SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
          745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10151
          Telephone: (212) 532-1091
          E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com
                  ssingh@sirillp.com

SHENZHEN SMOORE: Faces H.H. Suit Over Anticompetitive Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
H.H., et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Shenzhen Smoore Technology Company, Ltd.;
Smoore International Holdings Limited; Jupiter Research, LLC; CB
Solutions, LLC d/b/a Canna Brand Solutions; Greenlane Holdings,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02259-DWL (D. Ariz., June 28,
2025) is a class action brought against Smoore and Distributor
Defendants on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all other similarly
situated indirect purchasers under Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act, pursuant to Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton
Act, and applicable state antitrust laws.

According to the complaint, Smoore is a monopolist in the
manufacture of the Products for the United States market and
produces as much as 80% of the closed cannabis oil vaping devices
in the United States and sells the Products directly to cannabis
producers and wholesale distributors, including to the Distributor
Defendants.

Smoore and the Distributor Defendants entered an anticompetitive
scheme to charge cannabis oil producers and other consumers of the
Products supracompetitive prices for closed cannabis oil
vaporization systems. As part of this scheme, Smoore and
Distributor Defendants entered into agreements that created a
minimum price floor for the Products, agreed that Distributor
Defendant's would only sell Smoore's Products and not those of
Smoore's competitors, agreed to allocate markets by not competing
for one another's customers, and agreed to share price and customer
information with one another, says the suit.

In particular, Smoore and Distributor Defendants entered agreements
in restraint of trade that: (i) forbid Distributor Defendants from
selling competing products to Smoore's Products; (ii) prevent
Distributor Defendants from selling Smoore's Products downstream
above a designated price floor; (iii) prevent Distributor
Defendants from selling Smoore's Products to Smoore's competitors;
(iv) require Distributor Defendants to post a security deposit that
is used to penalize Distributor Defendants if they do not comply
with the other anticompetitive provisions of the distribution
agreement, the suit asserts.

Plaintiff H.H. has purchased Products at a licensed dispensary
during the Class Period

Shenzhen Smoore Technology Company is a Chinese company that
manufactures and distributes empty cannabis vape cartridges, mouth
pieces, trays of deformable material with voids for holding
cartridge bodies, trays of deformable material with voids for
holding mouthpieces, and coverings.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Cristina Perez Hesano, Esq.
          PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
          7508 N. 59th Avenue
          Glendale, AZ 85301
          Telephone: (602) 730-7100
          E-mail: cperez@perezlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Brown, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550
          E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com

SHERRYL RANATZA: Miller's Bid for TRO, Prelim. Injunction Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK MILLER, ET AL., V.
SHERRYL RANATZA, ET AL., Case No. 3:25-cv-00454-JWD-SDJ (M.D. La.),
the Hon. Judge John W. deGravelles entered an order denying the
Plaintiff Miller's motion for temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction.

The Court further entered an order that the Plaintiff Miller's
motion to appoint counsel and motion for certification of the class
are denied as premature, without prejudice to refiling.

The pro se Plaintiffs, inmates confined at Dixon Correctional
Institute, Jackson, Louisiana, filed this proceeding pursuant to 42
U.S.C. section 1983 against Defendants Sherryl Ranatza and Jeff
Landry, complaining that their constitutional rights were violated
due to application of a new law in denial of their parole.

The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment as to the
constitutionality of the law at issue, an injunction prohibiting
application of the new law to offenders convicted prior to its
enactment and requiring new hearings for all offenders denied under
the new law, and/or release. In his Motion (R. Doc. 5), Plaintiff
Miller is seeking relief generally co-extensive with the relief
sought in his Complaint.

The Plaintiff Miller has also filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel and
Motion for Certification of the Class. Currently there are
outstanding issues regarding payment of the Court's filing fee for
Plaintiffs Wetzel and Clause.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 11, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LeosNh at no extra
charge.[CC] 


SMEG USA: Senior Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
---------------------------------------------------------
MILAGROS SENIOR, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SMEG USA, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-05431 (S.D.N.Y., July 1, 2025) is a civil rights action
against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://www.smeg.com/us, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
June 17, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Whistling Tea Kettle
from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the
Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied her a
shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full
and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public
and made available to the public. She was unable to locate pricing
and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links,
pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on
Defendant's Website, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

SMEG USA, Inc. operates the website that offers appliances and
accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
                  Dana@Gottlieb.legal
                  Michael@Gottlieb.legal

SPARKLE AND SWAG: Williamson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Grace Williamson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SPARKLE AND SWAG, LLC and Z EVENT COMPANY,
LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01182 (E.D. La., June 10, 2025), is brought
to recover unpaid overtime compensation back wages, an additional
equal amount as liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and
pre- and post-judgment interest.

This case implicates Defendants' policy of misclassifying employees
as exempt in an effort to avoid liability for the payment of
overtime wages under the FLSA. The Defendants have violated the
FLSA within the past three years by misclassifying their employees
as exempt employees and not paying overtime for hours worked over
40 hours per week. The Plaintiff, as the putative collective/class
representative, seeks certification of this suit as a collective
action (opt-in class action) on behalf of all current and former
misclassified employees of Defendants who were not paid overtime
when they worked in excess of
40 hours per week (collectively referred to as the "Similarly
Situated Misclassified Employees"), says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from January 2022 until
April 7, 2025.

Sparkle & Swag touts itself as a full-service event planning and
design company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence J. Centola, III, Esq.
          Jason Z. Landry, Esq.
          MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA
          338 Lafayette Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: (504) 581-9065
          Facsimile: (504) 581-7635
          Email: ljc@mbfirm.com
                 jzl@mbfirm.com

SPIRIT AIRLINES: Seeks Reversal of Magistrate Judge's Order
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL WARWAS, v. SPIRIT
AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 0:24-cv-60074-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order:

     -- reversing the Magistrate Judge's June 27, 2025, Order in
        part,

     -- staying class discovery pending the ruling on Spirit's
        motion to dismiss (or, alternatively, granting Spirit's
        motion to dismiss), and

     -- awarding Spirit such other relief as the Court deems just
        and proper.

The Defendant requests that this Court deny the class discovery
sought by Plaintiff and grant Spirit's pending Motion to Dismiss
the sole and exclusive claim alleged as a putative class action
(Count I of the Complaint).

On Sept. 2, 2022, the law firms representing Mr. Warwas in this
matter filed an FMLA putative class action lawsuit against Spirit
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, in
which flight attendant Grace Flannery served initially as the named
plaintiff.

On Jan. 11, 2024, after hearing oral argument from the parties, the
District of Nevada granted Spirit's Motion to Transfer the case to
the Southern District of Florida.

On June 27, 2025, Magistrate Judge Strauss issued the
Magistrate’s Order granting in part and denying in part
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel.

Spirit is an American ultra-low cost airline.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 11, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hGFtPT at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Miguel A. Morel, Esq.
          Alexander P. Berg, Esq.
          WELLS FARGO CENTER
          333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 400-7500
          E-mail: mamorel@littler.com
                  ABerg@littler.com

TBMF ONE: Payne Balks at Property's Architectural Barriers
----------------------------------------------------------
DENISE PAYNE, Plaintiff v. TBMF ONE, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, AMEER ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Florida Profit
Corporation d/b/a HOOK, FISH & CHICKEN, and NELLCO, INC. d/b/a
MARY’S LAUNDROMART, a Florida Corporation, Defendants, Case No.
0:25-cv-61307 (S.D. Fla., June 27, 2025) is a class action for
injunctive relief, a declaration of rights, attorneys' fees,
litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Plaintiff Payne is an individual with disabilities as defined by
and pursuant to the ADA. She uses a wheelchair to ambulate and has
very limited use of her hands and cannot operate any mechanisms
which require tight grasping or twisting of the wrist. She is
limited in his major life activities by such, including but not
limited to walking, standing, grabbing, grasping and/or pinching.

The Plaintiff found the restaurant/property to be rife with ADA
violations. She encountered architectural barriers at the subject
property, and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the
premises. The barriers to access at Defendant's property have
denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the property and
endangered his safety, says the suit.

Ameers Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Hook, Fish & Chicken, operates
and/or oversees the commercial property located in Lauderdale
Lakes, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
          ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
          7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104
          Miami, FL 33144
          Telephone: (786) 361-9909
          Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
          E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com

TICKETMASTER LLC: Class Cert Hearing in Madrigal Set for Dec. 8
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michelle Madrigal et al.,
v. Ticketmaster LLC et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02375-GW-KS (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge George Wu entered an order adopting without
amendment the entire schedule as previously set by Judge John F.
Walter.

Currently, the next scheduled appearance before the Court will be
the hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification --
which is set for Dec. 8, 2025, but the Court moves the time from
1:30 p.m. to 8:30 a.m.

Ticketmaster operates as a ticket distribution company.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 11, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=THGYuJ at no extra
charge.[CC] 


TIGER SUGAR: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Wills Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LAURENCE WILLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TIGER SUGAR USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-03704 (E.D.N.Y., July 3, 2025) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law, and
declaratory relief.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.tigersugar.co, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not
limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.

Tiger Sugar USA, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and
services in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Rami Salim, Esq.
       STEIN SAKS, PLLC
       One University Plaza, Suite 620
       Hackensack, NJ 07601
       Telephone: (201) 282-6500
       Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
       Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com

TIO NACHO: Faces Fernandez Suit Over Blind's Access to Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TIO NACHO, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-05514 (S.D.N.Y., July 3, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law, and
declaratory relief.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.tionachonyc.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not
limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.

Tio Nacho, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services
in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Rami Salim, Esq.
       STEIN SAKS, PLLC
       One University Plaza, Suite 620
       Hackensack, NJ 07601
       Telephone: (201) 282-6500
       Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
       Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com

TRE MONELLI: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fernandez Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRE MONELLI, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-05513 (S.D.N.Y., July 3, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law, and
declaratory relief.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.daclaudionyc.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not
limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.

Tre Monelli, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services
in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Rami Salim, Esq.
       STEIN SAKS, PLLC
       One University Plaza, Suite 620
       Hackensack, NJ 07601
       Telephone: (201) 282-6500
       Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
       Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com

TREACE MEDICAL: Court Names Rolnick Kramer as Lead Plaintiff
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Patricia D. Barksdale of the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida granted Special Situations Private
Equity Fund, L.P.'s motion for appointment as lead plaintiff in a
securities class action against Treace Medical Concepts, Inc.

Christopher McCluney brought this proposed class action under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78a–78qq, on
behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired Treace Medical
Concepts, Inc. securities between May 8, 2023, and May 7, 2024.
McCluney alleged that:

     -- Treace Medical,
     -- John Treace, the company's founder and chief executive
officer, and
     -- Mark Hair, the company's chief financial officer

violated the Exchange Act by making materially false or misleading
statements and failing to disclose adverse facts about Treace
Medical.

Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the
plaintiff published a notice in Business Wire and GlobeNewswire on
April 11, 2025, advising members of the purported class of the
pendency of the action, the claims asserted therein, and the
purported class period. The notice also advised that any member of
the purported class could move the court to serve as lead plaintiff
within 60 days after the notice was published. The court was
required to consider any such motion and appoint a lead plaintiff
within 90 days after the notice was published.

Putative class member Special Situations Private Equity Fund, L.P.
timely moved for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of its
selection of lead counsel, providing a certification under 15
U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(2). McCluney and another putative class
member filed similar motions. McCluney had no opposition to the
Fund's motion, and the other putative class member withdrew his
motion.

The court must appoint as lead plaintiff the member or members of
the purported plaintiff class that the court determines to be most
capable of adequately representing the interests of class members.
A rebuttable presumption exists that the most adequate plaintiff is
one that (1) has either filed the complaint or made a motion in
response to the published notice; (2) in the determination of the
court, has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by
the class; and (3) otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule 23 permits a class action if: (1) the class is so numerous
that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are
questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or
defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or
defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

The Fund had the largest financial interest, with estimated losses
of $451,750.00 during the relevant period. The Fund's losses were
greater than those claimed by other movants, which totaled $706.77
and $3,204.59 respectively.

The court determined that the Fund satisfied Rule 23's typicality
and adequacy requirements. Like the putative class claims, the
Fund's claims arose from its purchase of Treace Medical securities
during the relevant period at prices allegedly artificially
inflated by Treace Medical's false or misleading statements and
omissions. The Fund represented that it was a "well-grounded and
sophisticated institutional investor that can commit substantial
resources to this litigation," its "substantial financial stake" in
the outcome of the action incentivized it to "vigorously prosecute
the litigation," its interests were "perfectly aligned with those
of other class members and not antagonistic to them in any way,"
and it had filed a certification and declaration signed by its
manager affirming its willingness to serve as lead plaintiff.

The Fund selected the law firms of Rolnick Kramer Sadighi LLP and
Fox Rothschild LLP as lead counsel and local counsel, respectively.
The Fund identified Lawrence Rolnick, Marc Kramer, and Richard
Bodnar as the Rolnick Kramer Sadighi lawyers retained for
representation in this action.

The Fund asserted that the lawyers represented institutional and
private investors across the country and had served or were serving
as lead or co-lead counsel in other complex securities class
actions. However, the Fund failed to identify any Fox Rothschild
lawyer it had selected as local counsel, though Robert Elgidely
with that firm had appeared for the Fund.

Judge Barksdale granted in part the Fund's motion. Special
Situations Private Equity Fund was appointed as lead plaintiff.
Rolnick, Kramer, and Bodnar were approved to serve as lead
co-counsel for the class. The court denied the motion without
prejudice in all other respects. The Fund's bid to appoint Fox
Rothschild LLP to serve as local counsel was put on hold.  The
court said the Fund must identify the Fox Rothschild lawyer who
will be serving as lead counsel under Local Rule 1.01(d)(9) by the
same deadline.

The Fund requested consolidation of this action with any other
"potential related action." The Fund stated it was unaware of
another related action but contended that any such action should be
consolidated. Without an identified action, the Fund's request was
premature, according to the court.

McCluney's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of
lead counsel was denied as moot.

The Fund was directed to file an amended pleading or notify the
court that the amended complaint is the operative pleading.

The case is captioned as CHRISTOPHER MCCLUNEY, Plaintiff, v. TREACE
MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC., ETC., Defendants, Civil Action No.
3:25-cv-390-WWB-PDB (M.D. Fla.).

                    *     *     *

In subsequent orders, the court approved Fox Rothschild and Robert
F. Elgidely as bankruptcy counsel.

The court also granted the joint motion to modify certain case
deadlines and set a briefing schedule. The deadline for the lead
plaintiff to file an amended complaint is extended to July 31,
2025. The deadline for the defendants to move to dismiss or
otherwise respond to the amended complaint is extended to September
5, 2025. The deadline for the lead plaintiff to respond to any
motion to dismiss is extended to October 10, 2025.

A copy of the Court's order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hvHESa

UNITED STATES: Immigrants Sues Over Unlawful Courthouse Arrests
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Corbett, writing for Common Dreams, reports that a dozen
immigrants and their legal advocates on Wednesday, July 16,
launched a class action lawsuit challenging the Trump
administration's campaign of courthouse arrests "designed to strip
noncitizens of their rights" and expedite deportations.

"We are witnessing an authoritarian takeover of the U.S.
immigration court system by the Trump administration," said Keren
Zwick, director of litigation at the National Immigrant Justice
Center (NIJC), one of the groups behind the new suit. "People who
attend their hearings to seek permission to remain in this country
and comply with U.S. immigration law are being rounded up and
abruptly ripped from their families, homes, and livelihoods."

A dozen immigrants and their legal advocates launched a class
action lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's campaign of
courthouse arrests "designed to strip noncitizens of their rights"
and expedite deportations.

"We are witnessing an authoritarian takeover of the U.S.
immigration court system by the Trump administration," said Keren
Zwick, director of litigation at the National Immigrant Justice
Center (NIJC), one of the groups behind the new suit. "People who
attend their hearings to seek permission to remain in this country
and comply with U.S. immigration law are being rounded up and
abruptly ripped from their families, homes, and livelihoods."

"Meanwhile, the administration is issuing directives telling
immigration judges to violate those same immigration laws and strip
people of fundamental due process rights," Zwick added. "We must
continue fighting to overcome the administration's escalating
attacks on the U.S. Constitution and rule of law."

The suit -- filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia by NIJC, Democracy Forward, Lawyers' Committee for Civil
Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area (LCCRSF), and Refugee and
Immigrant Center for Legal Education and Services (RAICES) -- aims
to end the "unlawful" arrests and strike down related guidance from
the administration.

"For years, both the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the
Department of Justice (DOJ) had policies limiting civil
immigration-related arrests in immigration courts," explains the
complaint, filed on behalf of 12 people identified by their
initials as well as the groups American Gateways and Immigrant
Advocates Response Collaborative (ARC).

"These policies were rooted in the commonsense recognition that
such arrests hamper the fair administration of the immigration
process and create a palpable fear that disincentivizes people from
appearing for their hearings," the complaint explains. "But in the
first few days of the Trump administration, defendants repealed
those policies, exposing individuals who properly appear for their
hearings, including to seek asylum and other relief, to the
imminent threat of arrest and indefinite detention."

Defendants include DHS, DOJ, Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE), the Executive Office for Immigration Review, and leaders in
the administration who have been working to deliver on President
Donald Trump's promise of mass deportations.

"The egregious and unprecedented coordination amongst government
agencies that we are witnessing not only inflicts irreparable harm
upon infants and adults alike for seeking refuge in the U.S., but
also establishes a chilling precedent in which law and order are
abandoned in favor of stoking widespread panic and fear -- leaving
the entire American public at risk, regardless of immigration
status," warned Faisal Al-Juburi, chief external affairs officer at
RAICES.

Jordan Wells, senior staff Attorney at LCCRSF, declared that "these
directives forsake any notion of immigration courts as a neutral
forum, weaponizing them into a trap for immigrants who show up in
reliance on the American promise of a fair process before a judge,
only to be met instead with handcuffs and shunted into a fast-track
deportation process controlled by ICE agents."

Priyanka Gandhi-Abriano, interim CEO for Immigrant ARC, said that
"our friends, neighbors, and families are told to 'do it the right
way' -- to follow the legal process. They're doing just that --
showing up to court, complying with the law. Despite this, they're
being arrested and detained."

"This isn't justice," Gandhi-Abriano stressed. "It's a deliberate
attempt to intimidate and disappear people before they can be
heard. We're defending the integrity of the legal system,
protecting every person's right to due process, and holding the
Trump administration accountable for their deeply harmful practices
aimed at the most vulnerable communities."

The filing follows a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Homeland
Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons
-- all defendants in the new case -- in which two dozen U.S. Senate
Democrats wrote that "we are extremely concerned by reports of a
recent initiative to arrest and detain noncitizens at their
immigration court hearings, and in many cases, dismiss their
immigration cases without advance notice and while hiding the
government's intent to arrest them."

"This manipulation of existing laws to enact this administration's
mass deportation agenda is creating chaos in our immigration system
while doing nothing to make our communities safer," asserted the
lawmakers, led by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.),
and Alex Padilla (D-Calif.). They also demanded answers to a list
of related questions by July 25.[GN]

URBAN ATELIER: Faces Pesantez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
WALTER ANTONIO CHAVEZ PESANTEZ, SHANE TROY FARQUHARSON, MARIA
MARTHA TRAVEZ MISHQUI, MARCO ANTONIO TENEMPAGUAY PALAGUACHI,
LOURDES ABIGAIL SALINAS LOPEZ, EDGAR PATRICIO LLOACANA AGUACUNCHE,
KATHERINE MISHELL SALINAS ASTIMBAY, JENNY MARITZA MENDIETA HERAS,
INTY RAUL COREA ROMERO, GLADYS NARCISA LASLUIZA LASLUISA, GIOVANNY
ALEXANDER PEREZ MIRANDA, FRANKLIN R. VELASQUEZ, FRANK CARLOS
MARRUFO DIAZ, ELVIS ANDRES CEDENO ORTIZ, ELISA MARIBEL CHISAG
LASLUIZA, EDGARDO BLADIMIR AVELAR DE LA O, DARIO FEDERICO GONZALEZ,
CARMEN AZUCENA RIBERA MASAQUIZA, ARMANDO LANDAVERDE RIVERA, ANTONIO
GARCIA SALAZAR, ANILDA GONZALES VASQUEZ, ANA KEILA CUBAS URIARTE,
SEGUNDO ANGEL ALLAS PASOCHOA, MONICA PAULINA GUASHPA CARGAUCHI,
CELSO SANTIAGO BENAVIDES VELEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. URBAN ATELIER GROUP,
L.L.C., ENNISH CONSTRUCTION CORP. and KEP CONSTRUCTION, LLC, BARRY
RAFFERTY and KENDIS PAUL, as individuals, Defendants, Case No.
1:25-cv-03605 (E.D.N.Y., June 27, 2025) arises from the Defendants'
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants willfully failed to pay
Plaintiffs' overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week at a wage rate of one and a half times the regular wage.
The Defendants also failed to pay Plaintiffs' wages for hours
worked, failed to pay wages owed on a weekly basis in which wages
were earned, failed to provide with a written wage notice, and
failed to furnish Plaintiffs with wage statements.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as tapers and
construction workers, while performing related miscellaneous
duties.

Urban Atelier Group, LLC is a construction management service in
the New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591  

VAN LEEUWEN: Faces Wills Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store
------------------------------------------------------------------
LAURENCE WILLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VAN LEEUWEN ICE CREAM, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-03706 (E.D.N.Y., July 3, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law, and
declaratory relief.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.vanleeuwenicecream.com, contains access barriers which hinder
the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their
online goods, content, and services offered to the public through
the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but
not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.

Van Leeuwen Ice Cream, LLC is a company that sells online goods and
services in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Rami Salim, Esq.
       STEIN SAKS, PLLC
       One University Plaza, Suite 620
       Hackensack, NJ 07601
       Telephone: (201) 282-6500
       Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
       Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com

VESTA MINE: Bid to Permit Supplemental Briefing Tossed
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL GRAY, v. VESTA MINE
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01069-KT (W.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Kezia O. L. Taylor entered an order denying the Defendant's
motion to permit supplemental briefing.

The Court will proceed to decide the Plaintiff's motion to certify
class conditionally and for court-authorized notice based on the
briefing already submitted.

The Court declines to adopt the Defendant's proposed procedure,
which would delay resolution of the conditional certification
motion until after the close of discovery and permit supplemental
briefing based on the post-motion evidentiary record. Courts in
this Circuit apply a lenient two-step approach to FLSA conditional
certification.

Moreover, permitting supplemental briefing following the close of
discovery would not only deviate from this framework but also risk
prejudicing the claims of putative collective members by
further delaying court-authorized notice and allowing the statute
of limitations on their FLSA claims to continue to run.

The Defendant's suggestion that the "intermediate" standard applies
is unavailing in light of the Plaintiff's timely motion for
conditional certification and the well-established practice in this
District of applying the first-step Lusardi standard
notwithstanding discovery having occurred.

Vesta is a family-owned business, specializing in mining supplies
and services.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 11, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kArTT1 at no extra
charge.[CC]

VIRGINIA: Files an Appeal From Court Order in Mattocks Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA is taking an appeal from a court order in
the lawsuit entitled Trina Mattocks, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Commonwealth of Virginia, Defendant, Case No. CL24-3606, in the
Lower Tribunal of Richmond City, Virginia.

The case type is stated as injunction appeal.

The appellate case is entitled Commonwealth of Virginia vs.
Mattocks, Trina, Case No. 250586, in the Supreme Court of Virginia,
filed on July 2, 2025. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees TRINA MATTOCKS, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
          Zev Hillel Antell, Esq.
          Samantha Rachel Galina, Esq.
          BUTLER CURWOOD
          140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 648-4848
          Facsimile: (804) 237-0413

Defendant-Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA is represented by:

          Karen Skeirik Elliott, Esq.
          Brendan Conor Horgan, Esq.
          Victoria Langley Creta, Esq.
          FORDHARRISON LLP
          6802 Paragon Place, Suite 410
          Richmond, VA 23230

WOODS GROVE: Hernandez Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WOODS GROVE, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-03697 (E.D.N.Y., July 3, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law, and
declaratory relief.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.woodsgrove.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not
limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.

Woods Grove, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services
in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Rami Salim, Esq.
       STEIN SAKS, PLLC
       One University Plaza, Suite 620
       Hackensack, NJ 07601
       Telephone: (201) 282-6500
       Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
       Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com

WS NUTRITION: Senior Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
-------------------------------------------------------------
MILAGROS SENIOR, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WS NUTRITION, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-05392 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2025) is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://wildsocietynutrition.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
June 17, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Grass-Fed Whey Protein
Powder from Defendant and to view the information on the Website,
Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied
Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person
and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the
public and made available to the public. She was unable to locate
pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken
links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on
Defendant's Website, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

WS Nutrition, LLC operates the website that offers dietary and
nutritional supplements.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
                  Dana@Gottlieb.legal
                  Michael@Gottlieb.legal

YUMMYEARTH INC: Senior Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
---------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK SENIOR, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. YUMMYEARTH INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-05460 (S.D.N.Y., July 1, 2025) is a civil rights action
against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://yumearth.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on May
23, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Organic Sour Littles and
Organic Duo Pops from Defendant and to view the information on the
Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that
denied him a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted
person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered
to the public and made available to the public. He was unable to
locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to
broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other
barriers on Defendant's Website. By failing to make its Website
available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader
programs, the Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired
individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and
services, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually
impaired consumers.

YUMMYEARTH INC. operates the website that offers an array of goods
and services including information about its organic candy.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
                  Dana@Gottlieb.legal
                  Michael@Gottlieb.legal

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Co. Still Receives Exposure Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc., has received and continues to
receive claims for insurance arising under policies issued by the
Company asserting alleged injuries and damages from
asbestos-related exposures that are the subject of related coverage
litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Factors underlying these claim filings include
continued intensive advertising by lawyers seeking asbestos
claimants and the focus by plaintiffs on defendants, such as
manufacturers of talcum powder, who were not traditionally sued
and/or primary targets of asbestos litigation. Many defendants have
also been subject to increased settlement demands, in part due to
the bankruptcy of many traditional primary targets of asbestos
litigation. Currently, in many jurisdictions, those who allege very
serious injury and who can present credible medical evidence of
their injuries are receiving priority trial settings in the courts,
while those who have not shown any credible disease manifestation
are having their hearing dates delayed or placed on an inactive
docket. Prioritizing claims involving credible evidence of
injuries, along with the focus on defendants who were not
traditionally primary targets of asbestos litigation, contributes
to the claims and claim adjustment expense payment patterns
experienced by the Company.  

"Net asbestos paid loss and loss adjustment expenses in the first
six months of 2025 and 2024 were $103 million and $135 million,
respectively. Net asbestos reserves were $1.24 billion as of both
June 30, 2025 and 2024."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b6n4tQ


                            *********

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 ***