250821.mbx

250821.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, August 21, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 167 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Andersen Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Clark Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Clemons Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Daugherty Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Daughtery Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Foster Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Johnson Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: McGarvey Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Peacock Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Thompson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Trayner Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Walker Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Winston Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foam A1 DEVELOPMENT: Portugal Sues Over Illegal Online Casino Operation ALBERTSON COS: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Action Suit for $5.95MM AMERICAN HONDA: Must Oppose Shamman Class Cert. Bid by Oct. 6 ANOTHER BROKEN: Santana Class Action Closed ARKAN FOOD: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Villava ASPEN DENTAL: Deadline to File Settlement Claims Set September 15 BAYER CORP: Revolinsky Appeals Attorneys' Fees Order to 7th Cir. BLUE RIDGE: Reaches $2.5MM Settlement in Securities Class Suit BONAFIDE PROVISIONS: Pratt Balks at Mislabeled Bone Broth Products CARGILL INCORPORATED: Cocoa Farms Child Labor Case Dismissal Upheld CFL PIZZA: Trefry Balks at Delivery Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses CHEMOURS COMPANY: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Delaware CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY: Discriminates Female Student-Athletes CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Court Dismisses Ritchie Shareholder Suit COSTCO WHOLESALE: Bullard Must File Class Cert Bid by July 31, 2026 CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Class Cert Filing in Conriquez Due Oct. 15 DAIKIN COMFORT: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Defective Amana AC Units DECISELY INSURANCE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Warren Says DELTA AIR: Goodyear Allowed Leave to File Class Exhibits Under Seal DRP MASONRY: Watkins Seeks Conditional Collective Certification ELIGO ENERGY: Charges Exorbitant Rates for Electricity, Suit Says EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Class Cert Bid Filing in Cargill Due Sept. 2 FIRST ADVANTAGE: Wins Summary Judgment v. Jones FIRSTENERGY CORP: Appeals Court Rejected Suit Consolidation Bid FISERV INC: Faces Reed Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime FISHER INVESTMENTS: Human Requests Petition for Writ of Mandamus FLOWERS BAKERIES: Ryans Suit Removed to C.D. California FOX FACTORY: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending FRESENIUS VASCULAR: $3.15MM Deal in Gravley Data Breach Suit OK'd GERBER PRODUCTS: Falsely Labels Baby Food Products, Williams Says GOLDBERG COMPANIES: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Says GOLDEN GATE: Melingonis Alleges Illegal Telemarketing Practices GOOGLE LLC: Bid to Seal Class Cert Exhibits in Rabin Suit Granted GRAVY ANALYTICS: Exposes Private Data to Third Parties, Rogers Says HARLES SCHWAB: Bueno Suit Removed to C.D. California HARMONY HOME BUYER: Alison Files TCPA Suit in D. Kansas HIGHLANDS ONCOLOGY: Wyckoff Files Suit in W.D. Arkansas HILMA INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Williams Suit Says HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Must Face Albert FLSA Suit Over Late Pay HOYT ARCHERY: Faces Vale Suit Over Archery Products Price-Fixing ILLINOIS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response in Kainz INDUSTRIAL SERVICE: Barrett Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES: Colbert Sues Over Unpaid Wages J.B. HUNT: $5MM Deal in Background Check Suit Gets Initial Court OK JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Gatewood Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: Brooks Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. KENDRA SCOTT: Casillas Suit Removed to S.D. California KIM KOVOL: Bid for Summary Judgment Partly OK'd in Mary Suit LB STEAKS: Thompson Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages LINCOLN NATIONAL: Court Dismisses Meade Securities Class Suit LOYAL SOURCE: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Pembrick Suit Denied MASIMO CORP: Senior Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind MERRILL LYNCH: Bid for Summary Judgment in Valelly Partly OK'd NEW YORK CREMERIA: Hernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website NEW YORK: Thompson Sues Over Unlawful Protest Policing Policies NISSAN NORTH: Faces Class Action Suit Over Faulty Engines NORTH ATLANTIC: Welch Files Suit Over False Discount Prices NYC LUXURY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hernandez Says PACIFICA BEAUTY: Martinez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind PANERA BREAD: Deadline to File Settlement Claim Set Nov. 11 PBF GROUP: Faces Cruz Suit over Refinery Emissions PF CALI: Strandholt Seeks to Continue Class Cert. Bid Deadlines PINCH FOOD: Faces Nassif Suit Over Illegal Tip Retention PLAVAN COMMERCIAL: Class Settlement in Tanner Suit Gets Final Nod POSH COMPANY: Cazares Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PRAC HOLDINGS: Babb Suit Removed to E.D. California PROPR FIT: Fernandez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind RACK ROOM: Bid to Dismiss CDAFA Claims Tossed RANDY 707 LENDER: Arreola Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Washington RB GLOBAL: Contract Manufacturing Sues Over Sherman Act Breach RED ROOF: Class Settlement in Data Incident Suit Gets Final Nod RED ROOF: Class Settlement in McCall Class Suit Gets Final Nod RED ROOF: Class Settlement in Richardson Class Suit Gets Final Nod RICHARD CHAREST: J.E.L. Seeks to Certify Class Action RICOH USA: Class Cert Bid Filing in Mike Suit Continued to Oct. 20 ROBERT LARSON: Class Cert Bid Filing in Johnson Due April 21, 2026 ROBLOX CORP: Appeals Arbitration Order in Murphy Suit to 9th Cir. ROME ENTERPRISES: Friel Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania SCOUT ENERGY: Ruling on CCPA Claims Deferred SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Howell Class Cert Filing Due Feb. 4, 2026 SHADE STORE: Crowder Must File Class Cert Reply by Sept. 12 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO: Ramirez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. SHUTTERSTOCK INC: Herrick Action Stayed Pending Appeal Decision SIG SAUER: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Glasscock Suit to 8th Cir. SL MEDICINE: Illegally Keeps Employees' Earned Tips, Roley Claims SPARC GROUP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Peppars Due March 6, 2026 SPECTRUM PHARMA: Christiansen Disqualified as Lead Plaintiff SPOKEO INC: Class Certification Order Entered in Larancuent STEPHEN F. AUSTIN: Appeals Injunction Order in Myers Class Suit THANG BOTANICALS: Filing for Class Certification Due May 1, 2026 THYSSENKRUPP SUPPLY: Copes Suit Removed to N.D. California TRINITY PACKAGING: Settlement in Robertson Suit Gets Final Nod TRUSTPOINT INSURANCE: Friel Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania ULTA BEAUTY: Shahpur Class Suit Removed to E.D. Wash. UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal UNITED PARCEL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Cotton Due March 30, 2026 UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of U Visa Suit vs. USCIS UNITED STATES: Consolidated Briefing Schedule Entered in Hagans USAA CASUALTY: Jennings Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action VALNET INC: Discloses Personal Info Without Consent, Saul Says VESTIS: Faces Securities Suit over SEC Disclosures WELLS FARGO: Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Certification Tossed WESPAC FOUNDATION: Manhart Appeals Court Order to 7th Circuit WEST PUBLISHING: Adinoff Suit Removed to D. Colorado WILLIAM BONAR: Joint Discovery Plan Filing in Dalrada Due Sept. 8 WOOD RIVER HEALTH: Potter Files Suit in D. Rhode Island ********* 3M COMPANY: Andersen Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Melissa Andersen, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01076 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on July 28, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-08674-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: R. Bryant McCulley, esq. ASHCRAFT AND GEREL 701 East Bay Street, Suite 411 Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (843) 699-8280 Email: bmcculley@ashcraftlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Clark Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- Angela Renee Clark, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-09796-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 6, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Ryan Ziminskas, Esq. THEMIS LAW, PLLC 7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 105 Austin, TX 78731 Phone: (737) 208-1636 Email: rziminskas@themislawpllc.com 3M COMPANY: Clemons Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Terry L. Clemons, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01022 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on July 28, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-08667-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. Yahn Eric Olson, esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9206 Email: gary@elglaw.com GregC@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com yolson@elglaw.com 3M COMPANY: Daugherty Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Steven Daugherty Jr., and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-09781-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 6, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluoro octane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Hochman, Esq. THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC 5411 McPherson Rd Ste. 110 Laredo, TX 78041 Phone: (956) 704-5187 Facsimile: (956) 368-1343 3M COMPANY: Daughtery Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ----------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Dane Daughtery, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-09718-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 5, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluoro octane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Hochman, Esq. THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC 5411 McPherson Rd Ste. 110 Laredo, TX 78041 Phone: (956) 704-5187 Facsimile: (956) 368-1343 3M COMPANY: Foster Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jo Ann Foster, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-09773-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 6, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluoro octane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Hochman, Esq. THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC 5411 McPherson Rd Ste. 110 Laredo, TX 78041 Phone: (956) 704-5187 Facsimile: (956) 368-1343 3M COMPANY: Johnson Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Adolphus L. Johnson, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01020 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on July 28, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-08663-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. Yahn Eric Olson, esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9206 Email: gary@elglaw.com GregC@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com yolson@elglaw.com 3M COMPANY: McGarvey Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Lisa McGarvey, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01143 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Aug. 6, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-09689-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Gregory Cade, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. Yahn Eric Olson, esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9206 Email: gary@elglaw.com GregC@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com yolson@elglaw.com 3M COMPANY: Peacock Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ruby Hazelette Peacock, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-09791-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 6, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluoro octane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Hochman, Esq. THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC 5411 McPherson Rd Ste. 110 Laredo, TX 78041 Phone: (956) 704-5187 Facsimile: (956) 368-1343 3M COMPANY: Thompson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ricky John Thompson, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-09715-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 5, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluoro octane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Hochman, Esq. THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC 5411 McPherson Rd Ste. 110 Laredo, TX 78041 Phone: (956) 704-5187 Facsimile: (956) 368-1343 3M COMPANY: Trayner Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brendon Craig Trayner, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-09774-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 6, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with thyroid disease. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Ryan Ziminskas, Esq. THEMIS LAW, PLLC 7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 105 Austin, TX 78731 Phone: (737) 208-1636 Email: rziminskas@themislawpllc.com 3M COMPANY: Walker Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Eugene Walker, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-09717-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 5, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with testicular cancer. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Ryan Ziminskas, Esq. THEMIS LAW, PLLC 7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 105 Austin, TX 78731 Phone: (737) 208-1636 Email: rziminskas@themislawpllc.com 3M COMPANY: Winston Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foam ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Winston Jr., and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (F/K/A MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING, CO.); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; AGC, INC. (F/K/A ASAHI GLASS CO., LTD.); ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-49, Case No. 2:25-cv-09703-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 5, 2025), is brought against Defendants to recover damages for personal injuries caused by exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS") including, but not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and/or perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") included in aqueous film-forming foam ("AFFF") used for firefighting and firefighter training. AFFF is designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. This Complaint refers to AFFF, PFOA, PFOS, and PFAS compounds collectively as "Fluorosurfactant Products." PFOS and PFOA are mobile, persist indefinitely in the environment, bioaccumulate in individual organisms and humans, and biomagnify up the food chain. PFOS and PFOA are also associated with multiple and significant adverse health effects in humans, including but not limited to kidney cancer, testicular cancer, high cholesterol, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, and pregnancy-induced hypertension. The Defendants manufactured, marketed and/or sold Fluorosurfactant Products with the knowledge that firefighters would be exposed to these toxic compounds during fire protection, training, and response activities even when the AFFF was used as directed and intended by the manufacturer. Due to widespread PFAS contamination caused by Defendants' Fluorosurfactant Products, including the contamination of Plaintiff's drinking water supplies, Plaintiff has suffered serious personal injuries set forth in detail below. Plaintiff's injuries are a direct result of Plaintiff's exposure to the PFAS contamination present in Plaintiff's drinking water supplies. The Plaintiff, as a resident who worked or resided in the contaminated areas, has been unknowingly exposed for many years to dangerous PFAS levels. The Plaintiff's unwitting exposure to PFAS in Plaintiff's water supply as a result of Defendants' conduct set forth below is the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to PFAS through drinking water at residences and workplaces in Mobile, Alabama; Montgomery, Alabama; and Morgan City, Alabama. The Defendants designed, manufactured, formulated, marketed, promoted, distributed, and/or sold the Fluorosurfactant Products to which Plaintiff was exposed.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Summy, Esq. Holly Werkema, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Dr., Ste. 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Phone: (214) 521-3605 Fax: (214) 279-9915 Email: ssummy@baronbudd.com hwerkema@baronbudd.com - and - Philip F. Cossich, Jr., Esq. Christina M. Cossich, Esq. COSSICH, SUMICH, PARSIOLA & TAYLOR, LLC 8397 Highway 23, Suite 100 Belle Chasse, LA 70037 Phone: (504) 394-9000 Email: pcossich@cossichlaw.com ccossich@cossichlaw.com A1 DEVELOPMENT: Portugal Sues Over Illegal Online Casino Operation ------------------------------------------------------------------ THOMAS PORTUGAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A1 DEVELOPMENT LLC, d/b/a "No Limit Coins," Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-06505 (N.D. Cal., August 1, 2025) arises out of Defendant's alleged operation of an illegal online casino in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, the purchase of coins is a transaction for accessing and using casino services. The Defendant violated, and continues to violate, the law by, inter alia: a) manipulating the odds of the games of chance in No Limit Coins to increase their addictive qualities and to induce players to continue playing and spending more money; and b) deceiving or confusing customers into believing that the gambling transactions confer or involve certain rights, remedies, or obligations (i.e., the right to recover winning and the obligation to pay for losses), when in fact any such rights, remedies or obligations are prohibited by law. The Defendant's pricing structure confirms that the true purpose of these transactions is to sell Super Coins. Notwithstanding the differences between the coins, none of the games depend on any amount of skill to determine their outcome. The Defendant's operations flout legal requirements by providing unlicensed gambling services to California residents via its games, alleges the suit. A1 Development LLC owns and operates casino and sweepstakes gaming website called No Limit Coins, available at https://www.nolimitcoins.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park E #1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Gabriel Mandler, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (786) 200-4316 E-mail: gabriel@edelsberglaw.com - and - Edwin Elliot, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: Edwine@shamisgentile.com ALBERTSON COS: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Action Suit for $5.95MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top class Actions reports that Albertson Companies agreed to pay $5.95 million to resolve claims it violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending unsolicited text messages to consumers. The Albertsons settlement benefits individuals who received two or more unsolicited text messages from Albertsons Companies, Star Markets Company, and/or Safeway, including their affiliates and subsidiaries, within a 12-month period after making a request to stop receiving further messages. The Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim Albertsons sent unsolicited text messages to consumers without their consent. These messages allegedly violated the TCPA, which requires businesses to get express written consent from consumers before sending unsolicited texts. Albertsons, a nationwide grocery store company, has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $5.95 million settlement to resolve the TCPA class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Albertsons class action settlement, class members can receive an equal share of the net settlement fund. Exact payment amounts will vary depending on the number of participating class members, but each class member is estimated to receive at least $100. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Sept. 10, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Albertsons settlement is scheduled for Oct. 3, 2025. To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by Sept. 10, 2025. Who's Eligible The settlement benefits individuals who received two or more unsolicited text messages and/or telemarketing calls from Albertsons, Star Markets Company Inc. and Safeway Inc. and their affiliates and subsidiaries between June 1, 2023, and the date of preliminary approval of the settlement and who received those messages after making a request to stop further messages. Potential Award An estimated $100. Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 09/10/2025 Case Name Kamel, et al. v. Albertsons Companies Inc., et al., Case No. 2025-007258-CA-01, in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida Final Hearing 10/03/2025 Settlement Website ACITextSettlement.com Claims Administrator Kamel, et al. vs. Albertsons Companies Inc. c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC P.O. Box 225391 New York, NY 10150-5391 (833) 890-4771 Class Counsel Michael Eisenband EISENBAND LAW P.A. Manuel S. Hiraldo HIRALDO P.A. Anthony Paronich PARONICH LAW P.C. Defense Counsel Petrina Hall McDaniel SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS US LLP [GN] AMERICAN HONDA: Must Oppose Shamman Class Cert. Bid by Oct. 6 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as QUINTIN SHAMMAM, v. AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION, Case No. 3:24-cv-00648-H-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Marilyn Huff entered an order as follows: 1. Consistent with the current scheduling order, the Plaintiff must file his motion for class certification on or before Aug. 7, 2025. 2. The Defendant must file its opposition on or before Oct. 6, 2025. 3. The Plaintiff must file his reply on or before Nov. 3, 2025. 4. The hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification will take place on Nov. 17, 2025 at 10:30 a.m. 5. The Plaintiff's opening brief may not exceed 35 pages; 6. The Defendant's opposition may not exceed 35 pages; 7. The Plaintiff's reply brief may not exceed 20 pages. American offers a range of leasing and financing solutions for automobiles. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FIXFYZ at no extra charge.[CC] ANOTHER BROKEN: Santana Class Action Closed ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD SANTANA, v. ANOTHER BROKEN EGG OF AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-60580-RS (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Rodney Smith entered an order that: 1. The parties shall file a joint stipulation of dismissal in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 by Sept. 5, 2025. 2. This case is closed. The Defendant owns and operates a chain of restaurant. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cCGY8y at no extra charge.[CC] ARKAN FOOD: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Villava ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FLORIBERTO VILLAVA, v. ARKAN FOOD CORP., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-06121-VSB-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management: All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. website at Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and § 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court proceeding (including a telephonic court conference), or to extend a deadline, must be made in writing and in compliance with § 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Arkan offers various food products, including rice, noodles, paste, sauces, and seasoning. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7Gla3Q at no extra charge.[CC] ASPEN DENTAL: Deadline to File Settlement Claims Set September 15 ----------------------------------------------------------------- JDSupra reports that dental service organization (DSO) Aspen Dental has agreed to pay $18.7 million to resolve claims that it secretly shared web user data with Meta and Google, without obtaining users' consent or informing them. The claims are part of a class action lawsuit brought against Aspen Dental in Illinois State Court, accusing the DSO of violating privacy laws by gathering sensitive data on website visitors through "tracking pixel" technology on its website and then sharing such information with Meta and Google, among others. The settlement includes two subclasses totaling more than two million individuals. These two subclasses are separated into Group 1 (those who booked an appointment between February 20, 2022 and June 1, 2023) and Group 2 (those who booked appointments from June 2, 2023 through January 1, 2025). Members of the class action must submit claims no later than September 15, 2025, with a final hearing set for October 20, 2025, according to court filings. [GN] BAYER CORP: Revolinsky Appeals Attorneys' Fees Order to 7th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- LAURA REVOLINSKY is taking an appeal from a court order denying her motion for attorneys' fees in the lawsuit styled Seresto Flea and Tick Collar Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-04447, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On Apr. 22, 2021, Plaintiff Revolinsky filed a complaint against Bayer Healthcare LLC, et al. alleging that the Seresto collars contain pesticides and other ingredients that can cause serious injury and death to cats and/or dogs wearing the product. On January 20, 2023, a Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed that included Plaintiff Revolinsky, among others. On Apr. 16, 2025, Plaintiff Revolinsky filed her motion for attorneys' fees, which Judge John Robert Blakey denied on July 25, 2025. The appellate case is entitled Seresto Flea and Tick Collar Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 25-2401, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on August 12, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant LAURA REVOLINSKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Bruce H. Nagel, Esq. NAGEL RICE, LLP 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 618-0400 Email: bnagel@nagelrice.com - and - Joseph LoPiccolo, Esq. POULOS LOPICCOLO PC 1305 South Rolle Road Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 757-0165 Email: lopiccolo@pllawfirm.com Defendants-Appellees BAYER CORPORATION, et al. are represented by: Joseph H. Blum, Esq. Thomas J. Sullivan, Esq. SHOOK HARDY & BACON, LLP Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street, Suite 3000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 575−3115 Email: jblum@shb.com tsullivan@shb.com - and - John P. Mandler, Esq. Amy Rae Fiterman, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 2200 Wells Fargo Center 90 S. Seventh St. Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 766−7000 Email: john.mandler@faegredrinker.com amy.fiterman@FaegreBD.com - and - Andrea Roberts Pierson, Esq. Andrew Campbell, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 300 N. Meridian St., Suite 2500 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 237−1424 Email: andrea.pierson@faegredrinker.com Andrew.Campbell@FaegreDrinker.com - and - Blake Anthony Angelino, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 320 S. Canal Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 356−5145 Email: blake.angelino@faegredrinker.com BLUE RIDGE: Reaches $2.5MM Settlement in Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. announces that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of publicly-traded common stock of Blue Ridge Bankshares, Inc. (NYSE: BRBS): SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT TO: ALL PERSONS WHO (A) PURCHASED THE PUBLICLY-TRADED COMMON STOCK OF BLUE RIDGE BANKSHARES, INC. ("BLUE RIDGE") BETWEEN FEBRUARY 3, 2023 AND OCTOBER 31, 2023, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"). Pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, a hearing will be held virtually on October 29, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. before the Honorable Joseph A. Martullo, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum of $2,500,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan of allocation to distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of up to one-third of the Settlement Amount plus interest, reimbursement of expenses of not more than $80,000, and a service payment of no more than $3,500 to Plaintiff, should be approved; and (4) whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement, dated February 4, 2025 (the "Stipulation"). If you purchased the publicly-traded common stock of Blue Ridge between February 3, 2023 and October 31, 2023, both dates inclusive, your rights may be affected by this Settlement, including the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your ownership interest in publicly-traded Blue Ridge common stock. If you need assistance obtaining a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Long Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Proof of Claim"), you may write to, call, or contact the Claims Administrator: Blue Ridge Bankshares, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, Media, PA 19063; (Toll-Free) (866) 274-4004; (Fax) (610) 565-7985); info@strategicclaims.net. You can also download copies of the Long Notice and submit your Proof of Claim online at www.strategicclaims.net/BlueRidge/. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim electronically or postmarked no later than October 1, 2025 to the Claims Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to share in the recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you make a claim. If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so that it is received no later than October 1, 2025, in the manner and form explained in the Long Notice. If you want to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense. All members of the Settlement Class who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the Stipulation. Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and award to Plaintiff must be in the manner and form explained in the detailed Long Notice and received no later than October 1, 2025, by each of the following: Clerk of the Court United States District Court Eastern District of New York 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, NY 11201 Jonathan Horne The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Lead Counsel for Plaintiff Jeffrey J. Chapman McGuireWoods LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor New York, NY 10020 Counsel for Defendants If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or write to Lead Counsel: Jonathan Horne THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Email: jhorne@rosenlegal.com [GN] BONAFIDE PROVISIONS: Pratt Balks at Mislabeled Bone Broth Products ------------------------------------------------------------------ GEORGE PRATT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BONAFIDE PROVISIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01982-BEN-KSC (S.D. Cal., August 1, 2025) is a class action lawsuit concerning Defendant's false and misleading labeling and marketing on its Bonafide Provisions Frozen Organic Bone Broth Products manufactured, sold, and produced by Defendant, which claim to have 10 grams of protein per serving. According to the complaint, independent third-party ConsumerLab testing of Defendant's 24 fluid oz Organic Beef Bone Broth -- which Defendant claims contains 10 grams of protein per serving -- found that the Product contained only 65% of the protein that Defendant claims is in the Product. The confirmatory testing conducted by Plaintiff's counsel found that the Product contained just 6.73 grams of protein per serving; 67% of what Defendant expressly represents is in its Product. As such, two separate sets of testing have found that Defendant's bone broth Product with 10 grams of protein is consistently underfilled by approximately 35%. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings claims individually and on behalf of similarly situated purchasers of Defendant's Products for violations of (i) California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act; (ii) California's Unfair Competition Law; (iii) California's False Advertising Law; (iv) breach of express warranty; and (v) unjust enrichment. Founded in 2011 and based in California, Bonafide Provisions, LLC sells organic frozen bone broth.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Joshua B. Glatt, Esq. Karen B. Valenzuela, Esq. Ryan B. Martin, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com jglatt@bursor.com kvalenzuela@bursor.com rmartin@bursor.com CARGILL INCORPORATED: Cocoa Farms Child Labor Case Dismissal Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Issouf Coubaly, individually and on behalf of proposed class members, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Cargill Incorporated, et al., Defendants, Appeal No. 22-7104, Circuit Judge Walker of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs' complaint for lack of standing. Eight Malian citizens alleged that they were forced to work as children on cocoa farms in Cote d'Ivoire. They sued seven cocoa importers on behalf of a putative class. The named defendants include Cargill, Nestle, Mondelez, Hershey, Olam, Barry Callebaut, and Mars. Plaintiff Issouf Coubaly was trafficked from Mali to Cote d'Ivoire at age 15 and worked alone without pay on a small, isolated cocoa farm called Guezouba for five years before managing to return penniless to Mali. The seven other named Plaintiffs have stories much like Coubaly's. Traffickers lured them from Mali as children with the promise of well-paying jobs and forced them to work on small cocoa farms in remote regions of Cote d'Ivoire. The Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in the United States District Court against the seven cocoa importers, accusing them of violating the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. The TVPRA creates a civil remedy against any person who 'knowingly benefits . . . from participation in a venture' that violates federal slavery and human trafficking laws. The Plaintiffs allege that the importers are the architects and defenders of the cocoa production system of Cote d'Ivoire and formed, operate and control a cocoa supply chain 'venture' to provide themselves with cheap cocoa harvested by enslaved children. The importers moved to dismiss the suit for lack of standing. The district court granted the motion, concluding that the Plaintiffs did not connect the defendants to any specific cocoa plantations, let alone the plantation on which the Plaintiffs had worked as children. The court found that the complaint's "general industry-wide allegations . . . lack the specificity necessary to establish causation with the particularity that Article III requires." The Importers moved to dismiss the suit for lack of standing. The district court granted the motion, concluding that the Plaintiffs did not "connect the defendants to any specific cocoa plantations," let alone the plantation on which the Plaintiffs had worked as children. So the complaint's "[g]eneral industry-wide allegations . . . lack the specificity necessary to establish causation with the particularity that Article III requires." The Plaintiffs appealed, and the Appeals Court held their appeal in abeyance pending the disposition of a somewhat similar case -- Doe 1 v. Apple Inc., 96 F.4th 403 (D.C. Cir. 2024). There, former child cobalt miners alleged that American technology companies violated the TVPRA by participating in a supply-chain "venture" that supplied them with Congolese cobalt. Last year, the Appeals Court held that the Apple plaintiffs had standing but failed to state a claim under the TVPRA. The Court of Appeals reviewed the standing determination de novo, focusing on the causation requirement. Article III of the Constitution vests the Judiciary with the power to decide only 'Cases' or 'Controversies.' To present a case or controversy, a plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. Circuit Judge Walker noted that this case concerns causation. The Plaintiffs must show a causal connection between their undisputed injury (forced labor) and the importers' allegedly unlawful conduct (participation in a "supply chain venture"). The Court of Appeals found that the Plaintiffs lack standing because they have not clearly alleged facts demonstrating the causal connection between the importers' alleged supply chain venture and the Plaintiffs' forced labor. The Court of Appeals identified the Plaintiffs' first mistake as their failure to clearly define the "venture" in which the importers allegedly participated. Is it the World Cocoa Foundation -- an association of the importers themselves, without 'any individual or entity that injured' the Plaintiffs? Or are the importers 'in a venture with each other and their cocoa suppliers,' who 'were responsible for the forced labor and trafficking' of the Plaintiffs? The complaint does not clarify. Moreover, the Court of Appeals found that the Plaintiffs' complaint does not contain sufficient factual matter to render plausible any causal connection between the Plaintiffs' forced labor and the importers' purchase of Ivorian cocoa. Nowhere, for instance, does Coubaly plausibly allege that Guezouba, the small farm where he was forced to work, supplied one of the importers that he sued. Nor does he allege that Guezouba supplied an intermediary company that in turn supplied a specific Importer. The Circuit Judge rejected the Plaintiffs' reliance on the statistic that the Importers buy nearly 70% of Ivorian cocoa. Of course, that statistic does not identify which farm sold to which Importer -- or which farm sold to which intermediary that then sold to which Importer. Instead, the Plaintiffs argued that because the importers "are responsible for more than 70 percent of the cocoa exported from Cote D'Ivoire, it is more likely than not that each Plaintiff was forced to harvest cocoa for one or more of the importers operating within the venture." The Appeals Court pointed out that to show standing at the motion-to-dismiss stage, the Plaintiffs needed to plausibly allege specific facts showing that the importers sourced cocoa from the farms where they worked -- either directly or through intermediaries. It's not enough to allege only that some importer might (or might not) have bought cocoa from a farm at a time that a Plaintiff might (or might not) have been forced to work there. "Is there a 'possibility' that at least some of the Importers sourced cocoa from those farms? Yes. But is it 'plausible'? Not on this complaint," Circuit Judge Walker opined. The Court distinguished this case from Doe 1 v. Apple Inc., where former child cobalt miners had standing to sue American technology companies. In Apple, the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the defendants sourced cobalt from the very suppliers who benefited from the plaintiffs' forced labor. So a direct line ran from all the defendants, through their suppliers, to all the plaintiffs. By contrast, the Court found that the Coubaly complaint against the Importers: (1) does not identify all the farms where the Plaintiffs worked, (2) does not fully identify the farmers who owned and controlled those farms, and (3) does not plausibly allege that those (largely unidentified) farmers supplied cocoa to any of the importers (or any clearly identified intermediaries). The Court concluded, "The Plaintiffs in this case deserve the greatest sympathy, and the people who took away their childhoods deserve the greatest condemnation. But the Plaintiffs did not plausibly allege a connection between those people and the Importers. The Plaintiffs therefore lack standing to sue the importers." A copy of the Court of Appeals' Judgment can be found at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CRNfHW CFL PIZZA: Trefry Balks at Delivery Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses ------------------------------------------------------------------ RALPH TREFRY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CFL PIZZA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 229183419 (Fla. Cir., 9th Judicial, Orange Cty., August 11, 2025) seeks redress for the systematic policies and practices of Defendant of paying its deliver drivers hourly wages that are well below the requirement by the Florida Constitution and by the Florida Minimum Wage Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant employs and/or employed delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to Defendant's customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, the Defendant uses a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that does not adequately reimburse the drivers for the expenses Defendant forces them to incur. This under-reimbursement causes their wages to fall below the applicable minimum wage during some or all workweeks, says the suit. Plaintiff Trefry worked for Defendant from approximately 1997 to November 24, 2024 as a delivery driver. CFL Pizza, LLC operates a chain of more than 90 Pizza Hut franchise restaurants in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. Jolie N. Pavlos, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1500 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 418-2069 Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com jpavlos@forthepeople.com CHEMOURS COMPANY: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Delaware ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Chemours Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2025, that it is facing two putative class actions filed in Delaware federal court in March 2024 against the company and its former officers alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. The complaints allege claims on behalf of proposed classes of purchasers of Chemours stock beginning February 10, 2023 and ending February 28, 2024 and seek compensatory damages and fees. In September 2024, an Amended Complaint was filed, and the company and former officers filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in October 2024. In April, June, July, August and October 2024, the company received seven stockholder demands for inspection of books and records under Section 220 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware and the common law, including in its purpose the investigation of possible wrongdoing, mismanagement or breach of fiduciary duties by the Board of Directors and/or senior management in connection with the compensation of executive officers and oversight over the company's accounting practices. In June 2025, the company received a demand letter from one of these stockholders requesting that the Board investigate allegations that the company made false and misleading disclosures regarding its financial condition and controls. The Chemours Company is a global provider of performance chemicals based in Delaware. CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY: Discriminates Female Student-Athletes ----------------------------------------------------------- Swimming World reports that nine female athletes at Concordia University Irvine (CUI) filed a sex discrimination class action against the school on August 14 for discriminating against its female student-athletes and potential student-athletes in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, charges CUI with violating Title IX by depriving women of equal opportunities to participate in intercollegiate athletics. The school just announced it was planning to eliminate the women's swimming & diving and tennis teams, along with the men's teams, when it is already providing women with far fewer opportunities than the law requires. "We are suing CUI because it refused to comply with Title IX, provide women with equal opportunities to participate in varsity sports, and preserve our teams unless we did," said Alexandra Grant, a sophomore on the women's swimming & diving team. "We wish it wasn't necessary, but we are doing what all women faced with sex discrimination need to do: stand up and fight for our rights." CUI female athletes Mikayla Barre, Jessica Bear, Kiera Gutierrez, Bryn Johnson, Alexandra Leland, Ruby McCullough, Aliyah Treadwell, and Carissa Ward are also plaintiffs in the case. "CUI's decision to eliminate the women's swimming & diving and tennis teams is a flagrant violation of Title IX," said Arthur Bryant of Arthur Bryant Law, P.C., in Oakland, CA, lead counsel for the women. "According to the most recent publicly available information, women were 59% of CUI's undergraduates in 2024-25, but they were given only 51.2% of the opportunities to participate in varsity sports. CUI needs to add about 100 opportunities for women to reach gender equity. It should not be eliminating any women's teams." John Clune and Ashlyn Hare of Hutchinson, Black, and Cook in Boulder, CO; Eric Grover and Robert Spencer of Keller Grover in San Francisco, CA; and Anne Andrews and Robert Siko of Andrews & Thornton in Newport Beach, CA, are co-counsel for the women athletes. On May 20, 2025, CUI announced it had decided to eliminate its women's and men's swimming & diving and tennis teams for financial reasons. A few days later, it emailed all of the athletes on the other teams to "reassure" them their "program remains secure" because CUI is "currently in the midst of a major $17.5 million construction project that includes a new 19,000-square-foot facility featuring a state-of-the-art weight room, locker rooms, and modern training room space…In addition, the University has invested over $7 million in upgrades to our baseball, softball, and soccer/track/lacrosse facilities – including the installation of lights on each of our outdoor fields." CUI did not send this email to the athletes on the women's (or men's) swimming & diving or tennis teams. But other athletes did. On June 16, 2025, Bryant emailed a letter to CUI President Michael A. Thomas, PhD, explaining that the elimination of the women's teams violated Title IX and requesting a meeting to discuss preserving the teams and ensuring CUI's Title IX compliance. As the letter noted, Title IX prohibits educational institutions receiving federal funds from eliminating women's teams for which interest, ability, and competition are available unless "intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments." CUI fails that test. According to the most recent Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA) data that CUI submitted and verified to the U.S. Department of Education as accurate, CUI had a total undergraduate population of 1,413 in 2023-24, including 833 women and 580 men. So, undergraduate enrollment was 58.95% women. (The 2024-25 EADA data is not yet publicly available.) The school's intercollegiate athletic teams had 625 athletes: 328 women and 297 men. They were only 52.48% women—creating a gap of 6.47% between the women's undergraduate enrollment rate and their intercollegiate athletic participation rate. CUI needed to add women's opportunities to comply with Title IX. But CUI just announced that it is going to eliminate two women's teams that included 38 women (along with two men's teams that include 33 men) in 2023-24. As a result, the school's athletic participation rate for women will decrease when it needs to increase. Based on the most recent publicly available numbers, if the women's teams are cut, CUI will need to add 112 participation opportunities for women to achieve gender equity. This is, of course, far more opportunities to participate in varsity athletics than the women's swimming & diving and tennis teams provide. After CUI received Bryant's June 16 letter, the lawyers for the school and the women met numerous times over a month. But, on July 17, the school refused to agree to continue the women's teams and come into compliance with Title IX. So, the women filed suit. Along with the class action, the women filed an application for a temporary restraining order preserving the women's teams while the case proceeds. A date for a hearing on the motion has not yet been set. [GN] CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Court Dismisses Ritchie Shareholder Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Joel B. Ritchie, Derivatively On Behalf Of Corcept Therapeutics, Inc., Plaintiff v. G. Leonard Baker, Joseph K. Belanoff, Sean Maduck, David L. Mahoney, Charles Robb, Daniel N. Swisher, and James N. Wilson, Defendants, and Corcept Therapeutics, Inc., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2022-0102-BWD (Del. Ch.), Vice Chancellor Bonnie W. David grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the stockholder derivative complaint. The Plaintiff sought to recover on behalf of the Company for breaches of fiduciary duty. The Court noted that "several Corcept stockholders promptly filed lawsuits in federal district court, including a securities class action before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that survived a motion to dismiss and that in February 2023, that securities class action settled in exchange for $14 million, paid entirely by Corcept's insurers." The Court established that Corcept is a publicly traded Delaware corporation headquartered in California and Corcept is a pharmaceutical company that derives most of its revenue from a single drug--Korlym, an oral treatment for patients with endogenous Cushing's syndrome, a rare disease that occurs when the body is exposed to high levels of cortisol produced by the adrenal glands for a sustained period. The Court found that in early 2019, the Southern Investigative Reporting Foundation and Blue Orca Capital published investigative reports claiming that Corcept had increased its profits by marketing Korlym for off-label uses in violation of federal law. According to the Court, between 2012 and 2016, Corcept's revenues grew from $3.3 million to more than $81 million and the Complaint alleged that off-label marketing practices dramatically increased the Company's revenue from $81 million in 2016 to $251 million in 2018. The Court explained that the stockholder plaintiff seeks to recover on behalf of the Company for breaches of fiduciary duty related to the alleged off-label marketing practices. The Plaintiff advanced three theories to support the breach of fiduciary duty claim: 1. The defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to adequately oversee operations at the Company that resulted in a corporate trauma (the 'Caremark theory'); 2. The defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing the Company to violate positive law (the 'Massey theory'); and 3. The defendants breached their fiduciary duties by deliberately issuing false or misleading disclosures (the 'Malone theory'). The Court noted that Plaintiff here did not make a pre-suit demand on the Demand Board; he instead asserts that making a demand would have been futile. The Court explained that because the Demand Board comprised nine members, to adequately allege demand futility, Plaintiff must plead particularized facts supporting an inference that at least five directors were incapable of impartially considering a demand. The Court found that Plaintiff does not argue that any member of the Demand Board received a material personal benefit, or lacked independence from someone who received a material personal benefit, from the misconduct alleged in the Complaint. Instead, Plaintiff argues that the five members of the Demand Board who are Defendants in this action face a substantial likelihood of liability in connection with his claims. Upon careful examination of the Caremark theory, the Court determined that oversight liability under Caremark is an ill fit for the facts alleged here because Corcept has not suffered 'enormous legal liability,' or indeed any corporate trauma. The Court noted that the Complaint alleges that off-label marketing practices dramatically increased the Company's revenue and the alleged misconduct at issue has not resulted in civil or criminal fines or penalties, and the Securities Class Action resolved in exchange for a $14 million payment funded entirely by carriers. The Court found that the Complaint affirmatively alleges that the Board was routinely briefed on all Korlym-related matters" and concluded that those allegations show the Board did not 'utterly fail' to implement any reporting or information system or controls relating to Korlym and the Company's marketing practices." Regarding the red flags analysis, the Court examined three alleged red flags. The Court ruled that Corcept's efforts to broaden its marketing strategy for Korlym to include nonspecialist physicians do not constitute a 'red flag' from which the Board should have suspected illegal activity. The Court reasoned that although Plaintiff alleges that 70 percent of cases of hypercortisolism are treated by specialist endocrinologists, that means 30 percent of cases could be treated by nonspecialist physicians. The Court determined that the Director Defendants' knowledge of prescriber 'whales' does not support a reasonable inference that the Director Defendants also knew Corcept was engaged in illegal marketing. The Court explained that even assuming the Complaint alleges facts supporting an inference that those 'whales' prescribed Korlym for an off-label use--which is not illegal--that alone does not support a further inference that the Board knew Corcept marketed Korlym for an off-label use,." The Court found that this argument fails because the Complaint does not allege facts suggesting that the Board was aware of any illegal purpose behind Corcept's decision to change specialty pharmacies. The Court noted that the Complaint alleged the Director Defendants were told Corcept changed specialty pharmacies due to Dohmen's material breaches of its services agreement with Corcept. According to the Court, a 'Massey claim' represents 'an extreme version' of the scenarios contemplated in Caremark, premised on the notion that 'Delaware law does not charter law breakers.' The Court ruled that the Complaint falls short of alleging red flags that should have alerted the Director Defendants to an illegal scheme, let alone that the Director Defendants. The Court explained that the crux of the claim is that Corcept falsely disclosed in SEC filings, in press releases, and on analyst conference calls that the Company's marketing materials and training programs for physicians did not constitute 'off-label' promotion of Korlym and 99% of Corcept's Korlym patients. The Court determined that the premise underlying all of Plaintiff's disclosure theories is that Corcept falsely disclosed that it was not engaged in illegal off-label marketing practices. The Court concluded that the Complaint fails to adequately allege that the Director Defendants actually knew of an off-label marketing scheme and accordingly, the Complaint also fails to allege that the Director Defendants acted with the requisite scienter to support a Malone claim. The Court stated that none of the plaintiff's theories supports a viable claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the members of the demand board. The Court found that because the complaint fails to plead that a majority of the demand board faces a substantial likelihood of liability for non-exculpated claims, or otherwise could not bring its business judgment to bear, demand is not excused as futile." Therefore, the Court dismissed the complaint under Court of Chancery Rule 23.1. The Court's final ruling stated: The Complaint fails to allege particularized facts supporting an inference that a majority of the Demand Board faced a substantial likelihood of liability on a non-exculpated claim. As a result, the Motion to Dismiss is granted and the Complaint is dismissed under Court of Chancery Rule 23.1." A copy of the Court's opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FMJQ6N COSTCO WHOLESALE: Bullard Must File Class Cert Bid by July 31, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARISA BULLARD, et al., v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-03714-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered a case management scheduling order: 1. The deadline to amend the pleadings without seeking leave from the Court shall be Aug. 30, 2025. 2. On or before Jan. 4, 2027, all non-expert discovery shall be completed by the parties. 3. On or before July 31, 2026, the Plaintiff will file a motion for class certification. On or before Oct. 9, 2026, the Defendant will file its opposition to class certification. On or before Nov. 6, 2026, the Plaintiff will file a reply, if any, to the defendant's opposition. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be heard on Dec. 3, 2026. Costco is a multinational corporation that operates a chain of membership-only big-box retail stores. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KYJxY8 at no extra charge.[CC] CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Class Cert Filing in Conriquez Due Oct. 15 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FERNANDO CONRIQUEZ, JACOB MICHAEL BRYANT, and ANTHONY PORTS, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, v. CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD U.S., INC., a Missouri corporation; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; a California corporation; C&W FACILITY SERVICES, INC., a California corporation; INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-02734-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita F. Lin entered an order regarding Class Certification Deadlines as follows: 1. All dates relating to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification will be continued as follows: a. the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be due on Oct. 15, 2025; b. the Defendant's opposition to the motion for class certification shall be due on Dec. 1, 2025; c. the Plaintiffs' reply in support of the motion for class certification shall be due on Jan. 9, 2026; and d. The hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be continued to Jan. 27, 2026 at 10 a.m. 2. No further extensions shall be granted absent extraordinary circumstances. Cushman is an American global commercial real estate services firm. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t0mzXg at no extra charge.[CC] DAIKIN COMFORT: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Defective Amana AC Units ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Daikin Comfort Technologies has knowingly sold Amana-brand air conditioners plagued by a capacitor defect that can cause the units to fail prematurely. According to the 34-page lawsuit, the Amana AC units at issue are equipped with faulty capacitors, which are meant to provide the electrical jolt necessary to start the unit and maintain a steady current of electricity while it runs. Per the case, the Amana AC capacitors are unable to hold a charge because the dielectric oil within the component, which is supposed to insulate the capacitor and dissipate the heat it generates, is "defective and prone to thinning out prematurely." Signs of a failing capacitor include the air conditioning unit failing to start, shutting off on its own, failing to produce cold air, emitting a humming noise during operation, or producing smoke or a burning smell, the case states. The lawsuit alleges that the dielectric oil in the Amana units is substandard and does not properly protect the capacitor, causing it to overheat and melt once the oil degrades, rendering it completely and permanently broken. The complaint says this failure can happen within months or even weeks of purchase and forces consumers to order expensive, frequent repairs, despite the fact that a central air conditioner and its key components are expected to last between 15 and 20 years, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. The filing states that Daikin advertises its Amana systems as "synonymous with long-lasting, premium quality products" and touts the units' safety, reliability and "lasting performance." The lawsuit claims that Daikin knows or should have known of the debilitating capacitor defect and the subpar quality of its dielectric oil. "Defendants knew the capacitors in Amana air conditioning units were defective because the capacitors in those units were failing at rates that far exceeded the industry average," the lawsuit charges, adding that Daikin has received complaints from consumers and AC technicians alike about the issue. Additionally, the lawsuit alleges that Daikin does not abide by the warranty it offers on its AC units, which promises to pay for the replacement of any defective part within a five- to 10-year period. The alleged failure to provide warranty coverage has forced consumers to pay out-of-pocket for expensive capacitor repairs and replacements that must be done by a professional, the suit says. The Daikin class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone in the U.S. who purchased an Amana HVAC system or unit, and any HVAC technician or business in the U.S. that installed, diagnosed, investigated, replaced or repaired capacitors in Amana HVAC systems or units. [GN] DECISELY INSURANCE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Warren Says --------------------------------------------------------------- SCHUYLER WARREN and ALEXIS FERGUSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DECISELY INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC, and METLIFE SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS LLC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04295-ELR (N.D. Ga., August 1, 2025) is a class action against Defendants for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information including, but not limited to, Plaintiffs' and Class Members' name, date of birth, phone number, passport number, digital signature, and/or Social Security Numbers. The Defendants discovered emails containing PII which may have been accessed or acquired on or around December 16, 2024. The Defendants investigated the Data Breach and confirmed that an unauthorized actor accessed Defendants' systems that day and had access to files. The Plaintiffs bring this class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated customers to address Defendants' inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Personal Information that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide adequate notice to Plaintiffs and other Class Members that their information was likely accessed by an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. Because of the Data Breach, the Private Information of Plaintiffs and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiffs and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring that their information is and remains safe, and they should be entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief. Decisely Insurance Services, LLC is a benefits brokerage and human resource services firm that provides integrated technology solutions for small businesses.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ainsworth G. Dudley, Esq. DUDLEY LAW, LLC P.O. Box 53319 Atlanta, GA 30355 Telephone: (404) 687-8205 E-mail: adudleylaw@gmail.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Street, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com DELTA AIR: Goodyear Allowed Leave to File Class Exhibits Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUKAS GOODYEAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-05712-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. entered an order granting plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal: The Plaintiff shall file the following documents under seal in connection with the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: -- Exhibit R, DELTA_LG_00005685-86 -- Exhibit S, DELTA_LG_00005763-64 -- Exhibit X, DELTA_LG_00012523-29 -- Exhibit Y, DELTA_LG_00012577-79 -- Exhibit Z, DELTA_LG_00013709-11 -- Exhibit AA, DELTA_LG_00014345-47 -- Exhibit CC, DELTA_LG_00016523-28 -- Exhibit DD, DELTA_LG_00016707-09 -- Exhibit EE, DELTA_LG_00016732-34 -- Exhibit FF, DELTA_LG_00017075-80 -- Exhibit GG, DELTA_LG_00017081-86 -- Exhibit II, DELTA_LG_00018213–25, including any references thereto in Plaintiff's memorandum in support of his motion for class certification. Delta is a major airline in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=poeZos at no extra charge.[CC] DRP MASONRY: Watkins Seeks Conditional Collective Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN WATKINS, individually and as Class Representative, v. DRP MASONRY, LLC, DONNIE C. WILLIAMS, PRIMETIME MOBILE MASONRY, LLC., and DWAYNE JOHNSON, Case No. 5:25-cv-00128-MW-MJF (N.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: A. Granting conditional certification of a collective action under section216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for the proposed Putative Class defined as: "All persons who worked for, were by employed by, or engaged as forklift operators, forklift operators, laborers, masonry workers, and other similarly titled positions, by DRP MASONRY, LLC, Donnie C. Williams, PRIMETIME MOBILE MASONRY, LLC., and Dwayne Johnson, or who were otherwise employed, hired, or worked at DRP MASONRY, LLC or PRIMETIME MOBILE MASONRY, LLC. performing substantially similar duties—working construction and masonry tasks, any time during the three years prior to the filing of the Complaint and up through the rendition of a judgment in this matter." This class includes all persons who worked for the Defendants on DRP MASONRY, LLC or PRIMETIME MOBILE MASONRY, LLC construction projects. B. Appointing Mr. Watkins as the representative of the Putative Class with authority to appear at any mediation/settlement conference for and to bind the Putative Class. C. Requiring that within 10 days, the Defendants format and produce electronically an Excel spreadsheet that contains for each member of the Putative Class one row containing in each column each person's full name, last known home address, cellular telephone number, and email address to facilitate the preparation and sending of the Notice; E. Permitting Mr. Watkins' counsel to send a Court-Approved Notice by email, text message, and by U.S. Mail to all members of the Putative Class about their rights to opt into this collective action by filing a Consent to Join and to call/text each to ensure that they received the Notice and the Consent to Join; E. Permitting Mr. Watkins' counsel to send a Court-Approved Reminder Notice by email and by U.S. Mail to all Putative Class members and to call/text each to ensure that they received the Reminder Notice; and F. Requiring Defendants to post a notice in their break room for the entire notice period and to provide a copy of the Court- Approved Notice to all Putative Class members in the next paycheck/paystub to be issued to the members of the Putative Class presently employed by Defendants. The Defendants employed Mr. Watkins as rough terrain forklift operator from April 21, 2024 to May 28, 2025. DRP provides masonry and other stonework services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q0TvnD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremiah J. Talbott, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF J.J. TALBOTT 900 East Moreno Street Pensacola, FL 32503 Telephone: (850) 437-9600 Facsimile: (850) 437-0906 E-mail: jj@talbottlawfirm.com; civil@talbottlawfirm.com ELIGO ENERGY: Charges Exorbitant Rates for Electricity, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- SHARON WHITESIDE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELIGO ENERGY, LLC and ELIGO ENERGY MD, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02532-JRR (D. Md., August 1, 2025) is a class action against Eligo due to alleged breach of contract while supplying electricity and natural gas to its commercial and residential customers, causing tens of thousands of customers in Maryland Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C. to pay considerably more for their energy supply than they contracted for. Eligo represents in its customer contract that its variable energy rates "will be based on 100% renewable energy (through use of Renewable Energy Credits) and will continue as a monthly variable rate that may be periodically adjusted to market conditions." In reality, Eligo did not provide customers with variable rates based on its wholesale supply and REC costs. Instead, Eligo used a pricing methodology that charged excessive and varying profit margins rather than the rate calculated using the contract's two identifiable pricing criteria. Eligo's contract does not provide Defendants with discretion to pick and choose other grounds for setting customers' variable rates. Nor does the contract provide Defendants with discretion to pick and choose the weight of the two factors and then apply whatever markup it sees fit. Yet a varying and excessive markup strategy is the true methodology Eligo employed in setting its customers' variable energy rates, notwithstanding its contractual commitment to do the opposite. As a result of Eligo's breach of contract, Eligo has overcharged tens of thousands of customers by tens of millions of dollars in exorbitant charges for electricity and natural gas and continues to do so, says the suit. Plaintiff Whiteside was an Eligo customer from in or around August 2018 to in or around January 2025. Eligo Energy, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company with its principal place of business in Chicago, is an independent energy service company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Derek A. Hills, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF DEREK A. HILLS, LLC 129 N. West Street, Suite 1 Easton, MD 21601 Telephone: (443) 239-4626 E-mail: dhills@dahlawoffice.com - and - D. Greg Blankinship, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP One North Broadway, Suite 900 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3281 Facsimile: (914) 824-1561 E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com - and - J. Burkett McInturff, Esq. WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (914) 775-8862 Facsimile: (914) 775-8862 E-mail: jbm@wittelslaw.com EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Class Cert Bid Filing in Cargill Due Sept. 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALBERTA CARGILL, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00613-MMH-SJH (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Marcia Morales Howard entered a case management and scheduling order and referral to mediation: Deadline for providing mandatory Aug. 8, 2025 initial disclosures: Deadline for moving to join a party or Sept. 2, 2025 amend the pleadings: Deadline for moving for class Sept. 2, 2025 Certification: Deadline for filing dispositive and Dec. 30, 2025 Daubert motions: Date and time of the final pretrial May 18, 2026 Conference: Experian operates as an information services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=woBPWP at no extra charge.[CC] FIRST ADVANTAGE: Wins Summary Judgment v. Jones ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN R. JONES, Individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v. FIRST ADVANTAGE BACKGROUND SERVICES CORP., Case No. 3:23-cv-00553-KAD (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Kari A. Dooley entered an order granting First Advantage's motion for summary judgment as to Count One. In light of this ruling, by agreement of the parties, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied. The case will proceed to trial forthwith on Count Two -- negligent violation of Section 1681e(b). The Court concludes that First Advantage's background report procedures—including its lack of a "front end" "double-checking" protocol -- are not objectively unreasonable and therefore do not constitute a willful violation of Section 1681e(b). The Court cannot conclude that Mr. Kumar's "isolated instance of human error" constituted an "unjustifiably high risk of harm" that First Advantage knew or should have known about. Through his Motion for Class Certification, and as modified through his reply brief, Plaintiff seeks certification of the following class: "All individuals about whom 1) First Advantage conducted a criminal background investigation; 2) and then disclosed a "consumer report" about that individual which included a record that the individual had a criminal charge or conviction to a third party during the two years immediately preceding this Class Action Complaint and continuing on through the date of certification of this class; 3) and First Advantage's internal records show that the third party viewed that consumer report; 4) and the individual initiated a dispute with First Advantage after it disclosed that inaccurate report, and 5) First Advantage "removed" or "revised" that criminal conviction and classified the "Dispute Reason" in its internal CCD as "Not Applicant."" In this putative class action, named Plaintiff Stephen R. Jones asserts that Defendant First Advantage Background Services Corporation violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), specifically 15 U.S.C. section 1681e(b), when it conducted and sold a criminal background report that falsely attributed a conviction for federal drug trafficking charges to Plaintiff, when, in fact, the individual who was convicted was a different "Stephen Jones." The Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint on May 1, 2023, and the operative Amended Complaint on October 5, 2023. As relevant here, Plaintiff alleges that First Advantage willfully violated Section 1681e(b), as to Plaintiff and a putative class of individuals, by sending out background reports indicating that the subject consumer was a convicted criminal without first "double checking" the work of its investigators. First conducts and sells consumer background reports for employment purposes. A copy of the Court's memorandum of decision dated Aug. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pRVccr at no extra charge.[CC] FIRSTENERGY CORP: Appeals Court Rejected Suit Consolidation Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- Cleveland.com reports that a federal appellate court has thrown out an attempt by investors to consolidate their securities lawsuits against FirstEnergy Corp., a move that stems from the tainted House Bill 6 scandal. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday, April 13, reversed the ruling of Judge Algenon L. Marbley, who certified as a class all purchasers of the utility's stock and bonds over a roughly 3.5-year period. The investors alleged that the company's political bribery scheme amounted to securities fraud. The ruling amounts to a major win for FirstEnergy, as many of those who joined the case as part of a class-action lawsuit would not seek to sue the utility on their own. Thus, there is a greater chance for a smaller settlement amount if the case reaches that point. FirstEnergy has admitted to bribing both a former speaker of the Ohio House and the ex-chairman of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio in exchange for favorable regulatory and legislative treatment in 2019. FirstEnergy around the same time issued billions of dollars in bonds and shares -- sold at a stock price buoyed by the bribe-induced $1.3 billion ratepayer funded bailout – as its executives sold millions in their personal shares. News of the five initial arrests in the case in July 2020 then drove a $7.7 billion wipeout of value for the company's shareholders, who now say they should have been told about the company's unlawful lobbying practices. Attorneys have said that FirstEnergy misled investors with 46 statements. But paying bribes, the company argued, doesn't amount to misleading investors. "FirstEnergy has admitted that it made illegal political contributions," the company said in court filings. "But that does not mean that FirstEnergy committed securities fraud. And it certainly does not mean that the district court should have certified the sweeping and unworkable class plaintiffs proposed here." The appellate court based its decision on a legal question of which of two tests established by the U.S. Supreme Court Marbley should have used: a less stringent test that allows certification based on omissions or a tougher one requiring that the corporate misstatements warped market prices. The appellate court said Marbley should have used the more stringent test requiring corporate misstatements. The ruling in favor of FirstEnergy delays the already drawn-out litigation, which started in 2020. [GN] FISERV INC: Faces Reed Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------- LEVEDA REED, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FISERV, INC., Defendant, Case No. 25-cv-1141 (E.D. Wis., August 1, 2025) s a collective and class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons employed by Defendant, that arises out of Defendant's systemic failure to compensate its employees for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked at the appropriate overtime rate, in willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and common law. The Plaintiff and the putative collective members consist of current and former Customer Service Representatives or similar positions, who were compensated on an hourly basis. Throughout the relevant period, the Defendant maintained a corporate policy and practice of failing to compensate its CSRs for all pre-shift off-the-clock work. The Defendant is held liable for its failure to pay its CSRs for all work performed, and at the appropriate overtime rate for hours worked in excess of 40 per week, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has worked for Defendant as a remote Customer Service Representative since October 2022. Fiserv, Inc. is a financial technology company that provides payment and financial services to thousands of financial institutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 North Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com - and - Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 East Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 E-mail: jyoung@sommersps.com FISHER INVESTMENTS: Human Requests Petition for Writ of Mandamus ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL HUMAN, filed on August 13, 2025, a petition for writ of mandamus with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, under Case No. 25-2595, in connection with a court order in the lawsuit entitled Daniel Human, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Fisher Investments, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-01177-MTS, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The lawsuit, which was removed from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, is brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. [BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner DANIEL HUMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Edwin V. Butler, II, Esq. BUTLER LAW GROUP 1650 Des Peres Road, Suite 220 Frontenac, MO 63131 Telephone: (314) 504-0001 FLOWERS BAKERIES: Ryans Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Connell Ryans, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FLOWERS BAKERIES SALES OF SOCAL, LLC, d/b/a FLOWERS FOODS, a California Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2520206 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Aug. 8, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-02076. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages in Violation of Labor Code Sections 510 and 1198; Failure to pay all Wages and Minimum Wages in Violation of Labor Code Sections 221, 223, 1182, 1194, 1197, and 1198; Failure to Provide Compliant Meal Periods in Violation of Labor Code Sections 226.7, 512, 516 and 1198; Failure to Provide Compliant Rest Periods in Violation of Labor Code Sections 226.7, 516, and 1198; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses in Violation of Labor Code Section 2802; Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment in Violation of Labor Code Section 204; Failure to Pay All Wages Owed at Termination in Violation of Labor Code Sections 201-203; Failure to Furnish Accurate, Itemized Wage Statements in Violation of Labor Code Section 226(a) and Failure to Maintain Accurate Records in Violation of Labor Code Section 1174.5; and Violations of Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jared L. Palmer, Esq. Sean Choi, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. One Embarcadero Center, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-442-4810 Facsimile: 415-442-4870 Email: jared.palmer@ogletree.com sean.choi@ogletree.com - and - Frank L. Tobin, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: 858-652-3100 Facsimile: 858-652-3101 Email: frank.tobin@ogletree.com FOX FACTORY: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Fox Factory Holding Corp. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended July 4, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that its motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the federal securities class suit remains pending. On February 20, 2024, a complaint alleging violations of federal securities laws and seeking certification as a class action was filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta. On August 16, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that purported to seek damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between May 6, 2021 and November 2, 2023. The amended complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act and alleged that the Company and certain current and former officers made material misstatements and omissions to investors regarding demand for the Company's products and its inventory levels. The amended complaint generally sought money damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. On October 15, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which plaintiff opposed. On March 13, 2025, the Court dismissed the amended complaint but granted plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. On April 14, 2025, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint asserting essentially the same claims and relief. The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on May 30, 2025, which plaintiff opposed on July 14, 2025. The defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing, believe the plaintiff's positions are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend themselves. On October 9, 2024, and October 29, 2024, two stockholder derivative complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against certain of the Company's officers and its directors, with the Company named as a nominal defendant. The cases are assigned to the same judge presiding over the securities fraud class action. The complaints are premised on substantially the same factual allegations as the securities fraud class action, but in these complaints, the plaintiff claims that the Company's officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties or otherwise engaged in wrongdoing by allowing the underlying securities fraud to occur. The court has stayed these cases pending the decision on the motion to dismiss the securities fraud litigation. The defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing, believe the plaintiffs' claims are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend themselves. FRESENIUS VASCULAR: $3.15MM Deal in Gravley Data Breach Suit OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Steven Gravley, Sr., Tyrone Banks, and Barbara Welzenbach, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Fresenius Vascular Care, Inc. d/b/a Azura Vascular Care, Defendant, Case No. 24-1148 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Michael M. Baylson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Settlement Agreement. The Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees, Litigation Costs and Expenses, and Service Awards in this class action data breach litigation. The case involves a putative class action alleging that Fresenius Vascular Care, Inc. d/b/a Azura Vascular Care breached its duty to care for patients' confidential personal information when third party hackers allegedly accessed confidential patient information from Defendant's computer systems in a data breach incident. The Amended Complaint asserted several State law claims, including negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, violations of consumer protection laws, breach of confidence, and declaratory and injunctive relief. Following a one-day mediation, the parties agreed to settle the case. The Settlement Class was defined as All natural persons whose Personal Information may have been compromised in the Data Breach disclosed by Azura, including all persons who were sent notice of the Data Breach. Under the Class Action Settlement Agreement, Defendant agreed to create a non-reversionary Settlement Fund of $3,150,000, and class members who did not opt out and whose claims were timely submitted were entitled to select one of two payments: (a) claims for documented losses, up to $10,000; or (b) a pro rata cash payment. The class consists of 333,798 members, leaving a per capita recovery of approximately $9.43. However, accounting for all claims submitted through the claims deadline, the settlement administrator estimates that the pro rata cash fund payment will be $134.77. The Court found that the proposed settlement class satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23's requirements. Regarding numerosity, the class consists of over 300,000 members and numerosity is generally satisfied if there are more than 40 class members. For commonality, The claims all stem from an alleged data breach incident occurring around September 27, 2023 and raise common questions regarding Defendant's alleged breach of a duty to protect class members' personal information from exposure to potential fraud. The Court determined that adequate notice was provided to class members. The settlement administrator served CAFA notice and documents required under 28 U.S.C. Section 1715(b)(1)-(8) to the United States Attorney General and 56 State Attorneys General and emailed notice to 35,799 class members with a valid email address and served the notice by mail to class members without a valid email address. The Court applied the nine-factor Girsh test to evaluate the settlement's fairness. The Court found that the Settlement Agreement is entitled to a presumption of fairness" because no class members objected and counsel participated in an all-day mediation, exchanged pre-mediation discovery, and prepared detailed mediation statements. Analyzing the complexity and duration factor, the Court noted that data breach litigation is an area of law that has not yet been fully developed" and the parties would likely face significant expenses in briefing and arguing summary judgment, resolving complex choice of law questions, and preparing dueling expert reports. Regarding class reaction, of the over 90% of class members that were notified, only four class members opted out of the settlement and none objected. The Court found that the claims rate of 3.83% is a relatively high response rate in data breach class actions. The Court acknowledged substantial litigation risks, noting that Defendant argues in its Motion to Dismiss that it hired a third-party forensic firm to investigate the alleged data breach and found no evidence that any Azura data was taken, exfiltrated or used to commit fraud. This potentially raises considerable legal hurdles for class members to establish Article III standing. While approving the settlement, the Court significantly reduced the requested attorney fees. Plaintiffs sought $1,102,500 in attorneys' fees representing 35% of the common fund, but the Court awarded only $787,500 representing 25% of the common fund. The Court explained its reduction: Though no doubt a complex case, this case settled at an early stage of the litigation before even motion to dismiss briefing was complete and the parties participated in a one-day mediation within months of the case being filed and before any formal discovery commenced. The Court found that Awards in data breach class actions typically fall on the lower end of that range and noted that in class action settlements of data breach cases, attorney fees awards have generally been between 20% to 30% of the settlement. Additionally, the Court criticized the billing practices, stating that after reviewing detailed timekeeping records, many of the hours worked were duplicative, excessive, and/or reflect inefficiencies." The Court found it "particularly troubling" that one attorney "recording an hourly rate of $1,300.00" had "recorded 90.4 total hours on this case" despite not being appointed as interim Class Counsel and never entering a notice of appearance in this consolidated case. The Court approved other requested amounts, finding that $14,062.32 in litigation expenses and costs were reasonable litigation expenses and that the proposed $2,500 incentive awards to each of the three named Plaintiffs is reasonable. Using the lodestar method as a cross-check, the Court finds it reasonable to reduce the lodestar amount by 15% across-the-board" and determined that the lodestar multiplier based on the Court's modified award of $787,500 (25% of the common fund) compared to the modified lodestar amount, is 1.04. The Court emphasized its duty to class members, noting that every dollar to counsel is a dollar less to the class and The Court takes seriously its obligation to protect the interests of class members as envisioned by Rule 23. The Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement and Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Litigation Costs and Expenses, and Service Awards was granted in part and denied in part. A copy of the Court's settlement is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TNx9t0 GERBER PRODUCTS: Falsely Labels Baby Food Products, Williams Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ADRIENNE WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04460 (E.D.N.Y., August 11, 2025) asserts claims for violations of the New York General Business Law and for breach of express warranty. According to the complaint, the Defendant represents to consumers through its packaging that its Gerber Natural For Baby baby foods are "natural." The Defendant makes these claims in order to capitalize on consumers' preference for natural foods that do not contain synthetic ingredients. Unbeknownst to consumers, however, the Defendant's claims are false because the Products contain synthetic ascorbic acid, says the suit. Had the Plaintiff known that Defendant's representations were false and misleading, she would not have purchased the products or would have only been willing to purchase the products at a lesser price. Gerber Products Company formulates, manufactures, advertises, and sells Gerber Natural For Baby baby food in all of its various varieties throughout the United States, including in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Arisohn ARISOHN LLC 94 Blakeslee Rd. Litchfield, CT 06759 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 E-mail: josh@arisohnllc.com GOLDBERG COMPANIES: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DESHAWNE PHILLIPS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOLDBERG COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01661-CAB (N.D. Ohio, August 8, 2025) challenges policies and practices of Defendant that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. The case arises from Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and others similarly situated an overtime premium of one and a half times their properly calculated regular rate for all hours that exceeded 40 in the workweek. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant from approximately February 10, 2025 until April 28, 2025 as a non-exempt hourly employee. Goldberg Companies is a general contractor and property manager of residential and commercial real estate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 1360 E 9th St, Suite 808 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com GOLDEN GATE: Melingonis Alleges Illegal Telemarketing Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER MELINGONIS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOLDEN GATE REALTY & INVESTMENTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-02042-AJB-KSC (S.D. Cal., August 8, 2025) is a putative class action brought against the Defendant pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. To promote its goods and services, the Defendant allegedly engages in telemarketing text messages to phone numbers on the Do-Not-Call list. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct toward Plaintiff and the Class Members. The Plaintiff further seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and the Class Members, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Golden Gate Realty & Investments, Inc. is a California State business entity.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (866) 219-3343 E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com - and - Kevin Lemiexu, Esq. Akylah Cooper, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN LEMIEUX, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 488-6767 E-mail: Kevin@LawyerKevin.com Akylah@LawyerKevin.com GOOGLE LLC: Bid to Seal Class Cert Exhibits in Rabin Suit Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE RABIN, CPA, and IAN GRAVES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-04547-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order granting Google's Renewed Motion to Seal Exhibits in Connection with Class Certification Briefing, which seeks to keep confidential certain information in exhibits to the concurrently-filed Declaration of Angus Logan, as follows: Document Portion(s) to Seal Exhibit 13 to Heller Declaration ISO Employee Contact of Class Certification Motion - Information GOOG00036179 (ECF No. 136-11) Exhibit 14 Heller Declaration ISO of Employee Contact Class Certification Motion - Information GOOG00013089 (ECF No. 136-12) Exhibit 15 Heller Declaration ISO of Employee Email Class Certification Motion - Address GOOG00035420 (ECF No. 136-13) Exhibit 16 Heller Declaration ISO of Employee Contact Class Certification Motion - Information GOOG00013218 (ECF No. 136-14) Google shall file all documents ordered unsealed or otherwise redacted by this order to the public docket no later than August 7, 2025. Google is an American multinational corporation and technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=P7ja2I at no extra charge.[CC] GRAVY ANALYTICS: Exposes Private Data to Third Parties, Rogers Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- LIN ROGERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRAVY ANALYTICS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12242-DJC (D. Mass., August 11, 2025) is a class action arising from Defendant's alleged monetization of personally identifying information, including geolocation data, without adequate disclosure to Plaintiff and class members. In or around early 2025, the news broke that Gravy Analytics had been subject to a hack and data breach. The data hacked from Gravy Analytics included tens of millions of mobile phone coordinates of devices inside the U.S. According to the complaint, the Defendant, either directly from third-party applications, via other data brokers, or through online advertising bid streams, collected, stored, shared, and/or used Plaintiff and other class members' sensitive personal information -- including historical and real-time geolocation data -- without their informed consent. As a result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff's and Class members' privacy has been invaded, and their personal information has been collected, stored, shared, used, and/or monetized without their consent, the suit says. Gravy Analytics is a location intelligence and insights company that obtains and analyzes consumer location data from third party suppliers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Reardon, Jr. REARDON SCANLON LLP 45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 955-9455 Facsimile: (860) 920-5242 E-mail: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com - and - Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. Julian C. Diamond, Esq. Andrew Obergfell, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com jdiamond@bursor.com aobergfell@bursor.com HARLES SCHWAB: Bueno Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Elizabeth L. Bueno and Abraham Atachbarian, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC., Case No. 25STCV18960 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Aug. 6, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-07292. This Action concerns the "cash sweep" program Schwab offers to its brokerage customers. Plaintiffs' joint complaint ("Successive Complaint" or "Successive Compl.") is neither the first nor (for one Plaintiff) even the second cash-sweep complaint they have filed against Schwab. Rather, Plaintiffs have engaged for the better part of a year in a campaign of forum shopping across the country, voluntarily dismissing and refiling cash-sweep claims against Schwab in different venues to achieve perceived tactical advantages.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jason J. Mendro, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1700 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Phone: 202.955.8500 Fax: 202.467.0539 Email: JMendro@gibsondunn.com - and - Joseph E. Floren, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415.442.1000 Fax: 415.442.1001 Email: joseph.floren@morganlewis.com HARMONY HOME BUYER: Alison Files TCPA Suit in D. Kansas ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harmony Home Buyer, LLC. The case is styled as Matthew Alison, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Harmony Home Buyer, LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-01169-JWB-RES (D. Kan., Aug. 7, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Harmony Home Buyers -- https://www.harmonyhomebuyers.com/ -- is a real estate solutions company based out of Charlotte.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Greg A. Drumright, Esq. Elisabeth May Wilder, Esq. MARTIN PRINGLE OLIVER WALLACE & BAUER, LLP - WICHITA 645 East Douglas, Suite 100 Wichita, KS 67202 Phone: (316) 265-9311 Fax: (316) 265-2955 Email: gadrumright@martinpringle.com emwilder@martinpringle.com HIGHLANDS ONCOLOGY: Wyckoff Files Suit in W.D. Arkansas ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Highlands Oncology Group, P.A. The case is styled as Mark Wyckoff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Highlands Oncology Group, P.A., Case No. 5:25-cv-05166-TLB (W.D. Ark.., Aug. 6, 2025). The nature of suit s stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Highlands Oncology Group, P.A. -- https://highlandsoncology.com/ -- offers highly advanced treatment options, multi-disciplinary cancer teams, and industry leading clinical studies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 247-6267 Email: chris@jefirm.com HILMA INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Williams Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ DARNELL WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Hilma Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09011 (N.D. Ill., July 31, 2025) is a civil rights action against Hilma for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.hilma.co, 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. On April 29, 2025, the Plaintiff was searching for a daily supplement to support his immune system, with a preference for products that were formulated with natural ingredients. During his search, he visited the Defendant's website. However, he encountered several accessibility issues while using his screen reader. Specifically, there were non-visible or hidden image elements that were still included in the screen reader's focus order, making it unclear which content was being read. Additionally, an automatic pop-up appeared during the browsing session, interrupting the navigation flow and making it more difficult to interact with the site's content. These access barriers have caused Hilma.co to be inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually-impaired persons, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Hilma's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Hilma Inc. operates the website that offers a wide range of herbal supplements, covering needs like immune support, digestion, headaches, sleep, stress relief and general wellness.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Must Face Albert FLSA Suit Over Late Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- In the consolidated case captioned as Michael Albert, Trevor Tripoli, Brandon Whatley, and Melissa Scarbrough, each on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Honda Development & Manufacturing of America, LLC, Defendant, Case Nos. 2:22-cv-694, 2:22-cv-3828, 2:22-cv-4372, and 2:22-cv-4277 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio grants in part, denies in part, and holds in abeyance in part Honda's Motion for Summary Judgment. The ruling applies specifically to Plaintiff Albert's claims in this Fair Labor Standards Act collective action arising from a ransomware attack on the company's timekeeping system. The case involves four separate actions filed against Honda Development & Manufacturing of America, LLC that were consolidated by the Court in January 2023 upon the parties' request. Honda uses two systems to timely pay its employees their wages: (1) a timekeeping function where employees clock in and out using Kronos time clocks; and (2) a payroll function, which transmits on-site timekeeping data via a Kronos-hosted cloud server to payroll. All cases stem from the same ransomware attack that rendered Honda's Kronos timekeeping system inoperable from December 11, 2021 to mid-February 2022. During this outage, Honda was unable to access the time data saved to the timekeeping system and could not calculate weekly pay for its employees. The defendant did not have a backup or alternate timekeeping system. When the Kronos outage occurred, Honda initially paid nonexempt employees for 40 hours at their regular rate of pay without accounting for overtime. The company then implemented the "40 plus 3 Pay Method," paying all nonexempt employees for 40 hours at their regular rate and for three hours at their overtime rate. Honda later transitioned to a PeopleSoft system requiring employees to manually complete their timesheets. Honda conducted a reconciliation process which involved analyzing about three million Kronos time swipes, recovering missing scans, and reviewing call-in and leave-of-absence records. The process took place from early February 2022 until late April 2022 and Honda began issuing reconciliation payments on April 27, 2022. Plaintiff Albert worked overtime during three of the ten Kronos outage weeks but was not paid overtime compensation until months later. Honda paid Albert a gross amount of $2,071.42 on April 27, 2022, through the reconciliation process which included $1,883.11 in unpaid wages and $188.31 as an inconvenience payment (10% of total unpaid wages). After Albert disputed the reconciliation, Honda paid an additional $876.66 ($798.78 plus another inconvenience payment of $79.88) on July 14, 2022. The Court rejected Honda's argument that no case or controversy existed merely because it eventually paid all overtime owed. The Court stated: "Courts have long interpreted the FLSA as requiring that overtime compensation payments be timely made and The FLSA statute is violated even if the employer eventually pays the overtime amount that was due." Honda argued it complied with 29 C.F.R. Section 778.106, which allows delayed overtime payment when the correct amount of overtime compensation cannot be determined until some time after the regular pay period. However, the Court found Honda's reliance on this regulation insufficient, noting that in cases where courts found no FLSA violation, the delayed overtime payment was made in the next pay period or before. That was not the case here. The Court emphasized that Plaintiff Albert's late overtime payments were made many pay periods after being earned and Honda failed to demonstrate that the delay was reasonable under the circumstances. Regarding the Ohio overtime compensation statute claim under Ohio Revised Code Section 4111.03, Plaintiff Albert conceded Honda's motion. The Court, therefore, granted Honda's Motion for Summary Judgment on this claim. For the Ohio Prompt Pay Act claim under Ohio Revised Code Section 4113.15(B), Honda argued the claim failed because Albert received all wages owed during the Kronos Outage and a 10% inconvenience payment, which exceed the 6% penalty sought. However, the Court found an issue remains as to whether Honda violated the Ohio Prompt Pay Act when it did not pay Plaintiff Albert his overtime payments due 30 days beyond the regularly scheduled payday. The Court denied Honda's Motion for Summary Judgment on this claim. Liquidated Damages and Criminal Liability Claims The Court declined to rule on liquidated damages, stating it would be premature for the Court to decide whether Plaintiff Albert is due liquidated damages because it has made no finding that Honda violated the FLSA. The Court noted that liquidated damages are the default for FLSA violations but Honda could avoid them by showing the violation was in good faith and that he had reasonable grounds for believing that his act or omission was not a violation of the FLSA. For Albert's claim under Ohio Revised Code Section 2307.60 for civil recovery of criminal acts, the Court held the ruling in abeyance, stating that disposition of this state law cause of action will necessarily overlap with this Court's determination on liquidated damages. This consolidated case involves both collective action allegations under the FLSA and class action allegations under state law. The Court previously granted in part the plaintiffs' Motion to Facilitate Court-Authorized Notice, finding that Named Plaintiffs have shown a strong likelihood of similarly situatedness. Since notice was sent, 27 notices of filing consent forms have been filed, most containing multiple opt-ins. The Court noted that this particular summary judgment motion applied only to Plaintiff Albert's claims. The Court's final order stated: Honda's Motion is granted on Plaintiff Albert's claim under the Ohio overtime compensation statute, Ohio Revised Code Section 4111.03. The Court holds in abeyance its ruling on Plaintiff Albert's claim under Ohio Revised Code Section 2307.60. The remainder of Honda's Motion is denied." The case remains open. A copy of the Court's judgment is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WQmR0A HOYT ARCHERY: Faces Vale Suit Over Archery Products Price-Fixing ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAKE VALE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOYT ARCHERY, INC.; ARCHERY TRADE ASSOCIATION, INC.; BOWTECH INC.; BPS DIRECT, LLC d/b/a BASS PRO SHOPS; CABELA'S LLC; DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC.; JAY'S SPORTS, INC. d/b/a JAY'S SPORTING GOODS; KINSEY'S OUTDOORS, INC.; LANCASTER ARCHERY SUPPLY, INC.; MATHEWS ARCHERY, INC.; NEUINTEL LLC d/b/a PRICESPIDER f/k/a ORIS INTELLIGENCE; PRECISION SHOOTING EQUIPMENT, INC; and TRACKSTREET, INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:25-cv-03110 (D. Minn., August 1, 2025) is a class action arising from Defendants' violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The Plaintiff brings this action under federal antitrust law, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, seeking to recover overcharge damages on behalf of a nationwide class of purchasers of Archery Products who were injured by conduct resulting from an agreement between Defendants to artificially raise, fix, maintain or stabilize retail prices for archery products in the United States through the collective implementation and enforcement of minimum advertised pricing policies (MAP), and using Defendant Archery Trade Association to implement and enforce the agreement across its membership. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant ATA chiefly, but not exclusively, was tasked by Archery Products Defendants manufacturers, distributors and retailers, and members of the ATA, to enter into Agreements. The agreement among the Defendants and their co-conspirators was meant to artificially fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices, including through the widespread adoption, implementation, and the enforcement of minimum advertised price policies. MAPs represent an artificial price floor, or the "lowest price a retailer can advertise the products for sale," including "online or anywhere in print." The Agreement and conduct are per se illegal under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, asserts the complaint. Alternatively, the Agreement unreasonably restrains trade in the relevant market, causing substantial anti-competitive effects and inflated prices to consumers. Plaintiff Vale is a citizen of Nevada who purchased one or more Archery Products subject to a MAP during the Class Period, that were manufactured by one or more Manufacturer Defendants or Retailer Defendants. Headquartered in Salt Lake City, UT, Hoyt Archery, Inc. manufactures bowhunting and target archery equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vildan A. Teske, Esq. Lee Owen, Esq. TESKE LAW PLLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 746-1558 E-mail: teske@teskelaw.com owen@teskelaw.com - and - Lee Albert, Esq. Brian Murray, Esq. Brian Brooks, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Avenue, Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 889-0944 E-mail: lalbert@glancylaw.com ILLINOIS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response in Kainz -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Heather Kainz, et al., on behalf of Themselves and a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, v. Illinois Department of Corrections, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01250-JEH-RLH (C.D. Ill.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting them an extension of time through Sept. 12, 2025, to respond to both Plaintiffs' class certification motion and the Plaintiffs' memorandum in support of class certification. The Individual Defendants plan to review, examine, and respond to the Plaintiffs' class certification arguments and evidence presented by Plaintiffs that are directed at, refer to, or involve the Individual Defendants or refer to their relevant denials or defenses. The Plaintiffs did not oppose the same extension request made by the Individual Defendants. The Individual Defendants make their request for an extension in good faith. Granting of the requested extension will not cause any improper or undue delay. Illinois operates 25 adult correctional centers as well as boot camps, work camps and adult transition centers. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PXgK6F at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: M. Nieves Bolaños, Esq. Patrick Cowlin, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. 111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60601 E-mail: mnbolanos@hq-law.com pcowlin@hq-law.com - and - Patricia A. Stamler, Esq. Elizabeth C. Thomson, Esq. Matthew J. Turchyn, Esq. HERTZ SCHRAM PC 1760 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 300 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 E-mail: pstamler@hertzschram.com sweiss@hertzschram.com lthomson@hertzschram.com mturchyn@hertzschram.com - and - Martin A. Dolan, Esq. DOLAN LAW PC 10 South LaSalle Street #3702 Chicago, IL 60603 E-mail: mdolan@dolanlegal.com - and - Ambrose V. McCall, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 416 Main Street, Suite 529 Peoria, IL 61602 E-mail: amccall@hinshawlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Robert T. Shannon, Esq. Justin Penn, Esq. Ambrose V. McCall, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 151 North Franklin Street, Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 704-3901 Facsimile: (312) 704-3001 E-mail: rshannon@hinshawlaw.com jpenn@hinshawlaw.com amccall@hinshawlaw.com - and - Denise Baker-Seal, Esq. Kara Burke, Esq. Jessica Holliday, Esq. BROWN & JAMES, P.C. Richland Plaza I 525 West Main Street, Suite 200 Belleville, IL 62220-1547 E-mail: dbaker-seal@bjpc.com karab@bjpc.com jholliday@bjpc.com - and - Michael A. Warner Jr., Esq. Hailey M. Golds, Esq. Reva G. Ghadge, Esq. FRANCZEK P.C. 300 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60604 E-mail: maw@franczek.com hmg@franczek.com rgg@franczek.com INDUSTRIAL SERVICE: Barrett Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew D. Barrett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Industrial Service Solutions, LLC of Delaware, Case No. 4:25-cv-03699 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 7, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act (collectively, the "FLSA") seeking damages for Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff time and one half-the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in each seven-day workweek. Specifically, Defendant requires Plaintiff and other hourly paid mining employees to suit into protective clothing and safety gear (personal protective equipment, hereafter "PPE") necessary to safely perform their job duties and travel into the mines also known as "donning," while on mining premises without compensation, prior to being "clocked in." Similarly, Defendant requires Plaintiff and other hourly paid mining employees to remove and store PPE and wash up, also known as "doffing," without compensation, or while "clocked out." This pre/post shift off the clock work policy of Defendant's violates the FLSA by depriving Plaintiff and other hourly paid mining employees of overtime wages when they work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a welder, craftsman, and builder in connection with its mining business operations. The Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75254 Phone: (214) 489-7653 Facsimile: (469) 319-0317 Email: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES: Colbert Sues Over Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Michael Colbert, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES, INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES USA, LLC, INSITUFORM OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. and STANDARD PIPE SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 250800674 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, Philadelphia Cty., Aug. 7, 2025), is brought under the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law ("PWPCL"), the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968 ("PMWA"), the Delaware Prevailing Wage Act ("DE PWA"), the Maryland Prevailing Wage Law ("MPWL"), the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law ("MWPCL"), the Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL"), and the common law for unpaid prevailing wages and overtime compensation due under various Pennsylvania, Maryland and Delaware labor statutes, and the common law. The Plaintiff regularly worked approximately 50 hours per week. Though he was generally paid for overtime hours at 1.5x his actual wage rate paid, he was not paid at the correct prevailing wage rate owed (either for straight-time or overtime hours). However, on various Public Projects, Plaintiff Colbert was paid at best, as a Laborer, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a workman who performed work on Defendants' public works projects. Insituform operate a nationwide sewer construction and repair business employing workers who perform Operator, Cement Finisher, Laborer and other construction trade work on privately and publicly funded projects.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Goodley, Esq. Ryan P. McCarthy, Esq. GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 394-0541 J.B. HUNT: $5MM Deal in Background Check Suit Gets Initial Court OK ------------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a $5 million settlement will resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged J.B. Hunt Transport Services illegally took adverse action against job applicants and employees subjected to a background check without first providing a copy of their consumer report or summary of rights under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The J.B. Hunt class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on June 26, 2025. The deal covers any J.B. Hunt Transport Services employees or job applicants in the United States, its territories and other political subdivisions who, between June 22, 2020 and September 11, 2024, were subjected to a background check that led to an adverse employment decision and who were not provided with a copy of their consumer report or FCRA summary of rights within at least five business days before the adverse employment action was taken. The court-approved website for the J.B. Hunt Transport Services settlement can be found at JBHuntFCRASettlement.com. J.B. Hunt settlement class members—approximately 14,915 people -- do not need to do anything to receive a class action settlement payment, the website states. The court estimates that most class members' payments will be around $100 per person. However, the settlement payout amount is estimated to be roughly $400 per person for the 5,681 class members for whom J.B. Hunt has no record of sending any pre-adverse action notice or consumer report copies at all—referred to as the "No Notice Subgroup" in the court documents and on the settlement website. Each class member's copy of the settlement notice states whether they are in the "No Notice Subgroup." Class action settlement payments will be sent to class members via mailed check. Should any class member need to update their mailing address, they can visit this page and log in with the unique claim ID and PIN found in their copy of the settlement notice. J.B. Hunt has also agreed, as part of the settlement, to review and revise its procedures for sending notice of adverse employment actions based on background checks. A hearing is set for November 20, 2025 to determine whether the settlement will receive final court approval. Payments will begin to be distributed to J.B. Hunt class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The J.B. Hunt Transport Services class action lawsuit was filed in June 2022 by an individual who claimed to have been denied employment as a driver at J.B. Hunt based on the results of a standardized background screening. The man alleged that the third party responsible for conducting the background check mistakenly reported him as ineligible for the job based on a purported felony conviction on his criminal record. The plaintiff stated in the lawsuit that what was reported to J.B. Hunt was "completely inaccurate," as he does not have any criminal record, meaning the background check belonged to someone else. According to the case, the plaintiff was unable to dispute the report's accuracy due to J.B. Hunt's failure to provide him with a copy of his background report and a summary of his FCRA rights. [GN] JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Gatewood Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jefferson Capital Systems LLC. The case is styled as Chalonda Gatewood, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jefferson Capital Systems LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-00937 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 6, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC -- https://www.jcap.com/ -- is a debt collector.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: Brooks Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Johns Hopkins University. The case is styled as Sarah Ann Brooks, on behalf of themselves and all other aggrieved and similarly situated v. The Johns Hopkins University, Case No. 25STCV23230 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 6, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Johns Hopkins -- https://www.jhu.edu/ -- is America's first research university and home to nine world-class academic divisions working together as one university.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory P. Wong, Esq. LYFE LAW, LLP 864 S Robertson Blvd., 3rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90035 Phone: 888-203-1422 Email: gregw@lyfe.com KENDRA SCOTT: Casillas Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Miltita Casillas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kendra Scott, LLC doing business as: www.kendrascott.com, Case No. 25CU035457C was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on Aug. 5, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02001-H-MSB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Kendra Scott, LLC -- https://www.kendrascott.com/ -- designs, manufactures, repairs, and sells jewelry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca Blake Durrant, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 888 Prospect Street, Suite 200 La Jolla, CA 92037 Phone: (212) 808-7551 Fax: (213) 547-4901 Email: rdurrant@kelleydrye.com KIM KOVOL: Bid for Summary Judgment Partly OK'd in Mary Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY B., et al., v. KIM KOVOL, Director, Alaska Department of Family and Community Services, in her official capacity, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00129-SLG (D. Alaska), the Hon. Judge Sharon L. Gleason entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on Counts One and Two as follows: -- The Court grants summary judgment to the Defendants on Count 2; that claim is dismissed. -- The Court denies summary judgment to Defendants on Count 1. The Court finds that disputes of material fact remain as to whether the Plaintiffs have met their burden on Count 1 and the Court denies Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Count In sum, no reasonable factfinder could return a verdict for Plaintiffs on Count 2. The Court therefore grants Defendants summary judgment on Count 2. The Plaintiffs seek wide-ranging reform of Alaska's foster care system, administered by Alaska's Office of Children's Services ("OCS"), alleging that the system harms the children it is designed to protect and violates the Plaintiffs' federal rights. The Plaintiffs bring claims on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a class consisting of "all children for whom OCS has or will have legal responsibility and who are or will be in the legal and physical custody of OCS." A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YMFvVa at no extra charge.[CC] LB STEAKS: Thompson Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. LB Steaks, LLC d/b/a Las Brisas Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00161-H (N.D. Tex., August 1, 2025) arises from the Defendant's practice of underpaying its employees -- Plaintiff and employees like Plaintiff -- including the failure to pay them the minimum wage mandated by the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, instead of paying the minimum wage required by Section 206 of the FLSA, it appears Defendant may have been attempting to take credit for the tips its employees earned and use those tips to offset its obligation to pay minimum wage as required by the FLSA. The Defendant violated the FLSA by paying Plaintiff and Collective Members an hourly wage that is less than $7.25 per hour, says the suit. Plaintiff Thompson was employed by Defendant as a server within the three-year period preceding the filing of this lawsuit. LB Steaks, LLC owns and operates the dining establishment commonly known as "Las Brisas."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew N. Herrmann, Esq. Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq. HERRMANN LAW, PLLC 801 Cherry St., Suite 2365 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 479-9229 Facsimile: (817) 840-5102 E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com pamela@herrmannlaw.com LINCOLN NATIONAL: Court Dismisses Meade Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Donald C. Meade, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lincoln National Corporation, et al., Case No. 24-1704 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Murphy of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants Lincoln's motion to dismiss the securities class action complaint with leave to amend. The Court granted lead plaintiff Local 295 IBT Employer Group Pension Trust Fund leave to amend its complaint, finding no undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, prejudice, or futility in allowing amendment. The lawsuit is a confirmed securities class action under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related to the sale of Lincoln National Corporation securities. The case began in April 2024 when Donald C. Meade filed a class action complaint against Lincoln and three executives: Ellen Cooper, Dennis Glass, and Randal Freitag. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the court had in earlier proceedings appointed Local 295 IBT Employer Group Pension Trust Fund as lead plaintiff to represent the class. The lawsuit targets Lincoln's statements before a precipitous third-quarter loss in 2022. That quarter, Lincoln reported a $2.6 billion net loss, largely driven by revised assumptions about certain life insurance policies. Investors claim Lincoln saw the trouble coming but kept the market in the dark, offering misleading reassurances instead. They point to internal data and an industry study indicating that older policyholders were holding onto their policies longer than expected — a trend that would have significantly increased Lincoln's reserve obligations and worsened its financial position. And that's exactly what happened During the Covid-19 pandemic, more life insurance policyholders were keeping their policies active, so lapse rates were low. This meant lower profits and higher reserve requirements. On December 8, 2021, defendant Glass discussed interest rate assumptions at a conference and stated that the people are concerned that people will pay more premium for longer than what the pricing assumed. On May 4, 2022, Prudential's CFO stated there was an industry study indicating that experience is more adverse in some of our assumptions of our US life insurance business. On August 2, 2022, Prudential announced it had taken a $1.4 billion charge to increase reserves related to guaranteed Universal Life products where it lowered lapse assumptions based on recently released studies and surveys as well as recent emerging experience. During Lincoln's August 4, 2022 earnings teleconference, defendant Freitag acknowledged the industry study that affected Prudential and stated that there was a particular study this year focused on GUL. On November 2, 2022, Lincoln announced it had taken a $2.197 billion charge. Lincoln attributed much of the charge to a "GUL lapsation assumption update." In its Form 8-K, Lincoln disclosed that the charge related primarily to updated guaranteed universal life insurance lapse assumptions in response to emerging experience, combined with recently validated external industry perspectives. Local 295's theory was that Lincoln possessed information showing that policyholders, particularly older ones, were keeping their policies in force longer than expected, which would require materially higher reserves. Despite this, Lincoln allegedly downplayed the significance of the trend and misrepresented the strength of its reserves and capital position to investors. The court found that Local 295 failed to plead a false or misleading statement with particularity. According to the Court "The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act requires plaintiffs to specify each statement alleged to have been misleading, the reason or reasons why the statement is misleading. The court stated the second prong of that requirement is of paramount importance. The court examined statements 10 and 16, which Local 295 highlighted as its best allegations. The court found these allegations jumped from data showing lower lapse rates for older policy holders to Lincoln needing to update its assumptions, but the complaint included no reason why the data compelled such action. The court noted that Local 295 encountered two critical problems: it does not know when Lincoln possessed all lapse rate data, nor does it have the data. The court stated: Local 295 does not plead with particularity what this data shows. Presumably this is because the industry study was proprietary and available only to participants. The court found Local 295 did not plead a compelling inference of scienter. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act requires that plaintiffs state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind. The inference must be at least as compelling as any opposing inference of nonfraudulent intent. Local 295 offered four paths to an inference of scienter: abundance of information, competitor behavior, specific context, and temporal proximity. The court found none sufficient. Regarding competitor behavior, the court noted that while Prudential took a charge based partly on the industry study, many of Lincoln's peers were not similarly impacted by the need to change their reserves. The court stated: Several of them took little to no action for their SGUL reserves following their respective 2022 annual actuarial reviews. The court concluded that Local 295 has not alleged with particularity the reasons why the alleged statements were false or misleading at the time made, nor has it pled facts from which scienter is a compelling inference. The court stated: But hindsight alone doesn't support a securities fraud claim, and not every sudden loss is actionable. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XPVjjy LOYAL SOURCE: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Pembrick Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denies the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration in the lawsuit captioned MONIQUE PEMBRICK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOYAL SOURCE GOVERNMENT SERVICES, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01524-RBM-DEB (S.D. Cal.). On July 22, 2024, Plaintiff Monique Pembrick, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, filed a Representative Action Complaint for Civil Penalties Under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), California Labor Code Section 2698, et seq. The Defendant identifies several different arbitration agreements executed or transmitted between the Parties, including the Mutual Arbitration Agreement, Voluntary Employee Arbitration Agreement, Employee Arbitration Agreement, July Voluntary Employee Arbitration Agreement, and Dispute Resolution Notice and Unsigned Mutual Arbitration Agreement. In its Motion, the Defendant argues that a valid arbitration agreement exists, and that the Plaintiff's claim is covered by the July Voluntary Employee Arbitration Agreement. The Defendant also argues that no grounds exist to revoke the July Voluntary Employee Arbitration Agreement. Lastly, the Defendant argues that, while the Plaintiff's individual PAGA claims must be compelled to arbitration, the Plaintiff's non-individual PAGA claims must be stayed pending arbitration. In her Opposition, the Plaintiff asserts that the July Voluntary Employee Arbitration Agreement specifically excludes PAGA claims. The Plaintiff also asserts that she did not sign or agree to the Dispute Resolution Notice or the Unsigned Mutual Arbitration Agreement. The Court finds that the July Voluntary Arbitration Agreement is the valid, operative agreement to arbitrate, and the Court need not address the remaining agreements summarized by the Defendant in the introduction to its Motion. Judge Montenegro opines that the valid and operative July Voluntary Arbitration Agreement specifically and unambiguously excludes PAGA claims from its arbitration provision. Judge Montenegro also opines that the various arbitration agreements submitted by the Defendant are not "extrinsic evidence" of its intent to only exclude claims non-arbitrable by law. Indeed, Judge Montenegro says, the Defendant has not explained why the Parties executed multiple arbitration agreements, each with distinct arbitration provisions, and each succeeding arbitration agreement does not appear to reflect a change in the law. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/6pwmhde9 from PacerMonitor.com. * * * Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher has entered an Order Vacating Scheduling Order Dates and Setting Settlement Disposition Conference in light of the parties' Notice of Settlement. Judge Butcher set a telephonic Settlement Disposition Conference for October 3, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. Plaintiff's counsel must initiate the conference call by calling Judge Butcher's Chambers with all counsel on the line. Should a joint motion to dismiss be filed before that time, and a proposed order sent to the district judge's efile e-mail address, the SDC will be vacated, Judge Butcher said. MASIMO CORP: Senior Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------ FRANK SENIOR, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MASIMO CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06586 (S.D.N.Y., August 11, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.bowerswilkins.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on May 22, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Px7 S3 Headphones from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, he 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, says the Plaintiff. 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. Masimo Corporation operates the website that offers audio products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, 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 MERRILL LYNCH: Bid for Summary Judgment in Valelly Partly OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH VALELLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-07998-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Valerie Caproni entered an order denying in part and granting in part the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. In light of the denial of summary judgment regarding the Plaintiff's reasonable rate claim, the next step is a motion for class certification. The parties are ordered to meet and confer and agree on a schedule. By no later than Aug. 8, 2025, the parties must submit a joint letter with either the proposed schedule or each party's proposal if they cannot agree. If, at any time, the parties want a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Wang, they may submit a joint letter requesting a referral. The Clerk of Court is directed to file this Opinion and Order under seal, with viewing restricted to the parties and the Court, and to terminate the open motions at docket 267, 278, 286, and 291 Because there is no evidence that the Defendant violated the MCPL or that its fully disclosed process for enrolling in the Statement Link service violates the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on this claim. The case involves the "sweep" feature of Merrill Edge Self-Directed Investing Accounts. The sweep feature allows Defendant automatically to move or "sweep" the Plaintiff's uninvested cash into a money market account at Bank of America, an affiliated bank. 2 1F Over the past five plus years, the case has been whittled down to two remaining claims: the reasonable rate claim (Count III) and the statement link claim (Count V). Merrill is an American investment management and wealth management division of Bank of America. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Aug. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2ByMSr at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK CREMERIA: Hernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK CREMERIA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04425 (E.D.N.Y., August 8, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.laboratoriodelgelato.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on November 27, 2024, to access Defendant's website from his home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Specifically, Plaintiff wanted to purchase an il lab cake. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by him using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. New York Cremeria, Inc. operates the website that offers artisanal gelato and cakes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com NEW YORK: Thompson Sues Over Unlawful Protest Policing Policies --------------------------------------------------------------- SABRINA TAEKO THOMPSON, LILLIAN PAONE, RAVEN KARLICK, ARYANA ALEXIS ANDERSON, and SHAKA MCGLOTTEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KATHY HOCHUL, as Governor of the State of New York, in her individual capacity, et al., Defendants, Case No. 7:25-cv-06322 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2025) arises from a concerted effort by the Governor of New York State and several law enforcement departments to suppress Plaintiffs' demonstration at The State University of New York at Purchase, a public liberal arts college in Purchase, New York. The Plaintiffs are recent graduates and educators of the State University of New York at Purchase. The complaint relates that on the evening of May 2, 2024, in keeping with the tradition of student activism, the Plaintiffs gathered on the SUNY Purchase lawn to protest the school's complicity in the ongoing genocide committed by the Israeli government in Gaza, which is carried out with the political, military, and financial armament of the United States. In response to this constitutionally protected assembly, the Defendants stormed the campus with the intention of shutting down the demonstration, preventing Plaintiffs from continuing their protest, and chilling future gatherings. Police officers from nine different municipalities descended upon the protest and, indiscriminately and with excessive force, arrested student protestors, faculty members, and non-participating bystanders, without probable cause. The Defendants' conduct caused serious and, in many cases, lasting physical and emotional injury to members of the class, asserts the complaint. Thus, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, seek damages for all members of the class as well as declaratory and injunctive relief to end SUNY Purchase's unlawful policies and practices with regard to policing and responding to lawful demonstrations, the suit says. The Defendants also include MILAGROS PENA, as President of SUNY Purchase, in her individual capacity; WESTCHESTER COUNTY; VILLAGE OF MOUNT KISCO; CITY OF WHITE PLAINS; TOWN/VILLAGE OF HARRISON; VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER; VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK; VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT; Chief of the New York State University Police DAYTON TUCKER, in his individual capacity; NYC Department of Environmental Protection Sergeant FRANK LYNCH, in his individual capacity; NYC DEP Officer CHRISTOPHER SHARP, in his individual capacity; NYC DEP Officer First Name Unknown SCHWARTZ, in his individual capacity; UPD Inspector CINDY MARKUS, in her individual capacity; UPD Lieutenant JAMES MCGOWAN, in his individual capacity; UPD Officer JAMES FOLEY, in his individual capacity; Westchester County Officer MALIK L. BURTS, in his individual capacity; Westchester County Officer JAVIER DEJESUS, in his individual capacity; Westchester County Sergeant DANIEL S. DUMSER, in his individual capacity; Westchester County Sergeant MATHIEU E. RICOZZI, in his individual capacity; Westchester County Lieutenant PAUL J. CUSANO, in his individual capacity; Westchester County Officer MICHAEL P. MAFFEI, in his individual capacity; Westchester County Officer ROBERT L. CAMAJ, in his individual capacity; Westchester County Officer BRANDON A. DAY, in his individual capacity; Westchester County Officer PAUL S. DESOUSA, in his individual capacity; Westchester County Officer JOHN J. SEVERI, in his individual capacity; Westchester County Officer NICHOLAS LOPANO, in his individual capacity; Westchester County Officer MARILENA T. SOPHIA, in her individual capacity; Westchester County Officer ELIOT WILDER, in his individual capacity; Westchester County Officer RYAN G. WATTS, in his individual capacity; Westchester County Sergeant TREVOR M. DENNIN, in his individual capacity; Westchester County Officer THOMAS C. OLSEN, in his individual capacity; Westchester County Officer TUFAN S. DILSCHMANN, in his individual capacity; Westchester County Officer TYLER J. SMITH, in his individual capacity; Westchester County Lieutenant BRIAN M. HESS, in his individual capacity; Westchester County Captain JAMES B. GREER, in his individual capacity; UPD Officer MATTHEW ALTO, in his individual capacity and as a representative of a defendant class of New York State University Police Officers who violated Plaintiffs' rights as set forth herein and who are sued in their individual capacities; Officer GARY MCCORD Jr., in his individual capacity and as a representative of a defendant class of Port Chester Police Officers who violated Plaintiffs' rights as set forth herein and who are sued in their individual capacities; Officer OISIN MCGLOIN, in his individual capacity and as a representative of a defendant class of Westchester County Police Officers who violated Plaintiffs' rights as set forth herein and who are sued in their individual capacities; and POLICE OFFICERS JOHN AND JANE DOE 1-9 AT UPD and THE VARIOUS MUNICIPALITIES. New York, also called New York State, is a state in the northeastern United States. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Elena L. Cohen, Esq. J. Remy Green, Esq. Regina Yu, Esq. Leena M. Widdi, Esq. Maryam Fatouh, Esq. COHEN&GREEN P.L.L.C. 1639 Centre Street, Suite 216 Queens, NY 11385 Telephone: (929) 888-9480 E-mail: elena@femmelaw.com - and - Tahanie A. Aboushi, Esq. THE ABOUSHI LAW FIRM P.L.L.C. 1441 Broadway, 5th Floor New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 391-8500 E-mail: tahanie@aboushi.com - and - Gideon Orion Oliver, Esq. GIDEON ORION OLIVER ATTORNEY AT LAW 277 Broadway, Suite 1501 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (718) 783-3682 E-mail: Gideon@GideonLaw.com NISSAN NORTH: Faces Class Action Suit Over Faulty Engines --------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Nissan owners filed a class action lawsuit against Nissan North America Inc. and Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. Why: The plaintiffs allege the automaker sold vehicles with faulty engines that pose a safety hazard. Where: The Nissan class action lawsuit was filed in Delaware federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Nissan sold vehicles with faulty engines that pose a safety hazard and concealed the fact. Plaintiff Dennis Becker and three others filed the class action lawsuit against Nissan North America Inc. and Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. on July 8 in Delaware federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. The plaintiffs allege that 2021-2023 Nissan Rogue, 2019-2023 Nissan Altima and 2019-2023 Infiniti QX50 vehicles suffer from latent design, workmanship and/or manufacturing defects in the variable compression system, which regulates the piston strokes in the vehicles’ engines and affects the ability of the vehicles to provide power. The lawsuit claims the defect results from malfunctions in the main bearings and/or lower-link seizures. Nissan concealed engine defect, lawsuit alleges According to the Nissan class action lawsuit, the variable compression system is unique to Nissan-brand VC-Turbo engines and is supposed to produce higher power and provide better fuel efficiency than engines with typical compression systems, the lawsuit says. Despite this care, the engines are plagued with a defect that causes knocking or high-pitched whirring noises, hesitation, rough idling, stalling, loss of power, and sudden engine failure while the vehicle is in motion, increasing the chances of collision significantly, the lawsuit alleges. The defect can cause the vehicles to lose power or stop completely without warning, the plaintiffs say. As a result, they claim they have incurred thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs to repair or replace the damaged engine and/or engine components. The plaintiffs allege Nissan knew or should have known about the defect as of 2019, but concealed it from consumers. They claim Nissan has not recalled the affected vehicles or offered suitable repair or replacement free of charge. The plaintiffs are suing for violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of warranty and violations of state consumer laws. They seek certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. Also in July, Nissan recalled 480,000 vehicles equipped with VC-Turbo engines including the 2021-2024 Nissan Rogue, 2019-2020 Nissan Altima, 2019-2022 Infiniti QX50 and 2022 Infiniti QX55 due to engine failure risks. The plaintiffs are represented by Kelly A. Green and Jason Z. Miller of Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Abigail Gertner, Cody R. Padgett and Nathan N. Kiyam of Capstone Law APC, and Adam A. Edwards, Will A. Ladnier and Virginia Ann Whitener of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC. The Nissan class action lawsuit is Becker, et al. v. Nissan of North America Inc., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00845, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. [GN] NORTH ATLANTIC: Welch Files Suit Over False Discount Prices ----------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES WELCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTH ATLANTIC IMPORTS, LLC d/b/a BLACKSTONE PRODUCTS, and DOES 1–10, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-07106 (C.D. Cal., August 1, 2025) is a case concerning deceptive representations and omissions made by Defendant through its misleading and unlawful pricing, sales, and discounting practices on its websites, which directly violate the California Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. According to the complaint, Blackstone lists many of its products through its website, https://blackstoneproducts.com, as having continuous discounts ranging between $50–$200 off. These discounts are actually false discounts intended to induce customers into purchasing their products, as the products are never actually sold at the higher strikethrough reference prices listed next to the "sale" price. It is false because the item has not been listed for sale or sold on the website in the previous three months at the listed former price, says the suit. Blackstone Products sells and markets grills and other cookware products online through its website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles R. Toomajian, III, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 E-mail: charles.toomajian@zimmreed.com - and - Jessica M. Liu, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 6420 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1080 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (877) 500-8780 E-mail: jessica.liu@zimmreed.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. Tyler E. Ewigleben, Esq. Winston S. Hudson, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 500 President Clinton Ave., Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 255-8569 E-mail: chris@jefirm.com tyler@jefirm.com winston@jefirm.com NYC LUXURY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hernandez Says ------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NYC LUXURY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04424 (E.D.N.Y., August 8, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.nycluxury.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on November 27, 2024, to access Defendant's website from his home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase a 10k Yellow Gold Micro Diamond Picture Pendant. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by him using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. NYC Luxury, Inc. operates the website that offers gold pendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com PACIFICA BEAUTY: Martinez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------------ JUDITH ADELA FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PACIFICA BEAUTY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06581 (S.D.N.Y., August 8, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.pacificabeauty.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During the Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on July 29, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Rosemary Mint Scalp Love Shampoo from Defendant and to view the information on the website, she 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 not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, which prevented her from doing so. 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. Pacifica Beauty, LLC operates the website that offers skincare, hair care, makeup and beauty products.[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 PANERA BREAD: Deadline to File Settlement Claim Set Nov. 11 ----------------------------------------------------------- William C. Gendron of ClaimDepot reports that Consumes who received a notice letter from Panera regarding a data security incident discovered in March 2024 may qualify to claim up to $7,350 from a class action settlement. Panera LLC agreed to pay $2.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging negligence, invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and violations of California's Consumer Privacy Act. The lawsuit claimed an unauthorized third party accessed sensitive information, including names and Social Security numbers, of Panera's current and former employees, as well as a small number of customers, contractors and other individuals. Who can file a Panera claim? Class members must reside in the United States and have received a notice from Panera stating their private information may have been compromised in the March 2024 incident. How much can class members get? Class members can claim one or more of the following benefits: -- Unreimbursed ordinary out-of-pocket losses: Up to $500 for documented expenses, such as credit monitoring, freezing or unfreezing credit reports, notary fees, postage, copying and mileage -- Unreimbursed extraordinary losses and attested time: Up to $6,500 for documented losses related to the incident, such as identity theft, fraud or falsified tax returns. This category also allows up to $250 for up to 10 hours of time spent remedying issues related to the incident at $25 per hour. -- California statutory payment: Up to $100 for class members who resided in California at the time of the incident (March 2024) -- Residual cash payment: Up to $250 for all class members with an approved claim. The actual amount will depend on the number of claims and the funds remaining after deductions for other payments and expenses. If the total of all approved claims exceeds the $2.5 million settlement fund, the settlement administrator will reduce payments proportionally. How to claim a class action payment Class members can file an online claim form or download, print and complete the PDF claim form and mail it to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: In re Panera Data Security Litigation, c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC, P.O. Box 5324, New York, NY 10150-5324 What proof or documentation is required to submit a claim? All class members must provide their class member ID. Those who received a settlement notice by U.S. mail can find their ID on the envelope or postcard. Those who received a settlement notice by email can find their ID in the email. For ordinary out-of-pocket or extraordinary losses, claimants must provide documentation, including receipts, account statements, correspondence with financial institutions or other official records. Self-prepared documents, such as handwritten receipts, are not sufficient on their own but can be submitted as clarification. Payout options -- Electronic transfer (online claims only) -- Paper check $2.5 million settlement fund breakdown The $2,500,000 settlement fund covers: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $833,333.33 -- Attorneys' expenses: Up to $50,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $2,000 each -- Payments to eligible class members: The remainder of the fund If any funds remain after the above payments, the settlement administrator will donate them to a nonprofit approved by the court. Important dates -- Deadline to opt out: Oct. 13, 2025 -- Deadline to file a claim: Nov. 11, 2025 -- Final fairness hearing: Jan. 29, 2026 When is the Panera data breach settlement payout date? Payments will be made approximately 90 days after the court grants final approval of the settlement and any appeals are resolved. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged Panera was responsible for a data security incident in March 2024 that exposed private information of employees and others. The plaintiffs claimed Panera was negligent and violated privacy laws. Panera denies any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the cost and risk of litigation and appeals. [GN] PBF GROUP: Faces Cruz Suit over Refinery Emissions -------------------------------------------------- PBF Holding Company LLC and PBF Finance Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2025, that it is facing the case captioned "Alena Cruz and Shannon Payne vs. PBF Energy Inc., et. al," on December 15, 2023. The company and its subsidiaries PBF Western Region and MRC were named as defendants in a class action and representative action complaint filed by Alena Cruz and Shannon Payne, and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The complaint contains allegations of Clean Air Act (CAA) violations, claims for medical and environmental monitoring, liability for ultrahazardous activities, negligence, and public and private nuisance from MRC's operations. The proposed class is all individuals who reside and/or work in the City of Martinez, including the surrounding communities of Alhambra Valley and Franklin Canyon, as well as El Sobrante, Hercules, Benicia, and Richmond, who have allegedly been exposed to elevated levels of spent catalyst discharged from MRC's operations during the period November 24, 2022 to the present. On December 21, 2023, plaintiffs granted an extension until February 5, 2024 for MRC to respond to the initial complaint. On February 5, 2024, MRC filed a motion to dismiss on the pleadings. In response, on February 16, 2024, plaintiffs filed a First Amendment Complaint. On February 29, 2024, MRC filed a motion to dismiss the Cruz amended case on the pleadings. Plaintiffs' opposition was filed on March 14, 2024. MRC filed its reply to plaintiffs' opposition on March 21, 2024. At the motion hearing on April 4, 2024, the court granted MRC's request to dismiss all wrongly named PBF entities and plaintiffs' CAA and Medical Monitoring causes of action. The court ordered the Cruz and Piscitelli plaintiffs to meet and confer on a joint discovery schedule and report back to the court by the end of April 2024. On May 17, 2024, MRC filed its answer to the complaint. On June 5, 2024, the court stayed the case, pending the outcome of the class property damage claim in the Piscitelli case. On January 23, 2025, the court issued an order setting a joint status conference for February 5, 2025 before the Piscitelli, Cruz, and Frye Judges. On February 21, 2025, the Piscitelli, Cruz, and Frye judges issued an order for the parties to meet and confer and file a list of common issues. On March 19, 2025, the parties filed their list of common issues. On April 15, 2025, the Piscitelli Court related the Piscitelli, Cruz, Frye, Saliba, Silvestri, and Manning cases under it for coordination of common core issues in the cases. On July 16, 2025, the Piscitelli Court granted MRC's motion to relate the Canning case to the Piscitelli, Cruz, Frye, Saliba, Silvestri, and Manning cases for coordination of common core issues in the cases. PBF Holding is a wholly-owned subsidiary of PBF Energy company LLC. PBF Energy Inc. is the sole managing member of, and owner of an equity interest representing approximately 99.3% of the outstanding economic interest in, PBF LLC as of June 30, 2023. PBF Investments LLC, Toledo Refining company LLC, Paulsboro Refining company LLC, Delaware City Refining company LLC, Chalmette Refining, LLC, PBF Energy Western Region LLC, Torrance Refining company LLC, Torrance Logistics company LLC and Martinez Refining company LLC are PBF LLC's principal operating subsidiaries and are all wholly-owned subsidiaries of PBF Holding. PF CALI: Strandholt Seeks to Continue Class Cert. Bid Deadlines --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOEL STRANDHOLT and FRANK LAWSON, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. PF CALI PAYROLL, LLC; PF SUPREME, LLC d.b.a. PLANET FITNESS; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 8:24-cv-01256-CV-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order continuing the class certification motion filing and briefing-related deadlines. The Plaintiffs bring this ex parte application in lieu of a noticed Motion because a noticed motion could not reasonably be heard prior to Plaintiffs’ upcoming Aug. 15, 2025, deadline to file their motion for class certification. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2AKlOX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. Cassandra A. Castro, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com jklein@lelawfirm.com ccastro@lelawfirm.com - and - Michael Nourmand, Esq. James A. De Sario, Esq. THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC 8822 West Olympic Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 553-3600 Facsimile: (310) 553-3603 E-mail: mnourmand@nourmandlawfirm.com jdesario@nourmandlawfirm.com PINCH FOOD: Faces Nassif Suit Over Illegal Tip Retention -------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES NASSIF, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PINCH FOOD DESIGN, LLC, and BOB SPIEGEL, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-CV-6571 (S.D.N.Y., August 8, 2025) is a class action brought against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and the other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are and have been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and are and have been subject to Defendants' decision, policy, plan and common policies, programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules of willfully retaining employees' tips. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a back of the house captain and sometimes a server at special events. Both of these positions were service positions and involved providing direct customer service to event guests. He asserts that Defendants received gratuities at these events and failed to distribute these gratuities to service employees. Pinch Food Design, LLC is a New York limited liability company that owns and operates Pinch Food Design catering company based in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 981-9587 PLAVAN COMMERCIAL: Class Settlement in Tanner Suit Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRACY TANNER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. PLAVAN COMMERCIAL FUELING, INC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01341-BTM-JLB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz entered an order granting the motion for: 1) final approval of class action settlement, and 2) service award, attorney's fees, and litigation costs. The motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards is granted as follows: -- Class Counsel is awarded $100,000 in fees and $6,603.75 in costs. -- Class Representative Tracy Tanner is awarded $5,000 as a service award. Without affecting the finality of this order in any way, the Court retains jurisdiction of all matters relating to the interpretation, administration, implementation, effectuation and enforcement of this order and the Settlement. The parties shall file a post-distribution accounting no later than Jan. 5, 2026. The Court sets a compliance hearing on Jan. 12, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. Counsel may appear telephonically at the compliance hearing. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the requirements of Rule 23 are met and that certification of the class for settlement purposes is appropriate The class size -- which includes "all individual U.S. residents to whom Plavan sent written notification of the Feb. 23, 2024, Ransomware Incident," and which Plavan represents comprises approximately 2,948 individuals-satisfies Rule 23(a)(1). Under the Settlement Agreement, Plavan agreed to establish a non-reversionary common fund of $300,000 for “class benefits, notice and administration costs, service award payments approved by the Court, and attorneys’ fees and expenses award by the Court. In February 2024, Plavan experienced a Ransomware Incident, which may have impacted the names and Social Security numbers of Plavan's current and former customers. Plavan specializes in petroleum and petroleum products wholesale. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YeK5MZ at no extra charge.[CC] POSH COMPANY: Cazares Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Amelia Cazares, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Posh Company LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01169-WCG (E.D. Wis., Aug. 7, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services Broken Trophies provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.poshpuppyboutique.com (hereinafter "Poshpuppyboutique.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Poshpuppyboutique.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to 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, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Posh Company provides to the public a website known as Poshpuppyboutique.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view pet apparel and accessories, including designer dog clothes, collars, carriers, toys, beds and other products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (630)-478-0856 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law PRAC HOLDINGS: Babb Suit Removed to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Amie Babb, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. PRAC HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 TO 50, Case No. 25CV-0208117 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Shasta, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on Aug. 7, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-at-01028. The Plaintiff alleges to be a former non-exempt employee of Defendant in California, and further alleges that Defendant rounded time, and that as a result failed to pay her and other alleged putative class members all of their minimum and overtime wages owed, failed to provide accurate wage statements, and failed to pay all wages owed upon termination.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gary M. Mclaughlin, Esq. Nick Baltaxe, Esq. MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP 2049 Century Park East, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-3120 Phone: (310) 312-2000 Facsimile: (310) 312-3100 PROPR FIT: Fernandez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------- FELIPE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROPR FIT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06547 (S.D.N.Y., August 8, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.proprfit.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff was injured when she attempted multiple times, most recently on May 8, 2024 to access Defendant's website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Specifically, Plaintiff wanted to purchase Birkenstock Arizona Birkibuc sandals. The Plaintiff alleges that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Propr Fit, Inc. operates the website that offers footwear products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com RACK ROOM: Bid to Dismiss CDAFA Claims Tossed --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEMETRIUS SMITH, et al., v. RACK ROOM SHOES, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-06709-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an order granting in part and denying in part motion to dismiss and to strike: Accordingly, the Court entered an order: -- Denying Rack Room's motion to dismiss as to the Plaintiffs' California Comprehensive Computer Data and Access Fraud Act ("CDAFA") and Wiretap Act claims, and -- Granting without leave to amend as to the Plaintiffs' California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") claims. Rack Room's motion to strike is denied, and its request for judicial notice is denied as moot. The Plaintiffs' motion to extend the pretrial deadline to amend the pleadings is granted, and the deadline is extended to Aug. 18, 2025. The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against Rack Room Shoes, Inc. after Rack Room allegedly permitted Meta, Attentive, and other third parties to intercept Plaintiffs' personally identifiable communications without consent via trackers that Rack Room embedded in its own website. The Plaintiffs are damaged by not having received a share of the allegedly unjust profits generated from their data. That reading is also consistent with CDAFA's statutory purpose. The lawsuit centers around allegations that Rack Room has embedded the code of several third-party companies into its website, and that the third parties' code directs the browser of a person visiting the Rack Room website to send a message to the relevant third party's server. Rack is an American footwear retailer. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qBPf50 at no extra charge.[CC] RANDY 707 LENDER: Arreola Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Randy 707 Lender LLC. The case is styled as Randy Arreola, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Randy 707 Lender LLC doing business as: GTLN, Case No. 2:25-cv-01479 (W.D. Wash., Aug. 6, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Randy 707 Lender LLC doing business as Georgia Trust for Local News (GTLN) is a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting community newspapers in Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com RB GLOBAL: Contract Manufacturing Sues Over Sherman Act Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Contract Manufacturing Services, Inc. d.b.a AllFab Railings & Metalworks, on behalf of itself and on behalf of a Class of others similarly situated v. RB Global, Inc.; Rouse Services LLC; United Rentals, Inc.; Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.; HERC Rentals Inc.; HERC Holdings, Inc.; H&E Equipment Services, Inc.; and Sunstate Equipment Co., LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01262 (D. Conn., Aug. 7, 2025), is brought seeking damages, treble damages, and other remedies under the Sherman and Clayton Acts. This action alleges that Defendants formed and have maintained an illegal, horizontal price-fixing agreement through which Defendants have conspired to fix, maintain, and/or stabilize rental prices for rental equipment and tools used for construction, entertainment, and other industries ("Rental Equipment"), from at least March 31, 2021 to the present (the "Class Period"). The Rental Equipment at issue is used in commercial and residential construction projects and includes equipment such as excavators, backhoes, bulldozers, skid steers, compaction equipment, loaders, and lifts, among others. While marketed as a way for Rental Defendants and co-conspirators to optimize their rental and utilization rates, Rouse Services actually offers Rental Equipment companies the opportunity to conspire and join a price-fixing cartel ("the Rouse Cartel"). The Defendants' scheme has succeeded. As a result of participating in the Rouse Cartel, the Rental Defendants have experienced record profits and skyrocketing share prices. Rouse and the Rental Defendants have violated and continue to violate U.S. antitrust laws. Instead of setting their rates independently, the Rental Defendants, while controlling much of the U.S. Rental Equipment market, outsource their rate-setting to Rouse as a common entity. By acting collectively through Rouse, the Rental Defendants eliminate price competition between themselves, says the complaint. The Plaintiff rented Rental Equipment directly from one or more Defendants during the Class Period. RB Global, Inc. is a public company, traded on the Toronto and New York Stock Exchanges, that is legally domiciled in Canada and with U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth R. Lesser, Esq. KLAFTER LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Phone: 914.934.9200 Facsimile: 914.934.9220 Email: seth@klafterlesser.com - and - Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. Eric D. Barton, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave. Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: 816.701.1100 Email: thudson@wcllp.com ebarton@wcllp.com RED ROOF: Class Settlement in Data Incident Suit Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Red Roof Inns, Inc. Data Incident Litigation, Case No. 2:23-cv-04133 (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Sarah D. Morrison entered an order Granting Final Approval Of Class Action Settlement: 1. The Court affirms its determinations in the Preliminary Approval Order certifying, for the purposes of the Settlement only, the Action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the Settlement Class consisting of: "All individuals who were sent notification by the Defendant that their personal information was or may have been compromised in the Data Incident." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the judges presiding over this Action, and members of their direct families; (2) the Defendant, its subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest and their current or former officers and directors; and (3) Settlement Class members who submit a valid request for exclusion prior to the opt-out deadline. 2. The Court grants the Plaintiffs motion for attorney's fees, reimbursement of expenses, and class representative service awards. The Court awards Class Counsel $183,333.33 in attorney's fees and reimbursement of expenses of $14,259.34 to be paid according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. This amount of fees and reimbursement is fair and reasonable. The Court awards the Class Representatives, Rebecca Richardson, Vail Pinkston McCall, and Viomar Sena, $5,000.00 each to be paid according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The award is justified based on their service to the Class. Red is an American economy hotel chain. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8TUivY at no extra charge.[CC] RED ROOF: Class Settlement in McCall Class Suit Gets Final Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as McCall v. Red Roof Inns, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-04171 (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Sarah D. Morrison entered an order Granting Final Approval Of Class Action Settlement: 1. The Court affirms its determinations in the Preliminary Approval Order certifying, for the purposes of the Settlement only, the Action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the Settlement Class consisting of: "All individuals who were sent notification by the Defendant that their personal information was or may have been compromised in the Data Incident." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the judges presiding over this Action, and members of their direct families; (2) the Defendant, its subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest and their current or former officers and directors; and (3) Settlement Class members who submit a valid request for exclusion prior to the opt-out deadline. 2. The Court grants the Plaintiffs motion for attorney's fees, reimbursement of expenses, and class representative service awards. The Court awards Class Counsel $183,333.33 in attorney's fees and reimbursement of expenses of $14,259.34 to be paid according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. This amount of fees and reimbursement is fair and reasonable. The Court awards the Class Representatives, Rebecca Richardson, Vail Pinkston McCall, and Viomar Sena, $5,000.00 each to be paid according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The award is justified based on their service to the Class. Red is an American economy hotel chain. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7zD36x at no extra charge.[CC] RED ROOF: Class Settlement in Richardson Class Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Richardson v. Red Roof Inns, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-04190 (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Sarah D. Morrison entered an order Granting Final Approval Of Class Action Settlement: 1. The Court affirms its determinations in the Preliminary Approval Order certifying, for the purposes of the Settlement only, the Action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the Settlement Class consisting of: "All individuals who were sent notification by the Defendant that their personal information was or may have been compromised in the Data Incident." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the judges presiding over this Action, and members of their direct families; (2) the Defendant, its subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest and their current or former officers and directors; and (3) Settlement Class members who submit a valid request for exclusion prior to the opt-out deadline. 2. The Court grants the Plaintiffs motion for attorney's fees, reimbursement of expenses, and class representative service awards. The Court awards Class Counsel $183,333.33 in attorney's fees and reimbursement of expenses of $14,259.34 to be paid according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. This amount of fees and reimbursement is fair and reasonable. The Court awards the Class Representatives, Rebecca Richardson, Vail Pinkston McCall, and Viomar Sena, $5,000.00 each to be paid according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The award is justified based on their service to the Class. Red is an American economy hotel chain. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p4qniL at no extra charge.[CC] RICHARD CHAREST: J.E.L. Seeks to Certify Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.E.L., by and through their next friend, PATRICIA BYRNES; et al., v. RICHARD CHAREST, in his official capacity as Secretary of the EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00471-MRD-AEM (D.R.I.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order approving the class definitions and certifying case as a class action. The Plaintiffs contend that Rule 23(b)(2) is met because they allege that the Defendants' system-wide policies and practices deprive the classes of needed IHCB-EPSDT Services in violation of the Medicaid Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the Rehabilitation Act ("RA"). The Parties agree that the following classes meet the requirements for class certification under Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that this action may be appropriately litigated as a Rule 23(b)(2) class action: The "EPSDT Class" consists of: "All current or future Medicaid-eligible children in Rhode Island under the age of 21 (a) who have a documented Serious Emotional Disturbance (SED), including SED with co-occurring developmental disabilities (DD); (b) for whom a licensed practitioner of the healing arts acting within the scope of practice under state law has recommended intensive home and community-based mental health services ("IHCB-EPSDT Services") to correct or ameliorate their conditions; and (c) who did not or will not receive and/or were, are or will be delayed in receiving recommended IHCB-EPSDT Services." The "ADA/RA Class" consists of: "all current or future Medicaid-eligible children in Rhode Island under the age of 21 (a) who have a documented SED, including SED with co occurring DD, that substantially limits one or more major life activities; (b) for whom a licensed practitioner of the healing arts acting within the scope of practice under state law has recommended IHCB-EPSDT Services to correct or ameliorate their conditions; and (c) who are unnecessarily segregated, institutionalized, or at serious risk of becoming unnecessarily segregated or institutionalized." The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on Nov. 13, 2024. The Plaintiffs are Medicaid-eligible children and youth with a serious emotional disturbance ("SED") who allege that they are being denied medically necessary home and community-based mental and behavioral health services in violation of the Medicaid Act, ADA and Section 504 of RA. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6uOSkm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kristine L. Sullivan, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS RHODE ISLAND 220 Toll Gate Road, Suite A Warwick, RI 02886 Telephone: (401) 831-3150 Facsimile: (401) 274-5568 E-mail: ksullivan@drri.org - and - Samantha Bartosz, Esq. CHILDREN'S RIGHTS 88 Pine Street, Suite 800 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 683-2210 E-mail: sbartosz@childrensrights.org - and - Lynette Labinger, Esq. COOPERATING COUNSEL, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF RHODE ISLAND 129 Dorrance St., Box 710 Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 465-9565 E-mail: ll@labingerlaw.com - and - Raymond Williams, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP 1650 Market Street, Ste. 5000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 656-3368 Facsimile: (215) 656-3301 E-mail: raymond.williams@us.dlapiper.com RICOH USA: Class Cert Bid Filing in Mike Suit Continued to Oct. 20 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKE THE PRINTER, INC., a California corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RICOH USA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-08192-JFW-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Walter entered an order approving joint stipulation to further extend deadline for the Plaintiff to file motion for class certification, continue trial, and extend all related deadlines. (1) The Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class certification be continued from Aug. 11, 2025 to Oct. 20, 2025. (2) Trial in this matter be continued to May 5, 2026; and (3) All other deadlines are continued as reflected in the attached Amended Scheduling Order. Ricoh offers workplace solutions and digital transformation services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6kl3hh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Panish, Esq. Jesse Creed, Esq. Bernadette M. Bolan, Esq. PANISH | SHEA | RAVIPUDI LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: panish@panish.law jcreed@panish.law bbolan@panish.law ROBERT LARSON: Class Cert Bid Filing in Johnson Due April 21, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Johnson v. The Robert Larson Automotive Group Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-05373 (W.D. Wash., Filed May 2, 2025), the Hon. Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright entered an order setting class certification deadlines: -- Fact Discovery due by: May 21, 2026 -- Expert Discovery due by: July 21, 2026 -- Class Certification Motions due by: April 21, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Robert operates as a car dealer.[CC] ROBLOX CORP: Appeals Arbitration Order in Murphy Suit to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROBLOX CORPORATION is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Katherine Murphy, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Roblox Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01940-TWR-BLM, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, is brought against the Defendant for intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Acts, and State Consumer Protection Acts. On Mar. 20, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, which Judge Todd W. Robinson denied on July 9, 2025. The appellate case is entitled Uhl, et al. v. Roblox Corporation, Case No. 25-5057, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on August 11, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on August 18, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on September 22, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on October 20, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees DAMIEN UHL, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Alexandra Walsh, Esq. ANAPOL WEISS 14 Ridge Square, NW Suite 342 Washington, DC 20016 - and - Anne Andrews, Esq. Robert S. Siko, Esq. Sean Thomas Higgins, Esq. ANDREWS & THORNTON 4701 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Defendant-Appellant ROBLOX CORPORATION is represented by: Ariana Bustos, Esq. COOLEY, LLP 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 - and - Kyle Wong, Esq. COOLEY, LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 - and - Jamie Robertson, Esq. COOLEY, LLP 110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 4200 Chicago, IL 60606 ROME ENTERPRISES: Friel Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rome Enterprises, Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Friel, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Rome Enterprises, Inc. doing business as: Rome Bath Remodeling, Case No. 3:25-cv-01460-JFS (M.D. Pa., Aug. 6, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Rome Enterprises, Inc. doing business as Rome Bath Remodeling -- https://romebathremodeling.com/ -- is an independently owned company serving Eastern Pennsylvania, Central New York & the New York capitol region, specializing in tub to shower conversions, bathtub replacements, shower replacements and walk-in tubs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (615) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Jeremy C. Jackson, Esq. BOWER LAW ASSOCIATES, PLLC 403 South Allen Street, Suite 210 State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 234-2626 Fax: (814) 237-8700 Email: jjackson@bower-law.com SCOUT ENERGY: Ruling on CCPA Claims Deferred -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONNYE HAWKINS, et al., v. SCOUT ENERGY MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01545-N (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge David Godbey entered an order deferring ruling on the negligence per se and California Consumer Privacy Act claims until a ruling on class certification. The Court determines that Plaintiffs have standing to bring all the claims except the declaratory and injunctive relief claim and thus grants the motion to dismiss as to that claim. Then, the Court holds that Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for their breach of implied contract and negligence claims and denies the motion to dismiss as to those claims. Next, the Court decides that Plaintiffs have not alleged facts sufficient to state a claim for unjust enrichment and grants the motion as to that claim. Because Plaintiffs did not seek leave to amend their complaint, and amendment would be futile, the Court dismisses the declaratory and injunctive relief and unjust enrichment claims with prejudice. Finally, the Court defers judgment on the negligence per se and state law claims until the class certification stage. On Jan. 10, 2024, Scout was the target of a cybersecurity attack. Scout is an investment company in the energy industry. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated Aug. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9hl3QI at no extra charge.[CC] SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Howell Class Cert Filing Due Feb. 4, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VELMA JUANITA HOWELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE SERVICES, Case No. 2:24-cv-02480-KHV-BGS (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Brooks Severson entered a revised scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline/Setting Mediation completed Entered Set for November 18, 2025 Experts (merit and class Plaintiff: Oct. 22, 2025 certification): Defendant: Nov. 21, 2025 Rebuttal experts: Dec. 19, 2025 Motion for class certification Feb. 4, 2026 (if opposed) or for parties to Response: March 6, 2026 stipulate to class Reply: March 25, 2026 certification: Discovery deadline: Jan. 14, 2026 SelectQuote is a direct-to-consumer distribution platform for selling insurance policies and healthcare services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1ri6rP at no extra charge.[CC] SHADE STORE: Crowder Must File Class Cert Reply by Sept. 12 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON CROWDER, JOEL LUMIAN, ROBERT SMITH, AMANDA GOLDWASSER, and MARK ELKINS individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE SHADE STORE, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-02331-NC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Nathanael M. Cousins entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for class certification and opposition to motion to exclude shall be filed by Sept. 12, 2025. 2. The Defendant's reply in support of its motion to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiffs' experts shall be filed by Oct. 17, 2025. 3. The hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, hearing on the Defendant's motion to exclude, and case management conference shall be continued to Nov. 5, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. On March 24, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification. On March 25, 2025, the Court set the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification for June 11, 2025. Shade is a home decoration products provider. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XfRaP1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Simon C. Franzini, Esq. Martin Brenner, Esq. Grace Bennett, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: simon@dovel.com martin@dovel.com grace@dovel.com The Defendant is represented by: Steven N. Feldman, Esq. Shlomo Fellig, Esq. Johanna Spellman, Esq. Kevin Jakopchek, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 485-1234 E-mail: steve.feldman@lw.com shlomo.fellig@lw.com johanna.spellman@lw.com kevin.jakopchek@lw.com SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO: Ramirez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ROBERT J. RAMIREZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CVRI2503024, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Riverside to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on August 1, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-02000 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's Complaint pleads causes of action under the California Labor Code for: (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay all overtime wages at the legal overtime pay rate; (3) failure to provide all meal periods; (4) failure to authorize and permit all paid rest periods; (5) failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements; (6) failure to timely pay all wages due upon separation; and (7) unfair business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code. The Sherwin-Williams Company manufactures, distributes and sells paints, coatings, and related products to professional, industrial, commercial, and retail customers primarily in North and South America. The Company is based in Cleveland, Ohio.[BN] Defendant Sherwin-Williams Company is represented by: Shareef S. Farag, Esq. Nicholas D. Poper, Esq. Matthew P. Eaton, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 820-8800 Facsimile: (310) 820-8859 E-mail: sfarag@bakerlaw.com npoper@bakerlaw.com meaton@bakerlaw.com SHUTTERSTOCK INC: Herrick Action Stayed Pending Appeal Decision --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cynthia Herrick et al. v. Shutterstock, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03191-JPC-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah L. Cave entered an order granting the Plaintiff requests to issue a stay order pending the McGucken Appeal. The parties shall file a joint letter regarding the status of the Appeal every 60 days, the first being on Friday, Oct. 3, 2025. Pursuant to the Court's Individual Practices In Civil Cases, Plaintiff Herrick seeks, and Defendant Shutterstock, Inc. does not object to, a stay of this action pending a decision on McGucken v. Shutterstock, Case No. 23-7652 (the Appeal), before the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Shutterstock is an American provider of stock photography, stock footage, stock music, and editing tools. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=51VkCZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Bartolomei, Esq. DUNCAN FIRM 809 West Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 228-7600 Facsimile: (501) 228-0415 SIG SAUER: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Glasscock Suit to 8th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ SIG SAUER, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Joshua Glasscock, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sig Sauer, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 6:22-cv-03095-MDH, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The Plaintiff brings this complaint against the Defendant for its design, manufacture, marketing, and distribution of Sig Sauer model P320 pistol with alleged defect in violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA). On Nov. 6, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which Judge M. Douglas Harpool granted on July 28, 2025. The Court finds that a class action is the superior method for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. The appellate case is entitled Joshua Glasscock v. Sig Sauer, Inc., Case No. 25-8006, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on August 11, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent JOSHUA GLASSCOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Michael A. Williams, Esq. Matthew L. Dameron, Esq. Clinton J. Mann, Esq. WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 945-7110 Email: mwilliams@williamsdirks.com matt@williamsdirks.com cmann@willliamsdirks.com - and - Todd C. Werts, Esq. LEAR WERTS LLP 103 Ripley Street Columbia, MO 65201 Telephone: (573) 875-1991 Email: werts@learwerts.com Defendant-Petitioner SIG SAUER, INC. is represented by: Colleen Michelle Gulliver, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 335-4500 - and - Cara Rose, Esq. FRANKE SCHULTZ & MULLEN, PC 1919 E. Battlefield, Suite B Springfield, MO 65804 Telephone: (417) 863-0040 - and - Robert L. Joyce, Esq. B. Keith Gibson, Esq. LITTLETON JOYCE UGHETTA & KELLY LLP 4 Manhattanville Road, Suite 202 Purchase, NY 10577 Telephone (914) 417-3400 SL MEDICINE: Illegally Keeps Employees' Earned Tips, Roley Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- IAN ROLEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SL MEDICINE TX, PLLC (a/k/a Skin Laundry), Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-02153-D (N.D. Tex., August 11, 2025) is a civil action brought by Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Pay Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has paid Plaintiff on an hourly basis in addition to commission pay. The Plaintiff customarily and regularly received more than $30 per month in tips in connection with his employment by Defendant. The complaint asserts that the Defendant kept tips earned by Plaintiff and the putative collective action members in violation of the FLSA. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, seeks all damages available pursuant to the FLSA, including unlawfully kept tips, liquidated damages, reasonable legal fees, costs, and post-judgment interest. The Plaintiff began employment with Defendant on approximately May 1, 2024. As of the filing of this lawsuit, Plaintiff continues to be employed by Defendant. SL Medicine TX, PLLC operates numerous skin treatment facilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. VAUGHT FIRM, LLC 1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (972) 707-7816 Facsimile: (972) 920-3933 E-mail: avaught@txlaborlaw.com SPARC GROUP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Peppars Due March 6, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER PEPPARS, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SPARC GROUP LLC, a Delaware limited liability company doing business as AEROPOSTALE; MICHELLE RONAN, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 4:25-cv-03618-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order setting class certification schedule: Event Deadline The Plaintiff's deadline to file a March 6, 2026 motion for class certification: The Defendant's opposition to the June 4, 2026 Plaintiff's motion for class certification: The Plaintiff's reply in support of July 16, 2026 motion for class certification: Class certification hearing: Oct. 1, 2026 Sparc retails apparel and accessories. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oBbORA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Molly A. DeSario, Esq. Calyn Hadlock, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 E-mail: mdesario@tomorrowlaw.com calyn@tomorrowlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Jon D. Meer, Esq. Michael Afar, Esq. Romtin Parvaresh, Esq. Mackenzie Mullin, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com mafar@seyfarth.com rparvaresh@seyfarth.com mmullin@seyfarth.com SPECTRUM PHARMA: Christiansen Disqualified as Lead Plaintiff ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN B. CHRISTIANSEN, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated investors, v. SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., THOMAS J. RIGA, and FRANCOIS J. LEBEL, Case No. 1:22-cv-10292-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Valerie Caproni entered an order disqualifying Christiansen as lead plaintiff. Not later than Monday, Aug. 25, 2025, the counsel for the Plaintiff must cause notice of the pendency of this action and of the reopening of the lead plaintiff appointment process to be published in a widely circulated national business-oriented publication or wire service. Members of the putative class may move the Court to serve as substitute lead plaintiff not later than Wednesday, Sept. 24, 2025. The Plaintiff's request for a status conference, is denied without prejudice to the Plaintiff renewing the request with an explanation of what issues he wishes to discuss at the conference. Except for filings necessary to complete the selection of a new lead plaintiff, this case remains stayed. The fact that Christiansen has repeatedly invoked his belief in conspiracy theories -- first in his communications with Darrow and then in his letter to the Court — suggests that his interest in this case is driven, at least in part, by a desire to further his personal convictions. Spectrum is an American biopharmaceutical company. A copy of the Court's opinion & order dated Aug. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S3JOAM at no extra charge.[CC] SPOKEO INC: Class Certification Order Entered in Larancuent ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN LARANCUENT, v. SPOKEO, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-04935-FMO-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order regarding motions for class certification: The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single, fully integrated joint brief covering each party's position, in which each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a party is immediately followed by the opposing party's/parties' response. All citation to evidence in the joint brief shall be directly to the exhibit and page number(s) of the evidentiary appendix, or page and line number(s) of a deposition. In order for a motion for class certification to be filed in a timely manner, the meet and confer must take place no later than 35 days before the deadline for class certification motions set forth in the Court's Case Management and Scheduling Order. Spokeo is a people search website that aggregates data from online and offline sources. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dVv8eh at no extra charge.[CC] STEPHEN F. AUSTIN: Appeals Injunction Order in Myers Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN F. AUSTIN STATE UNIVERSITY is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' emergency motion for preliminary injunction in the lawsuit entitled Sophia Myers, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Stephen F. Austin State University, Defendant, Case No. 9:25-cv-187, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The Plaintiffs, female student-athletes at Stephen F. Austin State University ("SFA"), filed this class action lawsuit against SFA for alleged violations of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. They allege that SFA discriminated against them on the basis of sex by depriving them of equal opportunities to participate in varsity intercollegiate athletics. On June 30, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for preliminary injunction, which Judge Michael J. Truncale granted on Aug. 1, 2025. Based on the evidence, the Court finds that the financial burden self-imposed by SFA does not outweigh the harm suffered by the Plaintiffs. Therefore, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs satisfied their burden for issuance of a preliminary injunction. The Defendant is ordered to preserve the women's beach volleyball team, women's bowling team, women's golf team, and all other women's varsity teams at the University while this case is pending. The appellate case is entitled Myers v. Stephen F. Austin State University, Case No. 25-40487, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on August 12, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees SOPHIA MYERS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Arthur H. Bryant, Esq. TRIAL LAWYERS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE 555 12th Street Oakdale, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 622-8150 - and - Ashlyn Hare, Esq. HUTCHINSON, BLACK AND COOK, LLC 921 Walnut Street Boulder, CO 80302 Telephone: (303) 442-6514 - and - James Logan Sowder, Esq. THOMPSON, COE, COUSINS & IRONS, LLP 700 N. Pearl Street Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 871-8200 Defendant-Appellant STEPHEN F. AUSTIN STATE UNIVERSITY is represented by: Marlayna Marie Ellis, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS P.O. Box 12548 Austin, TX 78711 THANG BOTANICALS: Filing for Class Certification Due May 1, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned M.L. v. Thang Botanicals, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-03191-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina Thompson entered a case management and scheduling order as follows: Trial Date: Jan. 24, 2028 Final Pretrial Conference: Dec. 9, 2027 Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Feb. 12, 2027 Fact Discovery Cut-Off: Oct. 30, 2026 Motion For Class Certification: May 1, 2026 Opposition by: June 12, 2026 Reply by: July 10, 2026 Hearing on: July 28, 2026 Thang develops biotechnology solutions for diagnostics, therapeutics, and personalized medicine. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=biM2lO at no extra charge.[CC] THYSSENKRUPP SUPPLY: Copes Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Blake A. Copes, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. THYSSENKRUPP SUPPLY CHAIN SERVICES NA, INC., Case No. 25CV122510 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Aug. 6, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-06645. The Plaintiff filed his action as a putative class action based on alleged violations of various California wage and hour laws.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Chad D. Greeson, Esq. Nicholas Gioiello, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Treat Towers, 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Phone: 925.932.2468 Facsimile: 925.946.9809 Email: cgreeson@littler.com ngioiello@littler.com TRINITY PACKAGING: Settlement in Robertson Suit Gets Final Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAUDE ROBERTSON, and JOHN SZALASNY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. TRINITY PACKAGING CORPORATION, Case No. 1:19-cv-00659-JLS-LGF (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Leslie G. Foschio entered a final approval order and judgment: 1. For the sole purpose of settling and resolving this Litigation, the court certifies the New York Class pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 which is defined as: "those individuals who were employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly production employee at its manufacturing facility located in Buffalo, New York from May 22, 2013 through March 26, 2019." 2. The court confirms its prior appointment of Named Plaintiffs. John Szalasny is appointed as the Class Representative of the New York Class, and both Named Plaintiffs, John Szalasny and Claude Robertson, are appointed as representatives of the Opt-in Plaintiffs. 3. The court confirms its prior appointment of Jason T. Brown and Nicholas Conlon of Brown, LLC, for settlement purposes only, as Class Counsel for the Class Members. 4. The court awards to Class Counsel $280,000.00 as fair and reasonable attorneys' fees, which shall include all attorneys' fees associated with the Litigation. In addition, Class Counsel shall receive reimbursement of costs associated with the Litigation actually incurred, up to the amount of $14,581.54. These amounts shall be paid from the Gross Settlement Amount as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. 5. The court awards to Simpluris, Inc. $7,850.00 for serving as the Settlement Claims Administrator. This amount shall be paid from the Gross Settlement Amount as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. 6. The court awards to each Named Plaintiff a Service Award of $10,000.00 for their risk, time and effort in this Litigation. The amount shall be paid from the Gross Settlement Fund pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 7. Based on the amounts approved for attorneys' fees, costs associated with the Litigation, the payment to the Settlement Claims Administrator, and the Service Awards, the Net Settlement Fund is $ 517,568.46. In this hybrid collective/class wage-and-hours action commenced May 21, 2019, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and New York Labor Law (NYLL), the Plaintiffs allege Defendant Trinity maintained a "non-neutral rounding policy" in which time spent performing tasks both pre- and post-shift was always rounded down resulting in a failure to pay hourly workers for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Trinity is a manufacturer and marketer of plastic packaging products, heavy duty industrial films, specialty films, and lamination products. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QfZmda at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason T. Brown, Esq. JTB LAW GROUP LLC 140A Metro Park Rochester, NY 14623 - and - Nicholas S. Colon, Esq. Patrick S. Almonrode, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 The Defendant is represented by: Vincent E. Polsinelli, Esq. Christopher J. Steven, Esq. NIXON PEABODY LLP 677 Broadway, 10th Floor Albany, NY 12207 TRUSTPOINT INSURANCE: Friel Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TrustPoint Insurance Corporation. The case is styled as Joseph Friel, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. TrustPoint Insurance Corporation, American-Amicable Life Insurance Company of Texas, Case No. 3:25-cv-01468-JKM (M.D. Pa., Aug. 7, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Trustpoint Insurance -- https://trustpointins.com/ -- provides business insurance, group benefits, health insurance, medicare coverage, and personal insurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (615) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Jeremy C. Jackson, Esq. BOWER LAW ASSOCIATES, PLLC 403 South Allen Street, Suite 210 State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 234-2626 Fax: (814) 237-8700 Email: jjackson@bower-law.com ULTA BEAUTY: Shahpur Class Suit Removed to E.D. Wash. ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled SELAY SHAHPUR and LINDSEY SMITH, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ULTA BEAUTY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 25-2-03149-32, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in Spokane County to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on August 1, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00284 to the proceeding. In the Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that commercial emails to Washington citizens sent by Ulta violated Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act and the Consumer Protection Act because they allegedly contain false or misleading information in their subject lines. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, the greater of Plaintiffs' actual damages or trebled statutory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. Ulta Beauty, Inc. operates a chain of beauty stores.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Markus W. Louvier, Esq. Stephanie A. Crockett, Esq. EVANS, CRAVEN & LACKIE, P.S. 818 West Riverside, Suite 250 Spokane, WA 99201-0910 Telephone: (509) 455-5200 Facsimile: (509) 455-3632 E-mail: mlouvier@ecl-law.com scrockett@ecl-law.com UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LD, DB, BW, RH and, CJ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, a California Corporation, UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut Corporation, and MULTIPLAN, INC., a New York corporation, Case No. 4:20-cv-02254-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their administrative motion to seal and to consider whether another party's material should be sealed. United provides management services on a contract and fee basis. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b2bklB at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Lauren M. Blas, Esq. Geoffrey Sigler, Esq. Derek K. Kraft, Esq. Nicole R. Matthews, Esq. Matthew G. Aiken, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 E-mail: LBlas@gibsondunn.com GSigler@gibsondunn.com nmatthews@gibsondunn.com maiken@gibsondunn.com - and - Errol J. King, Jr., Esq. Craig L. Caesar, Esq. Katherine C. Mannino, Esq. Taylor J. Crousillac, Esq. Brittany H. Alexander, Esq. PHELPS DUNBAR LLP II City Plaza 400 Convention Street, Suite 1100 Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Telephone: (225) 376-0207 E-mail: errol.king@phelps.com craig.caesar@phelps.com katie.mannino@phelps.com taylor.crousillac@phelps.com brittany.alexander@phelps.com - and - Dennis B. Kass, Esq. Adam D. Afshar, Esq. MANNING & KASS ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP One California Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 217-6900 E-mail: dennis.kass@manningkass.com adam.afshar@manningkass.com UNITED PARCEL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Cotton Due March 30, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH COTTON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-04953-KMW-AMD (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Ann Marie Donio entered an amended scheduling order. 1. Pretrial factual discovery shall be concluded by Dec. 1, 2025. 2. All expert reports and expert disclosures pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2) on behalf of the Plaintiff shall be served upon counsel for the Defendant not later than Dec. 30, 2025. All expert reports and expert disclosures pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2) on behalf of the Defendant shall be served upon counsel for the Plaintiff not later than Jan. 27, 2026. Depositions of proposed expert witnesses shall be concluded by Feb. 28, 2026. 3. Any motion for class certification shall be filed by no later than March 30, 2026. 4. Dispositive motions shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court no later than May 22, 2026. United is a global package delivery and supply chain management company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q7AVy5 at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of U Visa Suit vs. USCIS ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Linda Cabello Garcia, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security; Angelica Alfonso-Royals, Acting Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 23-35267 (9th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of a complaint alleging wrongful denial of adjustment of status application. Linda Cabello Garcia is a native and citizen of Mexico, who has lived in the United States since 1999. She was the victim of stalking in 2011 and reported the incident to local police, who certified that she was helpful with the criminal investigation. In 2013, she applied for a U visa, and USCIS granted her U visa status for four years in October 2016. On August 10, 2020, Cabello timely filed a U-based adjustment of status application under 8 U.S.C. Section 1255(m). She submitted evidence demonstrating her eligibility but did not submit the required Form I-693 medical information. On August 23, 2021, USCIS sent her a request for evidence, including Form I-693. Cabello submitted partial vaccination records, but did not submit the form and requested that USCIS approve her application without it, citing severe anxiety and panic attacks related to receiving medical services. On February 4, 2022, USCIS issued a notice of intent to deny her application, citing her failure to submit Form I-693. Cabello submitted partial vaccination records but not Form I-693, again asserting that USCIS lacked authority to request this information. On August 1, 2022, USCIS denied her adjustment of status application due to failure to provide Form I-693. On December 16, 2022, Cabello filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of herself and a putative class. She alleged that USCIS wrongfully denied her adjustment of status by requiring Form I-693, challenging the denial as arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court granted the government's motion to dismiss, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of Section 1255(m) adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). The Court of Appeals held that 8 U.S.C. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) strips district courts of jurisdiction over challenges to the denial of adjustment of status under Section 1255(m). The provision states: no court shall have jurisdiction to review any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section 1182(h), 1182(i), 1229b, 1229c, or 1255 of this title. The Court of Appeals explained that Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) is both a jurisdiction-stripping and channeling provision. It eliminates jurisdiction in district courts and routes claims into the limited review process provided in Section 1252(a)(2)(D), which preserves review of constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals." Cabello argued that her claim could be brought in federal district court as a collateral challenge to a USCIS policy, citing the Nakka v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services decision. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, explaining that under Nakka, a collateral claim challenges generally applicable agency policies without referring to or relying on denials of individual applications for relief." The Court of Appeals determined that once a plaintiff has applied for adjustment and the agency has denied it--as was the case with both the relevant plaintiff in Nakka and Cabello--the plaintiff ceases to have the collateral claim Nakka envisioned. Because USCIS denied Cabello's request for adjustment of status, she was not bringing a collateral claim under Nakka. Cabello argued that if Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) forecloses district court jurisdiction, it is unconstitutional as applied to U visa adjustment of status applicants because they cannot obtain review of USCIS's denial in removal proceedings before an immigration judge. She claimed this violates Article III and procedural due process. The Court of Appeals found this argument unavailing, stating: "In these circumstances, we see no reason why Cabello has a constitutional entitlement to raise her claim to judicial review in district court as opposed to through the IJ and petition for review process." The Court of Appeals acknowledged this could delay her ability to challenge USCIS's denial and might require her to violate the law through continued presence, but noted these were the same problems faced in Nakka. Circuit Judge Daniel A. Bress, joined by Circuit Judge Kenneth K. Lee, wrote a concurring opinion criticizing the Nakka decision. He stated: "This was a straightforward case that we should have been able to resolve with minimal analysis" but was complicated by Nakka's creation of a novel and unjustified exception to Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Circuit Judge Bress argued that Nakka's exception for collateral challenges contradicts the Supreme Court's decision in Patel v. Garland and the plain language of Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). He concluded: "Nakka's determination that 8 U.S.C. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) preserves collateral challenges to agency policies relating to the denial of discretionary immigration relief contravenes the statutory text and Supreme Court precedent." The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that district courts lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of adjustment of status under Section 1255(m). The Court of Appeals concluded that these challenges may only be raised through the petition for review process, which begins with proceedings before an immigration judge. A copy of the Court of Appeals decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LdMQWP UNITED STATES: Consolidated Briefing Schedule Entered in Hagans --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAGANS v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01671 (D.D.C., Filed May 26, 2025), the Hon. Judge Ana C. Reyes entered an order setting a consolidated briefing schedule: -- Plaintiffs' Combined Opposition to Aug. 21, 2025 Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification: -- Defendants' Replies in Support of Sept. 2, 2025 Motions to Dismiss: The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus – General. United States Parole Commission (USPC) is an agency within the U.S. Department of Justice responsible for overseeing parole decisions for federal offenders.[CC] USAA CASUALTY: Jennings Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARYN JENNINGS and TRICIA HARDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-06171-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order to: 1. Certify this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), 23(b)(3), and 23(b)(2); 2. Appoint Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and 3. Appoint Tousley Brain Stephens, PLLC and Franklin D. Azar & Associates as class counsel. The Plaintiffs move to certify the following proposed Class: "All persons (1) who were insured under the PIP and/or MedPay coverage of a Washington automobile insurance policy issued by USAA; (2) who received medical, health care, or rehabilitation services, or medication or equipment, from a health care provider; (3) who made a claim under the PIP and/or MedPay coverage of that policy; (4) who submitted (or whose health care provider submitted) to USAA a bill for such services or products; and (5) who had that bill reduced or denied by a PPO code; and/or a PR code and/or Physician Review; and/or a DOC code; and/or a GR code; and/or an RL code; and/or an RF code. On Aug. 25, 2016, and Sept. 30, 2016, Jennings was injured in motor vehicle collisions. At the time of the accidents Jennings was covered by a USAA $10,000 PIP policy. Jennings submitted claims to USAA for reimbursement of her medical bills. USAA denied coverage of Jennings' medical treatment under a PR code. The Plaintiff Jennings is a resident of Washington. USAA sells automobile insurance in Washington. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9umHNe at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason T. Dennett, Esq. Cecily C. Jordan, Esq. Joan M. Pradhan, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 E-mail: jdennett@tousley.com cjordan@tousley.com jpradhan@tousley.com - and - Franklin D. Azar, Esq. Michael D. Murphy, Esq. Timothy L. Foster, Esq. Dezarae LaCrue, Esq. FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 14426 East Evans Avenue Aurora, CO 80014 Telephone: (303) 757-3300 Facsimile: (720) 213-5131 E-mail: azarf@fdazar.com murphym@fdazar.com fostert@fdazar.com lacrued@fdazar.com VALNET INC: Discloses Personal Info Without Consent, Saul Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN SAUL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VALNET INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12236-JEK (D. Mass., August 11, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who have an account on gamerant.com, a website owned and operated by Defendant Valnet Inc., due to Defendant's practice of knowingly disclosing its users' personally identifiable information and video viewing activity to Google without their consent in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant disclosed to a third party, Google, Plaintiff's and the Class members' personally identifiable information. The Plaintiff received the Game Rant email newsletter from approximately November 2024 to December 2024. During the relevant statute of limitations, he has viewed numerous videos on the Website. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, and without his consent, the Defendant shared Plaintiff's video watching activity and his PII with Google through its use of Google Tag and Google Analytics, says the suit. Valnet, Inc. operates as an investment company. The Company acquires, develops, and operates Internet-based businesses. Valnet serves customers in Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Reardon, Jr. REARDON SCANLON LLP 45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 955-9455 Facsimile: (860) 920-5242 E-mail: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com - and - Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. ARISOHN LLC 94 Blakeslee Rd. Litchfield, CT 06759 Telephone: (917) 656-0569 E-mail: josh@arisohnllc.com VESTIS: Faces Securities Suit over SEC Disclosures -------------------------------------------------- Aramark disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2025, that on May 17, 2024, a purported shareholder of Vestis (formerly Aramark Uniform Services, the company's former Uniform segment that was spun-off from Aramark in September 2023) commenced a putative class action lawsuit against Vestis and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of purchasers of Vestis' common stock between October 2, 2023 and May 1, 2024. The complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on allegedly false or misleading statements generally related to Vestis' business and operations, pricing practices, and financial results and outlook. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and other relief. On November 22, 2024, the complaint was amended to add the company and its Chief Executive Officer as additional defendants. Aramark is a provider of food and facilities services to education, healthcare, business & industry and sports, leisure & corrections clients. WELLS FARGO: Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Certification Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Wells Fargo Mortgage Discrimination Litigation, Case No. 3:22-cv-00990-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court will resolve Wells Fargo's summary judgment motion and the parties' merits FRE 702 motions in due course, and will set as warranted a pretrial conference and trial date for plaintiffs’ claims to be tried on an individual basis. IT IS SO ORDERED. Because plaintiffs have failed to satisfy Rule 23(a)(2) commonality, none of their proposed classes may be certified. The Court finds it unnecessary to reach the remaining Rule 23 requirements that are implicated by plaintiffs' certification requests, the Court says. The Plaintiffs allege that the defendant illegally discriminated against non-White home loan applicants. In the amended complaint, the Plaintiffs proposed various classes of: "All Minority Applicants in the United States who, from Jan. 1, 2018, through the present (the 'Class Period'), submitted an application for an original purchase or other home mortgage loan or to refinance or modify a home mortgage loan through Defendants that was (i) denied; (ii) approved at higher interest rates or subject to less favorable terms as compared to similarly situated non-Minority Applicants; or (iii) processed at a rate slower than the average processing time of applications submitted by similarly situated non-Minority Applicants." The Plaintiffs seek to focus their damages classes on those Minority Applicants who objectively demonstrated their creditworthiness by an agency (Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac) or government AUS [automated underwriting system] or Wells Fargo's own ECS [Enhanced Credit Score] model. To that end, they ask for certification of the following "damages subclasses pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3): Minority Applicants who applied for a refinance and were approved by an external AUS or Wells Fargo’s ECS, but who were ultimately denied during the Class Period. Minority Applicants who applied for a home purchase and were approved by an external AUS or Wells Fargo’s ECS, but who were ultimately denied during the Class Period. Minority Applicants who applied for a HELOC, were approved by Wells Fargo’s AUS for home equity products, but ultimately denied during the Class Period. The Plaintiffs also ask to certify this injunction/restitution class under Rule 23(b)(2): Minority Applicants who paid fees to process their mortgage loan applications with Wells Fargo during the Class Period, who had their applications denied. Id. at 11-12. Plaintiffs propose two additional "subclasses on the issue of liability under Rule 23(c)(4)." Wells is an American multinational financial services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Iqn0hO at no extra charge.[CC] WESPAC FOUNDATION: Manhart Appeals Court Order to 7th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER MANHART is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Christopher Manhart, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wespac Foundation Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-08209, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Plaintiff brings this complaint against the Defendants for their action to block traffic to O'Hare International Airport on April 15, 2024, trapping commuters, including the Plaintiff, in their cars for hours as a result. The appellate case is entitled Christopher Manhart v. Wespac Foundation Inc., et al., Case No. 25-2382, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on August 11, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant CHRISTOPHER MANHART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Theodore H. Frank, Esq. HAMILTON LINCOLN LAW INSTITUTE 1629 K. Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (703) 203-3848 Defendants-Appellees WESPAC FOUNDATION INC., et al. are represented by: Robert Herbst, Esq. HERBST LAW PLLC 73 Howell Avenue Larchmont, NY 10538 Telephone: (914) 450-8163 - and - Joshua G. Herman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOSHUA G. HERMAN 53 W. Jackson Boulevard Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 909-0434 - and - Brad Thomson, Esq. PEOPLE'S LAW OFFICE 1180 N. Milwaukee Avenue Chicago, IL 60642 Telephone: (773) 235-0070 - and - Precious S. Jacobs, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 353 N. Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 840-8615 - and - Amanda S. Yarusso, Esq. AMANDA S. YARUSSO 1180 N. Milwaukee Avenue Chicago, IL 60642 Telephone: (773) 510-6198 WEST PUBLISHING: Adinoff Suit Removed to D. Colorado ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Holland Adinoff, on behalf of herself and a proposed class of all others similarly situated v. WEST PUBLISHING CORPORATION, Case No. 25CU031351C was removed from the District Court for Denver County, Colorado, to the United States District Court for District of Colorado on Aug. 7, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-02448-STV. The Plaintiff alleges that West violated the Colorado Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act, by allegedly listing the cellular telephone numbers of Colorado residents.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. PELUSO LAW LLC 865 Albion Street, Suite 250 Denver, CO 80220 Email: ppeluso@pelusolawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Matthew Morr, Esq. Robert T. Lieber Jr., Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1225 17th Street, Suite 2300 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303.292.2400 Email: morrm@ballardspahr.com lieberr@ballardspahr.com WILLIAM BONAR: Joint Discovery Plan Filing in Dalrada Due Sept. 8 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DALRADA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Wyoming corporation; and DEPOSITION TECHNOLOGY LTD., a United Kingdom company and wholly owned subsidiary of Dalrada Financial Corp., v. WILLIAM IAN MARTIN BONAR, as an individual and in his official capacity; MARION BONAR, as an individual and in her official capacity; IAN ROBERT MACKENZIE, as an individual and in his official capacity; SAMANTHA MACKENZIE, as an individual and in her official capacity; JILLIAN HUGHES, as an individual and in her official capacity; and DOES 1–50, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-02166-WQH-BLM (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Major entered an order for early neutral evaluation conference and case management conference. In the event the case does not settle during the ENE, the Court will conduct an Initial Case Management Conference. In preparation for this conference, the parties must Meet and confer pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) no later than Aug. 28, 2025. File a Joint Discovery Plan on the CM/ECF system no later than Sept. 8, 2025. Exchange initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(A-D) no later than Sept. 11, 2025. A copy of the Court's notice and order dated Aug. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6XTczA at no extra charge.[CC] WOOD RIVER HEALTH: Potter Files Suit in D. Rhode Island ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wood River Health, et al. The case is styled as Kasey Potter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wood River Health, Case No. 1:25-cv-00379 (D.R.I., Aug. 6, 2025). The nature of suit s stated as Other P.I. Wood River Health -- https://woodriverhealth.org/ -- is a hospital a health care company with locations in Hope Valley, Rhode Island and Westerly, Rhode Island.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony R. Leone, II Esq. LEONE LAW, LLC 1345 Jefferson Blvd. Warwick, RI 02886 Phone: (401) 921-6684 Fax: (401) 921-6686 Email: aleone@leonelawllc.com ********* 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 ***