250901.mbx

250901.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, September 1, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 174 Headlines 330 WYTHE AVENUE: Roche Sues Over Breach of Contractual Obligations 3M COMPANY: Joseph Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: McGill Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Miller Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Norris Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Oxley Files Suit in D. South Carolina ACENWI LLC: Mossburger Must File Class Cert Bid by Jan. 8, 2026 ACENWI LLC: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Scheduling Order AERO GROUNDTEK: Parties in Brown Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE: Giuliani Files Suit in D. Minnesota AMDOCS INC: Wolfe Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty Under ERISA AMF CONSTRUCTION: Quintanilla Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. APPLE INC: Beats Headphones "Defective," Feeney Suit Alleges ARCADIS US: Loses Bid to Dismiss Jahangiri Suit AUTISM BEHAVIOR: Daniels Suit Removed to C.D. California BIOGEN INC: Class Cert Opposition Filing Extended to Sept. 10 BRIGHAM YOUNG: Agrees to Settle Data Sharing Class Suit for $1.5MM CEI VISION: Faces Robinson Suit Over Patients' Leaked Info CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Action Suit Over ACP Guidance CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Sandoval Balks at Share Price Decline CIERANT CORP: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Verriere Says COLMAR CORP: Victor Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CTO REALTY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 7 DAVITA INC: Riden Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Clients' Info EAST TENNESSEE: Westerling Appeals Suit Dismissal to 6th Circuit ENTRATA INC: Appeals Arbitration Order in Trimble Suit to 4th Cir. FOUR SEASONS: Faces Lima Wage-and-Hour Suit in California FREESTYLE SOFTWARE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $1.5MM JACK HENRY: Reaches $1.6-Mil. Settlement in ERISA Class Action KELLER WILLIAMS: More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid Sought KELLER WILLIAMS: Must Oppose Garvey's Class Cert. Bid by Sept. 1 KIKKERLAND DESIGN: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Walsh Says LENOVO: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Williams Says LUCY COOPER'S: Foley Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective M & W INSURANCE: Hofhine Seeks Unpaid Wages for Agents/Producers MDL 2873: Faces Walker Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MISSION CEVICHE: Class Cert Oral Arguments Set for Sept. 2 MONEYLION TECHNOLOGIES: Burkhardt Suit Transferred to S.D. New York MONTANA RESOURCES: Butte Residents Sue Over Contaminated Water MOSAIC CAPITAL: Sawlaw Suit Transferred to W.D. North Carolina MR. COOPER: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Cabezas Due Nov. 24 MYHERITAGE LTD: Hawkins Must File 2nd Amended Complaint by Sept. 19 NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE: Millsap Files FCRA Suit in D. Kansas NBA PROPERTIES: Settlement Class in Fan Gets Provisional Status NEW YORK: Class Settlement in C.K. Suit Gets Initial Nod NEWPORT GROUP: Class Settlement in Carmichael Suit Gets Final Nod NEWPORT GROUP: Class Settlement in Ewing Suit Gets Final Nod NEWPORT GROUP: Class Settlement in Jackson Suit Gets Final Nod NEWPORT GROUP: Class Settlement in Russ Suit Gets Final Nod NEWPORT GROUP: Class Settlement in Wade Suit Gets Final Nod NINJA MOUNTAIN: Hires First Response Resolution as Accountant NOURISH INC: Aids 3rd Party to Access Patients' Info, Suit Says NVIDIA CORP: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Extended to Sept. 18 OPW FUELING: Court OK's Bid to Compel Arbitration in Hernandez OSCAR HEALTH: Court Dismisses "Carpenter" Suit OUTSET MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Calif. OXY USA: Cherry Rider Class Suit Stays Pending 10th Cir. Appeal PACIFIC & EVEREST: Williams Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PACIFIC HEALTHWORKS: Pilon Files Suit in C.D. California PALM SPRINGS GRILL: Perez Balks at Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks PAM BONDI: Sanchez's Emergency Bid for TRO Tossed PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Appeal in Securities Suit Remains Pending PETROLEX II: Class Certification Bids in Kelly Due April 3, 2026 PNC BANK: Gurevich Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania POST HOLDINGS: Cortez Sues Over Deceptive Dog Food Labels PRIORITY TECHNOLOGY: $19.5MM Class Settlement Has Final Court OK PRIVILEGE UNDERWRITERS: Underpays Risk Managers, Rhodes Suit Claims PROACTIVE LOGISTICS: Ibarra Suit Removed to N.D. California PTT LLC: Bid for Class Certification in Wilson Suit Due Oct. 27 QUANTUM CORP: Rosen Laws Investigates Potential Securities Claims RADIO SYSTEMS: Class Settlement in Hernandez Gets Initial Nod RAY JONES: $450K Settlement in Back Suit Gets Initial Nod RAYCON INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Pittman Says RBC CAPITAL: Court Consolidates Uzel Action and Moeller Action REALREAL INC: Bid for Class Cert. Denied in Securities Suit RECKITT BENCKISER: NYHTCHA Fund Appointed as Lead Plaintiff RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN: Dunn Suit Removed to C.D. California REPUBLIC SERVICES: BesRay Corp. Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia RESTAURANT BRANDS: Continues to Defend Burger King Securities Suit RESTAURANT DEPOT: Depina Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts RICHWOOD LOGISTICS: Ransom Sues Over Layoff Without Advance Notice RXSIGHT INC: Continues to Defend California Securities Suit SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Class Settlement in Fox Suit Gets Initial Nod SANTA MONICA, CA: Murcia Must Show Cause re Case Non-Dismissal SAZERAC COMPANY: Puig Has Until Sept. 1 to File Class Cert Bid SCHNADER HARRISON: Class Settlement in Bennett Gets Initial Nod SENSITECH INC: Spencer Suit Removed to W.D. Washington SHAKE SHACK: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SHRINERS HOSPITAL: Martinez Suit Removed to E.D. California SIKES INC: Bowman Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users SKLAR LAW: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Green Class Suit SMARTRENT TECHNOLOGIES: Osei-Asibey Files Suit in D. Arizona SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Suit SOLENO THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims SOLIDQUOTE LLC: Class Cert Deadlines Extension Sought SOLIDQUOTE LLC: Klassen Can Restrict Portions of Class Cert Bid SOLIDQUOTE LLC: Summary Judgment Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge SOLIDQUOTE: Klassen Must File Summary Judgment Response by Sept. 8 SONOCO PRODUCTS: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Sends False & Misleading Emails, Mitchell Says SPRING EQ: Mason Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal SPRING EQ: Mason Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification STEVE REAMS: Otto Seeks to Certify Class Action STEVEN RAGA: Kulisz Files Suit in S.D. New York TALEN ENERGY: Faces Labor Market Antitrust Suit in Maryland TELEXELECTRIC: Default Judgment Bid Filing in Abdelgadir Extended TELEXELECTRIC: Default Judgment Bid Filing in Ferguson Extended TELEXELECTRIC: Default Judgment Bid in Dos Santos Filing Extended TESLA INC: Matsko Wins Bid for Class Certification TOI SPA LLC: Campbell Sues Over Unlawful Discrimination TOQUE BLANCHE: Faces Bowman Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TOYOTA MOTOR: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert. Bid by Nov. 5 TRACY LOGISTICS: Picou Suit Removed to E.D. California TREACE MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Fla. TREASURE COAST: Fails to Provide Consumer Reports, Lefkowitz Says TRIDENT SECURITY: Campiran Sues Over Unprovided COBRA Notice TRIPLE CANOPY: Class Cert Class Bid Filing Extended in Williams TVI INC: Welch Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas TWITTER INC: Reply to Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 10 TZ INSURANCE: McConnell Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime ULTA SALON: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due July 30, 2026 UNITED STATES: Expert Discovery Deadline in Tang Due Oct. 2 UTILITY TRAFFIC CONTROL: Moore Suit Removed to N.D. California VARRO LEON: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Jan. 8, 2026 VECTOR SECURITY: Andes Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI VIBRANTCARE REHABILITATION: Seeks Denial of Class Certification Bid VITAC CORP: Seeks Leave to File Conditional Certification Response VONS COMPANIES: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Sandoval Due Dec. 3 VOYA FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Ravarino" VROOM INC: Securities Suits in New York Closed WEBTPA EMPLOYER: $13.75MM Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod WELLS FARGO: Morris Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid WELLS FARGO: Williams Appeals Class Cert. Order to 9th Circuit WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Court Maintains Prior Class Cert Definition WILLIE ROWE: Mediation Scheduling Order Entered in Chaplin Suit WYETH INC: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Nod XPLR INFRASTRUCTURE: Continues to Defend Calif. Securities Suit ********* 330 WYTHE AVENUE: Roche Sues Over Breach of Contractual Obligations ------------------------------------------------------------------- KYLE ROCHE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 330 WYTHE AVENUE ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., PAUL EISENBERG, and STEPHANIE EISENBERG, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04615 (E.D.N.Y., August 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty. The case arises from the Defendants' misrepresentations, omissions, and systematic breaches of statutory, contractual, and fiduciary obligations arising from their conversion, marketing, and management of the condominium known as "The Esquire Building" located at 330 Wythe Avenue, Brooklyn, New York. According to the complaint, the Defendants' breaches include, but are not limited to, Defendants' failure to secure a Permanent Certificate of Occupancy for over two decades in violation of their obligations under the Offering Plan; their unlawful withdrawal of purchaser funds from escrow accounts; and their concealment of structural and regulatory barriers to obtaining a PCO. As a result of the Defendants' conduct, the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered substantial damages, says the suit. 330 Wythe Avenue Associates, LLC is a limited liability company based in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Velvel Freedman, Esq. FREEDMAN NORMAND FRIEDLAND LLP 1 SE 3rd Ave., Suite 1240, Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (646) 494-2900 Email: vel@fnf.law 3M COMPANY: Joseph Files Suit in D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Tyrese Joseph, and all others similarly situated v. 3M Company formerly known as: Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC Chemicals Americas Inc.; Amerex Corporation; Archroma US Inc.; Arkema Inc.; Buckeye Fire Equipment Company; Carrier Global Corporation; ChemDesign Products Inc.; Chemguard Inc.; Chemicals Inc; Chemours Company FC LLC; Chubb Fire LTD.; Clariant Corp; Corteva Inc; Deepwater Chemicals Inc.; Du Pont De Nemours Inc., formerly known as: DowDuPont Inc.; Dynax Corporation; EI Du Pont De Nemours and Company; Kidde PLC; Nation Ford Chemical Company; The Chemours Company; Tyco Fire Products LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; United Technologies Corporation; UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation Inc. formerly known as: GE Interlogix Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-10787-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 14, 2025). 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 Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM LLC 108 Railroad Avenue Orange, VA 22960 Phone: (540) 672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: McGill Files Suit in D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Leo McGill, Jr., and all others similarly situated v. 3M Company (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC Chemicals Americas Inc.; Allstar Fire Equipment Company; Amerex Corporation; Archroma U.S., Inc.; Arkema Inc.; BASF Corporation, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; Buckeye Fire Equipment Company; Carrier Global Corporation; CB Garment Inc.; ChemDesign Products Incorporated; Chemguard Inc.; Chemicals Incorporated; The Chemours Company 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.; Johnson Controls, Inc.; Kidde PLC, Inc.; Nation Ford Chemical Company; National Foam, Inc.; Perimeter Solutions, LP; Raytheon Technologies Corporation; Ricochet Manufacturing Company, Inc.; Technologies, 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.); Veridian Limited; W.L. Gore & Associates Inc.; Witmer Public Safety Group Inc.; Case No. 2:25-cv-10767-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 14, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Yechiel Shenkar, Esq. MARC J. BERN AND PARTNERS LLP (PA) 101 West Elm Street, Suite 520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (610) 941-4444 Email: jshenkar@bernllp.com 3M COMPANY: Miller Files Suit in D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Dean Robert Miller, and all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, formerly known as: Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC Chemicals Americas Inc.; Allstar Fire Equipment; Amerex Corporation; Archroma US 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. formerly known as: Dowdupont Inc.; Dynax Corporation; EI 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.; LN Curtis & Sons; Lion Group Inc.; Milliken & Company; Mine Respirator 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; Tyco Fire Products LP Successor in Interest The Ansul Company; United Technologies Corporation; UTC Fire & Security Americas Corp Inc. formerly known as: GE Interlogix Inc.; Veridian Limited; WL Gore & Associates Inc.; Witmer Public Safety Group Inc.; Case No. 2:25-cv-10761-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 14, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Ryan Ziminskas, Esq. THEMIS LAW PLLC 7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 105 Austin, TX 78731 Phone: (737) 208-1634 Fax: (512) 727-3432 Email: rziminskas@themislawpllc.com 3M COMPANY: Norris Files Suit in D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Serena Vidalia Norris, and all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, formerly known as: Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC Chemicals Americas Inc.; Allstar Fire Equipment; Amerex Corporation; Archroma US 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. formerly known as: Dowdupont Inc.; Dynax Corporation; EI 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.; LN Curtis & Sons; Lion Group Inc.; Milliken & Company; Mine Respirator 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; Tyco Fire Products LP Successor in Interest The Ansul Company; United Technologies Corporation; UTC Fire & Security Americas Corp Inc. formerly known as: GE Interlogix Inc.; Veridian Limited; WL Gore & Associates Inc.; Witmer Public Safety Group Inc.; Case No. 2:25-cv-10877-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 14, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Ryan Ziminskas, Esq. THEMIS LAW PLLC 7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 105 Austin, TX 78731 Phone: (737) 208-1634 Fax: (512) 727-3432 Email: rziminskas@themislawpllc.com 3M COMPANY: Oxley Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Andrea Oxley, and all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, formerly known as: Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC Chemicals Americas Inc.; Allstar Fire Equipment; Amerex Corporation; Archroma US 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. formerly known as: Dowdupont Inc.; Dynax Corporation; EI 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.; LN Curtis & Sons; Lion Group Inc.; Milliken & Company; Mine Respirator 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; Tyco Fire Products LP Successor in Interest The Ansul Company; United Technologies Corporation; UTC Fire & Security Americas Corp Inc. formerly known as: GE Interlogix Inc.; Veridian Limited; WL Gore & Associates Inc.; Witmer Public Safety Group Inc.; Case No. 2:25-cv-10639-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 13, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Yechiel Shenkar, Esq. MARC J. BERN AND PARTNERS LLP (PA) 101 West Elm Street, Suite 520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (610) 941-4444 Email: jshenkar@bernllp.com ACENWI LLC: Mossburger Must File Class Cert Bid by Jan. 8, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mossbruger v. ACENWI LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-03431 (E.D. Cal., Filed Dec. 10, 2024), the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an order granting the the parties' request to modify the scheduling order as follows: -- The Plaintiff shall disclose experts in support of his motion for class certification no later than Dec. 4, 2025. -- The Plaintiff shall file his motion for class certification no later than Jan. 8, 2026. -- The Defendants shall disclose experts in rebuttal to The Plaintiff's motion for class certification no later than Jan. 29, 2026. -- The Defendant shall file their opposition to the Plaintiff's motion no later than Feb. 12, 2026. -- The Plaintiff shall file his reply thereto no later than Feb. 26, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Defendant is a company that buys rental properties, particularly multi-unit and single-family homes, in areas such as Alleghany County.[CC] ACENWI LLC: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Scheduling Order -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT MOSSBRUGER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ACENWI LLC d/b/a ACE PROPERTIES, ACE PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS, LLC, and ELLIOTT ELKHOURY, Case No. 2:24-cv-03431-DAD-SCR (E.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint motion for administrative relief to modify the scheduling order: Event Requested Deadline The Plaintiff's class certification Dec. 4, 2025 expert disclosure: Motion for class certification: Jan. 8, 2026 The Defendant's class certification Jan. 29, 2026 rebuttal expert disclosure: Response to motion for class certification: Feb. 12, 2026 Reply to motion for class certification: Feb. 26, 2026 On March 20, 2025, the Plaintiff served his consolidated discovery requests on the Defendants. Ace is a real estate investment firm. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vx3anL at no extra charge.[CC] The Parties are represented by: Alex D. Kruzyk, Esq. PARDELL, KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO, PLLC 7500 Rialto Blvd. Suite 1-250 Austin, TX 78735 Telephone: (561) 726-8444 E-mail: akruzyk@pkglegal.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21031 Ventura Blvd, Ste. 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com - and - Benjamin D. Williams, Esq. Alexander Donald Terepka, Esq. WATSTEIN TEREPKA LLP 515 South Flower Street, 19th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (404) 782-9821 E-mail: alex@wtlaw.com bwilliams@wtlaw.com AERO GROUNDTEK: Parties in Brown Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BROWN v. AERO GROUNDTEK LLC, et al., Case No. 6:25-cv-01550 (M.D. Fla., Filed Aug. 13, 2025), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery - class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Aero is a landscape and irrigation company.[CC] ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE: Giuliani Files Suit in D. Minnesota ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America. The case is styled as Jamie Giuliani, individually and on behalf herself, and all others similarly situated v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, Case No. 0:25-cv-03291 (D. Minn., Aug. 18, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Allianz Life -- https://www.allianzlife.com/ -- is an American life insurance company owned by German global financial services group Allianz.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 5775 Wayzata Blvd., Ste 620 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Phone: (612) 991-2934 Email: rshelquist@cuneolaw.com AMDOCS INC: Wolfe Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty Under ERISA --------------------------------------------------------------- VERONICA WOLFE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMDOCS, INC., THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF AMDOCS, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00880-JCB (N.D. Tex., August 13, 2025) is a class action brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against the Amdocs, Inc. 401(k) Plan's fiduciaries, which include Amdocs, Inc., and the Investment Committee of Amdocs, Inc. and its members during the Class Period. The Plaintiff alleges that during the putative Class Period, Defendant, as a "fiduciary" of the Plan, as that term is defined under ERISA, breached the duties owed to the Plan, to Plaintiff, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter alia, failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio, initially and on an ongoing basis, with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of performance. Specifically, the Defendants allowed substantial assets in the Plan to be invested in the Prudential Guaranteed Income Fund (Prudential GIF). The Prudential GIF carried significantly more risk and provided a significantly lower rate of return than other comparable funds that Defendants could have made available to Plan participants, says the suit. The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence, in violation of the law. Their actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and its participants millions of dollars, the suit added. Plaintiff Wolfe participated in the Plan during her employment. Ms. Wolfe invested in the Prudential GIF in the Plan and suffered injury to her Plan account due to the significant underperformance of the Prudential GIF. Amdocs, Inc., a software & services provider, is the Plan sponsor and Plan administrator.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel L. White, Esq. WARD + WHITE PLLC 114 1/2 E. Louisianna Street Suite 206 McKinney, TX 75069 Telephone: (469) 941-0040 E-mail: dwhite@wardwhitepllc.com - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com AMF CONSTRUCTION: Quintanilla Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AMF Construction & Associates Inc., et al. The case is styled as Oscar Dionel Quintanilla, Kevin Adonay Quijada Molina, on behalf of similarly situated former and current aggrieved employees v. AMF Construction & Associates Inc., CBD Framing, Case No. 25STCV24224 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 18, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." AMF Construction & Associates, Inc. -- https://cbdframinginc.com/ -- is typically a General Contractor.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Zorik Mooradian, Esq. MOORADIAN LAW, APC 24007 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210 Calabasas, CA 91302 Phone: (818) 487-1998 Fax: (888) 783-1030 Email: zorik@mooradianlaw.com APPLE INC: Beats Headphones "Defective," Feeney Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ KIMBERLY FEENEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV24599 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., August 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and California's Unfair Competition Law, fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment, negligence, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of the Beats Studio Pro series headphones. The Defendant advertised the Beats headphones as offering "optimized voice performance," "loud, crisp, crystal-clear call performance," and "professional-grade call clarity." However, the Beats headphones contain a pervasive and material defect that causes the built-in microphone to malfunction during routine use, especially during phone and video calls. As a result of the defect, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers have suffered financial harm, suit says. Apple, Inc. is a global technology company with its headquarters in Cupertino, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Helen I. Zeldes, Esq. Amy C. Johnsgard, Esq. Summer Wright, Esq. SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES, LLP 501 W. Broadway, Ste. 800 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 400-4990 Email: hzeldes@sshhzlaw.com ajohnsgard@sshhzlaw.com swright@sshhzlaw.com - and - Joshua A. Fields, Esq. SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES, LLP 9415 Culver Blvd., #115 Culver City, CA 90232 Telephone: (619) 400-4990 Email: jfields@sshhzlaw.com ARCADIS US: Loses Bid to Dismiss Jahangiri Suit ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAY JAHANGIRI, et al., v. ARCADIS U.S., INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-03682-SK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sallie Kim entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss and granting the Defendant's motion to sever. The Plaintiff Azam Azimi is dismissed from this action without prejudice. Accordingly, the Defendant has pointed to vagueness in Jahangiri's class allegations, but it has not shown that the class allegations are so deficient that they cannot be cured through discovery. Given that Defendant has not filed an answer, discovery has not commenced, and no motion for class certification has been filed, the Court finds that Defendant's motion to dismiss Jahangiri's class claims is premature. The Defendants' motion to dismiss the class claims is denied without prejudice. The Plaintiffs bring this action against their former employer for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and California's Fair Employment and Housing Act. Jahangiri began working for Defendant as Principal Environmental Oversight Manager on Nov. 1, 2023. Jahangiri comes from Iran, speaks Farsi, is Muslim, and was 64 years old at the time of his dismissal. ARCADIS provides design, engineering, consulting, and management services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YXuDSK at no extra charge.[CC] AUTISM BEHAVIOR: Daniels Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Michelle Daniels, an individual, on behalf of herself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. AUTISM BEHAVIOR SERVICES INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2502536 was removed from the Superior court for the County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-02154. The Complaint purports to state causes of action on behalf of Plaintiff and the putative class members for: Unfair Competition in Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code Sections 1194, 1197 & 1197.1; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code Section 510; Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code Sections 226.7 & 512 and the Applicable IWC Wage Order; Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code Sections 226.7 & 512 and the Applicable IWC Wage Order; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Statements in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code Section 226; Failure to Reimburse Employees For Required Expenses in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code Section 2802; Failure to Provide Wages When Due in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code Sections 201, 202 and 203; and, Failure to Pay Sick Pay Wages in Violation of Cal. Lab Code Sections 201 203, 233, and 246.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jason P. Brown, Esq. Jorge A. Flores, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP One Montgomery Street, Suite 3400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 490-9000 Facsimile: (415) 490-9001 Email: jbrown@fisherphillips.com jaflores@fisherphillips.com BIOGEN INC: Class Cert Opposition Filing Extended to Sept. 10 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shash et al v. Biogen Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-10479 (D. Mass., Filed March 19, 2021), the Hon. Judge Indira Talwani entered an order granting the Defendants' unopposed motion to extend class certification deadlines. -- The deadline for the Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification is extended from Aug. 22, 2025, to Sept. 10, 2025. -- The deadline for Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion for class certification is extended from Oct. 10, 2025, to Oct. 29, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act. Biogen is an American multinational biotechnology company.[CC] BRIGHAM YOUNG: Agrees to Settle Data Sharing Class Suit for $1.5MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top class Actions reports that Brigham Young University (BYU) Broadcasting agreed to pay more than $1.5 million to resolve a class action lawsuit claiming it violated the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) by sharing BYUtv subscriber data with Meta without consent. The BYUtv settlement benefits individuals who had a Facebook account, a registered account with BYUtv and who viewed one or more videos on byutv.org between Nov. 12, 2022, and May 9, 2025. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit accused BYUtv of violating the VPPA by disclosing subscriber information to Meta through a Meta Pixel on its website. This pixel allegedly allowed BYUtv to share information about the videos users watched on the platform. Brigham Young University is a private university in Provo, Utah. BYUtv is the university's television network. BYU Broadcasting has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $1.5 million class action settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the BYUtv settlement, class members can receive an equal share of the net settlement fund. Exact payment amounts will vary depending on the number of claims filed with the settlement. No payment estimates are available at this time. In addition to providing cash payments, BYU Broadcasting agreed to suspend the operation of the Meta Pixel on BYUtv pages that include video content. This change will help BYU Broadcasting comply with the VPPA and other privacy laws. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Oct. 14, 2025. The final approval hearing for the BYUtv settlement is scheduled for Nov. 20, 2025. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Oct. 14, 2025. Who's Eligible The settlement benefits individuals who, between Nov. 12, 2022, and May 9, 2025, simultaneously had a Facebook account, a registered account with BYUtv and viewed one or more videos on byutv.org. Potential Award TBD Proof of Purchase BYUtv username and password 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 10/14/2025 Case Name Garcia v. Brigham Young University d/b/a BYU Broadcasting, Case No. 1:24-cv-00188-AMA-DAO, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah Final Hearing 11/20/2025 Settlement Website GarciaVideoPrivacyClassAction.com Claims Administrator BYUtv VPPA Settlement P.O. Box 25226 Santa Ana, CA 92799 (833) 360-6808 Class Counsel Allen Carney Hank Bates Sam Jackson CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM PLLC Jacob Barney ANDERSON & KARRENBERG Mark Reich LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP Defense Counsel Jeffrey Landis ZWILLGEN PLLC [GN] CEI VISION: Faces Robinson Suit Over Patients' Leaked Info ---------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CEI VISION PARTNERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00602-SJD (S.D. Ohio, August 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated patients stored within its network systems following a data breach between May 24, 2024, and May 27, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Cei Vision Partners, LLC is an operator of a network of eye care practice located in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terence R. Coates, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Action Suit Over ACP Guidance ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Michel, writing for Broadband Breakfast, reports that the law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check announced Friday, August 22, a new securities class action lawsuit against Charter Communications, alleging that the company misled investors about its business practices and financial condition. A similar lawsuit was filed earlier in the month following a sharp drop in Charter's stock price. The suit, filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired Charter securities between July 26, 2024, and July 24, 2025, alleged that the company failed to disclose the true impact of the cancellation of the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) in May 2024. As a leading high-speed internet provider and cable operator, Charter participated in the ACP -- a Federal Communications Commission program that provided funding to Charter in exchange for subsidizing high-speed internet plans for low-income households. After the ACP was cancelled, the company claimed that it had "managed the end of the Affordable Connectivity Program successfully" and that "[t]he impact of the elimination of the ACP is now behind us." However, when Charter announced its second quarter 2025 financial results, it was revealed that the company experienced sizable internet customer and revenue declines from the program's end. As previously reported by Broadband Breakfast, Charter's July 25 earnings report showed a loss of 117,000 broadband subscribers in the second quarter, sparking a nearly 20 percent drop in shares and wiping out about $9.8 billion in market value. According to the lawsuit, Charter failed to disclose information that, once revealed, negatively impacted the company's stock price, causing losses for shareholders. The complaint further alleged that Charter, in making materially false and misleading statements, violated federal securities laws. "Charter had no reasonable basis to state the company was successfully executing operations, managing causes of Internet customer declines, or provide overly optimistic statements about the long term trajectory of Charter," the plaintiffs claimed. "As a result, Defendants' positive statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times." This class action follows a similar suit filed by Shamis & Gentile and Edelsberg Law on August 14. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check said that shareholders who purchased Charter stock during the alleged "class period" may be eligible to participate in the lawsuit, encouraging affected parties to contact them by October 14, 2025, the deadline to apply for lead plaintiff status. [GN] CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Sandoval Balks at Share Price Decline ------------------------------------------------------------- MARK SANDOVAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., JESSICA FISCHER and CHRIS WINFREY, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06747 (S.D.N.Y., August 14, 2025) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Charter securities, purchased call options on Charter common stock, or sold put options on Charter common stock, between July 26, 2024, and July 24, 2025, inclusive, pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, as part of a "transformative" plan to expand the Company's broadband Internet footprint and stem Internet customer losses, Charter participated in the Federal Communications Commission's Affordable Connectivity Program ("ACP"). Under the ACP, the FCC provided funding to Charter and similar providers, in exchange for subsidizing high-speed Internet plans for low-income households. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and outlook. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the impact of the ACP end was a material event the Company was unable to manage or promptly move beyond; (ii) the ACP end was actually having a sustaining impact on Internet customer declines and revenue; (iii) neither was the Company executing broader operations in a way that would compensate for, or overcome the impact, of the ACP ending; (iv) the Internet customer declines and broader failure of Charter's execution strategy created much greater risks on business plans and earnings growth than reported; (v) accordingly, the Company had no reasonable basis to state the Company was successfully executing operations, managing causes of Internet customer declines, or provide overly optimistic statements about the long term trajectory of the Company and EBITDA growth; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants materially misled with, and/or lacked a reasonable basis for, their positive statements about the Company's business, operations, outlook during the Class Period. On July 25, 2025, Charter issued a press release announcing second quarter 2025 financial results. At the same time, Charter reported total Internet customers decreased by 117,000 for the second quarter of 2025. The decline of Internet customers was nearly double from the 66,000 reported in the prior quarter. Internet customer declines had also increased year-over-year when compared to a loss of 99,000 customers reported in the second quarter of 2024. These events caused Charter's stock price to fall $70.25 per share, or 18.4%, to close at $309.75 per share on July 25, 2025. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Charter Communications, Inc. is a broadband, or high-speed Internet, connectivity company and cable operator.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Gabriel Mandler, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (786) 289-9471 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com gabriel@edelsberglaw.com CIERANT CORP: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Verriere Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSEPH VERRIERE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CIERANT CORPORATION, and BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MASSACHUSETTS, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-01307 (D. Conn., August 14, 2025) is a class action arising out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendants, which held in their possession certain personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and Class Members. On December 10, 2024, Defendant Cierant became aware of suspicious activity on its CleoVLTrader file transfer system. Through the Data Breach, the cybercriminal gained unauthorized access to highly sensitive private information, including name, address, date of birth, treatment-related dates, a generic description of services received, provider name, medical record number, health plan beneficiary number, claims number, and/or plan member account number, premium information. The complaint asserts that the Data Breach was directly and proximately caused by Defendants' failure to implement reasonable and industry-standard data security practices necessary to protect their systems from a foreseeable and preventable cyberattack. Through this wrongful conduct, the sensitive PII and PHI of Plaintiff and Class Members is now in the hands of cybercriminals, who target this sensitive data for its value to identity thieves, says the suit. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a nationwide class, alleges claims of (1) negligence, (2) negligence per se, (3) breach of implied contract; and (4) unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. Cierant Corp is a distributed marketing software and services company that works with health insurance and publishing companies as well as stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurie Rubinow, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 65 Main Street Chester, CT 06412 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: lrubinow@millershah.com - and - Amber L. Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union St., Ste. 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 E-mail: aschubert@sjk.law COLMAR CORP: Victor Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------- ZEPHYRIN VICTOR, Plaintiff v. Colmar Corp, d/b/a Capelle Miami, a Florida Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-61643 (S.D. Fla., August 14, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff has been blind and visually disabled and that Plaintiff suffers from retinopathy, which is a permanent eye and medical condition that substantially and significantly impairs his vision and limits his ability to see. Beginning in June 2025, the Plaintiff attempted on several occasions to use the Defendant's website, https://capellemiami.com, to browse products and online offers in order to familiarize himself with the swimwear options, pricing, available sizes, delivery methods, special promotions, and physical location details, with the intention of making a purchase through the website or at the physical store. The Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility issues that made navigation inefficient. When attempting to locate a product of interest, he experienced difficulty due to a lack of descriptive information associated with links and interactive elements, which hindered his ability to effectively browse and select items. On the product page, he did not understand that multiple product links represented different color options for the same item he had selected, which caused confusion as he wanted to proceed with the purchase of the initially selected product. As a result of these accessibility barriers, the Plaintiff was unable to complete a purchase through Defendant's website, says the suit. Colmar Corp, d/b/a Capelle Miami, owns, operates, and/or controls the website that serves as a U.S.-based luxury men's swimwear boutique.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aleksandra Kravets, Esq. ALEKSANDRA KRAVETS, ESQ. P.A. 865 SW 113 Lane Pembroke Pines, FL 33025 Telephone: (347) 268-9533 E-mail: ak@akesqpa.com CTO REALTY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 7 ------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against CTO Realty Growth, Inc. ("CTO" or the "Company") (NYSE: CTO) and certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, and docketed under 25-cv-01516, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired CTO securities between February 18, 2021 and June 24, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired CTO securities during the Class Period, you have until October 7, 2025, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. CTO is a publicly traded real estate investment trust ("REIT") that owns and operates a portfolio of purported high-quality, retail-based properties located primarily in higher growth markets in the United States ("U.S."). The Company converted into a REIT in February 2021 and, as of December 31, 2024, owned 23 income properties in seven states, including Ashford Lane, a retail and dining center in Atlanta, Georgia. Under guidelines established by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), REITs must pay out at least 90% of their taxable profits to shareholders annually as dividends. In return, REIT companies are exempt from most corporate income tax. CTO has touted that its operation as a REIT "provides the tax-efficient organizational structure for [its] stockholders" that "will allow [it] to provide them with an attractive and sustainable dividend." To measure its performance, CTO uses the financial metric Adjusted Funds from Operations ("AFFO"). The AFFO of a REIT, though subject to varying methods of computation, is generally equal to the REIT's funds from operations with adjustments made for recurring capital expenditures (also referred to as "capex") used to maintain the quality of the REIT's underlying assets. Professional analysts tend to prefer AFFO because it takes into consideration additional costs incurred by the REIT as well as additional income sources, such as rent increases. Thus, analysts believe that AFFO provides for a more accurate base number when estimating present values and a better predictor of the REIT's future ability to pay dividends. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) CTO's dividends were less sustainable than Defendants had led investors to believe; (ii) the Company used deceptive and unsustainable practices to artificially inflate its AFFO and overstate the true profitability of its Ashford Lane property; (iii) accordingly, CTO's business and/or financial prospects were overstated; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On June 25, 2025, Wolfpack Research ("Wolfpack") published a report entitled "CTO: The B. Riley of REITs" (the "Wolfpack Report" or the "Report"), which compared CTO unfavorably to B. Riley, a financial services company that recently lost more than 90% of its value amid three years of losses, soured investments, delayed financial reports and revelations that the SEC had been investigating whether the firm gave shareholders an accurate picture of its health. Citing interviews with former employees and whistleblowers, the Wolfpack Report accused CTO of, among other things, "not generat[ing] enough cash tg] a sham loan to hide the collapse of a top tenant from shareholders at Ashford Lane." (Emphasis in original). Further, Wolfpack predicted imminent further dilution to pay its recurring capex and cover its dividends since converting to a REIT in 2021" and instead "rel[ying] on dilution (increasing shares outstanding by 70% since December 2022) to cover a $38 million dividend shortfall from 2021 to 2024," employing a "manipulative definition of [AFFO] where they exclude recurring capex, unlike all of their self-identified shopping center REIT peers," and "us[inf the Company, noting that CTO has just $8.4 million in cash while facing quarterly dividends of $14 million and average recurring capital expenditures of $5.7 million per quarter, along with approximately $12 million in additional planned capital expenditures. On this news, CTO's stock price fell $0.98 per share, or 5.42%, to close at $17.10 per share on June 25, 2025. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Danielle Peyton, Esq. Pomerantz LLP (646) 581-9980 ext. 7980 dpeyton@pomlaw.com [GN] DAVITA INC: Riden Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Clients' Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- RACHEL RIDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAVITA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02622 (D. Colo., August 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, and declaratory judgment/injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between March 24, 2025 and April 12, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. DaVita, Inc. is a kidney disease care services provider based in Denver, Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick A. Barthle, Esq. John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. Antonio Arzola, Jr., Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Facsimile: (813) 222-4736 Email: pbarthle@forthepeople.com jyanchunis@forthepeople.com ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com ararzola@forthepeople.com EAST TENNESSEE: Westerling Appeals Suit Dismissal to 6th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL WESTERLING is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Daniel Westerling, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. East Tennessee Children's Hospital, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00445, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. On Jan. 6, 2025, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On Jan. 21, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which Judge Katherine A. Crytzer granted on July 21, 2025. The Court concludes that the amended complaint fails to state a claim. The Court also denies the Plaintiff's alternative request because amendment would be futile. The appellate case is entitled Daniel Westerling v. East Tennessee Children's Hospital, Case No. 25-5744, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on August 20, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant DANIEL WESTERLING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jesse Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE 11300 N. Central Expressway, Suite 550 Dallas, TX 75243 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Defendant-Appellee EAST TENNESSEE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL is represented by: Gerald Leonard Maatman, Jr., Esq. DUANE MORRIS 190 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3700 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 499-6710 ENTRATA INC: Appeals Arbitration Order in Trimble Suit to 4th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ ENTRATA, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Kaitlyn Trimble, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Entrata, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03710-RDB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Circuit Court for Prince Georges County to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act ("MCALA") (Count I); the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act ("MCDCA") (Count II); the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA") (Count III); an equitable claim for money had and received (Count IV); unjust enrichment (Count V); and negligence (Count VI). On Dec. 27, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration. On same day, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand. On July 18, 2025, Judge Richard D. Bennett denied the Defendant's motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration and withdrawn as moot the Plaintiff's motion to remand. The Court concludes that the parties did not form an agreement to arbitrate. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration is denied. The appellate case is entitled Kaitlyn Trimble v. Entrata, Inc., Case No. 25-1975, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on August 20, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee KAITLYN TRIMBLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Benjamin Howard Carney, Esq. GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY 11350 McCormick Road Executive Plaza I Hunt Valley, MD 21031 Telephone: (410) 825-2300 Defendant-Appellant ENTRATA, INC. is represented by: Sabrina Marie Rose-Smith, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP 1900 N. Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 346-4185 FOUR SEASONS: Faces Lima Wage-and-Hour Suit in California --------------------------------------------------------- MAGDA LIMA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FOUR SEASONS HEALTHCARE & WELLNESS CENTER, LP and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 25STCV24585 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., August 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act including failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to pay all wages owed twice per month, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to provide uninterrupted meal breaks, failure to pay wages due upon termination, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements and violation of record keeping requirements. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a certified nursing assistant until July 2024. Four Seasons Healthcare & Wellness Center, LP is a skilled nursing and rehabilitation services provider in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM, APC 217 S. Kenwood St. Glendale, CA 91205 Telephone: (213) 325-3032 Facsimile: (818) 561-3938 Email: nazo@koullaw.com FREESTYLE SOFTWARE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $1.5MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that Freestyle Software, which does business as Freestyle Solutions, and Sturm, Ruger & Co. agreed to a $1.5 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims surrounding a 2020 data breach. The Freestyle Solutions data breach class action settlement benefits individuals who received a notice from Sturm, Ruger & Co. informing them that their personal information may have been compromised in a data breach in September 2020. The Freestyle Solutions data breach occurred in September 2020 and compromised personal information such as names, addresses, credit and debit card information, product descriptions, purchase prices and product quantities. Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit claimed Freestyle Solutions failed to prevent the data breach by implementing reasonable cybersecurity measures. If you received a data breach letter within the past six months notifying you that your personal information was compromised in a different data breach, you may be eligible to pursue compensation. See if you qualify. Freestyle Solutions is a point-of-sale service provider that works with gun manufacturer Sturm, Ruger & Co. Freestyle Solutions and Sturm, Ruger & Co. have not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to this $1.5 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the Freestyle Solutions data breach class action settlement, class members can receive reimbursement for data breach-related expenses such as professional fees, credit expenses, credit monitoring and communication charges of up to $4,500. The settlement also compensates class members for up to five hours of lost time at a rate of $25 per hour. Class members who did not experience out-of-pocket losses or lost time can still receive a cash payment from the settlement. These payments will vary depending on the number of claims filed but are capped at $175. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Sept. 29, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Freestyle Solutions data breach is scheduled for Dec. 4, 2025. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Oct. 27, 2025. Who's Eligible The settlement benefits individuals who were sent a notice by Sturm, Ruger & Co that their personal information may have been impacted in the data breach or whose personal information was otherwise impacted or exfiltrated by the data breach. Potential Award Up to $4,500 in documented expenses or a cash payout not exceeding $175 Proof of Purchase Documentation of losses, such as bank statements, invoices, and receipts 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 10/27/2025 Case Name Jones, et al. v. Sturm, Ruger & Company Inc., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-01233-AVC, in the United States District Court For The District Of Connecticut Final Hearing 12/04/2025 Settlement Website FreestylDataIncidentSettlement.com Claims Administrator Ruger and Freestyle Data Incident Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 301134 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1134 admin@FreestyleDataIncidentSettlement.com (833) 586-6222 Class Counsel Mason A. Barney SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP Gary M. Klinger MILBERG COLEMAN PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC Justin C. Walker MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC Defense Counsel Richard A. Edlin HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP Robert E. McKenzie HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP [GN] JACK HENRY: Reaches $1.6-Mil. Settlement in ERISA Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- James Van Bramer, writing for PlanSponsor, reports that technology provider Jack Henry & Associates, Inc. and its 401(k) retirement committee have agreed to a $1.6 million settlement in a class action lawsuit alleging breaches of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, according to a filing in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The case, brought by plan participants Guy LaCrosse and Jojemar Mendoza, alleged that the company allowed its 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping and administrative fees and that it offered and led participants to invest in an "imprudently retained fund: the Prudential Guaranteed Income Fund." Technology provider Jack Henry & Associates, Inc. and its 401(k) retirement committee have agreed to a $1.6 million settlement in a class action lawsuit alleging breaches of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, according to a filing in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The case, brought by plan participants Guy LaCrosse and Jojemar Mendoza, alleged that the company allowed its 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping and administrative fees and that it offered and led participants to invest in an "imprudently retained fund: the Prudential Guaranteed Income Fund." From 2017 to 2022, Jack Henry's retirement plan paid more than $2 million in record keeping and administrative fees, an average of $78 per participant, according to the filing.  LaCrosse filed the original complaint on October 9, 2023, and later amended it to include plaintiff Mendoza and the Prudential GIF claim. A December 2024 mediation did not produce a settlement, but the parties reached an agreement in principle in January 2025 for $1.6 million and non-monetary relief in the form of defendants' agreement to issue requests for proposals concerning its recordkeeping and administrative fees. Final settlement terms were confirmed after a July 2025 settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Brian Gaddy. Approximately 8,278 plan participants are eligible for compensation as a result of the settlement. Dicello Levitt LLP and Johnson Becker, PLLC represented the plaintiffs. Jackson Lewis P.C. and Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman & Sarver, L.L.C. represented the defendants. Jack Henry & Associates, Inc. 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan had 8,165 plan participants with more than $1.3 billion in assets, according to its most recent Form 5500 filing. [GN] KELLER WILLIAMS: More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid Sought ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WAYAN GARVEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC.; and BRITNEY GAITAN, Case No. 2:23-cv-00920-APG-DJA (D. Nev.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the time for the Defendant to oppose the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel and supporting memorandum of points and authorities by two weeks, from Aug. 18, 2025 until Sept. 1, 2025. Accordingly, this is the first requested extension of this deadline. The Defendant requests this extension to accommodate a surgery that one of her counsel, Robert McCoy, underwent on Aug. 11, 2025. The Plaintiff graciously agreed to the extension to accommodate his recovery. The Defendant submits this constitutes good cause under Fed. R. Civ. P 6(b)(1)(A) and LR IA 6-1 for modest extension. Keller is an American technology and international real estate franchise. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gYgcyW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Max S. Morgan, Esq. THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC 1515 Market Street, Suite 100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 - and - Craig K. Perry, Esq. CRAIG K. PERRY & ASSOCIATES 6210 North Jones Blvd., Unit 753907 Las Vegas, NV 89136 - and - Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC 1360 North White Chapel, Suite 200 Southlake, Texas 76092 The Defendants are represented by: Robert McCoy, Esq. Melissa Saragosa-Stratton, Esq. Sihomara L. Graves, Esq. KAEMPFER CROWELL 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 650 Las Vegas, NV 89135 KELLER WILLIAMS: Must Oppose Garvey's Class Cert. Bid by Sept. 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WAYAN GARVEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC.; and BRITNEY GAITAN, Case No. 2:23-cv-00920-APG-DJA (D. Nev.), the Court entered an order extending the deadline for opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel by two weeks, from Aug. 18, 2025 until Sept. 1, 2025. Keller is an American technology and international real estate franchise. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Admv1u at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Max S. Morgan, Esq. THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC 1515 Market Street, Suite 100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 - and - Craig K. Perry, Esq. CRAIG K. PERRY & ASSOCIATES 6210 North Jones Blvd., Unit 753907 Las Vegas, NV 89136 - and - Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC 1360 North White Chapel, Suite 200 Southlake, Texas 76092 The Defendants are represented by: Robert McCoy, Esq. Melissa Saragosa-Stratton, Esq. Sihomara L. Graves, Esq. KAEMPFER CROWELL 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 650 Las Vegas, NV 89135 KIKKERLAND DESIGN: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Walsh Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ CAITLIN WALSH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KIKKERLAND DESIGN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-50345 (N.D. Ill., August 13, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.kikkerland.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff was injured when she attempted multiple times, most recently on May 14, 2025 to access Defendant's website from her home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied her full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content and services, notes the complaint. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase a head massager along with other lifestyle products. Unfortunately, she was unable to complete this purchase due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's website. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by her 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 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. Kikkerland Design, Inc. operates the website that offers a range of home accessories, office supplies, and personal gadgets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com LENOVO: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Williams Says -------------------------------------------------------- DARNELL WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Lenovo (United States), Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09689 (N.D. Ill., August 14, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.lenovo.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 Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a laptop on Lenovo.com. Despite his efforts, however, he was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the Website’s lack of a variety of features and accommodations. Plaintiff Williams asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by him and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, lack of alt text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant'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. Lenovo (United States), Inc. operates the website that offers a range of electronics, such as laptops, tablets, desktops, monitors, workstations, servers, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: achan@ealg.law LUCY COOPER'S: Foley Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MACI FOLEY, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. LUCY COOPER'S, LLC (a/k/a Lucy Cooper's Texas Ice House, Case No. 5:24-cv-01356-XR (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her motion for Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action certification and notice. The Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an Order certifying a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) as follows: "All current and/or former employees of the Defendant who work(ed) as bartenders and/or servers at the Defendant's location at 16080 San Pedro Avenue, San Antonio, Texas 78232 at any time between Aug. 1, 2023 and Aug. 1 2025." A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tsfz4Q at no extra charge.[CC] 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 M & W INSURANCE: Hofhine Seeks Unpaid Wages for Agents/Producers ---------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE LYNN HOFHINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M & W INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25VECV04728 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., August 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, waiting time penalties, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, failure to pay reporting time pay, failure to reimburse for business expenditures and losses, failure to pay commissions, failure to pay wages earned on regular pay period, and unfair business practices. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an agent/producer from approximately January 2, 2024 to March 7, 2025. M & W Insurance Services, Inc. is an insurance broker with its headquarters in Woodland Hills, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher A. Adams, Esq. Levon S. Yepremian, Esq. Vache A. Thomassian, Esq. Caspar Jivalagian, Esq. KJT LAW GROUP LLP 230 N. Maryland Ave., Suite 306 Glendale, CA 91206 Telephone: (818) 507-8525 Email: chris@kjtlawgroup.com levon@kjtlawgroup.com vache@kjtlawgroup.com caspar@kjtlawgroup.com MDL 2873: Faces Walker Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ------------------------------------------------------------ Raymond Walker, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA LS. 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.l. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.) Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-10713-RMG (D.S.C., August 14, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, 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. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The 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. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications, says the suit. Plaintiff Walker is a resident and citizen of Alamogordo, New Mexico. He regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during his working career in the military and/or as a civilian firefighter. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with thyroid disease as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, alleges the suit. The Walker case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 E-mail: tshah@millerfirmllc.com MISSION CEVICHE: Class Cert Oral Arguments Set for Sept. 2 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Flores v. Mission Ceviche, LLC et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-03626-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katharine H. Parker entered an order cancelling oral arguments for the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and only hold oral arguments on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification at the Sept. 2, 2025, hearing. Mission is a Peruvian restaurant and seafood restaurant. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d3daPn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 MONEYLION TECHNOLOGIES: Burkhardt Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Johnathan Burkhardt, Deven Burkhardt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MoneyLion Technologies Inc., ML PLUS LLC, MoneyLion of Florida LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00693 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Aug. 15, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-06761-DEH to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. MoneyLion -- https://www.moneylion.com/ -- is a leader in financial technology powering the next generation of personalized products and content, with a top consumer finance super app.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian William Warwick, Esq. Christopher James Brochu, Esq. Janet R Varnell, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK PA - TAMPA FL 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (352) 753-8600 Fax: (352) 504-3301 Email: jvarnell@vandwlaw.com - and - Helen Chandler Steiger, Esq. Jessica Doris Liu, Esq. Kevin J Abramowicz, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP - PITTSBURGH PA 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 503 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Phone: (412) 880-1395 - and - Jennifer Spieler Wagner, Esq. Shennan Alexandra Kavanagh, Esq. NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER - BOSTON MA 7 Winthrop Square Boston, MA 02110-1245 Phone: (617) 542-8010 - and - Melissa Susan Weiner, Esq. Ryan Thomas Gott, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW LLP - WAYZATA MN 328 Barry Avenue S., Suite 200 Wayzata, MN 55391 Phone: (612) 389-0600 Fax: (612) 389-0610 Email: rgott@pwfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Ginger Barry Boyd, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH - TALLAHASSEE FL 215 S. Monroe Street, Suite 400 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Phone: (850) 907-2556 Fax: (850) 681-9792 - and - Hugh Bynum Hamilton, III, Esq. James Kim, Esq. COOLEY LLP - NEW YORK NY 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001-2157 Phone: (212) 479-6128 Fax: (212) 479-6275 Email: jameskim@cooley.com MONTANA RESOURCES: Butte Residents Sue Over Contaminated Water -------------------------------------------------------------- Darrell Ehrlick of Daily Montanan reports that earlier August, mining company Montana Resources discovered that a fire hydrant hooked up to the City of Butte's water supply was cross-contaminating the municipal water with mine water, which has high levels of calcium and sulfates, which can cause laxative effects in humans. Calcium can lead to scale and build-up in water lines and appliances. Now, a group of Butte residents have filed a class-action lawsuit against the mining company in Butte-Silver Bow District Court, asking for damage claims, as well as a punitive judgment against Montana Resources. Montana Resources is owned by Dennis Washington and is part of the Washington Companies. Washington is often listed as the most wealthy person in Montana, with an estimated $7.8 billion in assets, according to Forbes magazine. Montana Resources operates the open-pit Continental Mine, near the Continental Divide. Since its opening in 1985, the mine has produced more than 2.5 billion pounds of copper and more than 300 million pounds of molybdenum. It has approximately 32 years of production remaining, according to its website. On Aug. 13, the mining company reported the cross-contamination. It discovered "a cross-connection between the processed water they use for milling and mining and the municipal water supply." "The cross-connection was the result of an over pressurization event, which allowed contaminants to be flushed from the defendants' mine into the potable water system of Butte-Silver Bow," court documents said. At 4 p.m., Aug. 13, the Butte-Silver Bow authorities, along with the Department of Environmental Quality, issued a warning to Butte residents not to consume tap water. According to court documents, this contaminants could contain "total coliform bacteria, fecal coliform bacteria and other chemicals." The potential class-action lawsuit is not only concerned about the health affects and costs, including providing bottled water, but also the damage done to residences through the scale and chemicals that can build up in water lines or interfere with appliances. "The plaintiffs and class members were damaged because Montana Resources' actions and inactions resulted in the likely contamination of the Butte-silver Bow municipal water supply, and distribution of water that was not, and still is not, assuredly safe in quality for domestic consumption," the lawsuit said. Montana Resources was contacted by the Daily Montanan on Friday. By publication on Monday, the company had not responded. "Plaintiffs and class members have also expended time and money to respond to the water contaminated by Montana Resources not being assuredly safe, including incurring out-of-pocket costs for bottled water, among other things," the court documents said. "If ordinary care was used, contaminated water would not have been discharged into plaintiff's and class members' water, posing a risk of harm to their health." It will be up to District Court Judge Frank Joseph to determine whether the lawsuit meets the standards for a class-action suit. The plaintiffs are being represented by attorney Raph Graybill. [GN] MOSAIC CAPITAL: Sawlaw Suit Transferred to W.D. North Carolina -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Forrest Sawlaw, as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Hollandia Produce Group, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan v. Mosaic Capital Investors I, LP, True West Capital Partners Fund II, L.P., Keith Butcher, Michael Zeller, Ian Mohler, Iain Douglas, Moore & Van Allen PLLC, and GreatBanc Trust Company, Case No. 2:25-cv-02156 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina on Aug. 19, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00624-MOC-SCR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as E.R.I.S.A. for Labor. Mosaic Capital Corporation -- https://mosaiccapitalcorp.com/ -- is an investment company based in western Canada that owns a portfolio of established businesses operating in niche markets.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Evan Ghaffari, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN P.A. 633 West 5th Street, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 787-8589 Fax: (213) 418-3982 Email: eghaffari@forthepeople.com - and - Carl F. Engstrom, Esq. Jennifer K. Lee, Esq. ENGSTROM LEE LLC 323 N Washington Ave., Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 305-8349 Fax: (612) 677-3050 Email: cengstrom@engstromlee.com jlee@engstromlee.com - and - Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 577-4722 Fax: (813) 257-0572 Email: medelman@forthepeople.com MR. COOPER: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Cabezas Due Nov. 24 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER CABEZAS et al., individually And on behalf of others similarly situated, v. MR. COOPER GROUP, INC. and NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC d/b/a MR. COOPER, Case No. 3:23-cv-02453-N (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge David C. Godbey entered an order granting the Plaintiff’s motion to modify class certification schedule. 1. The new deadline for the Plaintiffs to serve the motion for class certification on the Defendants is Nov. 24, 2025. 2. Therefore, Class Certification briefing is due by May 29, 2026. This new date preserves the allotted time in the original schedule (141 days) for the Defendants to respond. Thus, the class certification scheduling order is revised as follows: Event Deadline Deadline for the Plaintiffs to serve Nov. 24, 2025 motion for class certification on the Defendants (and any expert reports in support thereof): Deadline for the Defendants to serve April 14, 2026 opposition to motion for class certification on Plaintiffs (and any expert reports in support thereof): Deadline for the Plaintiffs to serve May 14, 2026 reply in support of class certification (and any rebuttal experts in support thereof): Class certification briefing May 29, 2026 submission date: Mr. Cooper is an American home loan servicer. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lICPKt at no extra charge.[CC] MYHERITAGE LTD: Hawkins Must File 2nd Amended Complaint by Sept. 19 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMMY HAWKINS, et al., v. MYHERITAGE LTD., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00225-MJN-PBS (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Michael J. Newman entered an order: (1) Denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; and (2) Allowing the Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint on or before Sept. 19, 2025. If the Plaintiff does not file a second amended complaint by the deadline, the Court will dismiss this case with prejudice for the reasons more fully discussed in this Order. The Plaintiff contends the Defendants purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of acting in Ohio by targeting advertisements at Ohio residents and using their personas to sell its services. The Plaintiff Hawkins brings this civil case, through counsel, seeking class certification and damages for alleged violations of Ohio statutory law. She claims that Defendants, MyHeritage Ltd. and MyHeritage (USA) Inc., have used her personal information, including her name, image, and likeness, on Defendants' genealogy website, myheritage.com, in violation of Ohio's right of publicity statute, Ohio Rev. Code section 2741.01, et seq. MyHeritage is an online genealogy platform with web, mobile, and software products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lEEbe4 at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE: Millsap Files FCRA Suit in D. Kansas ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National General Insurance Co. The case is styled as Prisca Millsap, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. National General Insurance Co., Case No. 5:25-cv-04078-JWB-BGS (D. Kan., Aug. 18, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. National General, an Allstate company -- https://nationalgeneral.com/ -- offers coverage to help protect your home, vehicle, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jayson A. Watkins, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Ave., Ste 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (929) 274-2944 Email: jwatkins@sirillp.com NBA PROPERTIES: Settlement Class in Fan Gets Provisional Status --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS FAN, MATTHEW KIMOTO, and CLINTON BROWN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. NBA PROPERTIES, INC. and DAPPER LABS, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-05069-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Susan Illston entered a modified order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement: -- For purposes of the Settlement only, the Court provisionally certifies the following Settlement Class pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3): "All individuals in the United States who had NBA Top Shot accounts and Facebook accounts from June 15, 2020 to Jan. 30, 2025." Excluded from the Class is any entity in which the Defendants have a controlling interest, and officers, directors, agents, attorneys, and employees of Defendants. -- The proposed Settlement is preliminarily approved. -- The Court appoints the Plaintiffs to serve as class representatives for settlement purposes only on behalf of the Settlement Class. -- The Court appoints Bursor & Fisher, P.A. as Class Counsel, having determined that the requirements of Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are fully satisfied by this appointment. -- A hearing will be held on a date of the Court's convenience on or after Dec. 19, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. via zoom before the undersigned, to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement (the "Final Approval Hearing"). NBA controls the merchandising and licensing for all 30 NBA teams and affiliated entities. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9dzyHJ at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK: Class Settlement in C.K. Suit Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.K. through his next friend P.K.; C.W. through her next friend P.W.; C.X. through her next friend P.X.; C.Y. through his next friend P.Y., for themselves and those similarly situated, v. James V. McDonald, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health; Ann Marie T. Sullivan, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Health, Case No. 2:22-cv-01791-NJC-JMW (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Nusrat Choudhury entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement agreement and for other relief in its entirety. The Parties' proposed settlement agreement is preliminarily approved. The Court approves the form and content of the modified Notice set forth as Appendix I to this Opinion and Order. Accordingly, the Court finds that there is sufficient risk of establishing liability and that this factor weighs in favor of granting preliminary approval. This class action is brought by four minors, each of whom proceed through their "Next Friend," on behalf of themselves and as representatives of two certified classes of Medicaid eligible children with mental health conditions who have been determined by a licensed practitioner to require intensive home and community-based mental health services in order to correct or ameliorate their conditions while remaining safely at home and in their communities. The Amended Complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and the two classes of similarly-situated children against the Commissioners of the New York State Department of Health (“DOH”) and the Office of Mental Health (“OMH”) in their official capacities (together “Defendants” On Oct. 31, 2022, all of the Named Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint against Defendants, alleging that Defendants’ policies and practices fail to ensure compliance with the Medicaid Act, ADA, and Section 504 requirements to timely provide, or arrange for, the provision of intensive home and community based mental health services for children in New York State. On Feb. 22, 2024, the Court certified the case as a class action on behalf of two classes: The "EPSDT Class defined as consisting of all current or future Medicaid- eligible children in New York State under the age of 21 (a) who have been diagnosed with a mental health or behavioral health condition, not attributable to an intellectual or developmental disability, and (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 to correct or ameliorate their conditions. The "ADA Class defined as consisting of all current or future Medicaid-eligible children in New York State under the age of 21 (a) who have been diagnosed with a mental health or behavioral health condition, not attributable to an intellectual or developmental disability, 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 or who have been determined eligible for HCBS Waiver Services (as defined in the Amended Complaint, ECF No. 34, ¶ 10), and (c) who are segregated, institutionalized, or at serious risk of becoming institutionalized due to their mental health or behavioral health condition. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5ThPoh at no extra charge.[CC] NEWPORT GROUP: Class Settlement in Carmichael Suit Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARMICHAEL, JR. et al v. HARRIS et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01127 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge S. Thomas Anderson entered an order: -- granting final approval of class action settlements with AMEC Defendants and Defendant Newport Group, Inc., and -- granting motion for attorney's fees, costs, and service awards. The Court agrees that the settlement between Plaintiffs and the AMEC Defendants and the settlement between Plaintiffs, the AMEC Defendants, and Newport are fair, reasonable, and adequate; therefore, the settlements are granted final approval under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Additionally, the motion to award attorney's fees, costs and service awards is granted. -- Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court certifies the following Class for purposes of rendering judgment on the AME Settlement and the Newport Settlement only: "All persons who were participants, or were those participants’ respective beneficiaries entitled to benefits, in the African Methodist Episcopal Church Ministerial Retirement Annuity Plan on June 30, 2021." The Defendants are excluded from the Class. -- The Court awards the appointed Class Counsel attorney's fees in the amount of one third of the Settlement Amounts (including the interest accruing on the Settlement Amounts prior to distribution), the final total amount to be determined as of the Effective Date, and reimbursement for their out-of-pocket expenses incurred from the inception of the case to March 31, 2025, totaling $1,326,003,68. -- The Court awards the appointed Class Representatives service awards in the amount of $20,000 each to compensate them for their efforts and commitment on behalf of the Class. Newport operates as retirement services firm. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HgaGqa at no extra charge.[CC] NEWPORT GROUP: Class Settlement in Ewing Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ewing v. Newport Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02136 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge S. Thomas Anderson entered an order: -- granting final approval of class action settlements with AMEC Defendants and Defendant Newport Group, Inc., and -- granting motion for attorney's fees, costs, and service awards. The Court agrees that the settlement between Plaintiffs and the AMEC Defendants and the settlement between Plaintiffs, the AMEC Defendants, and Newport are fair, reasonable, and adequate; therefore, the settlements are granted final approval under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Additionally, the motion to award attorney's fees, costs and service awards is granted. -- Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court certifies the following Class for purposes of rendering judgment on the AME Settlement and the Newport Settlement only: "All persons who were participants, or were those participants’ respective beneficiaries entitled to benefits, in the African Methodist Episcopal Church Ministerial Retirement Annuity Plan on June 30, 2021." The Defendants are excluded from the Class. -- The Court awards the appointed Class Counsel attorney's fees in the amount of one third of the Settlement Amounts (including the interest accruing on the Settlement Amounts prior to distribution), the final total amount to be determined as of the Effective Date, and reimbursement for their out-of-pocket expenses incurred from the inception of the case to March 31, 2025, totaling $1,326,003,68. -- The Court awards the appointed Class Representatives service awards in the amount of $20,000 each to compensate them for their efforts and commitment on behalf of the Class. In essence, the settlements provide that the AMEC Defendants will pay $20 million to settle the Plaintiffs' claims against them, and Newport will pay $40 million to settle the Plaintiffs' claims against it. Newport operates as retirement services firm. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QVyCLy at no extra charge.[CC] NEWPORT GROUP: Class Settlement in Jackson Suit Gets Final Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jackson v. Newport Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02174 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge S. Thomas Anderson entered an order: -- granting final approval of class action settlements with AMEC Defendants and Defendant Newport Group, Inc., and -- granting motion for attorney's fees, costs, and service awards. The Court agrees that the settlement between Plaintiffs and the AMEC Defendants and the settlement between Plaintiffs, the AMEC Defendants, and Newport are fair, reasonable, and adequate; therefore, the settlements are granted final approval under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Additionally, the motion to award attorney's fees, costs and service awards is granted. -- Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court certifies the following Class for purposes of rendering judgment on the AME Settlement and the Newport Settlement only: "All persons who were participants, or were those participants’ respective beneficiaries entitled to benefits, in the African Methodist Episcopal Church Ministerial Retirement Annuity Plan on June 30, 2021." The Defendants are excluded from the Class. -- The Court awards the appointed Class Counsel attorney's fees in the amount of one third of the Settlement Amounts (including the interest accruing on the Settlement Amounts prior to distribution), the final total amount to be determined as of the Effective Date, and reimbursement for their out-of-pocket expenses incurred from the inception of the case to March 31, 2025, totaling $1,326,003,68. -- The Court awards the appointed Class Representatives service awards in the amount of $20,000 each to compensate them for their efforts and commitment on behalf of the Class. Newport operates as retirement services firm. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p2pDoy at no extra charge.[CC] NEWPORT GROUP: Class Settlement in Russ Suit Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Russ et al v. Newport Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01129 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge S. Thomas Anderson entered an order: -- granting final approval of class action settlements with AMEC Defendants and Defendant Newport Group, Inc., and -- granting motion for attorney's fees, costs, and service awards. The Court agrees that the settlement between Plaintiffs and the AMEC Defendants and the settlement between Plaintiffs, the AMEC Defendants, and Newport are fair, reasonable, and adequate; therefore, the settlements are granted final approval under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Additionally, the motion to award attorney's fees, costs and service awards is granted. -- Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court certifies the following Class for purposes of rendering judgment on the AME Settlement and the Newport Settlement only: "All persons who were participants, or were those participants’ respective beneficiaries entitled to benefits, in the African Methodist Episcopal Church Ministerial Retirement Annuity Plan on June 30, 2021." The Defendants are excluded from the Class. -- The Court awards the appointed Class Counsel attorney's fees in the amount of one third of the Settlement Amounts (including the interest accruing on the Settlement Amounts prior to distribution), the final total amount to be determined as of the Effective Date, and reimbursement for their out-of-pocket expenses incurred from the inception of the case to March 31, 2025, totaling $1,326,003,68. -- The Court awards the appointed Class Representatives service awards in the amount of $20,000 each to compensate them for their efforts and commitment on behalf of the Class. Newport operates as retirement services firm. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aZTmSg at no extra charge.[CC] NEWPORT GROUP: Class Settlement in Wade Suit Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wade, et al v. Newport Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01126 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge S. Thomas Anderson entered an order: -- granting final approval of class action settlements with AMEC Defendants and Defendant Newport Group, Inc., and -- granting motion for attorney's fees, costs, and service awards. The Court agrees that the settlement between Plaintiffs and the AMEC Defendants and the settlement between Plaintiffs, the AMEC Defendants, and Newport are fair, reasonable, and adequate; therefore, the settlements are granted final approval under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Additionally, the motion to award attorney's fees, costs and service awards is granted. -- Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court certifies the following Class for purposes of rendering judgment on the AME Settlement and the Newport Settlement only: "All persons who were participants, or were those participants’ respective beneficiaries entitled to benefits, in the African Methodist Episcopal Church Ministerial Retirement Annuity Plan on June 30, 2021." The Defendants are excluded from the Class. -- The Court awards the appointed Class Counsel attorney's fees in the amount of one third of the Settlement Amounts (including the interest accruing on the Settlement Amounts prior to distribution), the final total amount to be determined as of the Effective Date, and reimbursement for their out-of-pocket expenses incurred from the inception of the case to March 31, 2025, totaling $1,326,003,68. -- The Court awards the appointed Class Representatives service awards in the amount of $20,000 each to compensate them for their efforts and commitment on behalf of the Class. Newport operates as retirement services firm. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wqtXmr at no extra charge.[CC] NINJA MOUNTAIN: Hires First Response Resolution as Accountant ------------------------------------------------------------- Ninja Mountain Bike Performance LLC seeks approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon to hire Zachary A. Boutin, CPA, CTRC, and First Response Resolution, LLC as accountants. The firm will prepare the Debtor's Federal and Oregon S-Corporation tax returns for the 2023 and 2024 filing years. Tax return preparation is charged on a flat fee based on the form. The fee for a Form 1120 and a Form OR-20 is $3,750 per filing year. The firm charges $250 for IRS Transcripts. As disclosed in the court filings, First Response and Mr. Boutin do not hold or represent an interest adverse to the estate nor are they an interested person within the meaning of Sec. 327(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The firm can be reached through: Zachary A. Boutin, CPA, CTRC First Response Resolution, LLC Eagle Point, Oregon 97524 Phone: (541) 293-8449 Email: zach@firstresponseirs.com About Ninja Mountain Bike Performance LLC Ninja Mountain Bike Performance LLC provides mountain bike skills clinics and camps across the United States. The Company offers training programs for riders of all levels, taught by certified instructors, and sells related products including portable jump ramps, protective gear, and apparel. It supports riders in building confidence and improving skills through progressive instruction and nationwide events. Ninja Mountain Bike Performance LLC sought relief under Subchapter V of Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. D. Ore. Case No. 25-61937) on July 10, 2025. In its petition, the Debtor reports estimated assets between $100,000 and $500,000 and estimated liabilities between $1 million and $10 million. Honorable Bankruptcy Judge Thomas M. Renn handles the case. The Debtors are represented by Keith Y Boyd, Esq. at KEITH Y. BODY, PC. NOURISH INC: Aids 3rd Party to Access Patients' Info, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ARISSA PODRAZA, SUSAN COLBY, and JESSICA KELLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NOURISH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-50356 (N.D. Ill., August 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for common law invasion of privacy, breach of confidence, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the California Invasion Of Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant aids, employs, agrees, and conspires with third parties, including Alphabet, Inc. ("Google") to intercept patients' communications as they seek medical services and book medical appointments on its website, www.usenourish.com, without prior consent. The Defendant secretly installed tracking technologies on its website which serve to track and disclose its patients' activity, in real time, including their protected health information and personally identifiable information, to Google, suit says. In doing so, the Defendant undermined the importance of safeguarding the identities and personal medical information of individuals seeking mental services and breached its patients' trust, violating state and federal law. Nourish, Inc. is a medical provider offering telehealth appointments based in Austin, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mason A. Barney, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Sonjay C. Singh, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: tbean@sirillp.com ssingh@sirillp.com NVIDIA CORP: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Extended to Sept. 18 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:18-cv-07669-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order granting stipulation and joint request to extend deadlines for class certification briefing and order: 1. The deadline for the Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is extended from Sept. 11, 2025 to Sept. 18, 2025; and 2. The deadline for the Plaintiffs' reply in support of its motion for class certification is extended from Oct. 16, 2025 to Oct. 23, 2025. Nvidia is a multinational technology company known for its pioneering work in GPU-accelerated computing and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b5q9a8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew L. Mustokoff, Esq. Jamie M. McCall, Esq. Nathan A. Hasiuk, Esq. Nathaniel C. Simon, Esq. Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: mmustokoff@ktmc.com jmccall@ktmc.com nhasiuk@ktmc.com nsimon@ktmc.com skaplan@ktmc.com - and - Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq. John J. Rizio-Hamilton, Esq. Preethi Krishnamurthy, Esq. Michael M. Mathai, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 819-3472 E-mail: jonathanu@blbglaw.com johnr@blbglaw.com preethi@blbglaw.com michael.mathai@blbglaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Patrick E. Gibbs, Esq. Amanda A. Main, Esq. John C. Bostic, Esq. Brett De Jarnette, Esq. Sarah M. Lightdale, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130 Telephone: (650) 843-5000 Facsimile: (650) 849-7400 E-mail: pgibbs@cooley.com amain@cooley.com jbostic@cooley.com bdejarnette@cooley.com slightdale@cooley.com - and - Scott A. Edelman, Esq. Jed M. Schwartz, Esq. Andrew B. Lichtenberg, Esq. Olivia S. Choe, Esq. MILBANK LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 530-5000 Facsimile: (212) 530-5219 E-mail: sedelman@milbank.com jschwartz@milbank.com alichtenberg@milbank.com ochoe@milbank.com OPW FUELING: Court OK's Bid to Compel Arbitration in Hernandez -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGEL QUEVEDO HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. OPW FUELING COMPONENTS LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-00203-FL (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Louise Flanagan entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for tolling. The Plaintiff's motion to enjoin employment agreements and for a protective order is denied. The Defendant's motion to compel arbitration is granted. The court stays claims pending such arbitration. The parties are directed to file a status report regarding the status of arbitration within 90 days of the date of this order, and every 90 days thereafter, or upon conclusion of arbitration, whichever is earlier. In sum, the court concludes that the arbitration agreement is enforceable and plaintiff’s claims fall within its scope. As such, defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to stay his claims in this case during the pendency of arbitration proceedings is granted. Angel Quevedo Hernandez commenced this proposed collective and class action on April 17, 2025, asserting claims for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); and violation of the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA"). The Plaintiff worked for defendant from October 2011 through September 2024. Opw designs and manufactures fueling equipment. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Vwli3M at no extra charge.[CC] OSCAR HEALTH: Court Dismisses "Carpenter" Suit ---------------------------------------------- Oscar Health, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that a New York court has dismissed the securities class action lawsuit styled Carpenter v. Oscar Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-CV-03885 (S.D.N.Y.). On May 12, 2022, a securities class action lawsuit against the Company, certain of its directors and officers, and the underwriters that participated in the Company's initial public offering was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Carpenter v. Oscar Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-CV-03885 (S.D.N.Y.). The initial complaint in the Securities Action asserted violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act based on the Company's purported failure to disclose in its IPO registration statement growing COVID-19 testing and treatment costs, the impact of significant Special Enrollment Period membership, and risk adjustment data validation results for 2019 and 2020. By Court orders dated September 27, 2022 and December 13, 2022, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel on behalf of the putative class. An amended complaint filed on December 6, 2022 asserted the same violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, but this time based on the Company's alleged failure to disclose in its IPO registration statement purportedly inadequate controls and systems in connection with the risk adjustment data validation audit for 2019, alleging that this purported omission caused losses and damages for members of the putative class. The amended complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages as well as interest, fees, and costs. On April 4, 2023, the Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 6, 2025, the Court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice and granted leave to file a second amended complaint. A second amended complaint was not timely filed and on April 22, 2025 the Court dismissed the case with prejudice. OUTSET MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- Outset Medical, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the purported stockholder class action lawsuit pending with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On August 29, 2024, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit (the Porcelli Complaint), Porcelli v. Outset Medical, Inc., et al., 5:24-cv-06124-EJD, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and then-Chief Financial Officer. On October 18, 2024, a second purported stockholder class action lawsuit, Plymouth County Retirement Association v. Outset Medical, Inc., et al., 5:24-cv-06124-HSG, was filed in the same court. The second lawsuit also named the Company’s prior Chief Financial Officer as a defendant (together with the CEO and then-CFO, the Class Defendants). The Porcelli Complaint alleged that, between August 1, 2022 and August 7, 2024, defendants made materially false or misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act) regarding the Company’s business, operations, and prospects related to the sale and marketing of the Tablo Hemodialysis System and TabloCart with Prefiltration, including concerning the impact of certain FDA processes for these products on the Company’s revenue growth. The Plymouth Complaint alleged similar violations between September 15, 2020 and August 7, 2024. On March 18, 2025, the court consolidated the Class Actions into one action captioned In re Outset Medical, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:24-cv-06124-EJD, appointing a lead Plaintiff and lead Counsel. The lead plaintiff filed its consolidated amended complaint on June 6, 2025. The Class Defendants’ deadline to respond to or file a motion to dismiss is August 14, 2025, with additional briefing to follow. OXY USA: Cherry Rider Class Suit Stays Pending 10th Cir. Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cherry Rider Family Trust et al v. OXY USA, Inc. et al., Case No. 6:23-cv-01274 (D. Kan., Filed Dec. 29, 2023), the Hon. Judge Kathryn H. Vratil entered an order staying the case while the Tenth Circuit appeal is pending. Within 14 days after the appeal concludes, the parties shall email the chambers of the Mag. Judge to reschedule the Status Conference. The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract. Oxy explores for, develops, produces, and markets crude oil and natural gas.[CC] PACIFIC & EVEREST: Williams Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- DARNELL WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pacific & Everest Lifestyle Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09701 (N.D. Ill., August 14, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://poler.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 Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a T-shirt on Poler.com. Despite his efforts, he was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. Plaintiff Williams asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by him and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, lack of alt text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Pacific & Everest Lifestyle'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. Pacific & Everest Lifestyle Company operates the website that offers an access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view backpacks, tents, sleeping bags, jackets, hoodies, T-shirts, hats, shoes, camping gear, accessories.[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 Cellphone: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law PACIFIC HEALTHWORKS: Pilon Files Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacific Healthworks, L.L.C. The case is styled as Shaun Pilon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pacific Healthworks, L.L.C., Case No. 2:25-cv-07706 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 18, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Pacific HealthWorks -- https://pacifichealthworks.com/ -- is the leading physician practice management company in Southern California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Dr. Beverly Hills, CA 92102 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: jnelson@milberg.com PALM SPRINGS GRILL: Perez Balks at Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHANETT PEREZ, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PALM SPRINGS GRILL, LLC d/b/a Scores Gentlemen's Club, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and CHRIS MARRERO, individually, Defendants, Case No. 9:25-cv-81007 (S.D. Fla., August 14, 2025) is an action by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for unpaid minimum wages and illegal kickbacks pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant did not compensate Plaintiff and the class members at an hourly rate above or equal to the minimum wage. The Defendant further violated the FLSA by requiring the Plaintiff and the class members to pay house fees and tip outs as a condition of employment. The house fees paid by the Plaintiff and the class members constitute "illegal kickbacks" pursuant to the federal law. The Plaintiff worked as an entertainer for Scores Gentlemen's from January 2022 through May 2025. Palm Springs Grill, LLC, d/b/a Scores Gentlemen's Club, is a club located in Palm Beach, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Glover, Esq. Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 813-7513 E-mail: rglover@theleachfirm.com cleach@theleachfirm.com PAM BONDI: Sanchez's Emergency Bid for TRO Tossed ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ALBERTO SANCHEZ, v. PAM BONDI, Attorney General, ERNESTO SANTACRUZ, U.S. ICE Field Office Director for the Colorado Field Office, KRISTI NOEM, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, and JOHNNY CHOATE, Warden of GEO Group Inc., Aurora, Case No. 1:25-cv-02287-CNS (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney entered an order denying Mr. Sanchez's emergency motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and stay of administrative action. Mr. Sanchez, in failing to timely file a reply, provides no contrary argument for the Court's consideration. Accordingly, because Mr. Sanchez is a member of D.V.D.'s Rule 23(b)(2) class, he has failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim. The Court declines to grant him temporary relief and denies his motion. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QkF5pD at no extra charge.[CC] PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Appeal in Securities Suit Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Peloton Interactive, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-K Report For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the securities class action lawsuit captioned City of Hialeah Employees Retirement System et al. v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., et al., Case No. 21-CV-09582-ALC-OTW, remains pending. On May 5, 2022, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York consolidated two putative securities class action lawsuits against the Company and certain of the Company's officers under the caption City of Hialeah Employees Retirement System et al. v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., et al., Case No. 21-CV-09582-ALC-OTW and appointed Robeco Capital Growth Funds SICAV-Robeco Global Consumer Trends as lead plaintiff in the class action. Lead plaintiff filed its amended complaint on June 25, 2022, alleging that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements about demand for the Company's products and the reasons for the Company's inventory growth, and engaged in improper trading in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act. On March 30, 2023, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 6, 2023, purportedly on behalf of a class consisting of those individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 5, 2021 and January 19, 2022, and defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on June 16, 2023. On September 30, 2024, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice. On October 21, 2024, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the Order with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and filed their brief in support of their appeal on December 10, 2024. Defendants filed their responsive brief on January 28, 2025. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard argument on the appeal on April 11, 2025, and the appeal remains pending. PETROLEX II: Class Certification Bids in Kelly Due April 3, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kelly v Petrolex II, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-40175 (D. Mass., Filed Dec 12, 2023), the Hon. Judge Margaret R. Guzman entered an order granting motion for clarification. The Court will adopt the deadlines proposed by Defendants' counsel. -- The Plaintiffs' expert designations due Nov. 21, 2025. -- Depositions of Plaintiffs' experts due Jan. 16, 2026. -- Defendants' expert designations due Feb. 27, 2026. -- Depositions of Defendants' experts due March 20, 2026. -- Class certification motions due April 3, 2026. -- Opposition to class certification due 60 days following motion. -- Reply in support of class certification due 14 days following oppositions. The nature of suit states Torts -- Damage Product Liability. Petrolex was founded in 2010. The Company line of business includes specialized repair services.[CC] PNC BANK: Gurevich Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Alla Gurevich, individually, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. PNC BANK, EXPERIAN, EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, TRANS UNION CONSUMER SOLUTIONS, Case No. 2:24-cv-11376 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 20, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01274-RJC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Personal Injury. The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. -- https://www.pnc.com/en/personal-banking.html -- is an American bank holding company and financial services corporation based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana M. Cimera, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 300-0375 Email: dcimera@fslawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Melissa Mary Ferrara, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 506 Carnegie Center, Suite 300 Princeton, NJ 08540 Phone: (609) 524-2045 Fax: (609) 951-0824 Email: mferrara@reedsmith.com POST HOLDINGS: Cortez Sues Over Deceptive Dog Food Labels --------------------------------------------------------- KARLA ELISA CORTEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POST HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02321-DJC-JDP (E.D. Cal., August 14, 2025) is a California consumer class action for Defendant's violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law, and for breach of express warranty. The Defendant manufactures, distributes, advertises, markets, and sells Nature's Recipe brand dog food products. The packaging prominently displays on the front of the label the claim that these Products contain "No Poultry Byproducts or Artificial Colors, Preservatives, or Flavors." According to the complaint, the said statement is false since each of the Products are made with manufactured citric acid -- an artificial preservative ingredient used in food and beverage products. The Plaintiff, who purchased one of the Products in California, was deceived by Defendant's unlawful conduct and brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of California consumers to remedy Defendant's unlawful acts, asserts the complaint. Post Holdings, Inc. is a Missouri corporation that maintains its principal place of business in St. Louis.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael T. Houchin, Esq. Craig W. Straub, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com craig@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com PRIORITY TECHNOLOGY: $19.5MM Class Settlement Has Final Court OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- Priority Technology Holdings, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the $19.5 million settlement in the putative class action lawsuit has final court approval. The Company is a party in a case filed on October 11, 2023 in the United States District Court of Northern District of California. The Complaint is a putative class action against The Credit Wholesale Company, Inc., Priority Technology Holdings, Inc., Priority Payment Systems, LLC, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The Complaint alleges that Wholesale as an agent of Priority, PPS and Wells Fargo made non-consensual recordation of telephonic communications with California businesses in violation of California Invasion of Privacy Act. The Complaint seeks to certify a class of affected businesses and an award of $5,000 per violation of the Act. As of June 30, 2025, the court granted final approval of the settlement agreement wherein the defendants agree to pay $19.5 million to settle this litigation on a class basis. There was no contribution from the Company towards this settlement agreement. PRIVILEGE UNDERWRITERS: Underpays Risk Managers, Rhodes Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- TARA RHODES and ANN CANCELLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PRIVILEGE UNDERWRITERS, INC. d/b/a PURE INSURANCE, Defendant, Case No. 7:25-cv-06885 (S.D.N.Y., August 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ms. Rhodes was employed by the Defendant as a risk manager from January 2013 to January 2025, while Ms. Cancello has been employed as a risk manager since April 2025. Privilege Underwriters, Inc., doing business as Pure Insurance, is a property and casualty company based in White Plains, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Sarah Sears, Esq. KLAFTER LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 - and - Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq. Corey M. Stanton, Esq. GIBBONS LAW GROUP, PLLC 14045 Ballantyne Corporate Place, Suite 325 Charlotte, NC 28277 Telephone: (704) 612-0038 Facsimile: (704) 612-0038 Email: phil@gibbonslg.com corey@gibbonslg.com PROACTIVE LOGISTICS: Ibarra Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jofrey Danilo Herrera Ibarra, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PROACTIVE LOGISTICS LLC, a California limited liability company; CONCEPCION DE LA TORRE, a natural person; ONTRAC LOGISTICS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV125307 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Aug. 19, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-07002. The Complaint asserts seven causes of action under California law: Unfair Competition; Treble Damages; Non-Provision meal and rest periods; Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages; Failure to Indemnify; Waiting Time Penalties; and Failure to Provide Accurate Written Wage Statements.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Damian M. Moos, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP 2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560 Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone: 626-795-4700 Fax: 626-795-479 Email: dmoos@scopelitis.com PTT LLC: Bid for Class Certification in Wilson Suit Due Oct. 27 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wilson v. PTT, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-05275 (W.D. Wash., Filed April 6, 2018), the Hon. Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright entered an order granting stipulated motion as follows: -- All litigation related to the judgment against High 5 Games and the Courts order granting discovery sanctions against H5G and H&H is stayed until Oct. 27, 2025, at which point it will automatically lift. This stay does not impact the litigation against High 5 Entertainment. -- Motion for Class Certification due by Oct. 27, 2025 -- Discovery completed by Jan. 12, 2026 -- Dispositive motions due by Jan. 12, 2026 -- Expert Witness Disclosure/Reports under FRCP 26(a)(2) due by Nov. 13, 2025 -- Motions in Limine due by April 6, 2026 -- Pretrial Order due by April 20, 2026 -- Attorney settlement conference to be held by Dec. 12, 2025 -- Trial briefs to be submitted by April 20, 2026 -- Jury Trial is set for May 11, 2026 The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property Damage. PTT operates as an independent casino games provider. PTT, LLC doing business as High 5 Games, operates as an independent casino games provider.[CC] QUANTUM CORP: Rosen Laws Investigates Potential Securities Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Quantum Corporation (NASDAQ: QMCO) resulting from allegations that Quantum Corporation may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Quantum Corporation securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=43932 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On August 18, 2025, Quantum Corporation announced that Lewis Moorehead, the company's chief financial officer, had resigned amid an internal accounting review related to its revenue recognition practices. On this news, Quantum's stock price fell $0.61 per share, or -8.2%, to close at $6.83 per share on August 19, 2025. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] RADIO SYSTEMS: Class Settlement in Hernandez Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Steven Hernandez v. Radio Systems Corporation, Case No. 5:22-cv-01861-JGB-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jesus Bernal entered an order: -- Granting the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement; and -- Vacating the Aug. 25, 2025, hearing (in chambers). The following Settlement Class is certified for settlement purposes only: "All persons who purchased one or more of the following PetSafe Products in the State of California between October 2018 and October 2022: Stay & Play Wireless Fence with Replaceable Battery Collar; Stay & Play Wireless Fence for Stubborn Dogs; Stay & Play Compact Wireless Fence; Wireless Pet Containment System; Pawz Away Mini Pet Barrier; Pawz Away Indoor Pet Barrier; Pawz Away Outdoor Pet Barrier; InGround Fence; Stubborn Dog In- Ground Fence; Little Dog Deluxe InGround Fence; Deluxe In- Ground Cat Fence; YardMax Rechargeable In-Ground Fence; Basic In- Ground Fence; Rechargeable In-Ground Fence; YardMax Cordless In-Ground Fence; Classic In-Ground Fence; Rechargeable Bark Control Collar; Lite Rechargeable Bark Collar; Bark Collar; and Basic Bark Control Collar. Excluded from this Settlement Class are governmental entities, RSC, any entity in which RSC has a controlling interest, and RSC's officers, directors, affiliates, representatives, employees, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns. Also excluded from the class are any judges, justices, or judicial officers presiding over this matter and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff. 3. The Court appoints Amber L. Schubert of Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP to serve as counsel on behalf of the Settlement Class for purposes of settlement only. 4. The Plaintiff Steven Hernandez is appointed as the representative of the Settlement Class for purposes of settlement only. 5. The Final Approval Hearing shall be held on Monday, Jan. 26, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. 6. The August 25, 2025 hearing is vacated. Radio is a pet products company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RpyMyJ at no extra charge.[CC] RAY JONES: $450K Settlement in Back Suit Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL BACK as Class Representative v. RAY JONES TRUCKING, INC. et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-00005-GNS-HBB (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Greg Stivers entered an order as follows: 1. The Parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of a class action certification and settlement is granted and their previous motion is denied as moot. 2. For the purposes of the settlement, a Settlement Class member shall be defined as: "any current and former truck driver employee of Ray Jones Trucking, Inc. who was not paid at an overtime rate of pay for such employee's work in excess of 40 hours in one or more workweeks from Jan. 8, 2017, though Nov. 20, 2024." 3. The Plaintiff shall be appointed as the Settlement Class Representative and Foster shall be appointed as Class Counsel. 4. The Court shall conduct a Fairness Hearing regarding the proposed settlement on Dec. 16, 2025, at 11:00 AM CT at the U.S. Courthouse, 423 Frederica St., Owensboro, Kentucky. The Plaintiff was employed as a truck driver for Ray Jones, and he contends that he and many other employees were denied overtime compensation due to them under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act ("KWHA'). The gross settlement amount is capped at $450,000.00, contingent upon whether any class member opts out of the settlement. Ray provides trucking or transfer services. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated Aug. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ntXrQr at no extra charge.[CC] RAYCON INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Pittman Says ------------------------------------------------------------- DEBBIE PITTMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Raycon, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09683 (N.D. Ill., August 14, 2025) is a civil rights action against Raycon for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://rayconglobal.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a pair of open earbuds on Rayconglobal.com. Despite her efforts, however, she was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by her and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop down menus, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Raycon'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. Raycon, Inc. operates the website that offers a range of audio devices and accessories.[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 Cellphone: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law RBC CAPITAL: Court Consolidates Uzel Action and Moeller Action -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN UZEL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, Case No. 1-24-CV-08226 (ALC) (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Andrew L. Carter entered an order that: 1. The following actions (the "Actions") are consolidated for all purposes pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Uzel v. RBC Capital Markets, LLC, No. 1:24- cv-08226 (ALC) and Moeller v. Royal Bank of Canada, et ano., No. 1:25-cv 04512 (ALC). 2. This Order is made without prejudice to the right of any party to the Actions for good cause shown to seek revisions or adjustments to this Order. 3. The Defendants' consent to the entry of this Order shall not be deemed, and is not, a waiver of any of the Defendants' respective rights or defenses in the Actions. 4. A master docket is established for the Actions. The Master Docket shall be Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-08226 (ALC). The original of this Order shall be filed by the Clerk on the Master Docket. Separate dockets shall also be maintained for each of the Actions, and entries shall be made therein in accordance with the regular procedures of the Clerk of this Court, except as modified by this Order. 5. The consolidated Actions shall be referred to as: In re: RBC Capital Markets Cash Sweep Litigation, Master File No. 1:24- cv-08226 (ALC). 6. The Plaintiffs in the Actions shall file a single Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint ("CAC") on or before Sept. 15, 2025. 7. The Defendants in the Actions shall file a Pre-Motion Letter pursuant to the Court's Individual Practices concerning Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss the CAC pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (“Motion to Dismiss”) on or before September 29, 2025. 8. The Plaintiffs shall file a response to Defendants’ Pre- Motion Letter on or before October 2, 2025. RBC operates as an investment bank. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aVzDTL at no extra charge.[CC] REALREAL INC: Bid for Class Cert. Denied in Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The RealReal, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that a California court has issued a tentative ruling denying the motion for class certification in a putative securities suit. Beginning on September 10, 2019, purported shareholder class action complaints were filed against the Company, its officers and directors and the underwriters of its IPO in the San Mateo Superior Court, Marin County Superior Court, and the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On July 27, 2021, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle the shareholder class action. On November 5, 2021, plaintiff filed the executed stipulation of settlement and motion for preliminary approval of the settlement with the federal court. On March 24, 2022, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. On July 28, 2022, the court entered an order finally approving the settlement and dismissing the case. The financial terms of the stipulation of settlement provide that the Company will pay $11.0 million within thirty (30) days of the later of preliminary approval of the settlement or plaintiff’s counsel providing payment instructions. The Company paid the settlement amount on March 29, 2022 with available resources and recorded approximately $11.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2021 under our Operating expenses as a Legal settlement. One of the plaintiffs in the Marin County case opted out of the federal settlement and is pursuing the claim in Marin County Superior Court. The stay of the state court case has been lifted, and the opt out plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 31, 2022 alleging putative class claims under the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of the two shareholders who opted out of the settlement and those who purchased stock from November 21, 2019 through March 9, 2020, based on purported new revelations. The claims are for alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. On February 23, 2024, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. On July 14, 2025, the court issued a tentative ruling denying the motion for class certification, which ruling will be entered as an order. While the Company intends to defend vigorously against this litigation, there can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense. For this reason, the Company cannot currently estimate the loss or range of possible losses it may experience in connection with this litigation. RECKITT BENCKISER: NYHTCHA Fund Appointed as Lead Plaintiff ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Elevator Constructors Union Local No. 1 Annuity & 401(k) Fund, v. Reckitt Benckiser Group plc, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-04708-JPC-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Stewart Aaron entered an order granting the New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund's (NYHTCHA Fund's) motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of Lead Plaintiff's counsel. The Elevator Constructors Union Local No. 1 Annuity & 401(K) Fund's (ECU Fund's) motion for the same is denied. The NYHTHCA Fund is appointed lead plaintiff, and Robbins Geller is appointed lead counsel. Pursuant to the Court's prior Order, no later than Sept. 2, 2025, Robbins Geller and Defendants' counsel shall confer and submit a proposed schedule for the filing of an amended complaint and Defendants' response. The Court finds that the NYHTCHA Fund has met its burden of demonstrating that it is the most adequate party to serve as lead plaintiff and therefore grants its motion. The NYHTHCA Fund is adequate because its interests in the action are aligned with the interests of the other Class members. Nothing suggests that the NYHTHCA Fund has any conflict of interest with the Class, is subject to a unique defense or suffers any other infirmity that would impair its ability to represent the Class. Given the lack of opposition to the NYHTHCA Fund's motion, no proof has been offered rebutting this presumption. The Court therefore finds that the NYHTHCA Fund is the most adequate plaintiff and appoints it to serve as Lead Plaintiff. Reckitt is a producer of health, hygiene and nutrition products. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Aug. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=as4xxs at no extra charge.[CC] RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN: Dunn Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Alan Dunn, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public v. Renewal by Andersen LLC, Case No. 25STCV20786 was removed from the Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 20, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-07814 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Renewal by Andersen -- https://www.renewalbyandersen.com/ -- is the full-service window and door replacement division of Andersen Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Aaron Mills Scott, Esq. FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP 10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (612) 607-7556 Email: ascott@foxrothschild.com REPUBLIC SERVICES: BesRay Corp. Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as BesRay Corp., and others similarly situated v. Republic Services, Inc. and BFI Waste Services, LLC, Case No. 25CV009258 was removed from the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Georgia on Aug. 21, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-04737-TRJ. The Plaintiff asserts claims for: breach of contract; breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; unjust enrichment; violation of Georgia's Uniform Deceptive Practices Act Ga. Code Section 10 1-370; and fraud in the inducement.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: John R. Bielema, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 1201 W. Peachtree Street, 14th Floor Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Phone: (404) 572-6600 Email: john.bielema@bclplaw.com RESTAURANT BRANDS: Continues to Defend Burger King Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Restaurant Brands International Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the securities class action lawsuits filed against Burger King Worldwide, Inc. and Burger King Company. On October 5, 2018, a class action complaint was filed against Burger King Worldwide, Inc. and Burger King Company, successor in interest, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Jarvis Arrington, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. On October 18, 2018, a second class action complaint was filed against RBI, BKW and BKC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Monique Michel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. On October 31, 2018, a third class action complaint was filed against BKC and BKW in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Geneva Blanchard and Tiffany Miller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. On November 2, 2018, a fourth class action complaint was filed against RBI, BKW and BKC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Sandra Munster, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. These complaints have been consolidated and allege that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by incorporating an employee no-solicitation and no-hiring clause in the standard form franchise agreement all Burger King franchisees are required to sign. Each plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages for himself or herself and other members of the class. On March 24, 2020, the Court granted BKC's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and on April 20, 2020 the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint. The court denied the plaintiffs motion for leave to amend their complaint in August 2020 and the plaintiffs appealed this ruling. In August 2022, the federal appellate court reversed the lower court's decision to dismiss the case and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings. In March 2025, at the request of the court, BKC filed a supplemental brief in support of its motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief in support of its motion opposing BKC's motion to dismiss. On April 9, 2025, the court denied BKC's motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 30, 2025, and BKC filed its answer on May 21, 2025. "While we intend to vigorously defend these claims, we are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this case or estimate the range of possible loss, if any," the Company stated. RESTAURANT DEPOT: Depina Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Gernesto Depina, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RESTAURANT DEPOT, LLC, Case No. 2584cv1757 was removed from the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the County of Suffolk, to the United States District Court for District of Massachusetts on Aug. 20, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-12320. In the Complaint, Plaintiff seeks "minimum statutory damages of $500 per violation."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Stephen T. Melnick, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One International Place, Suite 2700 Boston, MA 02110 Phone 617.378.6000 Fax 617.737.0052 Email: smelnick@littler.com RICHWOOD LOGISTICS: Ransom Sues Over Layoff Without Advance Notice ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRYCE RANSOM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RICHWOOD LOGISTICS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-05066-JAM (W.D. Mo., August 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. The case arises from the Defendant's action of terminating the employment of the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees as a result of a mass layoff ordered by the Defendant on May 23, 2025, without providing adequate advance notice as required by the WARN Act. Richwood Logistics LLC is a logistics company doing business in Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura M.K. Young, Esq. 1442 E. Bradford Parkway Springfield, MO 65804 Telephone: (417) 887-3328 Email: laurayoung@licatalawfirm.com - and - Mary E. Olsen, Esq. M. Vance McCrary, Esq. THE GARDNER FIRM, PC 182 St. Francis Street, Suite 103 Mobile, AL 36602 Telephone: (251) 433-8100 Facsimile: (251) 433-8181 - and - Stuart J. Miller, Esq. LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP 132 Nassau Street, Suite 1100 New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 581-5005 Facsimile: (212) 581-2122 RXSIGHT INC: Continues to Defend California Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- RxSight, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On July 22, 2025, a putative securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and certain of its officers, captioned Makaveev v. RxSight, Inc., et al., No. 8:25-cv-01596. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, alleging that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omitted material adverse facts regarding demand for the company’s products and financial guidance. The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees. While it is too early to predict the outcome of the litigation or a reasonable range of potential losses and whether an adverse result would have a material adverse impact on our results of operations or financial position, the company believes it has meritorious defenses, vehemently deny the allegations, and intends to defend the case vigorously. Failure to obtain a favorable resolution of this lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations and financial condition. SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Class Settlement in Fox Suit Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS A. FOX, et al., v. COUNTY OF SAGINAW, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-11887-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Thomas L. Ludington entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval. Solely for the purpose of settlement in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, and pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3), this Court finds that it will likely certify the following Class if the Court gives final approval to the Settlement: "All Persons, and the estate of such persons if they are bankrupt or deceased, that owned a Property in fee simple in any County which Property, that during the Class Period (i.e. Jan. 1, 2013 through Dec. 31, 2020), was foreclosed through a real property tax foreclosure and sold at tax auction for more than the Minimum Sale Price, and to whom the County did not refund the Surplus Proceeds." In addition, solely for the purpose of settlement in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, and pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3), this Court finds that if the Court gives final approval to the Settlement, it will likely certify Sub-Classes as to each County,8 with a sub-class definition tied to each County, as described: Alcona County: The Alcona County Settlement Sub-Class means: All Persons, and the estate of such persons if they are bankrupt or deceased, that owned a Property in fee simple in Alcona County which Property, during the Class Period (i.e. January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2020), was foreclosed through a real property tax foreclosure and sold at tax auction for more than the Minimum Sale Price, and to whom Alcona County did not refund the Surplus Proceeds. Alpena County: The Alpena County Settlement Sub-Class means: All Persons, and the estate of such persons if they are bankrupt or deceased, that owned a Property in fee simple in Alpena County which Property, during the Class Period (i.e. January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2020), was foreclosed through a real property tax foreclosure and sold at tax auction for more than the Minimum Sale Price, and to whom Alpena County did not refund the Surplus Proceeds. Arenac County: The Arenac County Settlement Sub-Class means: All Persons, and the estate of such persons if they are bankrupt or deceased, that owned a Property in fee simple in Arenac County which Property, during the Class Period (i.e. January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2020), was foreclosed through a real property tax foreclosure and sold at tax auction for more than the Minimum Sale Price, and to whom Arenac County did not refund the Surplus Proceeds. Bay County: The Bay County Settlement Sub-Class means: All Persons, and the estate of such persons if they are bankrupt or deceased, that owned a Property in fee simple in Bay County which Property, during the Class Period (i.e. January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2020), was foreclosed through a real property tax foreclosure and sold at tax auction for more than the Minimum Sale Price, and to whom Bay County did not refund the Surplus Proceeds. Clare County: The Clare County Settlement Sub-Class means: All Persons, and the estate of such persons if they are bankrupt or deceased, that owned a Property in fee simple in Clare County which Property, during the Class Period (i.e. January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2020), was foreclosed through a real property tax foreclosure and sold at tax auction for more than the Minimum Sale Price, and to whom Clare County did not refund the Surplus Proceeds. Crawford County: The Crawford County Settlement Sub-Class All Persons, and the estate of such persons if they are bankrupt or deceased, that owned a Property in fee simple in Crawford County which Property, during the Class Period (i.e. January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2020), was foreclosed through a real property tax foreclosure and sold at tax auction for more than the Minimum Sale Price, and to whom Crawford County did not refund the Surplus Proceeds. Genesee County: The Genesee County Settlement Sub-Class means: All Persons, and the estate of such persons if they are bankrupt or deceased, that owned a Property in fee simple in Genesee County which Property, during the Class Period (i.e. January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2020), was foreclosed through a real property tax foreclosure and sold at tax auction for more than the Minimum Sale Price, and to whom Genesee County did not refund the Surplus Proceeds. Gladwin County: The Gladwin County Settlement Sub-Class means: All Persons, and the estate of such persons if they are bankrupt or deceased, that owned a Property in fee simple in Gladwin County which Property, during the Class Period (i.e. January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2020), was foreclosed through a real property tax foreclosure and sold at tax auction for more than the Minimum Sale Price, and to whom Gladwin County did not refund the Surplus Proceeds. Gratiot County: The Gratiot County Settlement Sub-Class means: All Persons, and the estate of such persons if they are bankrupt or deceased, that owned a Property in fee simple in Gratiot County which Property, during the Class Period (i.e. January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2020), was foreclosed through a real property tax foreclosure and sold at tax auction for more than the Minimum Sale Price, and to whom Gratiot County did not refund the Surplus Proceeds. Huron County: The Huron County Settlement Sub-Class means: All Persons, and the estate of such persons if they are bankrupt or deceased, that owned a Property in fee simple in Huron County which Property, during the Class Period (i.e. January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2020), was foreclosed through a real property tax foreclosure and sold at tax auction for more than the Minimum Sale Price, and to whom Huron County did not refund the Surplus Proceeds. Isabella County: The Isabella County Settlement Sub-Class means: All Persons, and the estate of such persons if they are bankrupt or deceased, that owned a Property in fee simple in Isabella County which Property, during the Class Period (i.e. January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2020), was foreclosed through a real property tax foreclosure and sold at tax auction for more than the Minimum Sale Price, and to whom Isabella County did not refund the Surplus Proceeds. Jackson County: The Jackson County Settlement Sub-Class means: All Persons, and the estate of such persons if they are bankrupt or deceased, that owned a Property in fee simple in Jackson County which Property, during the Class Period (i.e. January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2020), was foreclosed through a real property tax foreclosure and sold at tax auction for more than the Minimum Sale Price, and to whom Jackson County did not refund the Surplus Proceeds. Lapeer County: The Lapeer County Settlement Sub-Class means: All Persons, and the estate of such persons if they are bankrupt or deceased, that owned a Property in fee simple in Lapeer County which Property, during the Class Period (i.e. January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2020), was foreclosed through a real property tax foreclosure and sold at tax auction for more than the Minimum Sale Price, and to whom Lapeer County did not refund the Surplus Proceeds. Lenawee County: The Lenawee County Settlement Sub-Class means: All Persons, and the estate of such persons if they are bankrupt or deceased, that owned a Property in fee simple in Lenawee County which Property, during the Class Period (i.e. January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2020), was foreclosed through a real property tax foreclosure and sold at tax auction for more than the Minimum Sale Price, and to whom Lenawee County did not refund the Surplus Proceeds. (xv) Macomb County: The Macomb County Settlement Sub-Class means: All Persons, and the estate of such persons if they are bankrupt or deceased, that owned a Property in fee simple in Macomb County which Property, during the Class Period (i.e. January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2020), was foreclosed through a real property tax foreclosure and sold at tax auction for more than the Minimum Sale Price, and to whom Macomb County did not refund the Surplus Proceeds. Midland County: The Midland County Settlement Sub-Class means: All Persons, and the estate of such persons if they are bankrupt or deceased, that owned a Property in fee simple in Midland County which Property, during the Class Period (i.e. January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2020), was foreclosed through a real property tax foreclosure and sold at tax auction for more than the Minimum Sale Price, and to whom Midland County did not refund the Surplus Proceeds. (xvii) Montmorency County: The Montmorency County Settlement Sub Class means: All Persons, and the estate of such persons if they are bankrupt or deceased, that owned a Property in fee simple in Montmorency County which Property, during the Class Period (i.e. January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2020), was foreclosed through a real property tax foreclosure and sold at tax auction for more than the Minimum Sale Price, and to whom Montmorency County did not refund the Surplus Proceeds. Ogemaw County: The Ogemaw County Settlement Sub-Class means: All Persons, and the estate of such persons if they are bankrupt or deceased, that owned a Property in fee simple in Ogemaw County which Property, during the Class Period (i.e. January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2020), was foreclosed through a real property tax foreclosure and sold at tax auction for more than the Minimum Sale Price, and to whom Ogemaw County did not refund the Surplus Proceeds. Oscoda County: The Oscoda County Settlement Sub-Class means: All Persons, and the estate of such persons if they are bankrupt or deceased, that owned a Property in fee simple in Oscoda County which Property, during the Class Period (i.e. January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2020), was foreclosed through a real property tax foreclosure and sold at tax auction for more than the Minimum Sale Price, and to whom Oscoda County did not refund the Surplus Proceeds. Otsego County: The Otsego County Settlement Sub-Class means: All Persons, and the estate of such persons if they are bankrupt or deceased, that owned a Property in fee simple in Otsego County which Property, during the Class Period (i.e. January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2020), was foreclosed through a real property tax foreclosure and sold at tax auction for more than the Minimum Sale Price, and to whom Otsego County did not refund the Surplus Proceeds. Presque Isle County: The Presque Isle County Settlement Sub-Class All Persons, and the estate of such persons if they are bankrupt or deceased, that owned a Property in fee simple in Presque Isle County which Property, during the Class Period (i.e. January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2020), was foreclosed through a real property tax foreclosure and sold at tax auction for more than the Minimum Sale Price, and to whom Presque Isle County did not refund the Surplus Proceeds. Roscommon County: The Roscommon County Settlement Sub-Class All Persons, and the estate of such persons if they are bankrupt or deceased, that owned a Property in fee simple in Roscommon County which Property, during the Class Period (i.e. January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2020), was foreclosed through a real property tax foreclosure and sold at tax auction for more than the Minimum Sale Price, and to whom Roscommon County did not refund the Surplus Proceeds. Saginaw County: The Saginaw County Settlement Sub-Class means: All Persons, and the estate of such persons if they are bankrupt or deceased, that owned a Property in fee simple in Saginaw County which Property, during the Class Period (i.e. January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2020), was foreclosed through a real property tax foreclosure and sold at tax auction for more than the Minimum Sale Price, and to whom Saginaw County did not refund the Surplus Proceeds. - 40 - Case 1:19-cv-11887-TLL-PTM ECF No. 482, PageID.12119 Filed 08/21/25 Page 41 of 47 (xxiv) Sanilac County: The Sanilac County Settlement Sub-Class means: All Persons, and the estate of such persons if they are bankrupt or deceased, that owned a Property in fee simple in Sanilac County which Property, during the Class Period (i.e. January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2020), was foreclosed through a real property tax foreclosure and sold at tax auction for more than the Minimum Sale Price, and to whom Sanilac County did not refund the Surplus Proceeds. (xxv) St. Clair County: The St. Clair County Settlement Sub-Class means: All Persons, and the estate of such persons if they are bankrupt or deceased, that owned a Property in fee simple in St. Clair County which Property, during the Class Period (i.e. January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2020), was foreclosed through a real property tax foreclosure and sold at tax auction for more than the Minimum Sale Price, and to whom St. Clair County did not refund the Surplus Proceeds. (xxvi) Tuscola County: The Tuscola County Settlement Sub-Class means: All Persons, and the estate of such persons if they are bankrupt or deceased, that owned a Property in fee simple in Tuscola County which Property, during the Class Period (i.e. January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2020), was foreclosed through a real property tax foreclosure and sold at tax auction for more than the Minimum Sale Price, and to whom Tuscola County did not refund the Surplus Proceeds. (xxvii) means: Washtenaw County: The Washtenaw County Settlement Sub-Class All Persons, and the estate of such persons if they are bankrupt or deceased, that owned a Property in fee simple in Washtenaw County which Property, during the Class Period (i.e. January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2020), was foreclosed through a real property tax foreclosure and sold at tax auction for more than the Minimum Sale Price, and to whom Washtenaw County did not refund the Surplus Proceeds. Saginaw offers a range of lifestyles, from urban to small town to rural. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Aug. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Mqe49V at no extra charge.[CC] SANTA MONICA, CA: Murcia Must Show Cause re Case Non-Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REYES CONTRERAS MURCIA, et al., v. CITY OF SANTA MONICA, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-05253-FLA-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha entered an order directing the Plaintiffs to show cause (OSC) in writing, within 14 days of this Order, why the court should not dismiss the action for lack of prosecution. Failure to respond timely may result in dismissal of this action without further notice, the Court says. On March 11, 2025, the court entered an Order Denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, preliminary approval of class action settlement, and related matters. The Plaintiffs proceeded to file three ex parte applications to continue the Briefing Deadline. The court granted the applications for good cause. The deadline to file the Amended Motion was May 30, 2025. The Plaintiffs have not filed an Amended Motion. Santa Monica is a city in Los Angeles County, situated along Santa Monica Bay on California's South Coast. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ppsFVv at no extra charge.[CC] SAZERAC COMPANY: Puig Has Until Sept. 1 to File Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTOR PUIG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SAZERAC COMPANY, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00856-JES-NPM (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge John Steele entered an order as follows: 1. Victor Puig's motion to stay is denied without prejudice. 2. The Plaintiff has until Sept. 1, 2025, to file a motion for class certification and to complete his Rule 26 expert disclosures. No extension will be granted. All other provisions of the Court's current scheduling orders remain in effect. "The party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion." The Plaintiff has failed to carry that burden. The Plaintiff moves to stay all proceedings in this case pending the Ninth Circuit's resolution of the class certification issue in the related case. He argues that the Ninth Circuit will resolve "fundamental class certification questions" and "key legal issues" "that could simplify, narrow, or even eliminate certain issues that this Court would otherwise need to decide." Sazerac is a privately held American alcoholic beverage company. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Aug. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FqpXbn at no extra charge.[CC] SCHNADER HARRISON: Class Settlement in Bennett Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JO BENNETT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00592-JMY (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge John Milton Younge entered an order certifying class and granting preliminary approval of class action settlement: 1. Counts I-VII are certified as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1) and (b)(2) on behalf of the following Class: "Participants in the Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP Retirement and Savings Plan who were attorneys with the title of Income Partner or Counsel at Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis any time between Feb. 7, 2018 to June 30, 2023 and who were assessed a "Non-Elective Retirement Contribution" as described in annual memoranda entitled "[Year] Retirement Contribution Calculation" (and for whom such assessment was not fully repaid or refunded) and the beneficiaries of such participants, except the Excluded Persons." Excluded from the Class are the following: (a) Defendants; (b) any equity partners of Schnader during the Class Period; (c) any fiduciary of the Plan with discretionary fiduciary authority with respect to the Non-Elective Retirement Contribution during the Class Period; (d) the beneficiaries of any such persons or the immediate family members of any such foregoing excluded persons; and (e) the legal representatives, successors and assigns of any such excluded persons. 2. The Court finds that Counts I-VII satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). 3. The Plaintiff Jo Bennett is appointed the representative of the Class. 4. R. Joseph Barton of The Barton Firm LLP and Adam Harrison Garner of The Garner Firm, Ltd. are appointed Co-Lead Class Counsel. 5. The Plaintiff will file any motion for class representative s service award by Dec. 12, 2025. 6. Neither Defendants nor Defendants' counsel will have any responsibility for the Plan of Allocation or will make any application for or take any position on attorneys' fees or reimbursement of expenses submitted by Co-Lead Class Counsel. 7. Class Counsel shall file a Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement by January 2, 2026. 8. The Court will hold a final fairness hearing on January 22, 2026 at 10 am. Schnader is a full service law firm. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3TvPma at no extra charge.[CC] SENSITECH INC: Spencer Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Shannon Spencer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SENSITECH INC., a foreign profit corporation; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, a foreign profit corporation; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 25-2-21716-7 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Aug. 20, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01586. The thrust of Plaintiff's allegations is that Defendants violated the Washington Equal Pay and Opportunities Act ("EPOA"), by publishing job postings for positions located in Washington "where the postings did not disclose the wage scale or salary range and/or a general description of all of the benefits and other compensation to be offered to the hired applicant."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Angelo J. Calfo, Esq. Tyler S. Weaver, Esq. ANGELI & CALFO LLC 701 Pike Street, Suite 1625 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 229-3441 Email: angelo@angelicalfo.com tylerw@angelicalfo.com SHAKE SHACK: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Shake Shack Minnesota LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-03367 (D. Minn., Aug. 25, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.shakeshack.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers restaurant food and beverages for sale, including but not limited to, burgers, sandwiches, appetizers, shakes, frozen custard, drinks and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com SHRINERS HOSPITAL: Martinez Suit Removed to E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ernesto Martinez, Sr., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SHRINERS HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN, a Colorado nonprofit corporation; SHC NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CV015245 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Aug. 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-at-01086. The Complaint alleges eight causes of action which Plaintiff pursues on a class action basis: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime compensation; failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and permit rest periods; failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; failure to timely pay final wages at termination; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jennifer S. McGeorge, Esq. David L. Cheng, Esq. Julia B. Chang, Esq. FORD & HARRISON LLP 350 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 237-2400 Facsimile: (213) 237-2401 Email: jmgeorge@fordharrison.com dcheng@fordharrison.com jchang@fordharrison.com SIKES INC: Bowman Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ------------------------------------------------------------ TANISIA BOWMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sikes, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09686 (N.D. Ill., August 14, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://gypsyville.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a sweater on Gypsyville.com. Despite her efforts, however, she was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by her and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inadequate focus order, inaccessible contact information, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Sikes'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. Sikes, Inc. operates the website that offers a variety of Boho-inspired apparel, footwear, and accessories, including jeans, tanks, pants, leggings, shorts, boots, moccasins, belts, caps, hats, bags, and purses, as well as home goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: achan@ealg.law SKLAR LAW: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Green Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANITRA GREEN, v. SKLAR LAW, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-04186-ESK-EAP (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Pascal entered an amended scheduling order as follows: 1. No later than Aug. 22, 2025, the Defendant shall produce to the Plaintiff all financial records. 2. Pretrial factual discovery is extended to Sept. 30, 2025. 3. Class certification and dispositive motions shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court no later than Nov. 7, 2025. 4. The telephone status conference previously scheduled for Sept. 2, 2025, is adjourned. The Court will conduct a telephone status conference on Oct. 3, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. Counsel shall dial 1-856-210-8988, access code 997223295# to connect to the call. 5. Any application for an extension of time beyond the deadlines set herein shall be made prior to expiration of the period sought to be extended and shall disclose in the application all such extensions previously obtained, the precise reasons necessitating the application showing good cause under FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b), and whether adversary counsel consent to the application. The scheduling deadlines set herein will not be extended unless good cause is shown. All applications regarding motions returnable before a District Judge shall be presented to the District Judge. Sklar is a full-service commercial law firm. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tiKnPZ at no extra charge.[CC] SMARTRENT TECHNOLOGIES: Osei-Asibey Files Suit in D. Arizona ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against SmartRent Technologies Incorporated, et al. The case is styled as Lynnette Osei-Asibey, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SmartRent Technologies Incorporated, Semple Marchal and Cooper LLP, Case No. 2:25-cv-02982-SPL (D. Ariz., Aug. 18, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Injury for Breach of Contract. SmartRent -- https://smartrent.com/ -- provides smart technology solutions that deliver the ultimate smart building experience for real estate owners, managers, and residents.[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 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Solaredge Technologies, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that discovery is ongoing in the securities class action lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York. On November 3, 2023, Daphne Shen, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a proposed class action complaint for violation of federal securities laws, individually and putatively on behalf of all others similarly situated, in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York against the Company, the Company's former CEO and the Company's former CFO. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, as well as violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. The complaint seeks class certification, damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other relief. On December 13, 2023, Javier Cascallar filed a similar proposed class action. On January 2, 2024, six purported lead plaintiffs filed motions in the Shen litigation seeking to consolidate the Cascallar and Shen litigations and appoint lead plaintiffs and lead counsel pursuant to the procedures of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On February 7, 2024, the Court consolidated the two actions and appointed co-lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On April 22, 2024, the co-lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding two additional officers. The amended complaint made substantially similar allegations and claims. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on July 15, 2024. On December 4, 2024, the Court issued an order granting in part the motion, dismissing all allegations except those relating to two purported misstatements. The Court allowed the Plaintiffs to again amend their complaint, and they filed a second amended complaint on January 3, 2025. On February 10, 2025, Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On April 7, 2025, the Court issued an order granted in part the motion, dismissing all allegations except those related to alleged misstatements characterizing inventory levels as "low" and those relating to demand in Europe. Discovery is ongoing. SOLENO THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Soleno Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: SLNO) resulting from allegations that Soleno Therapeutics may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Soleno Therapeutics securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=43959 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On August 15, 2025, Investing.com published a story entitled "Soleno Therapeutics stock falls after Scorpion Capital short report." The article stated that Soleno Therapeutics stock had fallen "following a short report from Scorpion Capital that raised serious concerns about the company's recently approved Prader-Willi syndrome treatment, VYKAT XR." It further stated that the Scorpion Capital report "highlighted personal safety issues," and that it "suggested the drug may be at risk of being withdrawn from the market or facing a significant decline in new prescriptions." On this news, the price of Soleno Therapeutics stock fell 7.4% on August 15, 2025. It fell a further 4.9% on the next trading day. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] SOLIDQUOTE LLC: Class Cert Deadlines Extension Sought ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONDA KLASSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SOLIDQUOTE LLC and DITIAL MEDIA SOLUTIONS, LLC f/k/a UNDERGROUND ELEPHANT, Case No. 1:23-cv-00318-GPG-NRN (D. Colo.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of deadlines to file their respective response and reply briefs, in connection with the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and SolidQuote's motion for summary judgment . Both SolidQuote's motion for summary judgment and the Plaintiff's motion for class certification involve an extensive evidentiary record and numerous legal issues. Accordingly, the Parties jointly seek an additional 10 days for their respective response and reply briefs. SolidQuote filed its motion for summary judgment on Aug. 8, 2025. The Plaintiff filed her motion for class certification that same day. SolidQuote is an insurance marketing company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FEHH7X at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq. KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C. 30 East Butler Ave. Ambler, PA 19002 Telephone: (267) 468-5374 E-mail: jginsburg@creditlaw.com teamkimmel@creditlaw.com - and - Ryan L. McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, A.P.C. 2221 Camino Del Rio S., #101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Ext.14 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com The Defendants are represented by: Paul A. Rosenthal, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 600 Campus Drive Florham Park, NJ 07932 Telephone: (973) 549-7030 E-mail: paul.rosenthal@faegredrinker.com SOLIDQUOTE LLC: Klassen Can Restrict Portions of Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Klassen v. SolidQuote LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00318 (D. Colo., Filed Feb. 3, 2023), the Hon. Judge Gordon P. Gallagher entered an order granting motion for Leave to Restrict Certain Portions of the motion to certify class. The nature of suit states Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). SolidQuote is an insurance marketing company.[CC] SOLIDQUOTE LLC: Summary Judgment Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Klassen v. SolidQuote LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00318 (D. Colo., Filed Feb. 3, 2023), the Hon. Judge Gordon P. Gallagher entered an order referring Solidquote's Motion for Summary Judgment to Mag. Judge N. Reid Neureiter. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). SolidQuote is an insurance marketing company.[CC] SOLIDQUOTE: Klassen Must File Summary Judgment Response by Sept. 8 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONDA KLASSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SOLIDQUOTE LLC, and DIGITAL MEDIA SOLUTIONS, LLC f/k/a UNDERGROUND ELEPHANT, Case No. 1:23-cv-00318-GPG-NRN (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge N. Reid Neureiter entered an order granting the stipulated motion to extend deadlines in class certification and summary judgment briefing. On or before Sept. 8, 2025, the Plaintiff shall file a response to the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, and Solidquote shall file a response to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. On or before Oct. 2, 2025, Solidquote shall file a reply in support of its motion for summary judgment, and the Plaintiff shall file a reply in support of its motion for class certification. SolidQuote is an insurance marketing company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I7vsOC at no extra charge.[CC] SONOCO PRODUCTS: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Maria Elena Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SONOCO PRODUCTS COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV09421 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-07744. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserted the following claims against Defendant: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages, Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation, Failure to Provide Meal Periods, Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Breaks, Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses, Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination, Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements, and Unfair Business Practices (Violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq.).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Andrea F. Oxman, Esq. Peter M. Waneis, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 Email: Andrea.Oxman@jacksonlewis.com Peter.Waneis@jacksonlewis.com - and - Michael D. Thomas, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 885-1360 Email: Michael.Thomas@jacksonlewis.com SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Sends False & Misleading Emails, Mitchell Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ KARLEASA MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01593 (W.D. Wash., August 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Consumer Protection Act and the Commercial Electronic Mail Act. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of sending false and misleading emails. According to the complaint, the Defendant uses different types of false and misleading information in email subject lines to trick consumers into opening their email and making purchases. By sending emails with false and misleading information to the Plaintiff and the Class, the Defendant clogs email inboxes with false information and violates the Plaintiff's and Class members' right to be free from deceptive commercial emails, says the suit. Southwest Airlines Co. is an airline company based in Dallas, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beth E. Terrell, Esq. Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq. Blythe H. Chandler, Esq. Eden B. Nordby, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 Email: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com jmurray@terrellmarshall.com bchandler@terrellmarshall.com enordby@terrellmarshall.com - and - E. Michelle Drake, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 43 SE Main Street, Suite 505 Minneapolis, MN 55414 Telephone: (612) 594-5933 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 Email: emdrake@bm.net - and - Mark B. DeSanto, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3046 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 Email: mdesanto@bm.net - and - Colleen Fewer, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 376-2097 Email: cfewer@bergermontague.com SPRING EQ: Mason Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT MASON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SPRING EQ LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-01833-MWC-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order permitting him to file under seal a certain confidential document in support of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Plaintiff applies to file the following document under seal: 1. An unredacted copy of Spring EQ's contract with LendingTree along with LendingTree’s applicable terms and conditions, attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Sabita J. Soneji in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification which includes the following documents designed as "CONFIDENTIAL" by LendingTree, LLC. 2. The portions of Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Class Certification that quote or describe the content designated "CONFIDENTIAL" by LendingTree, LLC The Plaintiff is also contemporaneously submitting an unredacted version of Exhibit A to the Declaration of Sabita J. Soneji in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification, and an unredacted version of his Memorandum in Support of Class Certification. The Plaintiff is likewise withdrawing the "CONFIDENTIAL" designation as to the deposition testimony cited by Plaintiff in the Motion for Class Certification. Spring is a retail mortgage lender. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=94xeLQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sabita J. Soneji, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 254-6808 E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com SPRING EQ: Mason Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT MASON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SPRING EQ LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-01833-MWC-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Sept. 26, 2025, will move for class certification. Specifically, the Plaintiff requests that the Court entered an order: (1) certifying the Class under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3); (2) appointing himself as representative of the Class; (3) appointing Sabita J. Soneji and Gemma Seidita of Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Christopher Berman of Shamis & Gentile, P.A., and Scott Edelsberg of Edelsberg Law, P.A. as Class Counsel; (4) directing the Parties to jointly submit a proposed Notice Plan within 60 days of the Court's Order granting this Motion; and (5) providing all other and further relief the Court deems equitable and just. The Plaintiff seeks certification of the following Class under Rule 23(a) and (b)(2)-(3): "All persons in the United States who, within the four years prior to filing of this action: (1) were sent a text message by or on behalf of Defendant; (2) more than one time within any 12-month period; (3) where the person's cellular telephone number had been listed on the National Do Not Call registry for at least thirty days; (4) for the purpose of selling Defendant's products or services; and (5) whose cellular telephone number Defendant obtained solely from LendingTree. The Class excludes Defendant and its employees or agents, the Honorable Michelle Williams Court, and any and all court staff would otherwise qualify as putative class members." Spring is a retail mortgage lender. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mlSz0P at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sabita J. Soneji, Esq. Gemma Seidita, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 254-6808 E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com gseidita@tzlegal.com - and – Christopher Berman, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: cberman@shamisgentile.com - and – Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 1925 Century Park E, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2740 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com STEVE REAMS: Otto Seeks to Certify Class Action ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Esron Otto, v. Steve Reams, Weld County Sheriff, Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General of Colorado, Case No. 1:25-cv-02502-RTG (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff ask the Court to enter an order certifying class action. dated Aug. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S01UtB at no extra charge.[CC] STEVEN RAGA: Kulisz Files Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Steven Raga, et al. The case is styled as Magdalena Kulisz, Shahar Kenan, doing business as: Miss Immigrant USA, Individually, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Steven Raga, in his individual and official capacity as New York State Assembly Member; John Doe(s); XYZ Organization(s) 1-10; Case No. 1:25-cv-06821-UA (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 18, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights Act. Steven Raga is an American politician and academic serving as a member of the New York State Assembly for the 30th district.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. TALEN ENERGY: Faces Labor Market Antitrust Suit in Maryland ----------------------------------------------------------- Talen Energy Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it was named as one of the nuclear power generator defendants in a labor market antitrust class action lawsuit in a Maryland court. On July 11, 2025, two individuals filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against Human Resources Consultants, LLC, Accelerant Technologies, and 26 nuclear power companies, including Talen, alleging that since at least May 2003 the defendants conspired to fix and suppress employee wages and benefits in violation of federal antitrust law. The proposed class includes a wide range of nuclear power generation workers, such as nuclear operators, engineers, and technicians, who were compensated with hourly wages or annual salaries, as well as benefits and other forms of compensation. The complaint alleges that the nuclear power operators used Accelerant and HR Consultants to facilitate a conspiracy to exchange employee compensation data and held in-person meetings where the power companies aligned on wage schedules, suppressed wages, and fixed compensation. The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, injunctive relief, a declaratory judgment that the defendants' conduct violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, attorneys' fees, and costs of suit. Talen believes the alleged claims are without merit and will vigorously defend itself. TELEXELECTRIC: Default Judgment Bid Filing in Abdelgadir Extended ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Abdelgadir, et al., v. Telexelectric, L.L.L.P., et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-40028 (D. Mass., Filed Feb. 18, 2015), the Hon. Mag. Judge Katherine A. Robertson entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file motions for Default Judgment against Defaulted Defendants. The Court says that with the denial of Plaintiff's motion for class certification, the course of future proceedings is uncertain. In these circumstances, the Plaintiff's motion is granted. The Defaulted Defendants include Ana Paula Oliveira, Bank Card Consultants, Inc., Priority Payout, Corp., Thomas A. Wells, John Yurick, Andreia B. Moreira, and Amy Rountree in Case No. 4:14-md-02566-NMG. Default entered against the Defaulted Defendants on June 20, 2023, and Jan. 9, 2024. The Defendants Ana Paula Oliviera, Bank Card Consultants, Inc., Priority Payout, Corp., Thomas A. Wells, John Yurick, and Amy Rountree have not responded to this motion. The Defendant Moreira filed an opposition that alleges a settlement agreement between Plaintiff and Moreira and seeks an investigatory evidentiary hearing into any use Plaintiff made of statements made to Plaintiff's counsel by Moreira. Default entered against Moreira on Jan. 9, 2024. A party against whom default has entered may not plead or otherwise participate in a court action unless and until the default is set aside. Moreira has not moved to set aside the entry of default against her and, having failed to do so, cannot seek relief from the court. Even if Moreira was entitled to seek relief from the court -- and, as a defendant against whom default has entered, she is not -- she has not moved to enforce a settlement agreement. Further, while Moreira's counsel may bring alleged misconduct by counsel for an opposing party to the court's attention, he is not entitled to have the court schedule an evidentiary hearing at which he personally conducts an inquiry into the conduct of opposing counsel. Moreira's grounds for opposing the motion to extend the time for Plaintiff to seek a default judgment against her are not properly before the court and, in any event, lack merit. The nature of sui states Diversity-Fraud. Telexfree was a multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme disguised as an internet phone service company.[CC] TELEXELECTRIC: Default Judgment Bid Filing in Ferguson Extended --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ferguson, et al., v. Telexelectric, LLLP et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-40138 (D. Mass., Filed Sept. 24, 2014), the Hon. Mag. Judge Katherine A. Robertson entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file motions for Default Judgment against Defaulted Defendants. The Court says that with the denial of Plaintiff's motion for class certification, the course of future proceedings is uncertain. In these circumstances, the Plaintiff's motion is granted. The Defaulted Defendants include Ana Paula Oliveira, Bank Card Consultants, Inc., Priority Payout, Corp., Thomas A. Wells, John Yurick, Andreia B. Moreira, and Amy Rountree in Case No. 4:14-md-02566-NMG. Default entered against the Defaulted Defendants on June 20, 2023, and Jan. 9, 2024. The Defendants Ana Paula Oliviera, Bank Card Consultants, Inc., Priority Payout, Corp., Thomas A. Wells, John Yurick, and Amy Rountree have not responded to this motion. The Defendant Moreira filed an opposition that alleges a settlement agreement between Plaintiff and Moreira and seeks an investigatory evidentiary hearing into any use Plaintiff made of statements made to Plaintiff's counsel by Moreira. Default entered against Moreira on Jan. 9, 2024. A party against whom default has entered may not plead or otherwise participate in a court action unless and until the default is set aside. Moreira has not moved to set aside the entry of default against her and, having failed to do so, cannot seek relief from the court. Even if Moreira was entitled to seek relief from the court -- and, as a defendant against whom default has entered, she is not -- she has not moved to enforce a settlement agreement. Further, while Moreira's counsel may bring alleged misconduct by counsel for an opposing party to the court's attention, he is not entitled to have the court schedule an evidentiary hearing at which he personally conducts an inquiry into the conduct of opposing counsel. Moreira's grounds for opposing the motion to extend the time for Plaintiff to seek a default judgment against her are not properly before the court and, in any event, lack merit. The nature of suit states Securities Fraud. Telexfree was a multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme disguised as an internet phone service company.[CC] TELEXELECTRIC: Default Judgment Bid in Dos Santos Filing Extended ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dos Santos v. Telexelectric LLLP, et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-13614 (D. Mass., Oct. 21, 2015), the Hon. Mag. Judge Katherine A. Robertson entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file motions for Default Judgment against Defaulted Defendants. The Court says that with the denial of Plaintiff's motion for class certification, the course of future proceedings is uncertain. In these circumstances, the Plaintiff's motion is granted. The Defaulted Defendants include Ana Paula Oliveira, Bank Card Consultants, Inc., Priority Payout, Corp., Thomas A. Wells, John Yurick, Andreia B. Moreira, and Amy Rountree in Case No. 4:14-md-02566-NMG. Default entered against the Defaulted Defendants on June 20, 2023, and Jan. 9, 2024. The Defendants Ana Paula Oliviera, Bank Card Consultants, Inc., Priority Payout, Corp., Thomas A. Wells, John Yurick, and Amy Rountree have not responded to this motion. The Defendant Moreira filed an opposition that alleges a settlement agreement between Plaintiff and Moreira and seeks an investigatory evidentiary hearing into any use Plaintiff made of statements made to Plaintiff's counsel by Moreira. Default entered against Moreira on Jan. 9, 2024. A party against whom default has entered may not plead or otherwise participate in a court action unless and until the default is set aside. Moreira has not moved to set aside the entry of default against her and, having failed to do so, cannot seek relief from the court. Even if Moreira was entitled to seek relief from the court -- and, as a defendant against whom default has entered, she is not -- she has not moved to enforce a settlement agreement. Further, while Moreira's counsel may bring alleged misconduct by counsel for an opposing party to the court's attention, he is not entitled to have the court schedule an evidentiary hearing at which he personally conducts an inquiry into the conduct of opposing counsel. Moreira's grounds for opposing the motion to extend the time for Plaintiff to seek a default judgment against her are not properly before the court and, in any event, lack merit. The nature of sui states Diversity-Fraud. Telexfree was a multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme disguised as an internet phone service company.[CC] TESLA INC: Matsko Wins Bid for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Matsko v. Tesla, Inc., et al. (RE TESLA ADVANCED DRIVER ASSISTANCE SYSTEMS LITIGATION), Case No. 3:22-cv-05240-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification subject to the modified class definitions. The Court appoints Plaintiff Thomas LoSavio as the representative of the certified classes. The Court appoints Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Casey Gerry Francavilla Blatt LLP, and Bottini & Bottini, Inc. as class counsel. Within 14 days of the date of this Order, the Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint that amends the class definition to comport with the Court's certified class definitions. The Plaintiff may not make any other substantive changes to the complaint without court approval. The case management conference is reset for Sept. 24, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. The parties shall file a joint case management statement by Sept. 17, 2025. The case involves putative class action claims regarding the Defendant's allegedly misleading statements about the full self-driving capability of its vehicles. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, alleges that Tesla's conduct violates California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), and False Advertising Law ("FAL"), and further constitutes fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and negligence. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on May 6, 2025. The Court certifies the following two 23(b)(3) classes: California Arbitration Opt-Out Class: "All persons who purchased or leased from Tesla, Inc. (or any entity it directly or indirectly owns or controls, including but not limited to Tesla Lease Trust and Tesla Finance LLC) a Tesla vehicle and paid a separate amount, either through purchase or subscription, for the Full Self Driving technology package at any time from May 19, 2017, to July 31, 2024, and who either purchased or leased that vehicle in California or who currently reside in California, who opted out of Tesla's arbitration agreement." California Pre-Arbitration Class: "All persons who purchased or leased from Tesla, Inc. (or any entity it directly or indirectly owns or controls, including but not limited to Tesla Lease Trust and Tesla Finance LLC) a Tesla vehicle and paid a separate amount, either through purchase or subscription, for the Full Self-Driving technology package at any time from October 20, 2016, through May 19, 2017 ("Pre-Arbitration Period"), and who either purchased or leased that vehicle in California or who currently reside in California." The Court certifies the following 23(b)(2) class: "All members of the California Arbitration Opt-Out Class and California Pre-Arbitration Class, who have stated that they would like to purchase or subscribe to FSD in the future but cannot rely on the product's future advertising or labelling." Tesla designs, develops, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes, sells, and leases electric vehicles under the brand name "Tesla." A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vidN1d at no extra charge.[CC] TOI SPA LLC: Campbell Sues Over Unlawful Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------- Andree Campbell, and all others similarly situated v. Toi Spa LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Case No. 0:25-cv-61727-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 27, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with websites. However, Defendant's Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. Accordingly, Defendant's Website was incompatible with Plaintiff's screen reading software and keyboard. The fact that Plaintiff could not communicate with or within the Website left Plaintiff feeling excluded, frustrated, and humiliated, and gave Plaintiff a sense of isolation and segregation, as Plaintiff is unable to participate in the same online experience, with the same access to the sales, services, discounts, as provided at the Website and in the physical cafes as the non-visually disabled public, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times, has been blind and visually disabled. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls a chain of 12 U.S.-based day spas offering high-end spa services, including the wellness and beauty center.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aleksandra Kravets, Esq. ALEKSANDRA KRAVETS, ESQ. P.A. 865 SW 113 Lane Pembroke Pines, FL 33025 Phone: 347-268-9533 Email: ak@akesqpa.com TOQUE BLANCHE: Faces Bowman Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- TANISIA BOWMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Toque Blanche, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09687 (N.D. Ill., August 14, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.mytoque.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of cookware on Mytoque.com. Despite her efforts, however, she was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. She asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by her and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, incorrectly formatted lists, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, the lack of navigation links, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Toque Blanche'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. Toque Blanche, Inc. operates the website that offers a range of kitchenware products, including cookware, bakeware, cutlery, kitchen tools, appliances, table and bar items, and gourmet foods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: achan@ealg.law TOYOTA MOTOR: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert. Bid by Nov. 5 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gamez, et al., v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01464 (E.D. Cal., Filed July 21, 2023), the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an order that: -- The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification no later than Nov. 5, 2025 -- The Defendant shall file its opposition no later than Jan. 16, 2026. The suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Motor Vehicle Product Liability. Toyota is the North American Toyota sales, marketing, and distribution subsidiary devoted to the United States market.[CC] TRACY LOGISTICS: Picou Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Donte Picou, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. TRACY LOGISTICS LLC, an entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UWT-2025-0007555 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on Aug. 20, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-at-01102. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges eight purported causes of action for: disability discrimination in violation of Cal. Gov't. Code Section 12940, et seq.; failure to accommodate disability in violation of Cal. Gov't. Code Section 12940(m); failure to engage in interactive process in violation of Cal. Gov't. Code Section 12940(n); failure to prevent retaliation in violation of Cal. Gov't. Code Section 12940(k); retaliation in violation of Cal. Gov't. Code Section 12940(h); interference and retaliation for taking CFRA leave in violation of Cal. Gov't. Code Section 12945.2; wrongful discharge in violation of public policy; and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq. (the "UCL").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew C. Kane, Esq. Amy E. Beverlin, Esq. Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310.820.8800 Facsimile: 310.820.8859 Email: mkane@bakerlaw.com abeverlin@bakerlaw.com ksakaue@bakerlaw.com - and - Sylvia J. Kim, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Transamerica Pyramid 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94111-2806 Phone: 415.659.2600 Facsimile: 415.659.2601 Email: sjkim@bakerlaw.com TREACE MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Fla. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Treace Medical Concepts, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against a securities class action lawsuit pending in a Florida court. On April 11, 2025, a shareholder filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (captioned McCluney v. Treace Medical Concepts, Inc. et al. Case No. 3:25-cv-00390-WWB-PDB) against the Company and certain of its officers on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock between May 8, 2023 and May 7, 2024 alleging that the Company and certain of its officers violated the federal securities laws by making false or misleading statements and failing to disclose material adverse facts about our business, operations and prospects. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. On July 1, 2025, the court appointed the lead plaintiff and legal counsel. An amended complaint was filed on July 31, 2025. The action is in the preliminary stage, and the time for defendants to respond to the complaint has not yet passed. "We dispute the allegations in the complaint and intend to defend against this complaint vigorously. Based on the preliminary nature of the proceedings in this action, the outcome remains uncertain, and we cannot reasonably estimate the potential impact, if any, on our business or financial statements at this time. We are insured, in excess of a self-retention, for Directors and Officers liability," the Company stated. TREASURE COAST: Fails to Provide Consumer Reports, Lefkowitz Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE LEFKOWITZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TREASURE COAST COMMUNITY HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 9:25-cv-81037 (S.D. Fla., August 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of taking adverse employment action, without first providing a copy of the Consumer Report to the Plaintiff. According to the complaint, the Defendant relied on information in Consumer Reports to make decisions regarding the Plaintiff, and other prospective or current employees, including, in whole or in part, as a basis for adverse employment action; such as a refusal to hire and/or termination. The Defendant's actions deprived the Plaintiff of a meaningful opportunity to invoke the discretion of the decision maker before the job offer was withdrawn. The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and all other relief available pursuant to the FCRA. Treasure Coast Community Health is a healthcare services provider based in Vero Beach, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica Wallace, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 20200 West Dixie Highway, Suite 902 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (786) 410-6930 Email: jwallace@sirillp.com TRIDENT SECURITY: Campiran Sues Over Unprovided COBRA Notice ------------------------------------------------------------ Gabriel Campiran and Nate Dirks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRIDENT SECURITY SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-01407-MHH (N.D. Ala., Aug. 21, 2025), is brought against the Defendant, for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), as amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 ("COBRA"), by failing to timely provide Plaintiff and similarly situated persons with a COBRA notice. The failure to provide a timely and compliant COBRA notice misled Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons and caused Plaintiffs and those similarly situated economic injuries in the form of lost health insurance and unpaid medical bills, as well as informational injuries. The Defendant has repeatedly violated ERISA by failing to timely provide participants and beneficiaries in the Plan with adequate notice, as prescribed by COBRA, of their right to continue their health coverage upon the occurrence of a "qualifying event" as defined by the statute. The Defendant's failures to provide any COBRA notification deprived Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons the opportunity to make an informed decision about the healthcare options for themselves and their families. As a result of these ongoing violations, which threaten Class Members' ability to maintain their health insurance coverage, Plaintiffs seek statutory penalties, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and other appropriate relief and provided by law, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendant. Trident Security Solutions, LLC is the sponsor and administrator of the Plan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. Gunter, Esq. Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Avenue, 16th Floor Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 236-0946 Facsimile: (407) 867-4791 Email: MGunter@forthepeople.com MEdelman@forthepeople.com TRIPLE CANOPY: Class Cert Class Bid Filing Extended in Williams --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY WILLIAMS et al., v. TRIPLE CANOPY, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01633-RBW (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order that: (1) The motion to enlarge the period for filing a motion for class certification is granted; (2) The Plaintiffs be permitted to file their motion for class certification at a date to be set at the Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) Conference; and (3) for any such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate. Triple is a privately held American security and risk management company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N1HkgC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott Kamins, Esq. Sarah R. Goodman, Esq. OFFIT KURMAN P.A. 7021 Columbia Gateway Dr. Suite 200 Columbia, MD 21046 Telephone: (301) 575-0347 E-mail: skamins@offitkurman.com sarah.goodman@offitkurman.com TVI INC: Welch Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TVI, Inc. The case is styled as Daniel Welch, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. TVI, Inc. d/b/a Savers Value Village, Case No. 250803282 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas Cty., Aug. 27, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. TVI Pacific Inc. -- https://tvipacific.com/ -- is a publicly-listed Canadian company focused on the acquisition of interests in large-scale resource projects in the Asia Pacific region.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Phone: (215) 884-2491 Email: mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com TWITTER INC: Reply to Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 10 ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROLINA BERNAL STRIFLING and WILLOW WREN TURKAL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TWITTER, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-07739-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order revising briefing and hearing schedule as follows: Event Date Opp./Experts re Motion for Class Cert.: Sept. 19, 2025 Expert deadline re Class Cert.: Oct. 3, 2025 Reply re Motion for Class Cert.: Oct. 10, 2025 Hearing re Motion for Class Cert.: Nov. 13, 2025 On April 25, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification, which included as attachments various arbitration awards involving the Defendant and other clients of the Plaintiffs' counsel, which the Defendant contends are confidential. On May 5, 2025, the Defendant filed its motion to strike the arbitration awards that Plaintiffs filed in support of their Motion for Class Certification. On May 13, 2025, the Parties stipulated to continue the briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification until after the Court ruled on the Defendant's Motion to Strike. On May 14, 2025, the Court entered an Order revising the briefing schedule for the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Twitter provides online social networking and microblogging service. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UoYs1v at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Thomas Fowler, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com tfowler@llrlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Eric Meckley, Esq. Brian D. Berry, Esq. Roshni C. Kapoor, Esq. Ashlee N. Cherry, Esq. Carolyn M. Corcoran, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 2222 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 E-mail: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com brian.berry@morganlewis.com roshni.kapoor@morganlewis.com ashlee.cherry@morganlewis.com carolyn.corcoran@morganlewis.com TZ INSURANCE: McConnell Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------- Amanda McConnell, for herself and on behalf of those similarly situated v. TZ INSURANCE SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:25-cv-14894 (D.N.J., Aug. 25, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) to recover unpaid overtime and liquidated damages owed. The Defendant employed Plaintiff but failed to pay her all overtime pay required by the FLSA. Specifically, Defendant’s practice of failing to include commissions paid in the regular rate, when calculating Plaintiff’s overtime rate, violates the FLSA. In addition, Defendant’s practice of requiring Plaintiff to complete a training course off-the-clock, when such training, if properly counted as “hours worked” would constitute overtime, violates the FLSA. Further, Defendant’s practice of retroactively changing commission rates after Plaintiff made commissionable sales, and thereby failing to pay all owed commissions, breaches Defendant’s contractual obligations to Plaintiff, or, in the alternative, constitutes an unjust enrichment to Defendant, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a licensed insurance agent from March 27, 2023 through May 6, 2025. TZ INSURANCE, was, and continues to be, a Foreign Limited Liability Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. Angeli Murthy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Phone: (954) WORKERS Fax: (954) 327-3016 Email: afrisch@forthepeople.com amurthy@forthepeople.com ULTA SALON: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due July 30, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA ELIZABETH BONEZZI, v. ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC., et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-06916-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order setting the following case deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and Civil Local Rule 16-10: Event Deadline Deadline to add parties or amend the Aug. 19, 2025 Pleadings: Class certification motion and July 30, 2026 Plaintiffs' expert disclosures due: Class certification opposition and the Sept. 24, 2026 Defendants' expert disclosures due: Expert discovery cut-off: Oct. 22, 2026 Class certification reply due: Nov. 19, 2026 Fact discovery cut-off: Feb. 26, 2027 Ulta is an American chain of cosmetic stores. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hjA9SM at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Expert Discovery Deadline in Tang Due Oct. 2 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TONY TANG and GILBERTO TORRES GOMEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:23-cv-09885-LTS-RFT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Robyn Tarnofsky entered an amended case management plan and scheduling order: -- All fact discovery is to be completed no later than June 30, 2025. -- Interrogatories shall be served by Aug. 30, 2024, except that contention interrogatories pursuant to Local Rule 33.3(c) shall be served within 10 days of the Court issuing a ruling on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and for Judgment on the Pleadings (July 3, 2024). -- Depositions (except expert depositions) shall be completed by June 30, 2025. -- All expert discovery, including disclosures, reports, production of underlying documents, and depositions shall be completed by Oct. 2, 2025. -- All discovery shall be completed no later than Oct. 2, 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DsiGbt at no extra charge.[CC] UTILITY TRAFFIC CONTROL: Moore Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sean Moore, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UTILITY TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICES, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CGC-25-626696 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Aug. 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-06975. The Plaintiff's California Labor Code claims, pursuant to Section 301 of the Federal Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"). The Plaintiff's first cause of action alleges Defendant failed to pay all compensation for each hour worked. The Plaintiff's overtime claim is also preempted. The Plaintiff's claim based on Defendant's alleged failure to provide meal periods under Labor Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Aaron B. Silva, Esq. Matthew H. Green, Esq. MURPHY AUSTIN ADAMS SCHOENFELD LLP 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 850 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 446-2300 Fax (916) 503-4000 Email: asilva@murphyaustin.com mgreen@murphyaustin.com VARRO LEON: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Jan. 8, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRIS LACCINOLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. WAYNE M. LOPEZ d/b/a VARRO LEON, Case No. 3:24-cv-07764-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order granting joint motion to extend all pending deadlines: Event Deadlines The Plaintiff's expert disclosures: Nov. 13, 2025 The Defendant's expert disclosures: Dec. 11, 2025 The Plaintiff's Motion for class certification: Jan. 8, 2026 The Defendant's response to motion for class Feb. 12, 2026 Certification: The Plaintiff's reply in support of motion Mar. 3, 2026 for class certification: Hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class Mar. 18, 2026 certification: A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LBLBxd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 23586 Calabasas Rd., Suite 105 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Eric J. Troutman, Esq. Puja Amin, Esq. Brittany A. Andres, Esq. TROUTMAN AMIN, LLP 400 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1550 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 350-3663 Facsimile: (949) 203-8689 E-mail: troutman@troutmanamin.com amin@troutmanamin.com brittany@troutmanamin.com VECTOR SECURITY: Andes Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI ------------------------------------------------------------ Susan Andes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VECTOR SECURITY, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01287 (W.D. Pa., Aug. 21, 2025), is brought against Vector Security for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former customers' ("Class Members") sensitive information, including names, Social Security numbers, driver's license or state issued identification numbers, credit/debit card numbers with security/access code, and tax identification numbers (collectively personally identifiable information ("PII")). In addition, Plaintiff also brings this class action against Vector Security for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information ("PHI") including medical information and health insurance information. Despite Vector Security's duty to safeguard the Private Information of its current and previous customers, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was compromised in a data breach when, on or about December 17, 2024, Vector Security "detected unauthorized activity in our information technology (IT) systems" (the "Data Breach"). The Data Breach occurred in part because Vector Security stored Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information in an unencrypted, Internet accessible environment. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to implement and follow basic security procedures, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information is now exposed to cybercriminals. The Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, intrusion of their health privacy, and similar forms of criminal mischief, risk which may last for the rest of their lives. Consequently, Plaintiff and Class Members must devote substantially more time, money, and energy to protect themselves, to the extent possible, from these crimes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received a data breach notice informing her that her Private Information provided to Vector Security was compromised during the Data Breach. Vector Security is a privately held security company that provides electronic security services for residential and commercial customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Stephen E. Connolly, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Ave, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: 412-322-9243 Email: jerry@lcllp.com steve@lcllp.com VIBRANTCARE REHABILITATION: Seeks Denial of Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as COLLEEN WILLIAMS, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act; v. VIBRANTCARE REHABILITATION, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-01179-DC-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Defendants, on Oct. 3, 2025, will move the Court for an order denying class certification. The Defendant contends that an order denying class certification is warranted because there is no evidence that the proposed class meets the standard for class treatment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. More specifically, the proposed class lacks commonality under Rule 23(b)(3), and individual questions predominate regarding the boilerplate and unsupported claims for unpaid wages (based on alleged "off-the-clock" work), non-compliant meal and rest breaks, unreimbursed expenses, and for derivative statutory penalties. The claims also fail to satisfy Rule 23(a)(3), as they are not typical of the class Plaintiff seeks to represent. Moreover, the Plaintiff is an inadequate class representative. She worked in a three-person Billing Department at the former Central Billing Office (which has since been closed and divided across Arizona and Texas), whereas most of the putative class worked in more than 20 distinct outpatient clinics and onsite at client locations. VibrantCare is a physical therapy provider. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vkoaIm at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Justin T. Curley, Esq. Geoffrey C. Westbrook, Esq. Annette L. Rose, Esq. Kyle W. Owen, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 E-mail: jcurley@seyfarth.com gwestbrook@seyfarth.com arose@seyfarth.com kowen@seyfarth.com VITAC CORP: Seeks Leave to File Conditional Certification Response ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATELYN ANDERSON, v. VITAC CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-00329-PAB-NRN (D. Colo.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to leave to file a response to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification on or by Sept. 10, 2025. The Plaintiff's counsel filed the Motion for Conditional Certification on June 30, 2025, and then re-filed it on July 1, 2025, with declarations. The Plaintiff defined the class as: "All current and former closed captioners who worked for Defendant for its Colorado locations, at any time within the past three years, and were paid on a piece-rate basis without separate compensation for pre-shift preparation work." VITAC provides services such as closed captioning, dubbing, and audio description services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jlufrP at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Melisa H. Panagakos, Esq. Emely Y. Garcia, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 1400 Wewatta Street, Suite 900 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 892-0404 Facsimile: (303) 409-3833 E-mail: Melisa.Panagakos@jacksonlewis.com Emely.Garcia@jacksonlewis.com VONS COMPANIES: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Sandoval Due Dec. 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERTO SANDOVAL CARRILLO, v. THE VONS COMPANIES, INC., et al., Case No. 8:25-cv-00191-SRM-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Serena R. Murillo entered a scheduling order regarding the Parties' joint Rule 26(f) report, amended joint Rule 26(f) report [25], and class certification motion and hearing deadlines: Event Deadline Last Date to Hear Motion to Amend Sept. 16, 2025 Pleadings or Add Parties: Class Certification – Discovery Cut-off: Oct. 1, 2025 Class Certification – Motion for Dec. 3, 2025 Class Certification Deadline: Class Certification – Opposition Deadline: Jan. 7, 2026 Class Certification – Reply Deadline: Feb. 11, 2026 Class Certification Motion Hearing: Mar. 4, 2026 The parties are permitted to conduct pre-certification discovery to determine the scope and size of the putative class, as well as whether Plaintiff can meet the prerequisites of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. All merits discovery is stayed pending resolution of the class certification motion, the Court says. Vons is a Southern California-based supermarket chain. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AxSECY at no extra charge.[CC] VOYA FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Ravarino" ---------------------------------------------- Voya Financial, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself in the putative class action lawsuit styled Ravarino, et al. v. Voya Financial, Inc., et al. (USDC District of Connecticut, No. 3:21-cv-01658)(filed December 14, 2021). In this putative class action, the plaintiffs allege that the named defendants breached their fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty in the administration of the Voya 401(k) Savings Plan. The plaintiffs claim that the named defendants did not exercise proper prudence in their management of allegedly poorly performing investment options, including proprietary funds, and passed excessive investment-management and other administrative fees for proprietary and non-proprietary funds onto plan participants. The plaintiffs also allege that the defendants engaged in self-dealing through the inclusion of the Voya Stable Value Option into the plan offerings and by setting the "crediting rate" for participants' investment in the Stable Value Fund artificially low in relation to Voya's general account investment returns in order to maximize the spread and Voya's profits at the participants' expense. The complaint seeks disgorgement of unjust profits as well as costs incurred. On June 13, 2023, the Court issued a ruling granting in part and denying in part Voya's motion to dismiss. The court largely dismissed the claims for breach of fiduciary duty. The remaining claims concern allegations of breaches of the ERISA prohibited transactions rule and a claim for failure to monitor the Voya Small Cap Growth fund. The Company continues to deny the allegations, which it believes are without merit, and intends to defend the case vigorously. VROOM INC: Securities Suits in New York Closed ---------------------------------------------- Vroom, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the securities class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York have been closed. Beginning in March 2021, multiple putative class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by certain of the Company's stockholders against the Company and certain of the Company's officers alleging violations of federal securities laws. The lawsuits were captioned Zawatsky et al. v. Vroom, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-cv-2477; Holbrook v. Vroom, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-cv-2551; and Hudda v. Vroom, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-cv-3296. All three of the lawsuits asserted similar claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5. In each case, the named plaintiff(s) sought to represent a proposed class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities during a period from June 9, 2020 to March 3, 2021 (in the case of Holbrook and Hudda), or November 11, 2020 to March 3, 2021 (in the case of Zawatsky). In August 2021, the Court consolidated the cases under the new name In re: Vroom, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 21-cv-2477, appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel and ordered a consolidated amended complaint to be filed. The court-appointed lead plaintiff subsequently filed a consolidated amended complaint that reasserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5 against the Company and certain of the Company's officers, and added new claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act against the Company, certain of its officers, certain of its directors, and the underwriters of the Company's September 2020 secondary offering. On March 19, 2025, the Court entered an order granting Vroom's motion to dismiss all claims, and the plaintiffs elected not to file a motion to amend their complaint. Thereafter, on May 30, 2025, the Court entered a final judgment of dismissal, for which the time period to appeal has expired. Accordingly, the cases have been closed. WEBTPA EMPLOYER: $13.75MM Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID HARRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WEBTPA EMPLOYER SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01158-L-BN (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Sam A. Lindsay entered an order Granting motion for preliminary approval of claim action settlement: 1. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 23(a), 23(b)(3), and 23(e), and for purposes of settlement only, the Action is preliminarily certified as a class action on behalf of the following Settlement Class and California Settlement Subclass: Settlement Class: "All persons in the United States who were sent notification from the Defendants that their Private Information was potentially compromised as a result of the Data Incident." California Settlement Subclass: "Those Members of the Settlement Class residing in California on April 18, 2023–April 23, 2023." Excluded from the Settlement Class are (a) all persons who are governing board members of the Defendants; (b) governmental entities; and (c) the court, the court's immediate family, and court staff. 2. The Settlement provides for a non-reversionary $13,750,000 common cash Settlement Fund for the benefit of the Settlement Class that Defendants shall deposit or cause to be paid under the Settlement. 3. The court will hold a final approval hearing on Nov. 19, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. WebTPA is an insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OOnHbx at no extra charge.[CC] WELLS FARGO: Morris Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY MORRIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. 4:23-cv-03277-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the discovery schedule through the briefing of the class certification motion: Event Proposed Deadline Close of fact discovery: April 13, 2026 Deadline for the Plaintiff's motion for May 12, 2026 class certification, and for disclosures and reports of any experts Plaintiff intends to rely on at class certification: Deadline for Defendants' opposition to a July 6, 2026 motion for class certification; for Defendants' disclosures and reports of any experts Defendants intend to rely on at class certification; and for any motion by Defendants to limit or exclude Plaintiff's class certification expert testimony based on Daubert or any other basis: Deadline for Plaintiff's reply in support of Aug. 6, 2026 a motion for class certification; deadline for Plaintiff to challenge Defendants' class certification expert testimony based on Daubert or any other basis: Hearing on motion for class certification At the Court's discretion On Jan. 7, 2025, the Parties filed their joint case management statement that contained the Parties' proposed case schedule. The Court entered a scheduling order on Jan. 27, 2025 that set fact discovery to close by Aug. 11, 2025. Per the Court's scheduling order, fact discovery ended on Aug. 11, 2025. Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EbxoJe at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean P. Baldwin, Esq. Danny Shokry, Esq. Zachary Smith, Esq. Drake Reed, Esq. Jacob Maiman-Stadtmauer, Esq. SELENDY GAY PLLC 1290 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10104 Telephone: (212) 390-9000 Facsimile: (212) 390-9399 E-mail: sbaldwin@selendygay.com dshokry@selendygay.com dreed@selendygay.com jmaimanstadtmauer@selendygay.com - and - Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Facundo M. Scialpi, Esq. Shawn A. Williams, Esq. Chad Johnson, Esq. Noam Mandel, Esq. Desiree Cummings, Esq. Jonathan Zweig, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 225 N.E. Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com fscialpi@rgrdlaw.com shawnw@rgrdlaw.com ChadJ@rgrdlaw.com Noam@rgrdlaw.com DCummings@rgrdlaw.com JZweig@rgrdlaw.com - and - Christopher Ayers, Esq. Steven J. Daroci, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (973) 639-9100 Facsimile: (973) 679-8656 E-mail: cayers@seegerweiss.com sdaroci@seegerweiss.com The Defendants are represented by: Amanda L. Groves, Esq. Kobi K. Brinson, Esq. Stacie C. Knight, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue, 38th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 615-1700 Facsimile: (213) 615-1750 E-mail: agroves@winston.com kbrinson@winston.com sknight@winston.com WELLS FARGO: Williams Appeals Class Cert. Order to 9th Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS is taking an appeal from a court order denying his motion to certify class in the lawsuit styled In Re Wells Fargo Mortgage Discrimination Litigation, Case No. 33:22-cv-00990-JD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case arises from the Defendants' alleged racially discriminatory residential mortgage policies and practices in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Several other lawsuits were then filed, covering both Black and other minority (and female) borrowers and applicants. The Court granted the Defendant's motion to deem these cases related. Then, the Defendant moved to consolidate the cases, arguing that all "share common questions of law" that were "at the core of each case. The parties stipulated to 60-page certification briefs, as discovery involved more than 160,000 documents, gigabytes of data, and 38 depositions. The Court denied the request, restricting the Plaintiffs to 30 pages to present their case for certifying the all minorities. On August 5, 2025, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' thus-shortened class certification motion. The Court reasoned that the Plaintiffs' disparate impact claims "came to naught" because they "did not present any class-wide evidence whatsoever of "robust causality." Rather, the Court concluded the Plaintiffs had overly focused on statistical disparities "without anything in the way of explanatory factors." The appellate case is entitled In Re Wells Fargo Mortgage Discrimination Litigation, Case No. 25-5262, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on August 19, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Linda D. Friedman, Esq. Suzanne E. Bish, Esq. George S. Robqt, Esq. STOWELL & FRIEDMAN, LTD. 303 W. Madison Street, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 431-0888 WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Court Maintains Prior Class Cert Definition ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM RUSHING, et al., v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01421-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an order denying WSI's motion to modify the class definition on the basis of arbitration agreements. WSI has not met its burden to establish what a consumer would have seen regarding disclosure of WSI's Terms & Conditions ("T&Cs") when using each of the WSI brands' websites or through one or more apps on a mobile device, nor has it shown that the T&Cs were visually conspicuous. For each reason independently, WSI's motion to modify the class definition is denied. Williams-Sonoma sells kitchenware and home furnishings. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EmUVa4 at no extra charge.[CC] WILLIE ROWE: Mediation Scheduling Order Entered in Chaplin Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chaplin, et al., v. WILLIE R. ROWE, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00423 (M.D.N.C., Filed May 23, 2023), the Hon. Judge William L. Osteen, Jr. entered a Mediation Scheduling Order as follows: Mediation should be conducted during the expert discovery phase, following a ruling on Plaintiffs motion for class certification, with the exact date to be set by the mediator after consultation with the parties. Following a ruling on class certification, the parties will meet and confer to discuss the date for mediation and selection of a mutually agreeable mediator.] The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC] WYETH INC: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PROFESSIONAL DRUG COMPANY, INC. v. WYETH, INC. (RE: EFFEXOR XR ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No. 3:11-cv-05479-ZNQ-JBD (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Zahid N. Quraishi entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement. The Court further entered an order: -- Appointing Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs as Settlement Class Representatives; and -- Appointing Carella & Bryne as Lead Counsel. Wyeth was a pharmaceutical company until it was purchased by Pfizer in 2009. The company was founded in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cG6OYO at no extra charge.[CC] XPLR INFRASTRUCTURE: Continues to Defend Calif. Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- XPLR Infrastructure, LP, disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the securities class lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. XPLR and certain former executives of XPLR and certain current and former directors of XPLR and NEE are the named defendants in a purported federal securities class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in July 2025 that seeks unspecified damages alleging that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding XPLR's business model, XPLR distributions and arrangements relating to noncontrolling Class B members' interests under certain limited liability company agreements to which XPLR and certain of its subsidiaries are or were a party. The alleged class includes all persons or entities other than the defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired XPLR securities between September 27, 2023 and January 27, 2025. XPLR plans to vigorously defend against the claims in this proceeding. ********* 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 ***