250909.mbx

250909.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, September 9, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 180 Headlines 1248 HOLDINGS: Class Settlement in Tobler Suit Has Prelim. Approval ADVANCE AUTO: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit ALL WESTCHESTER: Faces Raza Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ALTIUS INSPIRO: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Walters Alleges AMERICAN MULTISPECIALTY: Doering Suit Removed to S.D. California AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend COLCRYS(R) Suit AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Guaifenesin Litigation AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Metformin Suit AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Nitrosamines MDL ASIAN AMERICAN DRUG: Banks Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ATHENA BITCOIN GLOBAL: Faces Class Suit over Financial Scams ATHENA BITCOIN GLOBAL: Faces Consumer Suit over Bitcoin ATM AVEPOINT INC: Class Suit vs. Apex Technology Remains Pending AXT INC: Faces Securities Suit over SEC Disclosures BARRISTER EXEC. SUITES: Romero Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BDO USA: Wins Dismissal of Taylor Suit Over ERISA Fiduciary Claims BLACK & VEATCH: Hernandez Suit Removed to S.D. California BLACKSKY TECHNOLOGY: Suit Relating to Merger Remains Pending BMW FINANCIAL: 6th Cir. Affirms Denial of Arbitration in ORG Suit BOLLINGER INNOVATIONS: Continues to Defend Maloney Class Suit BOOM SHAKALAKA: Huynh Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California BOVIE INC: Discovery in Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing BRAINSTORM CELL: Continues to Defend Sporn Securities Class Suit C3.AI INC: Liggett Files Suit Over Share Price Drop CLARITEV CORPORATION: Discovery Ongoing in Illinois Securities Suit COACH'S VALET: Austin Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages COMPASS GROUP USA: Skinner Sues Over Unlawful Deduction Policy CORTEVA INC: $22MM Settlement in "Baker" Awaits Court OK CORTEVA INC: EIDP's Bid to Dismiss Hardwick Suit Remains Pending CORTEVA INC: Still Defends Water Contamination Suits in Canada CPAP MEDICAL SUPPLIES: Harriman Files Suit in M.D. Florida CRONOS GROUP: Continues to Defend Ontario Class Suit CRONOS GROUP: Settlement in NY Class Suit Pending for Approval CROWDSTRIKE HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Flight Disruption Suit CROWDSTRIKE HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit DICK'S SPORTING: Continues to Defend Plumbers & Pipefitters Suit DOLLAR GENERAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit DOREL HOME: Sauer Sues Over Defective Cosco Kitchen Steppers DRIVEN BRANDS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit DUKE & CO: Faces Rogers Suit Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls ECP OPTOMETRY: Topps Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri ELANCO ANIMAL: Appeal in "Hunter" Remains Pending ELANCO ANIMAL: Appeal in Safron Capital Suit Remains Pending ELANCO ANIMAL: Bid to Dismiss "Barpar" Remains Pending ELI BAKER: Court Approves $4.125M Settlement in Hu and Kelly Suits EMPIRE BLUE CROSS: McCullough Sues Over Unsecured Information EVERGY INC: Faces Nuclear Antitrust Class Action in Maryland FARMERS GROUP: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Schwartz Says FARMERS INSURANCE: Discloses Info to Third Parties, Scott Says FUNKO INC: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Calif. Wage & Hour Suit FUNKO INC: Court Dismisses Securities Suit FUNKO INC: Discovery Ongoing in "Shumacher" FUNKO INC: Parties Await Decision on Appeal in "Studen" GEN DIGITAL: Must Face Reisman TCPA Class Suit Over Text Messages GEO GROUP: Ronduen Seeks to File Docs Provisionally Under Seal GUCCI AMERICA: Ekine Sues for Recovery of Unpaid Wages HARBIN CLINIC: Solomon Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct. HARBORVIEW TOWERS: Court Narrows Claims in Clark, et al. FHA Case HEARTLAND REGIONAL: Winchell Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri HERTZ CORPORATION: Data Breach Suit Remains Pending in Illinois HERTZ CORPORATION: Securities Suit Remains Pending in Florida IEC GROUP: Wins Bid to Dismiss Health Insurance Data Breach Suit INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suits KINDERCARE LEARNING: Thorpe Suit Removed to W.D. Washington L & B TRANSPORT: $220K Settlement in Herrell Suit Has Final Nod LIFEMD INC: Final Approval Hearing of Settlement Set for Sept. 30 LITTLE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Pagan Extended to Nov. 14 LONGS DRUG STORES: Rodriguez Suit Removed to E.D. California LUCID GROUP USA: Milito Suit Removed to W.D. Washington LULULEMON USA: Berdugo Suit Removed to C.D. California LYFT INC: Appeal in NY ADA Suit Remains Pending MADISON REAL ESTATE: Foster Sues Over Accommodation Barriers MAIDEN HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in N.J. MALIBU BOATS: Continues to Defend Customer Complaint Class Suit MALIBU BOATS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in New York MCCLURE'S GARAGE: Teipel Files Suit in Ill. Cir. Ct. MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Padilla Suit Removed to C.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Crable Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Delcambre Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Diruscio Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Dodd Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Franzen Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Martin Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Warren Suit Transferred to N.D. California MUNICIPAL CREDIT: Fernandez Files Suit for Alienage Discrimination NATIONAL VISION: Continues to Defend Georgia Securities Suit NEUEHEALTH INC: Securities Suit Dismissal Appeal Remains Pending NEW EURO: Faces Yoon Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in E.D.N.Y. NEWHALL AVENUE HEALTHCARE: Tarin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NEXTPLAT CORP: Continues to Defend Weisberg Class Suit in Delaware NLC IMPERIAL INC: Alvarez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. OPEN LENDING: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Texas OTTER PRODUCTS: Knowles Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind PERPAY INC: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia PROCTER & GAMBLE: Willis Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio RAY JONES: $450K Settlement in Back FLSA Suit Has Prelim. Approval RB GLOBAL INC: Hayden Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois REALMANAGE LLC: Munoz Suit Removed to S.D. California REGIONAL HEALTH: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit REPLIMUNE GROUP: Continues to Defend Securities Suit ROCKY MOUNTAIN OILS: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website RYVYL INC: Continues to Defend Cullen Class Suit in California SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Settlement in Tax Surplus Suit Has Prelim. OK SANGAMON COUNTY, IL: Link Suit Removed to C.D. Ill. SENTINELONE INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit SILVER CINEMAS: Paulsen Sues Over Accessibility Barriers SSR MINING: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Remains Pending SSR MINING: Liang Shareholder Suit Ongoing in Ontario Court SULLIVAN AUTOMOTIVE GROUP: Younes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SUPER MICRO: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit SUZUKI MOTOR OF AMERICA: Lopez Suit Removed to C.D. California SWEET JULY: Bahena Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SYNERGY INSURANCE: Serratos Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida T-MOBILE US: Court Allows Zajonc to Amend Religious Exemption Suit TALPHERA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Cal. TILEIMPACT INC: Serna Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TRADE DESK: Bid to Dismiss "Gunderson" Remains Pending TRADE DESK: Securities Suits in California Remain Pending UNITED STATES: Sued Over Delayed Processing of REAP Applications UPONOR INC: Riviera Homeowners Balks at Leaks From Pipes' Cracks USA FENCING: Sued Over Biological Men Competing in Women's Events VIATRIS INC: Appeal in Securities Class Suit Remains Pending VIATRIS INC: Faces Securities Class Suit Over Indore Facility VIATRIS INC: Mylan Securities Class Suit Remains Pending VIATRIS INC: Reaches Settlement Framework in Opioid Suit WHOLE SPICE INC: Bahena Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website WM TECHNOLOGY: Nov. 10 Hearing on Bid to Junk Securities Suit ZUMIEZ INC: Hernandez Sues Over Discriminative Website ********* 1248 HOLDINGS: Class Settlement in Tobler Suit Has Prelim. Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jakob Tobler and Michelle McNitt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 1248 Holdings, LLC f/k/a Bicknell Family Holding Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02068-EFM-GEB (D. Kan.), Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas grants the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for certification of a settlement class and for preliminary approval of proposed class action settlement. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement dated July 28, 2025, between the Plaintiffs and Defendants including 1248 Holdings, LLC f/k/a Bicknell Family Holding Company; Mariner Wealth Advisors, LLC f/k/a Mariner Holdings, LLC; Montage Investments, LLC; Mariner, LLC f/k/a Mariner Wealth Advisors, LLC; Mariner Capital Advisors, LLC; Tortoise Capital Advisors, LLC; Tortoiseecofin Parent Holdco LLC; American Century Companies, Inc.; American Century Services, LLC; and American Century Investment Management, Inc. The Court certified a settlement class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) for settlement purposes only. The class is defined as All individuals employed by (1) 1248 Holdings, LLC, Mariner Wealth Advisors, LLC (f/k/a Mariner Holdings, LLC), Montage Investments, LLC and its related entities (including the company formerly known as Mariner Holdings, LLC, as well as companies in which Montage Investments, LLC or Mariner Holdings, LLC had a direct or indirect ownership interest of greater than or equal to 50%), Mariner, LLC, and Mariner Capital Advisors, LLC; (2) Tortoise Capital Advisors, L.L.C.; TortoiseEcofin Parent Holdco LLC; Ecofin Advisors, LLC, Tortoise Credit Strategies, LLC, Tortoise Investments Partners, LLC, Tortoise Index Solutions, LLC; TortoiseEcofin Investments Partners, LLC; Tortoise Securities, LLC, TI Services, LLC, Tortoise Parent Holdco, LLC, and Tortoise Investments, LLC, and/or (3) American Century Companies, Inc.; American Century Services, LLC; and American Century Investment Management, Inc., at any time from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2020. The Court excluded from the settlement class the members of the Defendants' Boards of Directors and C-suite level employees, as well as employees of Defendants who resided outside of the United States for the entire Settlement Class time period. The Court applied the four-factor test from Rutter & Willbanks Corp. v. Shell Oil Co. to assess whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate: (1) whether the proposed settlement was fairly and honestly negotiated; (2) whether serious questions of law and fact exist, placing the ultimate outcome of the litigation in doubt; (3) whether the value of an immediate recovery outweighs the mere possibility of future relief after protracted and expensive litigation; and (4) the judgment of the parties that the settlement is fair and reasonable. The Court found that it will likely be able to approve the proposed Settlement because all the relevant factors weigh in favor of approving the proposed Settlement between Plaintiffs and Defendants." The Court preliminarily approved the settlement as (i) the result of arm's-length negotiations under the guidance of the Hon. Layn R. Phillips (Ret.); (ii) having greater value to the Class than the possibility of relief after protracted litigation, especially given the complex, risky, and expensive nature of antitrust litigation; (iii) fair and reasonable in the judgment of the Settling Parties; (iv) falling within the range of reasonableness warranting preliminary approval; (v) having no obvious deficiencies; and (vi) warranting notice of the proposed Settlement to members of the Class. The Court appointed George A. Hanson, Brad T. Wilders, and Stefon J. David of Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, and Rowdy B. Meeks of Rowdy Meeks Legal Group LLC as Settlement Class Counsel. The Court also appointed Simpluris, Inc. as Settlement Administrator to supervise and administer the notice procedure. The Court ordered that not later than 14 days after entry of this Order, Defendants shall provide the Settlement Class List to the Settlement Administrator." The Court further ordered that Not later than 30 days after entry of this Order, the Settlement Administrator shall issue notice of the settlement via U.S. Mail. The Court scheduled the Final Approval Hearing for December 4, 2025 at 1:30 p.m. in the United States Federal Courthouse, 500 State Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas, Courtroom 440. At the hearing, the Court will consider (i) whether the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) the amount of attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses that the court should award to Class Counsel; (iii) the amount of any service award to plaintiffs; (iv) any objections by members of the Class; and (v) whether to grant final approval to the proposed Settlement. The Court established deadlines including a 30-day period after the notice deadline for class members to opt out or file objections. The Court noted that Class Members do not need to appear at the Final Approval Hearing or take any action to indicate their approval. A copy of the preliminary settlement is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IARNXd from PacerMonitor.com. ADVANCE AUTO: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Advance Auto Parts Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 12, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. On October 9, 2023, and October 27, 2023, two putative class actions on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities who purchased or otherwise acquired their securities between November 16, 2022, and May 30, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"), were commenced against the Company and certain of the Company's former officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made certain false and materially misleading statements during the alleged Class Period in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. These cases were consolidated on February 9, 2024, and the court-appointed lead plaintiff filed a consolidated and amended complaint on April 22, 2024. The consolidated and amended complaint proposes a Class Period of November 16, 2022 to November 15, 2023, and alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements in connection with (a) the Company's 2023 guidance and (b) certain accounting issues previously disclosed by the Company. On June 21, 2024, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated and amended complaint. On January 23, 2025, the motion to dismiss was granted by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. On February 21, 2025, plaintiffs filed an appeal to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Company strongly disputes the allegations and intends to defend the case vigorously. Advance Auto Parts, Inc. engages in the supply and distribution of aftermarket automotive products for both professional installers and do-it-yourself. [BN] ALL WESTCHESTER: Faces Raza Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------- ALI RAZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALL WESTCHESTER MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION INC., S. BROADWAY FRIED CHICKEN INC. d/b/a KICK-N CHICKEN and ARSHAD IQBAL, Defendants, Case No. 7:25-cv-06977 (S.D.N.Y., August 22, 2025) is a wage and hour action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to timely pay wages, failure to provide wage notices, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure to pay spread of hours compensation. The Plaintiff worked as a cook and cashier for Defendants at their restaurant "Kick-N-Chicken" from approximately September 1, 2021, to September 1, 2023. All Westchester Medical Transportation Inc. is a domestic business corporation, licensed to do business and doing business in Westchester County, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford Tucker, Esq. SACCO & FILLAS LLP 3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor Astoria, NY 11102 Telephone: (718) 269-2243 Facsimile: (718) 559-6517 E-mail: CTucker@SaccoFillas.com ALTIUS INSPIRO: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Walters Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- SABRINE WALTERS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALTIUS INSPIRO U.S., INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-CV-00482 (D. Idaho, August 25, 2025) is a collective action that arises out of Defendant's systemic failure to compensate its employees for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked at the appropriate overtime rate, in willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and common law. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to make any effort to stop or disallow the off-the-clock work and instead suffered and permitted it to happen despite knowing their employees performed off-the-clock work before and after their shifts. Unpaid wages related to the off-the-clock work are owed to Plaintiff at the FLSA mandated overtime premium of one and one-half the Plaintiff's regular hourly rate because Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, says the suit. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a remote Global Expert from approximately September 2021 to January 2024. Altius Inspiro U.S., Inc. is a global technology company that, among other things, provides customer service outsourcing services to clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles Johnson, Esq. BIRCH HALLAM HARSTAD & JOHNSON 1516 W. Hays St. Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: (208) 336-1788 Facsimile: (208) 287-3708 E-mail: chad@idahojobjustice.com - and - Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Ethan Goemann, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: egoemann@sommerspc.com AMERICAN MULTISPECIALTY: Doering Suit Removed to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Amy Doering, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN MULTISPECIALTY GROUP, INC. d/b/a ESSE HEALTH, Case No. 2522-CC01675 was removed from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of Missouri on Aug. 28, 2025, and assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-01302. The Complaint alleges claims for negligence (Count I), negligence per se (Count II), breach of implied contract (Count III), unjust enrichment (Count IV), and injunctive and declaratory relief (Count V) against Esse Health based on allegations that Plaintiff's Private Information, and the Private Information of the putative class, was compromised as a result of a cybersecurity event.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Allison Scott, Esq. Paloma I. Acosta, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 355 South Grand Avenue., Suite 2850 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.337.6550 Facsimile: 213.337.0651 Email: Allison.Scott@huschblackwell.com paloma.acosta@huschblackwell.com AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, 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 generic pharmaceuticals pricing antitrust litigation. Beginning in March 2016, various purchasers of generic drugs filed multiple putative antitrust class action complaints against a substantial number of generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, including the Company and Impax Laboratories, Inc. ("Impax"), alleging an illegal conspiracy to fix, maintain, stabilize, and/or raise prices, rig bids, and allocate markets or customers. They seek unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. Most of these lawsuits were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (See In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, No. 2724 (E.D. Pa.)). Some purchasers have brought similar lawsuits in state courts in Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and New York. In 2019 and 2020, Attorneys General of 43 States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico named the Company in two complaints alleging a similar conspiracy and seeking similar damages. These cases are pending in the District of Connecticut. See Connecticut, et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al., 3:19-cv-00710-MPS and Connecticut, et al. v. Sandoz, Inc. et al., 3:20-cv-00802-MPS. In these matters, the Company and Impax have filed various motions to dismiss, some of which remain pending. Fact discovery is underway in MDL No. 2724 and in one of the State Attorneys General cases naming the Company as a defendant, Connecticut, et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.. In the other, Connecticut, et al. v. Sandoz, Inc. et al., defendants' joint motions for summary judgement were fully briefed on April 7, 2025, and defendant-specific motions for summary judgement were filed on July 9, 2025. Trials for the first multi-district litigation ("MDL") cases chosen for bellwether treatment, none of which name the Company or Impax as defendants, have been stayed pending the Third Circuit's review of the MDL court's class certification decision. The MDL court has chosen a second round of MDL cases for bellwether treatment, one of which names Impax as a defendant. No scheduling orders have been set. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend COLCRYS(R) Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, 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 class action lawsuit alleging an illegal conspiracy to restrict output of generic COLCRYS(R). On November 14, 2023, UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund and other health plans filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against multiple manufacturers, including the Company, alleging an illegal conspiracy to restrict output of generic COLCRYS(R). See UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund et al. v. Takeda Pharma. U.S.A., Inc. et al, No. 1:23-cv-10030 (S.D.N.Y.). On February 28, 2024, Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. filed a motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On March 13, 2024 and March 27, 2024, Amneal submitted a letter and brief, respectively, informing the Court of its position that the Eastern District of Pennsylvania lacks personal jurisdiction over Amneal. That motion remains pending and the deadline to respond to the complaint is set at 45 days after the court resolves the motion to transfer. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Guaifenesin Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------------ Amneal Pharmaceuticals, 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 class action lawsuit concerning its product, guaifenesin. On September 5, 2024, Amneal was named as a defendant along with CVS Pharmacy, Inc. ("CVS") in a putative consumer class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that generic guaifenesin products manufactured by Amneal contain benzene through the use of carbomer, an inactive ingredient. See Leonard v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 5:24-cv-06280 (N.D. Cal.). The complaint purports to plead, on behalf of a nationwide class and California subclass, the following counts: breach of warranty; unjust enrichment; fraud; and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. The complaint seeks damages, including punitive damages, restitution, other equitable monetary relief, injunctive relief, prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs. On December 30, 2024, the Company and CVS jointly filed a motion to dismiss. On January 21, 2025, in lieu of filing a response to defendants' motion to dismiss, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed on February 20, 2025, plaintiff filed her response to the motion to dismiss on March 24, 2025, and defendants filed their reply on April 14, 2025. That motion is fully briefed, and the Court notified the parties that it will take the motion under submission without oral argument. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Metformin Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, 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 metformin marketing and sales practices litigation. Beginning in 2020, Amneal was named as a defendant in several putative class action lawsuits filed and consolidated in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, seeking compensation for economic loss allegedly incurred in connection with their purchase of generic metformin allegedly contaminated with NDMA. See In Re Metformin Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation (No. 2:20-cv-02324-MCA-MAH) ("In re Metformin"), Marcia E. Brice v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-13728 (D.N.J.), and Michael Hann v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC et al., No. 2:23-cv-22902 (D.N.J.). On January 7, 2025, the court dismissed the Third Amended Complaint in In re Metformin without prejudice and granted plaintiffs the opportunity to amend their complaint. On February 20, 2025, plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint in In re Metformin, which incorporated the allegations of plaintiff Brice and plaintiff Hann, and then filed notices of voluntary dismissal of Marcia E. Brice v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-13728 (D.N.J.) and Michael Hann v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC et al., No. 2:23-cv-22902 (D.N.J.) as standalone actions. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' response in opposition was filed on April 7, 2025 and defendants' reply was filed on April 22, 2025. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Nitrosamines MDL ------------------------------------------------------------ Amneal Pharmaceuticals, 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 multi-district litigation based on the alleged presence of nitrosamines in metformin. On March 29, 2021, a plaintiff filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama asserting claims against manufacturers of valsartan, losartan, and metformin based on the alleged presence of nitrosamines in those products. The only allegations against the Company concern metformin (See Davis v. Camber Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:21-00254 (M.D. Ala.) (the "Davis Action")). On May 5, 2021, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the Davis Action into the In re: Valsartan, Losartan, and Irbesartan Products Liability Litigation MDL for pretrial proceedings. ASIAN AMERICAN DRUG: Banks Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asian American Drug Abuse Program, Inc. The case is styled as Yolanda Banks, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Asian American Drug Abuse Program, Inc., Case No. 25STCV24020 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 12, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Asian American Drug Abuse Program, Inc. (AADAP) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization dedicated to serving Asian Pacific Islanders and other under-served communities with substance abuse services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Barbara Duvan-Clarke, Esq. BLACKSTONE PC 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-361-0599 Email: BDC@blackstonepc.com ATHENA BITCOIN GLOBAL: Faces Class Suit over Financial Scams ------------------------------------------------------------ Athena Bitcoin Global disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 25, 2025, that on September 9, 2024, a certain "S.M.," on behalf of herself and all others, an individual, filed a complaint that includes class action allegations, against Athena, Genesis Coin, Inc., and two other defendants, filed at the Common Pleas Court at Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The complaint against the company alleges negligence and violations to the Ohio Products Liability Act because of alleged elder financial scams involving cryptocurrency and the operation of kiosks. Plaintiff alleges the need for implementing effective and sufficient checks and procedures both at the kiosks and other internal procedures in order to intervene, prevent, mitigate, or deter the use of the kiosks in elderly scams, beyond what the company already has in place. The claim by plaintiff against the company is for an undetermined amount of compensation (which cannot exceed $5.0 million under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) as well as injunctive relief. The additional costs mentioned in the claim are not able to be estimated at this time, if any would be applicable. Athena provides Bitcoin ATM operators with software, compliance support, cash management and marketing services to streamline operations and maximize profitability. ATHENA BITCOIN GLOBAL: Faces Consumer Suit over Bitcoin ATM ----------------------------------------------------------- Athena Bitcoin Global disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 25, 2025, that on February 6, 2025, Diane Reynolds on behalf of herself and all others, an individual, filed a complaint that includes class action allegations, against Athena and another codefendant, filed at the Circuit County Court of Montgomery in Maryland. The complaint was served upon Athena on March 24, 2025. The complaint against Athena alleges violations to Maryland's Safe Act, negligence, product liability because of defective design, and violation of the State's Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff alleges the need for implementing effective and sufficient checks and procedures both at the Bitcoin ATM kiosks and other internal procedures in order to intervene, prevent, mitigate, or deter the use of the kiosks in elderly scams, beyond to what already Athena has in place. Athena provides Bitcoin ATM operators with software, compliance support, cash management and marketing services to streamline operations and maximize profitability. AVEPOINT INC: Class Suit vs. Apex Technology Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ AvePoint, 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 class action complaint filed by stockholders against Apex Technology Sponsor LLC and Jeff Epstein, Brad Koenig, David Chao, Peter Bell, Donna Wells, and Alex Vieux remains pending. "As part of the business combination with Apex Technology Acquisition Corporation, Inc., we assumed certain indemnification obligations for Apex Technology Sponsor LLC and Jeff Epstein, Brad Koenig, David Chao, Peter Bell, Donna Wells, and Alex Vieux. "On February 2, 2024, Drulias and Farzad (as purported Apex stockholders) filed a class action complaint against the Indemnities in Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Dean William Drulias, et.al. v. Apex Technology Sponsor LLC, et.al., C.A. No. 2024-0094-LWW. The Plaintiffs asserted breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims against the Defendants. The complaint alleged that the Defendants made false and misleading disclosures in the June 2, 2021 proxy statement of Apex impacting its stockholders' vote to approve a merger between Apex and us and also affecting stockholders' redemption rights prior to the merger. The Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages, rescission or rescissory damages, and disgorgement of unjust enrichment. "We were not a named defendant in the complaint but had indemnification obligations to the Defendants under indemnification agreements executed during the merger. Also, in accordance with the business combination agreement, Apex and the Sponsor obtained insurance policies to cover post-closing liability, with Apex securing a policy with a limit of $10 million and the Sponsor securing a policy with a limit of $3 million. The parties participated in a mediation in October and agreed to settlement terms. Pursuant to a fully executed settlement agreement, releasing us and the Defendants and settling the class action, we contributed $1.4 million in the second quarter toward the total settlement amount of $14.4 million. The remaining $13 million was paid pursuant to the two insurance policies covering the Defendants and the Sponsor. "As of June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, an estimated accrual of $0.0 million and $1.4 million, respectively, was included in the accrued expenses and other current liabilities within the condensed consolidated balance sheets," the Company stated. AXT INC: Faces Securities Suit over SEC Disclosures --------------------------------------------------- AXT, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 25, 2025, that on May 6, 2024, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or acquired AXT's publicly traded securities against the company, Morris S. Young, Chief Executive Officer, and Gary L. Fischer, Chief Financial Officer. The court transferred the case to the Northern District of California, where the headquarters are located. A lead plaintiff was appointed and an amended complaint was filed, asserting a putative class period from March 24, 2021 and April 3, 2024, inclusive. The amended complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the defendants, and sought unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees. On November 8, 2024, defendants moved to dismiss. The court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend on May 28, 2025, holding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on June 27, 2025, asserting the same claims as in the prior complaint. On July 11, 2025, defendants again moved to dismiss. Defendants' motion to dismiss is fully briefed and pending before the court. On November 21, 2023, the plaintiffs amended the Marden complaint and on March 4, 2024, the company moved to dismiss the Marden complaint, and that motion is pending. On July 12, 2024, the parties attended a mediation and on November 1, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the Southern District of New York case. AXT manufactures and sells high-performance compound semiconductor substrates including indium phosphide, gallium arsenide and germanium wafers. BARRISTER EXEC. SUITES: Romero Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Barrister Exec. Suites, Inc. The case is styled as Jose Romero, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Barrister Exec. Suites, Inc., Does 1 through 100 inclusive, Case No. 25STCV25376 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 28, 2025). Barrister Executive Suites -- https://barrister-suites.com/ -- has been the leading provider of fully serviced offices in Southern California for over 40 years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin A. Lipeles, Esq. LIPELES LAW GROUP, APC 880 Apollo St., Ste. 336 El Segundo, CA 90245-4783 Phone: 310-322-2211 Fax: 310-322-2252 Email: kevin@kallaw.com BDO USA: Wins Dismissal of Taylor Suit Over ERISA Fiduciary Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Tristin Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BDO USA, P.C., the Board of Directors of BDO USA, P.C., Wayne Berson, BDO ESOP Trustees, Catherine Moy, Stephen Ferrara, Mark Ellenbogen, Matthew Becker, William Eisig, and Patrick Donaghue, Civil Action No. 25-10128 (D. Mass.), Judge Richard G. Stearns of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts grants BDO's motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice. The dismissal without prejudice allows Taylor to potentially file an amended complaint addressing the standing deficiencies identified by the Court. Taylor, an employee of BDO since at least 2019, is a participant in the ESOP and is currently 20% vested in the BDO shares held in his account. On January 17, 2025, Taylor filed this putative class action alleging that defendants breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The case centers on the BDO USA Employee Stock Ownership Plan (BDO ESOP), which purchased some 42% of BDO's outstanding shares of stock from the Company's principals for approximately $1.3 billion on August 31, 2023. The ESOP transaction was financed through a loan from Apollo Global Management affiliates (Apollo) at an interest rate of 11.36%. BDO engaged State Street Global Advisors Trust Company (State Street) as the independent trustee of the ESOP to negotiate the stock purchase. After the transaction closed, the Board replaced State Street as the ESOP's trustee with a committee of BDO executives. Taylor alleged four counts: (1) BDO and the Board caused the BDO ESOP to engage in prohibited transactions in violation of ERISA Section 406(a) (Count I) and (2) in violation of ERISA Section 406(b) (Count II); (3) BDO and the Board breached their fiduciary duties to the BDO ESOP in violation of ERISA Sections 404(a)(1)(A) and (B) (Count III); and (4) BDO, the Board, and the BDO ESOP Trustees are liable as co-fiduciaries for the fiduciary breaches under ERISA Section 405(a) (Count IV). Taylor claimed that defendants collectively orchestrated the Transaction with the goal of causing the BDO ESOP to overpay for BDO stock by providing false and misleading information about BDO's business affairs. The alleged misconduct included inflated earnings, unreasonable projections, and the concealment of deterioration in the quality of BDO's audit work. The Court found that Taylor lacked standing under Article III. To establish standing, a plaintiff must show that he has (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendants, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. The Court noted that the Complaint points to no instance in which a tangible loss of value was actually incurred by Taylor. Specifically, the Complaint does not allege that Taylor made any monetary contribution to the ESOP Transaction or that he was saddled with any obligation to repay the loan to Apollo, much less even venturing a guess as to the actual then and now value of Taylor's ESOP account. The Court determined that the Complaint does not adequately allege any measure that suggests that the ESOP in fact overpaid for the BDO stock. While Taylor contended that pre-transaction misconduct demonstrated injury, the Court found these allegations insufficient. Taylor's claims of overvaluation included: (1) Employees were pressured to mischaracterize client 'credits' (retainers or prepayments) as revenue, which misled State Street as to the value of BDO stock; (2) The valuation did not account for audit performance issues documented by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB); (3) the $1.3 billion price that the ESOP paid for the stock did not include sufficient discounts for the ESOP obtaining no control over the BDO or its governance; and (4) The ESOP was forced to enter into unreasonable financing terms, including a loan from Apollo at an 'unreasonably high interest rate' of 11.36%. However, the Court found that the Complaint does not plausibly allege that State Street did not consider any of these facts in evaluating the ESOP Transaction, much less that BDO or its Board failed to adequately disclose them to State Street. The Court noted significant gaps in the allegations regarding State Street's performance. Nor is there any allegation that State Street's performance with respect to the Transaction was deficient - there is no factual suggestion in the Complaint that State Street lacked qualifications or failed to perform due diligence in responsibly evaluating the terms of the Transaction. The Court also found that the Complaint does not contain any plausible inferences, only mere conjecture, that the actual defendants named in this case, BDO, the Board, and the ESOP Trustees, personally contributed to State Street's alleged overvaluation of BDO's stock." Regarding Taylor's argument about the "unreasonably high" interest rate of 11.36%, the Court found it is mere speculation -- there are no factual allegations that outside purchasers or financing had been sought but were unavailable at terms preferable to those negotiated by State Street. The Court concluded that "Without a showing that any harm flowed from the Transaction to Taylor, including any post-Transaction decline in the value of his ESOP account, the court cannot conclude, beyond mere speculation, that Taylor has suffered a constitutionally cognizable injury. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0I81Ml from PacerMonitor.com. BLACK & VEATCH: Hernandez Suit Removed to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ursula Leon Hernandez, an individual on behalf of herself, and all persons similarly situated v. BLACK & VEATCH CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Corporation; BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION, a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CU039063C was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for Southern District of California on Aug. 28, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02241-AJB-SBC. The Plaintiff's Complaint sets forth the following causes of action: Unfair Competition; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Statements; Failure to Reimburse Employees for Required Expenses; Failure to Provide Wages when Due; Failure to Pay Sick Pay Wages; Discrimination and Retaliation Violation of FEHA; and Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy all in in Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code and in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code and the Applicable IWC Wage Order.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Allison Scott, Esq. Paloma I. Acosta, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 355 South Grand Avenue., Suite 2850 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.337.6550 Facsimile: 213.337.0651 Email: Allison.Scott@huschblackwell.com paloma.acosta@huschblackwell.com BLACKSKY TECHNOLOGY: Suit Relating to Merger Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Blacksky Technology 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 putative class action lawsuit relating to the Merger of Legacy BlackSky with a wholly-owned subsidiary of Osprey remains pending. On May 7, 2024, a putative class action relating to the Merger of Legacy BlackSky on September 9, 2021 with a wholly-owned subsidiary of Osprey was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The action is captioned Drulias v. Osprey Sponsor II, LLC, et al. (Del. Ch. 2024). The Drulias complaint asserts breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims against the former directors of Osprey; the former officers of Osprey; and Osprey Sponsor II, LLC; and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claims against HEPCO Capital Management, LLC; JANA Partners LLC; and a director of Legacy BlackSky. The Drulias complaint seeks, among other things, damages and attorneys' fees and costs. The terms of the Merger required the Company to indemnify the directors of Osprey. On May 8, 2024, a putative class action relating to the Merger was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The action is captioned Cheriyala v. Osprey Sponsor II, LLC (Del. Ch. 2024). The Cheriyala complaint asserts breach of fiduciary duty claims against the former directors of the Osprey Board, the former officers of Osprey, and the Sponsor; aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claims against BlackSky Holdings, Inc. and certain directors and officers of Legacy BlackSky; and unjust enrichment claims against an Osprey director. The Cheriyala complaint seeks, among other things, damages and attorneys' fees and costs. The Court of Chancery granted Drulias' motion to (i) consolidate the Drulias and Cheriyala actions, and (ii) appoint Drulias as lead plaintiff, and Drulias' counsel as lead counsel, in the consolidated action. On April 15, 2025, Drulias sought to withdraw as the lead plaintiff. That same day, Patrick Plumley moved to intervene as a plaintiff in the consolidated action. The Court of Chancery granted Cheriyala's and Plumley's stipulation to (i) permit Drulias to withdraw as the lead plaintiff, (ii) permit Plumley to intervene as a plaintiff, and (iii) appoint Cheriyala and Plumley as co-lead plaintiffs, and Cheriyala's and Plumley's counsel as co-lead counsel, in the consolidated action. Though BlackSky Technology Inc. is not named in either suit, the Company expects to have certain indemnification requirements of directors, officers and former directors and officers. BMW FINANCIAL: 6th Cir. Affirms Denial of Arbitration in ORG Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit over excess insurance proceeds captioned as ORG Holdings Ltd., Plaintiff-Appellee v. BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 24-3929 (6th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirms the district court's denial of the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. On August 31, 2021, Plaintiff ORG Holdings entered into a Vehicle Lease Agreement with BMW of Westlake, a car dealership, to lease a 2022 BMW M5 vehicle for 36 months. Financial Services Vehicle Trust (FSVT) worked to facilitate asset-backed securitization of BMW leases. Defendant BMW Financial Services NA, LLC served as the servicer tasked with administering BMW leases on behalf of FSVT under a separate Servicing Agreement. The Lease Agreement identified Plaintiff as the lessee and BMW of Westlake as the lessor. The Lease specified that Lessor's assignee would be allocated to either BMW Financial Services or FSVT if the relevant box was checked. The checked box designated FSVT as the Lessor's assignee in connection with Plaintiff's Lease, as opposed to BMW Financial Services. The Lease contained an arbitration clause stating that "Either you or I may choose to have any dispute between us decided by arbitration and not in a court or by jury trial." The terms "I" referred to Plaintiff, and "you" referred to the lessor, BMW of Westlake, and FSVT as "Lessor's assignee." On October 21, 2023, Plaintiff was involved in a serious car accident that destroyed the leased vehicle. Plaintiff's insurance company, Cincinnati Insurance, paid $98,516.70 to cover the value of the vehicle. The amount remaining due under the Lease was $81,781.04, resulting in a surplus of $16,735.66 in insurance proceeds that went to Defendant BMW Financial Services as FSVT's servicer. Although Plaintiff's Lease addressed scenarios where insurance proceeds were less than the amount owed, it did not address situations where proceeds exceeded the amount owed. However, Defendant BMW Financial Services publicly represented in its SEC filings that "If the insurance loss proceeds exceed the user-lessee's Lease obligations, the excess is refunded to the user-lessee." On March 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed a class action complaint in the Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas, asserting a single cause of action for unjust enrichment against Defendant BMW Financial Services for pocketing the excess insurance proceeds. Defendant timely removed the case to federal court and moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the Lease Agreement. Defendant argued that FSVT explicitly appointed BMW Financial Services as its agent under the separate Servicing Agreement to handle various matters under the Lease, including insurance proceeds. Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that BMW Financial Services could not enforce the arbitration clause as a non-signatory to the Lease Agreement. On October 15, 2024, the district court denied Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. The district court observed that by default, the lease defines BMW FS as the assignee, entitled to invoke the arbitration clause. However, because of the checked box, the assignee is not BMW FS but FSVT. The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo the district court's denial of the motion to compel arbitration. Circuit Judge Clay noted that the Federal Arbitration Act's "principal purpose" is to ensure that private arbitration agreements are enforced according to their terms, but courts do not override the clear intent of the parties, or reach a result inconsistent with the plain text of the contract. BMW Financial Services presented four main arguments for why it could compel arbitration: (1) as a third-party beneficiary of the Lease, (2) as an affiliate of FSVT, (3) as an agent of FSVT, or (4) through the doctrine of equitable estoppel. The Court of Appeals found all arguments unpersuasive. Under Ohio law, a nonparty to a contract generally may not enforce a party's contractual duties unless the contract makes the nonparty an intended (not just an incidental) third-party beneficiary. The Court found that the Lease Agreement did not evince intent to make BMW Financial Services a third-party beneficiary. The arbitration clause explicitly stated that either you [(Lessor or Lessor's Assignee)] or I [(Lessee)] may choose to have any dispute between us decided by arbitration. Since the box was checked designating FSVT as the Lessor's Assignee, Plaintiff did not agree to arbitrate disputes with BMW Financial Services. The Court noted that if BMW of Westlake had intended for BMW Financial Services to enforce the Lease's arbitration clause against Plaintiff or otherwise act as its assignee, it presumably would have said so, instead of granting that privilege to FSVT. BMW Financial Services argued it could compel arbitration as an agent of FSVT based on the Servicing Agreement granting broad powers to service, administer and collect under the Leases. However, the Court found that BMW Financial Services' challenged conduct - pocketing Plaintiff's excess insurance proceeds - would not fall within the scope of its general agency duties, especially since the Lease was silent on handling excess insurance proceeds. The Court cited Smith v. Javitch Block, where an Ohio Court of Appeals held that limiting language in an agreement defeated agency principles. Similarly, the Court concluded that the parties' express designation of FSVT as the lessor's assignee outweighs BMW Financial Services' agency argument. BMW Financial Services also argued that Plaintiff should be equitably estopped from avoiding arbitration because the claims arise entirely from the Lease. The Court found this argument was forfeited by being raised for the first time in a reply brief. Additionally, the Court determined that while Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim related to the business relationship created by the Lease, it did not depend upon the Lease's actual terms, as the Lease was silent on the situation where the insurance proceeds exceed the amount due under the lease. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order denying BMW Financial Services' motion to compel arbitration. The Court emphasized that allowing BMW Financial Services to enforce the arbitration clause would go against the express terms of the Lease and contradict the parties' intent. The checked box designating FSVT as the lessor's assignee demonstrating the parties' clear intent to deny arbitration powers to BMW Financial Services. A copy of the Court of Appeals decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uyq2JB from PacerMonitor.com. BOLLINGER INNOVATIONS: Continues to Defend Maloney Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Bollinger Innovations Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q/A Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Maloney class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On February 12, 2025, Plaintiff Jennifer Maloney, a purported stockholder, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company, as well as its Chief Executive Officer, David Michery, and its Chief Financial Officer, Jonathan New (the "Maloney Lawsuit"). The Maloney Lawsuit was brought by Maloney both individually and on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's securities, claiming false or misleading statements regarding the Company's business partnerships, technology, and financing, and alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. No loss contingencies have been accrued in connection with this matter as of June 30, 2025, because the Company cannot reasonably estimate either the probability of a loss or its magnitude (if any) based on all information currently available to management. Bollinger Innovations, Inc. is a Southern California-based development-stage electric vehicle company that operates in various verticals of businesses focused within the automotive industry. BOOM SHAKALAKA: Huynh Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boom Shakalaka, Inc. The case is styled as Steven Huynh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Boom Shakalaka, Inc. doing business as: Boom Fantasy, Case No. 2:25-cv-08121 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 28, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Boom Shakalaka, Inc., doing business as Boom Fantasy -- https://www.boomfantasy.com/ -- operates as a video game software company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com BOVIE INC: Discovery in Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ BoVie Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2025, that discovery is ongoing for a consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. On January 19, 2024, a purported shareholder class action complaint, captioned Eric Olmstead v. BioVie Inc. et al., No. 3:24-cv-00035, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. On February 22, 2024, a second, related putative securities class action was filed in the same court asserting similar claims against the same defendants, captioned Way v. BioVie Inc. et al., No. 2:24-cv-00361. On April 15, 2024, the court consolidated these two actions under the caption In re BioVie Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:24-cv-00035, appointed the lead plaintiff, and approved selection of the lead counsel. On June 21, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging that the defendants made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact relating to the Company's business, operations, compliance, and prospects, including information related to the NM101 Phase 3 study and trial of bezisterim (NE3107) in mild to moderate probable Alzheimer's Disease, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The class action is on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities during the period from December 7, 2022 through November 28, 2023 and seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees. In August 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and that motion was fully briefed in December 2024. On March 27, 2025, the court denied the motion to dismiss, and the parties are now engaged in the early stages of the discovery process. The Company believes that all of these claims are without merit and intends to defend vigorously against them, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome. BioVie Inc. is a clinical-stage company developing innovative drug therapies for the treatment of neurological and neurodegenerative disorders and advanced liver disease. BRAINSTORM CELL: Continues to Defend Sporn Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Sporn securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On November 1, 2023, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a putative securities class action complaint against the Company and certain of its officers, captioned Sporn v. Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-09630 (the "Securities Complaint"), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Securities Action"). The Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on April 1, 2024; the Amended Complaint adds a former officer as an individual defendant. The Amended Complaint in the Securities Action alleges violations of Sections 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all defendants and control person violations of Section 20(a) against the individual defendants, relating to NurOwn for the treatment of ALS, the Company's submissions to and communications with the FDA in support of the approval of NurOwn for the treatment of ALS, and the prospects of future approval of NurOwn by the FDA. The Securities Action seeks, among other things, damages in connection with an allegedly inflated stock price between February 18, 2020 and September 27, 2023, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. The Company and individual defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on May 31, 2024; plaintiffs opposed the motion to dismiss on July 31, 2024; and the Company and individual defendants' filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss on September 17, 2024. The court may, in its discretion, either hold an oral argument or issue a ruling on the motion to dismiss based upon the parties' briefing. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the lawsuit. Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics, Inc., operates as a biotechnology company, which develops innovative adult stem cell therapeutic products. It currently focuses on utilizing the patients own bone marrow stem cells to generate neuron-like cells that may provide an effective treatment initially for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis and spinal cord injury. The company was founded on September 22, 2000 and is headquartered in New York, NY. C3.AI INC: Liggett Files Suit Over Share Price Drop --------------------------------------------------- JOHN LIGGETT SR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. C3.AI, INC., THOMAS M. SIEBEL, and HITESH LATH, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-07129 (N.D. Cal., August 22, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired C3 AI securities between February 26, 2025, to August 8, 2025, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants provided investors with material information concerning C3 AI's ability to perform in spite of its Chief Executive Officer's health situation and in providing expected revenue for the first quarter and full fiscal year 2026. The Defendants' statements included, among other things, assurances that Chief Executive Officer, Defendant Siebel, was in sufficient health to effectively conduct his role, without any indication his health or the necessary accommodations utilized could jeopardize financial growth or the Company's ability to close deals. The Defendants' statements further confidently discussed C3 AI's market opportunity, the demand for its products, and its ability to execute and capitalize on the growth opportunity before it. On August 8, 2025, C3 AI announced disappointing preliminary financial results for the first quarter of fiscal 2026 and reduced its revenue guidance for the full fiscal year 2026. The Company attributed its poor sales results and lowered guidance on "the reorganization with new leadership" and the health ailments of its Chief Executive Officer. Investors and analysts reacted immediately to C3 AI's revelation. The price of C3 AI's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $22.13 per share on August 8, 2025, C3 AI's stock price fell to $16.47 per share on August 11, 2025, a decline of about 25.58% in the span of just a single day, the suit says. C3.AI, Inc. is a global artificial intelligence application software company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1160 Battery Street East, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 373-1671 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com CLARITEV CORPORATION: Discovery Ongoing in Illinois Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Claritev 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 discovery is ongoing in the putative class action lawsuit pending in an Illinois court. "We have been named in numerous federal lawsuits, including putative class action lawsuits relating to litigation on the basis of alleged violation of antitrust laws, asserting that, among other things, the Company is conspiring with commercial health insurance payors to suppress out-of-network reimbursements in violation of applicable antitrust law. These lawsuits were initially filed in various venues, including the Southern District of New York, the Northern District of Illinois, and the Northern District of California, naming the Company and, in certain cases, certain payors, as defendants. The lawsuits have now been centralized in the Northern District of Illinois (the "Court") pursuant to a transfer order issued by the federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and assigned to the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly. "Consolidated complaints were filed on November 18, 2024 and the defendants filed joint motions to dismiss the consolidated complaints on January 16, 2025, which were granted in part and denied in part on June 3, 2025. Discovery in the case is ongoing. "We believe these lawsuits are without merit and intend to vigorously defend the Company," the Company stated. COACH'S VALET: Austin Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Gabriel Austin and Aengus Diffenderfer, for themselves and on behalf of others similarly situated v. COACH'S VALET LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and DANNY NUTT, Individually, Case No. 8:25-cv-02305 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 28, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, and unlawfully retained tip compensation. The Plaintiffs complain that they, and all other similarly situated valet employees of Defendants, were consistently required or permitted to perform work for Defendants, but that Defendants systematically failed to pay Plaintiffs and their other similarly situated valet employees the legally mandated Florida minimum wage due to them for their weeks worked, and/or the statutorily mandated overtime rate of at least one and one-half times the legally mandated minimum wage for their hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, because of Defendants' company-wide policy/practice, whereby Defendants do not pay their valet employees any direct wages for their hours Worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants within Sarasota and Manatee Counties. The Defendants operate a valet parking business and employ valets who provide valet parking services to the Defendants' customers in and around Sarasota and Manatee Counties, including restaurants, country clubs, and other venues.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Corey L. Seldin, Esq. Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Phone: (954) 807-7765 Facsimile: (954) 807-7768 Email: cseldin@forthepeople.com AFrisch@forthepeople.com COMPASS GROUP USA: Skinner Sues Over Unlawful Deduction Policy -------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy R. Skinner, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. COMPASS GROUP USA, INC., d/b/a CANTEEN VENDING SERVICES, Case No. 2:25-cv-02838-MSN-tmp (W.D. Tenn., Aug. 28, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to redress Defendant's unlawful policy and practice of automatically deducting 30 minutes daily from hourly workers' pay for a meal break, despite knowing employees do not receive a bona fide meal break. The Defendant maintains a policy and practice of deducting 30 minutes per day from hourly workers' pay for meal breaks, regardless of whether a bona fide meal break is taken. The Plaintiff and other Service Technicians routinely do not take uninterrupted meal breaks; instead, they are instructed by management to "grab and go," eating while traveling between service calls and continuing to perform their duties. The Defendant provides employees with no mechanism for reporting when they are unable to take an uninterrupted lunch break. The Defendant's automatic deduction policy results in Service Technicians being paid for only 8 hours per day despite working an 8 1/2 hour day, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has worked for Defendant as a Service Technician, repairing and installing vending machines since October 2021. Compass Group USA, Inc. d/b/a Canteen Vending Services operates vending machine services throughout Tennessee and nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip E. Oliphant, Esq. THE ROLWES LAW FIRM, LLC 1951 Mignon Avenue Memphis, TN 38107 Phone: 901.519.9135 Fax: 901.979.2499 Email: poliphant@rolweslaw.com CORTEVA INC: $22MM Settlement in "Baker" Awaits Court OK -------------------------------------------------------- Corteva, Inc., and EIDP, 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 $22 million settlement entered in the Baker class action awaits court approval. EIDP is a defendant in a putative class action (the "Baker Class Action"), brought by persons who live in and around Hoosick Falls, New York. These lawsuits assert claims for medical monitoring, property damage and personal injury based on alleged PFOA releases from manufacturing facilities owned and operated by co-defendants in Hoosick Falls. The lawsuits allege that EIDP and others supplied materials used at these facilities resulting in PFOA air and water contamination. A court approved settlement was reached between the plaintiffs and the other co-defendants regarding the Baker Class Action case. In September 2022, the class certification of the Baker Class Action was granted, with the court certifying three separate classes consisting of a private well property damage class, a medical monitoring class and a nuisance class. A settlement in principle of the Baker Class Action was reached in June 2025 for $22 million, plus funding $1 million annually to a medical monitoring fund for five years. As of June 30, 2025, an accrual for Corteva's share of the expected settlement under the MOU was established. CORTEVA INC: EIDP's Bid to Dismiss Hardwick Suit Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Corteva, Inc., and EIDP, 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 EIDP's motion to dismiss the Hardwick Class Action remains pending. EIDP is a defendant in two lawsuits, including an action by the State of Ohio based on alleged damage to natural resources. The natural resources damage claim was preliminarily resolved in December 2023 for $110 million, with Corteva's share of the settlement under the MOU being approximately $16 million and expected to be paid in the next twelve months. As of June 30, 2025, an accrual has been established. The second, a putative nationwide class action ("the Hardwick Class Action") brought on behalf of anyone who has detectable levels of PFAS in their blood serum seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including the establishment of a "PFAS Science Panel." In December 2023, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the Hardwick Class Action due to lack of standing by Mr. Hardwick. With further opportunities for appeals expired, the plaintiffs filed a new case, narrowing their original claims, in June 2024. In January 2025, EIDP filed a motion to dismiss the new case on the grounds it remains similar to the original claim. CORTEVA INC: Still Defends Water Contamination Suits in Canada -------------------------------------------------------------- Corteva, Inc., and EIDP, 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 EIDP continues to defend itself against water contamination lawsuits filed across Canada. The Province of British Columbia, filed a class action against various defendants, including 3M, DuPont Canada, EIDP, and Chemours alleging harms caused by PFAS/AFFF. The class consists of all municipalities, regional districts, and other governance authorities and other persons in Canada that were responsible for a "Drinking Water System" from 1970 to the present. The plaintiff seeks to recover costs for the treatment and restoration of natural resources, as well as property, economic, and punitive damages. A putative class action was also filed in July 2024 on behalf of citizens of Quebec, Canada seeking class certification to recover for alleged PFAS and AFFF contamination of private wells and public water treatment facilities. In January 2024, a class action was also filed in Canada against 3M and other defendants, including EIDP and Chemours, alleging PFOS and PFOA environmental contamination and personal injury from use of AFFF. Additionally, several lawsuits on behalf of consumers of PFAS-infused products in the Province of British Columbia for personal injury and PFAS contamination in Manitoba, Canada have been filed. CPAP MEDICAL SUPPLIES: Harriman Files Suit in M.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CPAP Medical Supplies and Services Inc. The case is styled as Chris Harriman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CPAP Medical Supplies and Services Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00989-MMH-PDB (M.D. Fla., Aug. 28, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. CPAP Medical Supplies and Services Inc. -- https://cpapmedical.com/ -- provide CPAP services and supplies nationwide with our headquarters in Jacksonville, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com - and - Carlos V. Leach THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 North Orange Avenue, Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Phone: (407) 574-4999 Fax: (833) 423-5864 Email: cleach@theleachfirm.com CRONOS GROUP: Continues to Defend Ontario Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Cronos Group 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 class action lawsuit filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. On June 3, 2020, an alleged shareholder filed a Statement of Claim, as amended on August 12, 2020, in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, seeking, among other things, an order certifying the action as a class action on behalf of a putative class of shareholders and damages of an unspecified amount. The Amended Statement of Claim named (i) the Company, (ii) its Chief Executive Officer, (iii) former Chief Financial Officer, (iv) former Chief Financial Officer and Chief Commercial Officer, and (v) current and former members of the Board as defendants and alleged breaches of the Ontario Securities Act, oppression under the Ontario Business Corporations Act and common law misrepresentation. The Amended Statement of Claim generally alleged that certain of the Company's prior public statements about revenue and internal controls were misrepresentations based on the Company's March 2, 2020 disclosure that the Audit Committee of the Board was conducting a review of the appropriateness of revenue recognized in connection with certain bulk resin purchases and sales of products through the wholesale channel, and the Company's subsequent restatement. The Amended Statement of Claim did not quantify a damage request. On June 28, 2021, the Court dismissed motions brought by the plaintiff for leave to commence a claim for misrepresentation under the Ontario Securities Act and for certification of the action as a class action. The plaintiff appealed the Court's dismissal of the motions only with respect to the Company, the Chief Executive Officer, and the now former Chief Financial Officer; the remaining defendants were dismissed from the matter with prejudice and the Company and all individual defendants agreed not to seek costs from plaintiff in connection with the dismissal of the motions. On September 26, 2022, the Court of Appeal for Ontario reversed the Superior Court's dismissal of the leave and certification motions, granted the plaintiff leave to proceed to bring a claim for misrepresentation under the Ontario Securities Act, and remitted the certification motion back to the Superior Court. On April 11, 2023, the plaintiff filed a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim, which reflected the dismissal of the defendants for which an appeal was not sought, the removal of the claims for oppression under the Ontario Business Corporations Act and common law misrepresentation, as well as shortening the proposed class period. On October 10, 2023, the Superior Court certified the action on behalf of a class of persons or entities who acquired shares in the secondary market, including on the TSX and Nasdaq, during the period from May 9, 2019 to March 30, 2020, other than certain excluded persons. CRONOS GROUP: Settlement in NY Class Suit Pending for Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- Cronos Group 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 settlement in the putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York is pending for preliminary and final approval. On March 11 and 12, 2020, two alleged shareholders of the Company separately filed two putative class action complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officer. The court consolidated the cases, and the consolidated amended complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, against all defendants, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. The consolidated amended complaint generally alleges that certain of the Company's prior public statements about revenue and internal controls were incorrect based on the Company's disclosures relating to the Audit Committee of the Board's review of the appropriateness of revenue recognized in connection with certain bulk resin purchases and sales of products through the wholesale channel. The consolidated amended complaint does not quantify a damage request. The defendants moved to dismiss on February 8, 2021. On November 17, 2023, the court entered an order granting the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. On December 1, 2023, the shareholder plaintiffs sought reconsideration of the dismissal, requesting that the court instead dismiss the action without prejudice and permit the plaintiffs to seek leave to further amend the complaint. On December 3, 2024, the Court issued an opinion and order granting the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, and on January 10, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a second amended class action complaint. The defendants are moving to dismiss the second amended class action complaint. On May 30, 2025, the parties jointly informed the court that they had reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the action and requested that the Court stay all deadlines in the action, which the Court ordered on June 3, 2025. The proposed settlement remains subject to preliminary and final approval by the court and certain other conditions not within the Company's control. CROWDSTRIKE HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Flight Disruption Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- CrowdStrike Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending July 27, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 28, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from passenger airline flight disruption class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. On August 5, 2024, a putative class action was filed against CrowdStrike, Inc. in the Western District of Texas in relation to passenger airline flight disruptions allegedly caused by the July 19 Incident. On August 19, 2024, a second putative class action was filed against the Company and CrowdStrike, Inc. in the Western District of Texas, making similar allegations in relation to passenger airline flight disruptions. On November 6, 2024, these two lawsuits were consolidated, and interim class counsel was appointed. On December 6, 2024, a consolidated class action complaint was filed, which, among other things, asserts causes of action for negligence and public nuisance, and seeks certification of a nationwide class, as well as several state sub-classes of citizens of California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Nevada. The putative classes are comprised of individuals who allegedly had a flight delayed or canceled as a result of the July 19 Incident. The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, certain injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys' fees. On February 4, 2025, the Company and CrowdStrike, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On June 18, 2025, the district court granted the Company and CrowdStrike, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint and entered a final judgment. On June 25, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circui CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. is a global cybersecurity company that delivers cybersecurity's AI-native platform for the XDR era, purpose-built to stop breaches using a unified platform that provides cloud-delivered protection of endpoints, cloud workloads, identity, and data via a software as a service subscription-based model. CROWDSTRIKE HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- CrowdStrike Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending July 27, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 28, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. On July 30, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of the Company's officers in federal court in the Western District of Texas alleging violations of federal securities laws, including that the defendants made false or misleading statements. The complainants seek certification of a class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities during specified periods of time and are seeking unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees. On January 21, 2025, an amended complaint was filed. On April 7, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. is a global cybersecurity company that delivers cybersecurity's AI-native platform for the XDR era, purpose-built to stop breaches using a unified platform that provides cloud-delivered protection of endpoints, cloud workloads, identity, and data via a software as a service subscription-based model. DICK'S SPORTING: Continues to Defend Plumbers & Pipefitters Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dick's Sporting Goods Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending August 2, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 28, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Plumbers and Pipefitters shareholder class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. On February 16, 2024, Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 719 Pension Trust Fund filed a putative shareholder class action complaint against the Company and certain of its executive officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. On July 30, 2024, the Court appointed the State of Rhode Island Office of the General Treasurer, on behalf of the Employees' Retirement System of the State of Rhode Island, and Western Pennsylvania Teamsters and Employers Pension Fund as lead plaintiffs in the action (now captioned In re Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:24-cv-00196-NR-KT) (the "Securities Litigation"). On October 15, 2024, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint against the same defendants alleging that the defendants violated Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making material misrepresentations and omissions about the Company's business and financial condition, including regarding the Company's inventory, margins, and business prospects, as well as inventory shrinkage related to retail theft. The consolidated complaint is brought on behalf of a putative class of those who purchased or otherwise acquired its common stock between August 23, 2022 and August 21, 2023, and seeks relief including damages and costs, including attorneys' fees. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on December 16, 2024. On August 12, 2025, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the claims based on statements related to inventory shrinkage, risk factors, and some statements regarding inventory be dismissed. The Company does not believe the consolidated complaint states any meritorious claim and intends to defend this case vigorously. At this early stage of the proceedings, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the litigation. Headquartered in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania, Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. operates as a sporting goods retailer that manages stores primarily in the eastern and central United States. DOLLAR GENERAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar General Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending August 1, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 28, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. On November 27, 2023, and November 30, 2023, respectively, the following putative shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee in which the plaintiffs allege that during the putative class periods noted below, the Company and certain of its current and former officers violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting the impact of alleged store labor, inventory, pricing and other practices on the Company's financial results and prospects: Washtenaw County Employees' Retirement System v. Dollar General Corporation, et al. (Case No. 3:23-cv-01250) (putative class period of May 28, 2020 to August 30, 2023) ("Washtenaw County"); Robert J. Edmonds v. Dollar General Corporation, et al. (Case No. 3:23-cv-01259) (putative class period of February 23, 2023 to August 31, 2023) ("Edmonds") (collectively, the "Shareholder Securities Litigation"). The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, equitable/injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs. The Edmonds matter was voluntarily dismissed on January 19, 2024. On April 4, 2024, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in the Shareholder Securities Litigation. On June 17, 2024, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, adding a claim that lead plaintiffs and certain members of the putative class purchased shares of the Company's common stock contemporaneously with common stock sales by certain individual defendants. On October 17, 2024, lead plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint, expanding the putative class period to cover May 28, 2020 to August 28, 2024. On November 15, 2024, defendants moved to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint, and on June 23, 2025, the court granted defendants' motion without prejudice. On August 25, 2025, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the second consolidated amended complaint, attaching the proposed third consolidated amended complaint which does not alter the claims, defendants or putative class period but includes additional allegations in support of the previously asserted claims. The deadline to file any opposition to the motion for leave to amend is October 24, 2025. At this time, it is not possible to estimate the value of the claims asserted in the Shareholder Securities Litigation or the potential range of loss in this matter, and no assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense on the merits or otherwise. Dollar General Corporation is a discount retailer in the United States with 19,726 stores located in 48 U.S. states and Mexico as of November 3, 2023, with the greatest concentration of stores in the southern, southwestern, midwestern and eastern United States. DOREL HOME: Sauer Sues Over Defective Cosco Kitchen Steppers ------------------------------------------------------------ ADAM SAUER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOREL HOME FURNISHINGS INC. D/B/A COSCO HOME AND OFFICE PRODUCTS, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-01277 (E.D. Mo., August 25, 2025) is a proposed class action arising from the design and prolonged concealment of a known defect in Defendant's Cosco 2-Step Kitchen Steppers. According to the complaint, the Defendant designed, marketed, distributed, and sold the products with defective safety bar that can become detached or break. The Defendant specifically touted these products as being "designed with safety in mind, the railings provide perfect support while the locking safety bar keeps kids from falling out." To the contrary, these products are inherently defective and create a serious safety risk, especially for children, says the suit. This action seeks to hold Defendant accountable for its conscious decision to use a dangerous design, conceal the known hazard associated with the Defect, and its insufficient recall remedy. The Plaintiff purchased a Cosco 2-Step Kitchen Stepper on January 13, 2025 from Amazon for approximately $58. Dorel Home Furnishings, Inc. d/b/a/ Cosco Home and Office Products, sells various home and office furniture, including ready-to-assemble furniture.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mason A. Barney, Esq. Leslie Pescia, Esq. Jayson A. Watkins, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com lpescia@sirillp.com jwatkins@sirillp.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. Daniel Tomascik, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com dtomascik@laukaitislaw.com DRIVEN BRANDS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------- Driven Brands Holdings Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the putative class action lawsuit captioned Genesee County Employees' Retirement System v. Driven Brands Holdings Inc., et al. On December 22, 2023, Genesee County Employees' Retirement System filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina against the Company as well as CEO Jonathan Fitzpatrick and former CFO Tiffany Mason alleging violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act by the Company, as well as violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by the Individual Defendants. The Court appointed Genesee County Employees' Retirement System, Oakland County Employees' Retirement System, and Oakland County Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association, as lead plaintiffs on May 31, 2024. Then, the Michigan Funds filed an amended complaint on October 14, 2024, which the Company and the Individual Defendants subsequently moved to dismiss. The Court denied the motion to dismiss on February 20, 2025, and the Company and Individual Defendants moved on March 6, 2025 for reconsideration of the Court's order or, in the alternative, requested that the Court certify its decision for interlocutory appeal. The Court has yet to rule on the motion. The Company disputes the allegations of wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend against the action. No assessment as to the likelihood or range of any potential adverse outcome has been made as of the date of this filing. DUKE & CO: Faces Rogers Suit Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- MATHEW ROGERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DUKE & CO, LLC d/b/a DYNAMIC CAPITAL Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00963 (M.D. Tenn., August 25, 2025) is a class action for Defendant's alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff brings this action to enforce the consumer-privacy provisions of the TCPA alleging that Defendant violated the law by making telemarketing calls to Plaintiff and other putative class members listed on the National Do Not Call Registry without their written consent. The Plaintiff also alleges Defendant's violation of the TCPA by using an artificial or prerecorded voice without prior express written consent and failing to maintain the minimum standards for statutorily required procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive such calls, pursuant to the law. Duke & Co, LLC d/b/a Dynamic Capital is headquartered in Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC 980 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com - and - Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com ECP OPTOMETRY: Topps Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Kyle Topps, Jodeci Vanorden, Gabriella Gantt, and others similarly situated v. ECP Optometry Services LLC, Eyecare Partners LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-03108 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on Aug. 28, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-01301 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Product Liability. ECP Optometry Services LLC -- https://www.eyecare-partners.com/ -- specialize in providing comprehensive eye exams including refraction, pupil dilation, visual field testing, glaucoma screening and treatment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Joseph Weiler, Esq. Michael David Zoldan, Esq. Jason Saul Barrat, Esq. WEILER LAW PLLC 5050 N 40th St., Ste. 260 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Phone: (480) 442-3410 Fax: (480) 442-3410 Email: jweiler@weilerlaw.com mdz@shieldspetitti.com jbarrat@weilerlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Allison C Williams, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC - HOUSTON, TX 1301 McKinney St., Ste. 1900 Houston, TX 77010 Phone: (713) 652-4729 Fax: (713) 951-9212 Email: acwilliams@littler.com - and - Brian Heyun Gyu Rho, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC - Seattle 600 University Street, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-3300 Fax: (206) 299-9598 Email: brho@littler.com - and - Laurent R. G. Badoux, Esq. SQUIRE AND SANDERS 40 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2700 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Phone: (602) 528-4000 Fax: (602) 253-8129 - and - Lindsay Proskey, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP - PHOENIX 2375 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 800 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Phone: (602) 445-8055 Email: Lindsay.Proskey@gtlaw.com - and - Pablo Esteban Castellanos, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PA - PHOENIX, AZ 2425 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 900 Phoenix, AZ 85016-2907 Phone: (602) 474-3620 Fax: (602) 801-3861 Email: pcastellanos@littler.com ELANCO ANIMAL: Appeal in "Hunter" Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------- Elanco Animal Health Incorporated 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 an appeal in a shareholder class action lawsuit captioned Hunter v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al., remains pending. "On May 20, 2020, a shareholder class action lawsuit captioned Hunter v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al. (Hunter) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Elanco and certain executives. On September 3, 2020, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, and on November 9, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding additional claims against Elanco, certain executives and other individuals. The lawsuit alleged, in part, that Elanco and certain of its executives made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose certain facts about Elanco's supply chain, inventory, revenue and projections. "The lawsuit sought unspecified monetary damages and purports to represent purchasers of Elanco securities between September 30, 2018 and May 6, 2020, and purchasers of Elanco common stock issued in connection with Elanco's acquisition of Aratana Therapeutics, Inc. On January 13, 2021, we filed a motion to dismiss, and on August 17, 2022, the Court issued an order granting our motion to dismiss the case without prejudice. "On October 14, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint. On December 7, 2022, we filed an opposition to the plaintiffs' motion, and on September 27, 2023, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave, issuing final judgment in favor of Elanco. "On October 25, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. We intend to continue to vigorously defend our position," the Company stated. ELANCO ANIMAL: Appeal in Safron Capital Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Elanco Animal Health Incorporated 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 an appeal in a shareholder class action lawsuit captioned Safron Capital Corporation v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al. remains pending. "On October 16, 2020, a shareholder class action lawsuit captioned Safron Capital Corporation v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al. was filed in the Marion Superior Court of Indiana against Elanco, certain executives and other individuals and entities. On December 23, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding an additional plaintiff. The lawsuit alleges, in part, that Elanco and certain of its executives made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose certain facts about Elanco's relationships with third-party distributors and revenue attributable to those distributors within the registration statement on Form S-3 dated January 21, 2020, and accompanying prospectus filed in connection with Elanco's public offering which closed on or about January 27, 2020. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and purports to represent purchasers of Elanco common stock or tangible equity units issued in connection with the public offering. From February 2021 to August 2022, this case was stayed in deference to Hunter. On October 24, 2022, we filed a motion to dismiss. On December 23, 2022, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss. Prior to the ruling on the motion to dismiss, on June 8, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, which is now the operative complaint. "We filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on August 7, 2023, to which the plaintiffs filed their opposition on October 13, 2023. On April 17, 2024, our motion to dismiss was granted. On or about October 4, 2024, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Indiana Court of Appeals. Subsequently, on or about March 20, 2025, the plaintiffs' motion for oral argument was denied, and on August 1, 2025, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order granting our motion to dismiss. The plaintiff may petition the court for rehearing or seek further review. We intend to continue to vigorously defend our position," the Company stated. ELANCO ANIMAL: Bid to Dismiss "Barpar" Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------ Elanco Animal Health Incorporated 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 its motion to dismiss the putative securities class action lawsuit captioned Joseph Barpar v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al., remains pending. "On October 7, 2024, a putative securities class action lawsuit captioned Joseph Barpar v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al. (Barpar) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against Elanco and two of its executives. Barpar alleged claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Act) and specifically alleged that Elanco and the two executives made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose certain facts about the safety of and labeling for our Zenrelia(R) product, as well as the approval and launch timelines for Zenrelia and our Credelio Quattro(TM) product. The plaintiff purported to represent purchasers of Elanco securities between November 7, 2023 and June 26, 2024. "On March 21, 2025, plaintiff filed an amended complaint that extended the time period for which the plaintiff purported to represent purchasers of Elanco securities to between May 9, 2023 and June 26, 2024. The amended complaint also removed allegations concerning the approval and launch timelines for our Credelio Quattro product. "On May 20, 2025, we filed a motion to dismiss this case," the Company stated. ELI BAKER: Court Approves $4.125M Settlement in Hu and Kelly Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the cases captioned as Weining Hu, Plaintiff v. Eli Baker, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-02077-KAW, and Eric Bowers, et al., Plaintiffs v. Jason Kelly, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-05396-KAW, United States Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants preliminary approval of a settlement agreement. The actions involved Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings, Inc., an early-stage company that claimed to have developed a platform for cell programming. Ginkgo came to exist in its current form when its predecessor, Soaring Eagle Acquisition Corp., a special purpose acquisition corporation, acquired a private company, Ginkgo Bioworks, Inc., with Legacy Ginkgo becoming a subsidiary of the Company. The plaintiffs asserted claims for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, breaches of fiduciary duty, the aiding and abetting thereof, and related stockholder causes of action under Delaware law against the Individual Defendants in connection with alleged material misstatements and omissions about the Company's revenue and sources of revenue and other alleged misconduct in connection with the Merger that formed Ginkgo. According to the plaintiffs, the Soaring Eagle Defendants conducted one of the largest SPAC initial public offerings on February 26, 2021, when they took Soaring Eagle public, selling over 172 million units and raising over $1.7 billion. Prior to Soaring Eagle's IPO, the Sponsor paid $25,000 for 43.125 million Soaring Eagle "Founder Shares," roughly $0.0006 per share. At the time of the Merger, the Founder Shares were worth over $431 million. The plaintiffs alleged that the Soaring Eagle Defendants agreed to the Merger that valued Legacy Ginkgo at $15 billion, even though it brought in less than $80 million in revenue while losing over $100 million. The valuation of Legacy Ginkgo was largely based on the projections contained in the Proxy soliciting shareholder approval of the Merger. These projections claimed that Legacy Ginkgo would have $345 million of unlevered free cash flow in 2021, which would then increase 20x to $7.6 billion by 2025. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Individual Defendants agree to pay $4.125 million to Ginkgo. The settlement addresses the core concerns raised in the Derivative Actions and offers Ginkgo and its shareholders the benefit of substantial and targeted Reforms to be implemented and maintained by Ginkgo for at least three years. The reforms include the adoption of enhanced oversight and disclosure procedures for related person transactions, implementation of enhanced employee training in related person transactions and disclosures, enhancement of the Audit Committee of the Ginkgo's Board of Directors, enhancement of the Disclosure Committee, and enhancement of Ginkgo's internal audit and financial oversight functions. In addition, the Company will terminate the contract through which it has historically incubated new operating companies or "OpCos" via a third-party service provider. The Settling Parties estimate that the Contract Termination will have a value to Ginkgo in the form of savings of fees under the contract and other associated costs savings totaling approximately $3-4 million over at least the next three years. The Settling Parties agreed to pay Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $2,750,000, subject to court approval. The plaintiffs intend to seek a total of $8,000 in service awards, or $2,000 each. The Court found that the settlement was the product of multiple sessions of negotiations supervised by mediator Michelle Yoshida and reached via an arms-length, non-collusive, negotiated resolution. Prior to reaching the settlement, Plaintiffs' counsel conducted a lengthy investigation, which included reviewing SEC filings, public statements, articles, and securities, reviewing Company contracts and existing governance policies, and reviewing thousands of pages of discovery produced in the Securities Action, the Federal Derivative Actions, and the Delaware Chancery Action. The Court noted that the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation weighed in favor of preliminary approval. At the time of settlement, both plaintiffs had pending motions to dismiss on the threshold issue of demand futility. The Court recognized that it is often difficult for plaintiffs to prevail in derivative actions and on securities fraud claims. Given the risks described, the Court found that the Settlement amount of $4.125 million, plus the estimated costs savings and the implementation of the agreed upon reforms, is reasonable and weighs in favor of preliminary approval. The Court approved the notice plan requiring Ginkgo to post the Long Form Notice on its Investor Relations webpage, publish via GlobeNewswire or similar wire service, and file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission the Notice and Stipulation as exhibits to a Current Report on either Form 8-K or 10-Q. The Court established the following schedule for Ginkgo: - Ginkgo to post Long Form Notice: 14 days from the date of this order - Summary Notice dissemination via wire service: 14 days from the date of this order - SEC Form 8-K filing: 21 days from the date of this order - Confirmation of Notice Plan compliance: November 3, 2025 - Motion for Final Settlement Approval filing: November 3, 2025 - Deadline for Shareholders to file Objections: December 4, 2025 - Reply papers deadline: December 11, 2025 - Final Approval Hearing: December 18, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. The Court granted preliminary approval of the parties' proposed Settlement Agreement and Notice Plan. For settlement purposes only, the Court appointed Dr. Hu and Mr. Bowers as Lead Plaintiffs and Bottini & Bottini, Inc. as Lead Counsel. A copy of the settlement is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MA1Og8 from PacerMonitor.com EMPIRE BLUE CROSS: McCullough Sues Over Unsecured Information ------------------------------------------------------------- Tim McCullough, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EMPIRE BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD, Case No. 160901/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., Aug. 18, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its customers. The Plaintiff brings this class action against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former customers ("Class Members," defined infra) sensitive information, including personally identifiable information ("Private Information") including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and protected health information ("PHI") including health insurance information (together with PHI, "Private Information"). Due to Defendant's negligence, an unauthorized party accessed and exfiltrated Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information from Alera Group's network systems, where the data was stored without adequate protection or oversight (the "Data Breach"). The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information -which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure--was targeted, compromised, and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach was exfiltrated by cyber criminals and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals who target Private Information for its value to identity thieves. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized intrusions; failing to take standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach; and failing to provide Plaintiff and Class Members prompt and accurate notice of the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former customers of Defendant. The Defendant is a health insurance provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A. 1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com EVERGY INC: Faces Nuclear Antitrust Class Action in Maryland ------------------------------------------------------------ Evergy 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 is facing an antitrust class action in a Maryland court. In July 2025, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland alleging violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act in establishing wages for employees at nuclear facilities since 2003. The complaint names 28 defendants, including all 26 owner operators of nuclear facilities in the United States, or affiliated entities, including Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, which owns and operates Wolf Creek, a nuclear facility in Kansas. Evergy indirectly owns 94% of Wolf Creek, with Evergy Kansas Central and Evergy Metro each owning 47% of the nuclear facility. This case is at a preliminary stage and the Evergy Companies are unable to assess the outcome or reasonably estimate any possible damages with respect to the claims. FARMERS GROUP: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Schwartz Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES SCHWARTZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FARMERS GROUP, INC. D/B/A FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-08021 (C.D. Cal., August 25, 2025) is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information about its customers. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach on May 29, 2025. The cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' PII. In short, Defendant's failures placed the Class' PII in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit. Farmers Group, Inc. d/b/a Farmers Insurance Exchange is an insurance company offering insurance and financial products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew G. Gunem, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: agunem@straussborrelli.com FARMERS INSURANCE: Discloses Info to Third Parties, Scott Says -------------------------------------------------------------- MALCOLM SCOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-08032 (C.D. Cal., August 25, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other individuals who had their sensitive personal information, including names, addresses, dates of birth, driver's license numbers, and/or partial Social Security numbers, disclosed to unauthorized third parties during a data breach compromising Defendants in May 2025. On May 30, 2025, Farmers discovered suspicious activity involving an unauthorized actor accessing one of Farmers' third-party vendor's databases containing Farmers customer information. The Data Breach reportedly impacted approximately 1.1 million individuals. According to the complaint, the Defendants' failures to ensure that their servers and systems were adequately secure fell far short of its obligations and Plaintiff's and Class members' reasonable expectations for data privacy jeopardized the security of Plaintiff's and Class member's personal information, and exposed Plaintiff and Class members to fraud and identity theft or the serious risk of fraud and identity theft. As a result of Defendants' conduct and the resulting Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class members' privacy has been invaded, their Personal Information is now in the hands of criminals, they have either suffered fraud or identity theft, or face an imminent and ongoing risk of identity theft and fraud. Accordingly, these individuals now must take immediate and time-consuming action to protect themselves from such identity theft and fraud, the suit alleges. Farmers Insurance Exchange is one of the insurers comprising Farmers Insurance Group.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505-4521 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Bradley K. King, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (917) 336-0171 Facsimile: (917) 336-0177 E-mail: bking@ahdootwolfson.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 280 South Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com - and - William "Billy" Peerce Howard, Esq. THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC 401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340 Truist Place Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 500-1500 E-mail: billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com FUNKO INC: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Calif. Wage & Hour Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Funko, 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 is awaiting court approval of the settlement entered into in the putative class action lawsuit filed in a California court alleging wage and hour violations. On April 12, 2024, a former employee of the Company filed a putative class action in San Diego Superior Court, seeking to represent all non-exempt workers of the Company in the State of California. The complaint alleges various wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and related statutes. Plaintiff has also served a Private Attorneys General Act notice for the same alleged wage and hour violations. The claims predominantly relate to alleged unpaid wages (overtime) and missed meal and rest breaks. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and costs. On May 20, 2025, the parties participated in mediation and reached an immaterial monetary settlement in exchange for a release of all claims that were or could have been asserted in the complaint for the period from April 12, 2020 through July 19, 2025. Final court approval and payment of the settlement are expected in early 2026. FUNKO INC: Court Dismisses Securities Suit ------------------------------------------ Funko, 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 Superior Court of Washington in and for King County has dismissed the securities lawsuit. Between November 16, 2017 and June 12, 2018, seven purported stockholders of the Company filed putative class action lawsuits in the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, ACON, Fundamental Capital, the underwriters of its IPO, and certain other defendants. On July 2, 2018, the suits were ordered consolidated for all purposes into one action under the title In re Funko, Inc. Securities Litigation. On August 1, 2018, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, ACON, Fundamental, and certain other defendants. The Company moved to dismiss twice, and the Court twice granted the Company's motions to dismiss, the second time with prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed, and on November 1, 2021, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal decision in most respects. On May 4, 2022, the Washington State Supreme Court denied the Company's petition, and the case was remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings. The Company filed its answer on September 19, 2022 and the Court certified the case as a class action on November 6, 2023. The consolidated complaint alleges that the Company violated Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended ("Securities Act"), by making allegedly materially misleading statements in documents filed with the SEC in connection with the Company's IPO and by omitting material facts necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading. The lawsuits seek, among other things, compensatory statutory damages and rescissory damages in account of the consideration paid for the Company's Class A common stock by the plaintiffs and members of the putative class, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. On October 21, 2024, the parties agreed to a settlement in principle, and on October 29, 2024 notified the Court of a proposed class settlement. The Court preliminarily approved the settlement of $14.75 million on February 12, 2025 and the settlement was paid on February 25, 2025, directly by the Company's applicable insurance policies. The Court issued final approval of the settlement and dismissed the litigation on June 6, 2025. FUNKO INC: Discovery Ongoing in "Shumacher" ------------------------------------------- Funko, 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 putative class action lawsuit styled Shumacher v. Mariotti, et al. On January 18, 2022, a purported stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Shumacher v. Mariotti, et al., relating to the Company's corporate "Up-C" structure and bringing direct claims for breach of fiduciary duties against certain current and former officers and directors, seeking declaratory, monetary, and injunctive relief. On March 31, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the action. In response to defendants' motion to dismiss, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on May 25, 2022. The amendment did not materially change the claims at issue, and the Defendants again moved to dismiss on August 12, 2022. On December 15, 2022, Plaintiff opposed the Defendants' motion to dismiss, and also moved for attorneys' fees. On December 18, 2023, the Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss and denied Plaintiffs' application for an interim fee. On March 13, 2024, the representative plaintiff moved to withdraw as a plaintiff in the action, and another purported stockholder moved to intervene as representative plaintiff. On October 28, 2024, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion to withdraw and granted the new representative plaintiff's motion to intervene. The Company filed its Answer to the Verified Class Action Complaint in Intervention on December 10, 2024, and discovery is currently ongoing. FUNKO INC: Parties Await Decision on Appeal in "Studen" ------------------------------------------------------- Funko, 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 parties are awaiting court decision on the appeal filed in the putative class action lawsuit styled Studen v. Funko, Inc., et al. On June 2, 2023, a purported stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, captioned Studen v. Funko, Inc., et al. The Complaint alleges that the Company and certain individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly materially misleading statements in documents filed with the SEC, as well as in earnings calls and presentations to investors, regarding a planned upgrade to its enterprise resource planning system and the relocation of a distribution center, as well as by omitting material facts about the same subjects necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading. The lawsuits seek, among other things, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On August 17, 2023, the Court appointed lead plaintiff, and on August 29, 2023, the parties submitted a joint stipulated scheduling order. Plaintiff's amended complaint was filed October 19, 2023. The amendment adds additional allegations by including accounts from purported former employees and contractors. Plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of investors who purchased or acquired Funko common stock between March 3, 2022 and March 1, 2023. On May 16, 2024, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss with leave for Plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint. On July 1, 2024, Plaintiffs notified the Court of their decision to not amend their complaint, and the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice on July 8, 2024. Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on August 6, 2024, under the amended caption Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis v. Funko, Inc., et al. Plaintiffs' opening brief was filed on October 21, 2024, and briefing was completed on February 10, 2025. Oral argument was held on May 23, 2025. The parties are awaiting a decision on the appeal. GEN DIGITAL: Must Face Reisman TCPA Class Suit Over Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Eli Reisman, Plaintiff v. Gen Digital Incorporated, Defendant, Civil Action No. CV-25-01653-PHX-SPL (D. Ariz.), Judge Steven P. Logan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the putative class action complaint. The Court ruled that Plaintiff adequately pleaded direct liability claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) against Gen Digital for allegedly sending unwanted text messages to consumers registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. On February 18, 2025, Plaintiff initiated this putative class action against Defendant Gen Digital Inc. in the District of New Jersey alleging violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, et seq. Pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, on May 16, 2025, this matter was transferred to the District of Arizona. On June 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, which is the operative complaint for purposes of the instant Motion. Defendant Gen Digital operates various cybersecurity brands including Norton, Avast, LifeLock, Avira, AVG, ReputationDefender, and CCleaner. Gen Digital relies on third-party affiliate marketing to refer prospective customers to Gen Digital. Plaintiff alleges that Gen Digital and its affiliates and partners sent illegal telemarketing text messages on behalf of Gen Digital to Plaintiff's and Class members' residential cell phones. Plaintiff, whose cell phone has been registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry since July 19, 2023, alleges that he began receiving telemarketing text messages from Gen Digital or one of its affiliate marketers in October 2023. Between October 15 and December 13, 2023, he ultimately received nine such text messages, each sent from a seemingly random telephone number, and each containing a hyperlink directing Plaintiff to a website containing an advertisement for a Gen Digital product. On October 18, 2023, Plaintiff contacted Gen Digital regarding one of the unsolicited text messages he received. Gen Digital's litigation counsel responded, stating, In all likelihood, the text was sent by a third-party marketing affiliate which itself had access to your phone number. (Gen does not send text-message solicitations and strictly forbids this practice among its marketing vendors.) While this is not common, it has happened before, and our practice is to work internally to identify the sender and have them removed from our marketing-affiliate platform. Plaintiff contends that the statement that "it has happened before" entails that Gen Digital knew that consumers were being sent unwanted text messages advertising its products in violation of the TCPA, and that Gen Digital could have used the affiliate or partner identification numbers included in the messages to instruct the third party affiliates to stop sending telemarketing messages on its behalf, but it refused to do so. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings two causes of action under 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c) on behalf of two putative classes, one class of those with telephone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry, and one class including those with telephone numbers on Defendant's (or its vendors') internal do-not-call list. Defendant argued that Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed because his allegations are insufficient to plausibly plead an agency relationship between Gen and any third-party vendor that allegedly sent the text messages. However, the Court found Plaintiff's direct liability allegations sufficient. The Court noted that Plaintiff's allegations are not so sparse as Defendant suggests. First, Plaintiff alleges that the telephone numbers used to send solicitations were likely "spoofed" to conceal the identity of the caller, which would preclude Plaintiff being able to determine whether the phone numbers were associated with Gen Digital. Furthermore, Plaintiff's Complaint includes detailed allegations regarding Defendant's statements (in SEC filings) that it engages in direct-to-consumer marketing, the anonymous nature of the conduct at issue, and the lack of affiliate codes in any URLs for specific text messages. The Court stated it approaches the issue with a measure of common sense. When the entire factual context is considered and the pleading is construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court found that Plaintiff has nudged his claim across the line from conceivable to plausible. Given the "spoofed" or anonymous nature of the text messages at issue, many of the relevant facts here are known only to the defendant. Furthermore, as Plaintiff points out, it is certainly logical to think that text messages that do not contain an affiliate code or tracking would have been sent directly by Defendant, as it would make no financial sense that a third party would direct traffic to Defendant's website and not get credit for its efforts. Because Plaintiff has adequately pleaded that Defendant was directly liable for two or more of the text message solicitations at issue, he has sufficiently stated a claim for purposes of Rule 12(b)(6). A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ramMxA from PacerMonitor.cm GEO GROUP: Ronduen Seeks to File Docs Provisionally Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LIGAYA RONDUEN, et al., v. THE GEO GROUP, INC., a Florida corporation, and SPARTAN CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC., an Ohio corporation, Case No. 5:23-cv-00481-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting ex parte application for leave to file certain documents provisionally under seal relating to their motion to certify the class. On Aug. 21, 2025, Plaintiffs’ counsel emailed Defendants’ counsel pursuant to Local Rule 79-5.2.2(b) seeking to obtain Defendants’ positions on the exhibits in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify The Class that had been designated Highly Confidential or Confidential by Defendants. The Defendants did not provide their position on the exhibits and instead, on August 24, jointly responded that they would adhere to the same practice the parties followed in June 2025—i.e., filing under seal everything any other party had designated Confidential or Highly Confidential. The Plaintiffs thus file provisionally under seal all supporting exhibits that Defendants have designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential. GEO is a for-profit owner of correctional facilities and detention centers. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NUAL4H at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sara Haji, Esq. Marjorie Menza, Esq. Hannah K. Comstock, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LEGAL FOUNDATION 523 West 6th Street, Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (213) 542-5241 E-mail: shaji@socialjusticelaw.org hcomstock@socialjusticelaw.org mmenza@socialjusticelaw.o - and - John C. Hueston, Esq. Robert N. Klieger, Esq. Emily Michael Munson, Esq. HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP 523 West 6th Street, Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (213) 788-4340 E-mail: jhueston@hueston.com rklieger@hueston.com emunson@hueston.com GUCCI AMERICA: Ekine Sues for Recovery of Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Ayebainaton Ekine, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GUCCI AMERICA, INC., a New York Stock Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. S-CV-0055955 (Cal. Super. Ct., Placer Cty., Aug. 12, 2025), is brought for recovery of unpaid wages and penalties under California Labor Codes, California Business and Professions Code, and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 7 ("Wage Order 7"), in addition to seeking declaratory relief and restitution. This action is brought pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 382. The Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees for all hours actually worked and/or subject to Defendants' control, resulting in unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages. Specifically, Defendants maintained a policy/practice that requires Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees to be available to assist customers any time a customer came into the store. To incentivize store associates to assist customers and complete sales, Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees were paid, in part, on a commission basis, and were therefore required to assist their specific clients once the initial sales associate-client relationship was established, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt "Client Advisor" from April 12, 2022 to January 2025. The Defendants design, manufacture, and sell luxury fashion clothing, handbags, and apparel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq. Matthew K. Moen, Esq. Susan J. Perez, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180 El Segundo, CA 90245 Phone: (424) 292-2350 Fax: (424) 292-2355 Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com mmoen@haineslawgroup.com sperez@haineslawgroup.com HARBIN CLINIC: Solomon Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harbin Clinic, LLC. The case is styled as Sanea Solomon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Harbin Clinic, LLC, Case No. 25CV01374 (Ga. Super. Ct., Floyd Cty., Aug. 13, 2025). The case type is stated as "Contract/Account." Harbin Clinic -- https://harbinclinic.com/ -- has grown into the largest privately owned multi-specialty physician group in the state of Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com HARBORVIEW TOWERS: Court Narrows Claims in Clark, et al. FHA Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland grants-in-part and denies-in-part the motion for summary judgment filed by Council of Unit Owners of the 100 Harborview Drive Condominium Association in the case captioned as DR. PAUL C. CLARK, SR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNCIL OF UNIT OWNERS OF THE 100 HARBORVIEW DRIVE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01325-LKG (D. Md.). The Clarks' cross-motion for summary judgment is denied. In this civil action, the Plaintiffs, Dr. Paul C. Clark, Sr., Rebecca Delorme and Paul C. Clark, Jr. (the "Clarks"), assert a retaliation claim pursuant to the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3617, against the Defendant, Council of Unit Owners of the 100 Harborview Drive Condominium Association, arising from their ownership of a condominium unit located at 100 Harborview Drive in Baltimore, Maryland. Harborview has moved for summary judgment on the Clarks' FHA retaliation claim, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. The Clarks have also moved for summary judgment on this claim, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Plaintiff Dr. Paul C. Clark, Sr. is the owner of the Unit and a resident of Bethesda, Maryland. Plaintiff Rebecca Delorme is the spouse Dr. Clark and a resident of Bethesda, Maryland Plaintiff Paul C. Clark, Jr. is the son of Dr. Clark and a resident of Bethesda, Maryland. Defendant Harborview is a condominium association that is organized under the laws of the State of Maryland and is comprised of the unit owners in the Harborview Condominium. Harborview is responsible for governing the affairs of the Harborview Condominium and it is managed by a Board of Directors. On March 9, 2016, Harborview filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland. Given this, the Court stayed the Clarks' FHA Litigation. Thereafter, the Clarks brought their FHA claims against Harborview in the Bankruptcy Case. The Clarks also asserted a new claim for breach of contract, in which the Clarks alleged that Harborview violated its duty under the Harborview Condominium's By-Laws to maintain the common elements surrounding the Unit. Specifically, the Clarks alleged that they were forced out of their Unit as a result of water and pigeon feces infiltrating the Unit. In October 2017, Harborview accepted liability as to the Clarks' breach of contract claim, and the parties negotiated the scope of work required to remediate the damage to the Unit. Given this, the Bankruptcy Court ordered that Freddy Vazquez of Retro Environmental would perform the teardown and remediation services on the Unit, and that Harborview would pay for this work, in November 2017. And so, in February 2018, the Bankruptcy Court entered summary judgment in favor of the Clarks on their breach of contract claim and awarded the Clarks certain costs related to the repair of the Unit. The Present Litigation The Clarks commenced this FHA retaliation case on May 27, 2020. On July 31, 2020, and April 5, 2021, the Clarks amended the complaint to add additional allegations of retaliation since the commencement of this litigation. In the second amended complaint, the Clarks allege that Harborview retaliated against them for previously bringing FHA claims against Harborview in the FHA Litigation, the Bankruptcy Case and the present litigation, in violation of the FHA. They allege that Harborview converted their personal possessions during the remediation of the Unit. It is undisputed that Retro hired a subcontractor, AMRestore, to help perform the remediation of the Unit. They contend that Harborview failed to pay AMRestore for its remediation work on the Unit and that AMRestore is holding their personal possessions as bailment for the unpaid work The Clarks allege that, on Jan. 27, 2021, Harborview published a litigation update to the unit owners at Harborview Condominium that states, among other things, that in May 2019, Dr. Clark filed a second appeal to the District Court regarding the Order Granting Plan Officer's Motion for Clarification Regarding Reorganized Debtor's Collection of Assessments. It is undisputed that the First Litigation Update provides information about the litigation history between the Clarks and Harborview, including a paragraph discussing the procedural history of the Clarks' FHA claims in this case. The First Litigation Update also identifies the members of the Clark family by name. The Clarks also contend that, on August 2, 2023, Harborview published a second litigation update, which contains a discussion of "The Clark Family Claims in the Bankruptcy" and a one-page summary of the procedural history of this litigation. It is undisputed that the Second Litigation Update was circulated to the unit owners at Harborview Condominium. As relief, the Clarks seek, among other things, to recover monetary damages and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, from Harborview. In its motion for summary judgment, Harborview argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on the Clarks' FHA retaliation claim, because: (1) none of the actions taken by Harborview rise to the egregious level necessary to sustain a FHA retaliation claim; (2) the Clarks cannot prevail on their FHA retaliation claim based upon the conversion of their personal possessions, because Harborview took no action in connection with the moving and storage of these personal possessions; (3) the Clarks cannot prevail on their FHA retaliation claim based upon the Demand Letter, because the Demand Letter is not an adverse action under the FHA and Harborview had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for sending the Demand Letter; and (4) the Clarks cannot prevail on their FHA retaliation claim based upon the Litigation Updates, because the Litigation Updates are not an adverse action under the FHA and these updates were not made with a discriminatory intent. And so, Harborview requests that the Court enter summary judgment in its favor on the Clarks' FHA retaliation claim and dismiss this matter. The Clarks counter that Harborview is not entitled to summary judgment, because there are material facts in dispute in this case regarding their FHA retaliation claim. Alternatively, the Clarks also argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on their FHA retaliation claim, based upon the conversion of their personal possession and the Litigation Updates, because the undisputed material facts show that Harborview took these actions in retaliation for their prior FHA litigation. And so, the Clarks request that the Court deny Harborview's motion for summary judgment and enter summary judgment in their favor with regards to their FHA retaliation claim based upon conversion of their personal possessions and the Litigation Updates. According to Judge Griggsby, "The undisputed material facts show that Harborview had no role in the conversion of the Clarks' personal possessions during the remediation of the Unit. But, the undisputed material facts do not show that the Demand Letter and Litigation Updates are not an 'adverse action' under the FHA." The evidentiary record before the Court also makes clear that there are material facts in dispute regarding: (1) whether the Demand Letter and Litigation Updates are causally connected to the Clarks' prior FHA claims; and (2) whether the Clarks can show that Harborview's stated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for taking these alleged adverse actions are pretextual. The Court enters judgment summarily in favor of Harborview with regards to the Clarks' FHA retaliation claim based upon the conversion of their personal possessions. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mALrtG from PacerMonitor.com. About Council of Unit Owners of the 100 Harborview Drive Condominium Council of Unit Owners of the 100 Harborview Drive Condominium, a condominium association, sought protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. D. Md. Case No. 16-13049) on March 9, 2016. In the petition signed by Dr. Reuben Mezrich, president, the Debtor estimated assets and liabilities at $10 million to $50 million. Judge James F. Schneider is assigned to the case. The Debtor is represented by Paul Sweeny, Esq., at Yumkas, Vidmar, Sweeney & Mulrenin, LLC. The Debtor's bankruptcy-exit plan was confirmed April 10, 2018. HEARTLAND REGIONAL: Winchell Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Dennis Winchell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Heartland Regional Medical Center doing business as: Mosaic Life Care, Inc., Cerner Corporation doing business as: Oracle Health, Case No. 2516-cv23981 was removed from the Circuit of Jackson County, MO at Independence, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on Aug. 28, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00681-LMC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Heartland Regional Medical Center -- http://www.heartlandregional.com/-- is a community healthcare provider; offering a comprehensive range of health and hospital services..[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: George E. Kapke, Jr., Esq. Michael J. Fleming, Esq. KAPKE & WILLERTH, LLC 3304 NE Ralph Powell Rd. Lee's Summit, MO 64064 Phone: (816) 461-3800 Fax: (816) 254-8014 Email: ted@kapkewillerth.com mike@kapkewillerth.com The Defendant is represented by: Colby Millard Everett, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1801 California Street, Suite 4400 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 861-0600 Fax: (303) 861-7805 Email: ceverett@bakerlaw.com HERTZ CORPORATION: Data Breach Suit Remains Pending in Illinois --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hertz 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 a data breach class action lawsuit remains pending in an Illinois court. On April 15, 2025, Zain Jiwani filed a class action complaint against Cleo Communications U.S., LLC, and the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division (Rockford, IL). Plaintiff alleges that Cleo, a file-transfer vendor for the Company, experienced a data breach event that may have impacted the personal information of certain individuals during the secure file transfer process from the Company's systems to third-party systems and that Company data may have been acquired by an unauthorized third party that exploited zero-day vulnerabilities within Cleo's platform in October and December of 2024. Plaintiff alleges that the Company was negligent in failing to secure the data, breached implied contracts and was unjustly enriched. Ten similar class action complaints were filed against the Company shortly thereafter and eventually transferred to the same court, the Illinois Northern District, Western Division Court. The class actions generally seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages. The defendants' responses to the complaints have been stayed pending the Illinois Northern District, Western Division Court's entry of a global scheduling order. At this early stage of the litigation, the Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. HERTZ CORPORATION: Securities Suit Remains Pending in Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- The Hertz 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 a securities class action lawsuit remains pending in a Florida court. On May 31, 2024, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the "Florida Middle District Court"), captioned Edward M. Doller v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. et al. (No. 2:24-CV-00513). On September 30, 2024, an amended complaint was filed, following the Florida Middle District Court's appointment of a lead plaintiff and a lead counsel. The amended complaint asserts claims against Hertz Global, former Company CEO, Stephen M. Scherr, and former Company Chief Financial Officer, Alexandra Brooks, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, including concerning statements regarding demand for EVs. Plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of a putative class, consisting of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Hertz Global's securities between January 6, 2023 and April 24, 2024. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, together with interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. Hertz Global filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on October 30, 2024. On December 19, 2024, the Florida Middle District Court stayed all proceedings, pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss. IEC GROUP: Wins Bid to Dismiss Health Insurance Data Breach Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Miles Black, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and Melissa Black, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. IEC Group, Inc., d/b/a Ameriben, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00384-AKB (D. Idaho), Judge Amanda K. Blaisford of the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint. The Court ordered that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint is granted. Plaintiffs' Complaint is dismissed with prejudice, and the case is dismissed in its entirety. The Court dismissed with prejudice a class action lawsuit against Ameriben arising from a December 2022 data breach. The Plaintiffs alleged that Ameriben failed to properly secure and safeguard customers' sensitive personally identifiable information such as customers' member identification numbers, healthcare provider, and health insurance information" after an employee accidentally emailed a spreadsheet containing patient information to unauthorised recipients. According to the Court's findings, Ameriben contracts with employers to provide health insurance administration services. In December 2022, an Ameriben employee emailed a spreadsheet containing a claims report to one or more members. The Court noted that the spreadsheet was filtered to show only the recipient's personal information. However, Ameriben discovered the spreadsheet could possibly be unfiltered to display the personal information of other members, including Plaintiffs. The potentially disclosed information included first and last name, the employee's first and last name (if someone other than the Plaintiffs), a unique tracking (cert) number, provider name, claim number, date of service, and the amount billed or paid. The Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint alleging numerous claims for relief, including negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment/quasi contract, and violation of Florida statutory law. The Court previously granted Ameriben's initial motion to dismiss because (1) the nature of the information Ameriben allegedly disclosed did not give rise to a credible threat of fraud or identity theft; (2) the context in which Ameriben's data breach occurred makes it unlikely the Plaintiffs' information would be stolen or misused; and (3) Plaintiffs' mitigation costs and their fear, anxiety, and stress did not establish an injury-in-fact. The Court emphasized that to satisfy Article III's standing requirement, a plaintiff must show (i) that he suffered an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; (ii) that the injury was likely caused by the defendant; and (iii) that the injury would likely be redressed by judicial relief. Regarding injury-in-fact requirements, The Court extensively analyzed the injury-in-fact requirement, explaining that to establish injury in fact, a plaintiff must show that he or she suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. The Court emphasized that while a concrete injury may include tangible or intangible harms, it must be real and not abstract. The Court found that the information Ameriben allegedly disclosed is not sufficiently sensitive to give hackers the means to commit fraud or identity theft. The Court distinguished this case from precedents involving more sensitive data, noting that while a social security number, date of birth, or passwords pose an inherent risk of fraud, a patient's name, references to a patient being insured, review time, and total amount billed do not raise the same sensitivity concerns. The Court rejected the Plaintiffs' arguments about medical identity theft, stating that this information is not the type of information hackers generally rely on to steal identity or to access financial resources. Examining the circumstances of the breach, the Court found the risk of future harm too speculative. The Court noted that Ameriben's post-disclosure notice states Ameriben had no reason to believe that someone has or will misuse your healthcare data. The Court distinguished this case from others involving targeted cyberattacks, explaining that where a plaintiff alleges their information was among items targeted and stolen by a bad actor, the future risk of identity theft is high. Here, however, the disclosure was accidental rather than the result of malicious hacking. The Court rejected the Plaintiffs' arguments about mitigation costs and emotional distress, ruling that only when the risk of future harm is not speculative can the cost of mitigation efforts form a basis for standing. The Court explained that mitigation costs and emotional distress may only qualify as concrete injuries when they are based on a risk of harm that is either certainly impending or substantial. Since the Plaintiffs failed to establish such a risk, their claims regarding mitigation costs are insufficient to establish standing. The Court concluded that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims for damages and injunctive and declaratory relief. Since the Court previously granted Plaintiffs leave to amend, the Court finds dismissal with prejudice is appropriate. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=01Mo93 from PacerMonitor.com. INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- Innovative Industrial Properties, 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. "On April 25, 2022, a federal securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers. The case was named Michael V. Mallozzi, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Paul Smithers, Catherine Hastings and Andy Bui, Case No. 2-22-cv-02359, and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The lawsuit was purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of our common stock and alleges that we and certain of our officers made false or misleading statements regarding our business in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, SEC Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. According to the filed complaint, the plaintiff is seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs and other relief on behalf of the putative classes of all persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stock between May 7, 2020 and April 13, 2022. "On September 29, 2022, an Amended Class Action Complaint was filed under the same Case Number, adding as defendants Alan D. Gold and Benjamin C. Regin, and asserting causes of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the Amended Class Action Complaint, the plaintiff is seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs and other relief on behalf of the putative classes of all persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stock between August 7, 2020 and August 4, 2022. On December 1, 2022, defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint. On September 19, 2023, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint without prejudice. "On October 19, 2023, a Second Amended Class Action Complaint was filed under the same Case Number, and asserted causes of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the Second Amended Class Action Complaint, the plaintiff is seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs and other relief on behalf of the putative classes of all persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stock between August 7, 2020 and August 4, 2022. On December 18, 2023, defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint; on February 1, 2024, plaintiff responded with their opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint; and on March 1, 2024, defendants replied to plaintiff's response. On September 25, 2024, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint with prejudice. On September 30, 2024, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the court's dismissal of the Second Amended Class Action Complaint with prejudice. On December 9, 2024, plaintiff filed their opening appellate brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On January 23, 2025, defendants filed their appellate brief. On February 27, 2025, plaintiff filed their reply brief. Oral argument took place on June 17, 2025. "On January 17, 2025, a second federal securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers. The case was named Alain Giraudon, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Alan D. Gold, Paul E. Smithers, David Smith and Ben Regin, Case No. 1:25-cv-00182-RDB, and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The lawsuit was purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of our common stock and alleges that we and certain of our officers made false or misleading statements regarding our business in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, SEC Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. According to the filed complaint, the plaintiff is seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs and other relief on behalf of the putative classes of all persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stock between February 27, 2024 and December 19, 2024. On April 25, 2025, the court issued an order setting a briefing schedule, which is as follows: plaintiff is to file an Amended Complaint no later than June 23, 2025; defendants are to file an answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond no later than August 22, 2025; if defendants move to dismiss, plaintiff is to file a response no later than October 21, 2025; and defendants are to file a reply no later than November 20, 2025. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on June 23, 2025. "On June 23, 2025, a Consolidated Class Action Complaint was filed under the same Case Number, adding Catherine Hastings as a defendant, and asserting causes of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, the plaintiff is seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs and other relief on behalf of the putative classes of all persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stock between February 26, 2024 and March 28, 2025. "It is possible that similar lawsuits may yet be filed in the same or other courts that name the same or additional defendants. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. However, at this time, we cannot predict the probable outcome of this action, and, accordingly, no amounts have been accrued in the Company's consolidated financial statements," the Company stated. KINDERCARE LEARNING: Thorpe Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kelsi Thorpe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTERS LLC, a foreign limited liability company; KINDERCARE EDUCATION LLC, a foreign limited liability company; KINDERCARE EDUCATION AT WORK LLC, a foreign limited liability company; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 25-2-21772-8 KNT was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Aug. 28, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01660. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Washington Equal Pay and Opportunities Act ("EPOA"), RWC 49.58.110, because she and members of the putative class "applied to job openings with Defendants where the postings did not disclose the wage scale or salary range and a general description of all of the benefits and other compensation to be offered to the hired applicant."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Callie A. Castillo, Esq. Emily A. Williams, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2800 Seattle, WA 98101-3808 Phone: 206.223.7000 Facsimile: 206.223.7107 Email: castilloc@ballardspahr.com williamsea@ballardspahr.com L & B TRANSPORT: $220K Settlement in Herrell Suit Has Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned as Adam Herrell, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. L & B Transport, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00965-SDD-SDJ, Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana grants final approval of the parties' settlement. The class action lawsuit arises from a data security incident. The Court entered its order on August 21, 2025, after conducting a Final Approval Hearing on July 24, 2025, to determine whether the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court found that the terms of the Settlement are fair, adequate and reasonable after considering the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2) factors and the Fifth Circuit's traditional factors from Reed v. General Motors Corp. The Court affirmed its prior certification of the settlement class, finding that it satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3). The settlement class is defined as All persons in the United States whose Private Information was potentially compromised as a result of the Data Security Incident involving L&B Transport, LLC. Excluded from the settlement class are: (a) all persons who are governing board members of Defendant; (b) governmental entities; (c) the Court, the Court's immediate family, and Court staff; and (d) any individual who timely and validly opts out of the Settlement. The Court noted that "there were no objections to the Settlement and no valid opt-outs, demonstrating an overwhelmingly positive response from the Settlement Class." The settlement involved a $220,000 non-reversionary settlement fund established to provide benefits to affected class members. The Court determined that notice provided to the settlement class was the best notice practicable under the circumstances. The notice program included direct mailing via First-Class U.S. Mail and publication on a dedicated settlement website, which complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and the requirements of due process. The Court found that the Claim Form was straightforward and easily understandable, and the Claims process was fair, reasonable, and designed to facilitate access to relief. All settlement class members who submitted valid claims shall receive their settlement benefits as provided under the settlement agreement. According to the Settlement, Class Counsel is awarded $73,326 in attorney's fees, representing 33.33% of the $220,000 non-reversionary settlement fund, plus $405 for costs. The Court evaluated the fee request using the percentage of the fund method blended with the following 12 factors from Johnson v. Ga. Highway Express, Inc. and concluded that the amount is fair and within the range of reason. Plaintiff Adam Herrell received a service award of $5,000 for his role as class representative. The settlement administrator, Apex Class Action Services, LLC, was approved to receive payment for settlement administration costs in an amount not to exceed $15,550. The payment shall be payable out of the Settlement Fund in accordance with the Agreement. The Court ordered that as of the effective date, all Releasing Parties shall be deemed to have fully, finally, and irrevocably released and forever discharged the Released Parties from any and all liabilities, rights, claims, actions, causes of action, demands, damages, costs, attorneys' fees, losses, and remedies" related to the data security incident or alleged violations asserted in the complaint. The Court permanently enjoined Plaintiff and all settlement class members from commencing or prosecuting (either directly, representatively, or in any other capacity) any of the Released Claims against any of the Released Parties in any action or proceeding in any court, arbitration forum, or tribunal. In the event that funds remain from uncashed checks following the expiration of the 90-day check negotiation period, the Court ordered that the remaining Net Settlement Fund shall be distributed to the Court-approved cy pres recipient. The Court directed that the Judgment shall be entered dismissing the Action with prejudice and on the merits. The settlement's terms shall be forever binding on, and shall have res judicata and preclusive effect in, all pending and future lawsuits or other proceedings as to Released Claims. The Court retained jurisdiction over implementation of the settlement, any distributions to settlement class members, and all parties for the purpose of enforcing and administering the settlement terms. The Court emphasized that the settlement and related proceedings are not, and shall not be construed as, used as, or deemed to be evidence of, an admission by or against Defendant of any claim, any fact alleged in the Action, any fault, any wrongdoing, any violation of law, or any liability of any kind. A copy of the settlement is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ik8N22 from PacerMonitor.com LIFEMD INC: Final Approval Hearing of Settlement Set for Sept. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- LifeMD, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 25, 2025, that on November 1, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of an August 23, 2023 purported putative class action complaint captioned "Marden v. LifeMD, Inc.," Case No. 23-cv-07469 filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company's "RexMD" brand. On June 4, 2025, the court approved a preliminary class action settlement and the final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for September 30, 2025. Said case alleged, inter alia, unauthorized disclosure of certain information of class members to third parties. On November 21, 2023, the plaintiffs amended the Marden complaint and on March 4, 2024, the company moved to dismiss the Marden complaint, and that motion is pending. On July 12, 2024, the parties attended a mediation and on November 1, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the Southern District of New York case. On November 25, 2024, the plaintiffs refiled the case via a new complaint captioned "W.M.F. & Matthew Marden v. LifeMD, Inc., Case No. A-24-906800-C," in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada. LifeMD, Inc. is a direct-to-patient telehealth company providing virtual and in-home healthcare through its proprietary platform. LITTLE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Pagan Extended to Nov. 14 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAGAN et al v. LITTLE, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01516 (W.D. Pa., Filed Oct. 27, 2022 ), the Hon. Judge Marilyn J. Horan entered an order granting in part motion to extend time to produce expert reports and extend case management deadlines. The Amended Case Management Order is further amended as follows: -- The Defendants' Expert Reports related to class certification are due on or before Sept. 16, 2025. -- Depositions of all experts related to class certification shall be completed by Oct. 15, 2025. -- The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is due on or before Nov. 14, 2025. -- The Defendants' Response is due on or before Dec. 16, 2025. The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus -- Prison Condition.[CC] LONGS DRUG STORES: Rodriguez Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Priscila Imelda Rodriguez, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LONGS DRUG STORES CALIFORNIA, L.L.C., a California Limited Liability Company; CAREMARK, L.L.C., a California Limited Liability Company; CVS PHARMACY, INC., a Rhode Island Corporation, and DOES 1 – 50, Inclusive, Case No. 25CECG03366 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Fresno, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on Aug. 28, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01095-JLT-HBK. The Plaintiff alleges that she "and the other class members are entitled to recover from Defendants the statutory penalty wages for each day they were not paid, up to a 30 day maximum pursuant to California Labor Code section 203." Under California Labor Code section 203, if an employer fails to pay all wages due upon termination in a timely manner, "the wages of the employees shall continue as a penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid or until an action therefor is commenced" for up to 30 days.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jennifer B. Zargarof, Esq. Anahi Cruz, Esq. Richard A. Westmoreland, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Phone: +1.213.612.2500 Fax: +1.213.612.2501 Email: jennifer.zargarof@morganlewis.com anahi.cruz@morganlewis.com richard.westmoreland@morganlewis.com LUCID GROUP USA: Milito Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as John Milito, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LUCID GROUP USA, INC., a foreign profit corporation; LUCID USA, INC., a foreign profit corporation; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 25-2-21299-8 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Aug. 28, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01664. The Plaintiff asserts one claim against Defendants for a purported violation of the Equal Pay and Opportunities Act ("EPOA"), specifically Wash. Rev. Code. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that "he and more than 40 Class members applied for job openings with Defendant for positions located in Washington where the postings did not disclose the wage scale or salary range being offered." The Plaintiff alleges that "some, if not all, of Defendants' job postings" lack pay information.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. Hannah M. Hamley, Esq. EMERY REDDY PLLC 600 Stewart St., Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206.442.9106 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com hannah@emeryreddy.com The Defendants are represented by: Kyle D. Nelson, Esq. Matthew R. Kelly, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4700 Seattle, WA 98104-4041 Phone: (206) 393-4060 Email: knelson@seyfarth.com mrkelly@seyfarth.com LULULEMON USA: Berdugo Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Alma Y. Berdugo, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LULULEMON USA Inc., a Nevada corporation; LOGIC STAFFING LLC, a Washington limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2520958 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Aug. 28, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-02252. The Plaintiff bases her claims on alleged violations of the California Labor Code. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges: Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Required Rest Breaks; Failure to Provide Recovery Periods; Failure to Provide Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Minimum and Straight Time Wages; Failure to Timely Pay Wages; Failure to Pay All Wages Due to Discharged and Quitting Employees; Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Maintain Required Records; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Expenses; Unfair Business Practices; and Penalties Under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jennifer A. Riley, Esq. Betty Luu, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5450 Phone: +1 213 689 7400 Facsimile: +1 213 689 7401 Email: JARiley@duanemorris.com BLuu@duanemorris.com LYFT INC: Appeal in NY ADA Suit Remains Pending ----------------------------------------------- Lyft, 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 appeal from the dismissal of the class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act remains pending. From time to time, the Company becomes involved in putative class actions, investigations, and other matters alleging violations of consumer protection, civil rights, and other laws; antitrust and unfair competition laws such as California's Cartwright Act, Unfair Practices Act and Unfair Competition Law; and the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the ADA, among others. In July 2024, the Company went to trial in federal court in New York to defend against a class action alleging ADA and New York law violations with respect to the Company's wheelchair accessible vehicle ("WAV") offerings, seeking injunctive and other relief, in Lowell v. Lyft, Inc. On September 30, 2024, the district court ruled that plaintiffs failed to sustain their burden of proof that the modifications they proposed at trial would result in nationwide WAV service. The district court dismissed the suit and entered judgment in favor of the Company. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on October 29, 2024, and the appeal is now pending before the Second Circuit Court of Appeal. The Company disputes any allegations of wrongdoing and intends to continue to defend itself vigorously in these matters. The Company said its chances of success on the merits are still uncertain and any possible loss or range of loss cannot be reasonably estimated. MADISON REAL ESTATE: Foster Sues Over Accommodation Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------ Leland Foster, individually, and on behalf of individuals similarly situated v. MADISON REAL ESTATE, LLC, A Michigan limited liability company, Case No. 4:25-cv-12722-SDK-EAS (E.D. Mich., Aug. 28, 2025), is brought against Defendant pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") due to the Defendant's place of public accommodation which contains barriers for people with disabilities. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendant's non-compliance with the ADA with respect to this property as described but not necessarily limited to the allegations contained in this complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination in violation of the ADA by the Defendant. The Plaintiff desires to visit the Defendant's place of business again on future occasions, not only to avail himself of the goods and services available at the property but to assure himself that this property is in compliance with the ADA so that he and others similarly situated will have full and equal enjoyment of the hotel and its amenities without fear of discrimination. The Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the buildings, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff qualifies as an individual with disability. Madison Real Estate, LLC operates and owns an American Inn & Suites Waterford located in Oakland County.[BN] The Plaintiff is are represented by: Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFCIES OF OWEN B. DUNN, JR. The Offices of Unit C 6800 W. Central Ave., Suite C-1 Toledo, OH 43617 Phone: (419) 241-9661 Facsimile: (419) 241-9737 Email: obdjr@owendunnlaw.com - and - Brian A. Hizer, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN A. HIZER The Offices of Unit C 6800 W. Central Ave., Suite C-1 Toledo, OH 43617 Phone: 419-841-3600 Fax: 419-842-9966 Email: brianahizer@bex.net MAIDEN HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in N.J. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kestrel Group Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2025, that Maiden Holdings, the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. A putative class action complaint was filed against Maiden Holdings, Arturo M. Raschbaum, Karen L. Schmitt, and John M. Marshaleck in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on February 11, 2019. On February 19, 2020, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs, and on May 1, 2020, lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint asserts violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 (and Section 20(a) for control person liability) arising in large part from allegations that Maiden failed to take adequate loss reserves in connection with reinsurance provided to AmTrust. Plaintiffs further claim that certain of Maiden Holdings' representations concerning its business, underwriting and financial statements were rendered false by the allegedly inadequate loss reserves, that these misrepresentations inflated the price of Maiden Holdings' common stock, and that when the truth about the misrepresentations was revealed, the Company's stock price fell, causing Plaintiffs to incur losses. On September 11, 2020, a motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of all Defendants. On August 6, 2021, the Court issued an order denying, in part, Defendants' motion to dismiss, ordering Plaintiffs to file a shorter amended complaint no later than August 20, 2021, and permitting discovery to proceed on a limited basis. On February 7, 2023, the District Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the District Court’s decision denying Plaintiffs' objection to the Magistrate Judge's December 2021 ruling on discovery. On May 26, 2023, the Company filed a Renewed Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment, which has been fully briefed. On December 19, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claim for securities fraud under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act to Maiden Holdings, Ltd. and individual defendants Arturo Raschbaum, Karen Schmitt, and John Marshaleck. The Court held that the factual record failed to support, as a matter of law, plaintiffs' allegations that the defendants had made false statements regarding the Company's loss reserves. The Court also dismissed plaintiffs' claims that the individual defendants were liable as control persons under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act for any such alleged false statements. Plaintiffs have appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Company believes all of the above claims are without merit and it intends to vigorously defend itself. Maiden Holdings is a Bermuda-based holding company that provides a full range of legacy services to small insurance companies, particularly those in run-off or with blocks of reserves that are no longer core, working with clients to develop and implement finality solutions including acquiring entire companies that enable our clients to meet their capital and risk management objectives. MALIBU BOATS: Continues to Defend Customer Complaint Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Malibu Boats Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 28, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a customer complaint class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On May 31, 2024, a customer filed a class action complaint against MBI and Boats LLC in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. (Case 1:24-cv-00648). The complaint, which purports to be filed on behalf of a nationwide class of customers, alleges violation of common law, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act based on guidance issued to customers of certain older model boats related to riding in the bow area of those boats. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself. The Company is unable to provide any reasonable evaluation of the likelihood that a loss will be incurred or any reasonable estimate of the range of possible loss. Malibu Boats, Inc. is a designer, manufacturer and marketer of a diverse range of recreational powerboats, including performance sport boats, sterndrive and outboard boats under eight brands: Malibu, Axis, Pursuit, Maverick, Cobia, Pathfinder, Hewes and Cobalt. MALIBU BOATS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------------- Malibu Boats Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 28, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On April 29, 2024, a stockholder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a complaint against MBI and Jack Springer, Bruce Beckman, David Black, and Wayne Wilson as current and former officers of the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case 1:24-cv-03254). On August 15, 2024, the Court appointed the Retiree Benefit Trust of the City of Baltimore as the Lead Plaintiff in the action. The amended complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by MBI related to the Company's business, operations, and prospects during the period from November 4, 2022 through May 1, 2024 ("Class Period"). The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 by not disclosing alleged material adverse facts related to the Company's inventory, demand and relationship with one of its former dealers, Tommy's Boats, and accordingly, that certain statements made during the Class Period about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading. On July 29, 2025, MBI and the individual defendants entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with the Lead Plaintiff. The settlement is subject to Court approval and, without admitting fault or liability, contemplates a settlement amount of $7.8 million for the benefit a settlement class comprised of all purchasers of MBI securities during the Class Period. MBI anticipates that the settlement amount will be fully paid with proceeds from MBI's directors and officers insurance carriers. Malibu Boats, Inc. is a designer, manufacturer and marketer of a diverse range of recreational powerboats, including performance sport boats, sterndrive and outboard boats under eight brands: Malibu, Axis, Pursuit, Maverick, Cobia, Pathfinder, Hewes and Cobalt. MCCLURE'S GARAGE: Teipel Files Suit in Ill. Cir. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against McClure's Garage & Towing, Inc. The case is styled as Tanner Teipel, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. McClure's Garage & Towing, Inc., Case No. 25LA0736 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Lake Cty., Aug. 28, 2025). McClure's Garage & Towing -- https://www.mccluresgarage.com/ -- is a full-service preventive maintenance and auto repair center serving the Gurnee area since 1910.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Almeida, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Phone: (312) 576-3024 Email: david@almeidalawgroup.com MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Padilla Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Frank Padilla, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MEDLINE INDUSTRIES, INC., a California corporation; DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2512425 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Aug. 28, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-02254. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following nine causes of action against Defendant: failure to pay wages due; overtime violations; minimum wage violations; meal and rest period violations; wage statement violations; payroll record violations; expense reimbursement violations; violations of the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"); and unfair business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kelsey A. Israel-Trummel, Esq. JONES DAY 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: +1.415.626.3939 Facsimile: +1.415.875.5700 Email: kitrummel@jonesday.com - and - Courtney P. O'Connor, Esq. JONES DAY 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612.4408 Phone: +1.949.851.3939 Facsimile: +1.949.553.7539 Email: courtneyoconnor@jonesday.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Crable Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Greg Crable, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-01114 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Aug. 28, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-07271-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Product Liability. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Webber Carpenter, Esq. CORY WATSON, P.C. 254 Court Avenue, Suite 511 Memphis, TN 38103 Phone: (901) 402-1100 Fax: (866) 327-4000 Email: tcarpenter@corywatson.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Delcambre Suit Transferred to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Carroll Delcambre, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-01092 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Aug. 28, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-07270-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Product Liability. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Webber Carpenter, Esq. CORY WATSON, P.C. 254 Court Avenue, Suite 511 Memphis, TN 38103 Phone: (901) 402-1100 Fax: (866) 327-4000 Email: tcarpenter@corywatson.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Diruscio Suit Transferred to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Joseph Diruscio, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-00915 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Aug. 28, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-07273-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Product Liability. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Madison Tate Donaldson, Esq. THE WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 376-6360 Email: mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Dodd Suit Transferred to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Johnathan Dodd, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-01094 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Aug. 28, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-07262-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Product Liability. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Webber Carpenter, Esq. CORY WATSON, P.C. 254 Court Avenue, Suite 511 Memphis, TN 38103 Phone: (901) 402-1100 Fax: (866) 327-4000 Email: tcarpenter@corywatson.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Franzen Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Bruce Franzen, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-01110 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Aug. 28, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-07269-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Product Liability. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Webber Carpenter, Esq. CORY WATSON, P.C. 254 Court Avenue, Suite 511 Memphis, TN 38103 Phone: (901) 402-1100 Fax: (866) 327-4000 Email: tcarpenter@corywatson.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Martin Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Thomas Martin, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-01131 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Aug. 28, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-07268-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Product Liability. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Webber Carpenter, Esq. CORY WATSON, P.C. 254 Court Avenue, Suite 511 Memphis, TN 38103 Phone: (901) 402-1100 Fax: (866) 327-4000 Email: tcarpenter@corywatson.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Warren Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as William Warren, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-01096 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Aug. 28, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-07277-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Product Liability. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Webber Carpenter, Esq. CORY WATSON, P.C. 254 Court Avenue, Suite 511 Memphis, TN 38103 Phone: (901) 402-1100 Fax: (866) 327-4000 Email: tcarpenter@corywatson.com MUNICIPAL CREDIT: Fernandez Files Suit for Alienage Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSE URI PEREZ FERNANDEZ, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MUNICIPAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06970 (S.D.N.Y., August 22, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for unlawful discrimination on the basis of alienage in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and for unlawful discrimination on the basis of citizenship or immigration status in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, Defendant MCU follows a policy of denying full access to financial products to applicants who are not United States citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents, including those who are holders of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Plaintiff Perez and members of the Class he seeks to represent are unable to access certain MCU loan products because of their alienage. Plaintiff Perez and members of the Class he seeks to represent were denied or offered loan products on different terms than other applicants solely based on their citizenship and immigration status. Municipal Credit Union is a state-chartered credit union headquartered in New York, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrea E. Senteno, Esq. Nicolas C. Shump, Esq. Sebastian T. Alarcon, Esq. MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 1016 16th Street NW, Suite 100 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 293-2828 E-mail: asenteno@maldef.org nshump@maldef.org salarcon@maldef.org NATIONAL VISION: Continues to Defend Georgia Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ National Vision Holdings, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report For the quarterly period ended June 28, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the securities class suit filed in a federal court in the Northern District of Georgia. On January 27, 2023, a purported class action complaint was filed in federal court in the Northern District of Georgia against the Company and two of the Company's officers. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, for materially false and misleading statements made between May 2021 and May 2022. The complaint seeks unspecified damages as well as equitable relief. On March 28, 2023, the original plaintiff, City of Southfield General Employees Retirement System, and a new plaintiff, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 793, Members Pension Benefit Trust of Ontario, filed a lead plaintiff motion, seeking to be appointed co-lead plaintiffs. On April 3, 2023, the Company along with its named officers filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On May 19, 2023, the court granted the lead plaintiff motion. On June 30, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which added a claim under Section 20A of the Exchange Act and extended the alleged class period to February 28, 2023. On August 21, 2023, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed their response in opposition to this motion on October 5, 2023. On March 30, 2024, the court granted the Company's motion and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. On April 29, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the order granting the motion to dismiss. The Company and named officers filed a response in opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration on May 13, 2024, and the plaintiffs then filed a reply in support of their motion on May 28, 2024. The court entered an order denying the motion for reconsideration on March 24, 2025, and no appeal was filed by the plaintiff. NEUEHEALTH INC: Securities Suit Dismissal Appeal Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Neuehealth, 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 an appeal from the dismissal of the putative securities class action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of New York remains pending. "On January 6, 2022, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our officers and directors in the Eastern District of New York. The case is captioned Marquez v. Bright Health Group, Inc. et al., 1:22-cv-00101 (E.D.N.Y.). The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that we made materially false and misleading statements regarding our business, operations, and compliance policies, which in turn adversely affected our stock price. An amended complaint was filed on June 24, 2022, which expands on the allegations in the original complaint and alleges a putative class period of June 24, 2021 through March 1, 2022. The amended complaint also adds as defendants the underwriters of our initial public offering. "The Company has served a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 1, 2024, the court issued a memorandum and order and entered judgment granting the motion to dismiss in full. The plaintiff appealed this decision on November 27, 2024," the Company stated. NEW EURO: Faces Yoon Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in E.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------- HYE BUNG YOON, on behalf of herself and a collective of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. NEW EURO NAIL, INC., YAN XU CHUN, and JOHN DOE aka Andy, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04707 (E.D.N.Y., August 25, 2025) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant subjected Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees at New Euro Nail to numerous violations of federal and state laws during her employment, including (a) failure to pay minimum wages; (b) failure to pay overtime wages; (c) failure to provide accurate wage notices; (d) failure to provide wage statements; and (e) failure to provide paid sick leave. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cosmetologist at New Euro Nail from approximately February 26, 2017, to July 12, 2025. New Euro Nail is a nail salon located in Wantagh, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Kim, Esq. RYAN KIM LAW, P.C. 222 Bruce Reynolds Blvd. Suite 490 Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Telephone: 718) 573-1111 E-mail: ryan@ryankimlaw.com NEWHALL AVENUE HEALTHCARE: Tarin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Newhall Avenue Healthcare Center, LLC. The case is styled as Rosemary Tarin, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Newhall Avenue Healthcare Center, LLC, Case No. 25STCV25356 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 28, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Newhall Avenue Healthcare Center, LLC provides non-acute medical and skilled nursing care services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: seung.yang@moonyanglaw.com NEXTPLAT CORP: Continues to Defend Weisberg Class Suit in Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------------ NextPlat Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 13, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Weisberg class suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On October 28, 2024, Alan Jay Weisberg, the former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Progressive Care Inc. ("RXMD"), filed a putative class action suit on behalf of himself and all other former RXMD stockholders against NextPlat, Charles M. Fernandez, the late Chief Executive Officer and a former director of NextPlat, and Rodney Barreto, a director of NextPlat. The complaint purports to allege a breach of fiduciary duty by NextPlat and Messrs. Fernandez and Barreto in connection with the merger of RXMD with and into a wholly owned subsidiary of NextPlat (the "Merger"), which Merger was completed on October 1, 2024 following approval by the stockholders of each of NextPlat and RXMD in stockholder meetings held on September 13, 2024 by NextPlat and RXMD, respectively. Among other things, the complaint asserts that the consideration paid to Mr. Weisberg and the other RXMD stockholders in connection with the Merger was insufficient. The monetary relief requested in the complaint includes compensatory and rescissory damages in an unspecified dollar amount. The complaint is pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The caption is Alan Jay Weisberg v. Charles M. Fernandez, Rodney Barreto On October 28, 2024, Alan Jay Weisberg, the former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Progressive Care Inc. ("RXMD"), filed a putative class action suit on behalf of himself and all other former RXMD stockholders against NextPlat, Charles M. Fernandez, the late Chief Executive Officer and a former director of NextPlat, and Rodney Barreto, a director of NextPlat. The complaint purports to allege a breach of fiduciary duty by NextPlat and Messrs. Fernandez and Barreto in connection with the merger of RXMD with and into a wholly owned subsidiary of NextPlat (the "Merger"), which Merger was completed on October 1, 2024 following approval by the stockholders of each of NextPlat and RXMD in stockholder meetings held on September 13, 2024 by NextPlat and RXMD, respectively. Among other things, the complaint asserts that the consideration paid to Mr. Weisberg and the other RXMD stockholders in connection with the Merger was insufficient. The monetary relief requested in the complaint includes compensatory and rescissory damages in an unspecified dollar amount. The complaint is pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The caption is Alan Jay Weisberg v. Charles M. Fernandez, Rodney Barreto and Nextplat Corp., and the case number is C.A. No. 20. 24-1097-MTZ. The Company's management does not believe that the Weisberg's claim is meritorious and plans to vigorously defend against the suit. The Company's management does not believe that the Weisberg’s claim is meritorious and plans to vigorously defend against the suit. The Company is in the process of preparing a response to the complaint and has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. NextPlat Corp. operates as an e-commerce platform company. The Company focuses on various multiple sectors and markets for physical and digital assets. NextPlat also offers e-commerce communications services division offering voice, data, tracking, and IoT solutions.[BN] NLC IMPERIAL INC: Alvarez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NLC Imperial, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Brianna Samatha Alvarez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NLC Imperial, Inc., N.L.C. Enterprises Incorporated, Case No. 25STCV25420 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 28, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: seung.yang@moonyanglaw.com OPEN LENDING: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Texas ---------------------------------------------------------- Open Lending 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 continues to defend itself against the securities class action lawsuit pending in a Texas court. "In May 2025, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and our three former Chief Executive Officers in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The class action is purportedly brought on behalf of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of alleged materially false and/or misleading statements and omissions about our business, operations, and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. "The complaint alleges that defendants: (1) misrepresented the capabilities of the Company's risk-based pricing models; (2) issued materially misleading statements regarding the Company's profit share revenue; (3) failed to disclose the Company's 2021 and 2022 vintage loans had become worth significantly less than their corresponding outstanding loan balances; (4) misrepresented the underperformance of the Company's 2023 and 2024 vintage loans; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Motions for appointment of lead plaintiff were due on June 30, 2025, and a lead plaintiff was appointed on July 17, 2025. "We cannot predict the timing, outcome or consequences of the class action at the current stage. As of June 30, 2025, we have not recorded a loss contingency liability related to this matter. We will continue to evaluate information as it becomes available and will record an estimate for losses when it is both probable a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated," the Company stated. OTTER PRODUCTS: Knowles Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OTTER PRODUCTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06946 (S.D.N.Y., August 22, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.otterbox.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on August 18, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Galaxy S25+ Defender Series Pro from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. He was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's Website, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Otter Products, LLC operates the website that offers mobile device products & accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal PERPAY INC: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Perpay, Inc. The case is styled as Erin Wilson, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Perpay, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-04588-SDG (N.D. Ga., Aug. 14, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. The Perpay Marketplace -- https://perpay.com/ -- is an e-commerce platform that offers spending power based on your income and lets you pay over time using your paycheck.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (615) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Valerie Lorraine Chinn, Esq. CHINN LAW FIRM, LLC 245 N. Highland Ave., Suite 230 #7 Atlanta, GA 30307 Phone: (404) 955-7732 Email: vchinn@chinnlawfirm.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Willis Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Teretta Willis, Sharon Beck, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-04461 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on Aug. 14, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00920-DRC-KAJ to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. The Procter & Gamble Company -- https://us.pg.com/ -- is an American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nathaniel A. Tarnor, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 594 Dean Street, Suite 24 Brooklyn, NY 11231 Phone: (646) 543-4992 Email: NathanT@hbsslaw.com The Defendant is represented by: David Jason Lender, Esq. WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES (NY) 767 5th Ave. New York, NY 10153 Phone: (212) 310-8153 Email: David.Lender@weil.com RAY JONES: $450K Settlement in Back FLSA Suit Has Prelim. Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case 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.), Judge Greg N. Stivers of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky grants the parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of a class action certification and settlement. The matter confirmed its status as a class action lawsuit when the Court granted conditional certification for Plaintiff's Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Action on June 22, 2022. The Court later certified a Rule 23 class, with Plaintiff appointed as class representative and Mark Foster appointed as class counsel. Plaintiff Samuel Back brought this suit on January 10, 2022, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-situated against Ray Jones Trucking, Inc. and individuals Teresa Jones, Grant Jones, and Steve Jones. Ray Jones is a Kentucky corporation that transports commercial materials including coal within the state of Kentucky. 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 and the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act. The Court explained that in his Complaint, Plaintiff proposed two collective actions, which the Court refers to as the 'FLSA Collective' and the 'Rule 23 Class,' respectively. After conditional certification, Defendants sought to decertify the FLSA Collective, which the Court denied. Subsequently, Plaintiff moved to certify the Rule 23 Class, which, by definition, includes the FLSA Collective members, as well as any Ray Jones driver who was allegedly wrongfully deprived of overtime compensation for work performed since January 8, 2017. The parties now moved the Court to approve a joint settlement agreement and to preliminarily certify, for settlement purposes only, a class action under Rule 23 consisting of all current and former truck driver employees of Ray Jones Trucking, Inc. who were not paid at an overtime rate of pay for such employee's work in excess of forty hours in one or more workweeks from January 8, 2017, though November 20, 2024. The Settlement Class will include approximately 60 individuals, including Plaintiff and the 14 employees who previously opted in to the FLSA collective. Under the Agreement, the gross settlement amount is capped at $450,000.00, contingent upon whether any class member opts out of the settlement. The Court noted that Up to one-third of this gross settlement amount would be paid to Foster in attorney's fees, as would up to an additional $5,000.00 in reimbursement for Foster's reasonable out-of-pocket costs and expenses, including Administrative Costs. Additionally, Plaintiff would collect up to $20,000.00 as a service award for bringing the lawsuit, which would be separate and apart from any sum he may recover as a member of the Settlement Class. The Court calculated that the net settlement amount, which is the amount remaining after deducting Foster's fees and costs as well as Plaintiff's service reward, would be approximately $275,000.00 if no member opts out of the Agreement. The settlement established a point-based distribution system where the net settlement amount is to be divided amongst class members pursuant to a formula based on tenure during the Applicable Class Period, with any work performed in the following workweeks being assigned the following point values: (a) Opt-In Plaintiff, Workweek Prior to or Including January 30, 2020: 5 points; (b) Opt-In Plaintiff, Workweek After January 30, 2020: 10 points; (c) Non-Opt-In Driver, Workweek Prior to or Including January 30, 2020: 4 points; and (d) Non-Opt-In Driver, Workweek After January 30, 2020: 8 points. The Court explained that the total number of points amongst all Settlement Class members will be divided into the Net Settlement Amount to reach a per-point dollar figure. That figure will then be multiplied by each Settlement Class Member's number of settlement points to determine the Settlement Class Member's Settlement Award. The Court conducted a rigorous analysis of Rule 23(a) prerequisites. Regarding numerosity, the Court determined that the current proposed class would include all potential members of the previous class, and the parties anticipate 60 total members. Therefore, the proposed Settlement Class satisfies Rule 23's numerosity requirement. For commonality, the Court found that the parties assert that there are common issues of fact within the Settlement Class, including: (i) whether transportation by others during different time periods during the Applicable Class Period, including by rail and barge, of cargo driven by the Settlement Class members supported the applicability of the Motor Carrier's Act exemption to the drivers; (ii) whether Ray Jones Trucking, Inc.'s statements to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration regarding the nature of its operation and its drivers affected the applicability of the Motor Carrier's Act exemption to the drivers; (iii) whether Defendants acted willfully in failing to pay overtime compensation to the Settlement Class members; and (iv) whether Defendants acted in good faith. Regarding typicality, the Court concluded that all proposed class members were employees of Ray Jones during the specified period and were allegedly injured in the same way by being denied overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA and KHWA. In the current case, the class definition has not changed, and therefore, the claims of Plaintiff under the Settlement Class are typical of those for the entire proposed class and therefore typicality is satisfied. For adequacy of representation, the Court noted that the Court already approved Plaintiff as class representative and Foster as class counsel for the initial Rule 23 Class. In the current case, nothing has changed regarding Plaintiff's and Foster's capabilities to represent the Settlement Class for the purposes of the settlement. The Court analyzed whether common questions predominate over individual issues, finding that the Court has already certified the initial class under Rule 23(b)(3), finding that common questions shared by the class members sufficiently predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. Similarly, here, the parties contend that Plaintiff's allegations of Defendants' common practices and management are common questions of law and fact that predominate over any potential individual issues. The Court applied both Rule 23(e)(2) factors and Sixth Circuit factors to determine whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court found that Foster and Plaintiff assert that the Agreement is in the best interests of the Settlement Class, and that the relief provided is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Regarding the negotiation process, the Court noted that settlement was only reached through the efforts of two full days of mediation (including one with the Magistrate Judge), throughout which the parties engaged in arms' length negotiations, followed by further negotiations after the Court's ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification. The Court evaluated the proposed attorney's fees, stating that the rate of one-third the gross settlement amount is well within the range of attorneys' fees previously approved by other class action settlements by the Sixth Circuit and this Court. The Court cited precedent showing that Fee awards in common fund cases typically range from 20 to 50 percent of the common fund created. The Court approved the notice materials, finding that the proposed Notice meets all of these requirements. The Notice conveys that this is a class action settlement concerning Defendants' failure to pay overtime compensation which violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., and Kentucky state law. The Court approved the parties' proposed timeline, which includes that Defendants send CAFA Notice within 10 business days after the submission of the Settlement Agreement to the Court" and that Notice Sent by Class Counsel within 10 days of receiving the Settlement Class List. The Court granted the parties' joint motion, ordering that The parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of a class action certification and settlement is granted and their previous motion is denied as moot. The Settlement Class preliminarily satisfies the certification requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3). The Court established that 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 forty hours in one or more workweeks from January 8, 2017, though November 20, 2024. The Court ordered that the Plaintiff shall be appointed as the Settlement Class Representative and Foster shall be appointed as Class Counsel. The Court scheduled a Fairness Hearing regarding the proposed settlement on December 16, 2025, at 11:00 AM CT at the U.S. Courthouse, 423 Frederica St., Owensboro, Kentucky. The Court ordered that any member of the Rule 23 Settlement Class who wishes to opt out of the class must do so by properly completing the opt-out request and mailing or emailing it to the Class Counsel. The Opt-Out Statement must be sent and post-marked within 45 calendar days after the date on which Class Counsel mails the Notice to class members. The Court concluded by staying all proceedings in this action, other than such proceedings as may be necessary to carry out the terms and conditions of the Agreement, are stayed and suspended until further order of the Court. A copy of the Court's settlement is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5ojJqh from PacerMonitor.com. RB GLOBAL INC: Hayden Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Matthew Hayden doing business as: Hayden's Services, LLC, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. RB Global, Inc., Rouse Services LLC, United Rentals Inc., Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., Herc Rentals Inc., H&E Equipment Services Inc., Sunstate Equipment Co., LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01059 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 28, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-10292 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. RB Global -- https://rbglobal.com/ -- is your trusted global partner for insights, services, and transaction solutions for commercial assets and vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth R. Lesser, Esq. KLAFTER LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 300 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Phone: (914) 934-9200 Email: seth@klafterlesser.com The Defendant is represented by: Thomas G. Rohback, Esq. AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP 90 State House Square Hartford, CT 06103 Phone: (860) 275-8110 Email: tgr@avhlaw.com REALMANAGE LLC: Munoz Suit Removed to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Eric Munoz, on behalf of other similarly situated and the State of California under the Private Attorneys General Act v. REALMANAGE LLC; THE WALTERS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CU039520C was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for Southern District of California on Aug. 28, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02243-BAS-SBC. The Complaint alleges 10 causes of action: failure to pay all wages owed; meal period violations; rest period violations; untimely payment of wages; wage statement violations; waiting time penalties; failure to reimburse business expenses; unfair competition; retaliation; and civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alexandra Asterlin, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916-840-3150 Facsimile: 916-840-3159 Email: alexandra.asterlin@ogletree.com - and - Patrick T. Cain, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 Email: patrick.cain@ogletree.com REGIONAL HEALTH: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Regional Health Properties Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a shareholder class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On July 11, 2025, a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia, against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and certain current directors of the Company's Board (the "Shareholder Lawsuit"). Additionally, on July 11, 2025, an emergency motion for preliminary injunction was filed in connection with disclosures and shareholder voting leading up to the Merger. The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Shareholder Lawsuit are without merit and supplemental disclosures are not required or necessary under applicable laws. Regional Health Properties, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia and incorporated in Georgia, is a self-managed healthcare real estate investment company that invests primarily in real estate purposed for senior living and long-term care.[BN] REPLIMUNE GROUP: Continues to Defend Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Replimune Group, 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 federal securities class action lawsuit pending in a Massachusetts court. On July 24, 2025 a class action complaint alleging violations of the federal securities laws was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint was filed shortly after the Company announced it received a complete response letter from the FDA for its RP1 BLA for the treatment of advanced melanoma on July 22, 2025. The Company denies any wrongdoing and will vigorously defend this action. ROCKY MOUNTAIN OILS: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Cole, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Rocky Mountain Oils, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-10299 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 28, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.rockymountainoils.com (hereinafter "Rockymountainoils.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Rockymountainoils.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Rocky Mountain Oils provides to the public a website known as Rockymountainoils.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a selection of essential oils and blends, facial serum, oil, and cleanser.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law RYVYL INC: Continues to Defend Cullen Class Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------------- RYVYL Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 12, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Cullen class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. On February 1, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit titled Cullen v. RYVYL Inc. fka GreenBox POS, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00185-GPC-AGS, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against several defendants, including the Company and certain of our current and former directors and officers (the "Cullen Defendants"). The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between January 29, 2021 and January 20, 2023. The complaint alleged that the Cullen Defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making false and/or misleading statements regarding the Company’s financial controls, performance and prospects. On June 30, 2023, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On March 1, 2024, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motions to dismiss, which included dismissing all Securities Act claims and narrowing the potential class period. The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on April 30, 2024, which alleges claims against the Cullen Defendants under Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 20(a) only and a class period of May 13, 2021 through January 20, 2023. The Company filed its motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on July 1, 2024. On October 21, 2024, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motions to dismiss. The scope of the remaining claims is consistent with the Court's last motion to dismiss decision dated March 1, 2024. On November 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint, which asserts the same legal causes of action and proposed class period as the previous complaint. On February 28, 2025, the Parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") that reflects their agreement in principle to settle the claims asserted in this class action. On July 9, 2025, the Parties executed the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement ("Stipulation of Settlement"). On July 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed its Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, which is scheduled for hearing on August 15, 2025. The Stipulation of Settlement provides for the full resolution and release of all claims against the Cullen Defendants in exchange for $300,000 in cash ("Cash Settlement Amount"), 700,000 freely tradable shares of the Company's common stock ("Settlement Shares"), and a put option that, together with the Cash Settlement Amount and Settlement Shares, requires that the combined value of the settlement consideration shall be no less than $1,000,000. There is no assurance, however, that the settlement will be completed and/or that the Court will approve it. The Cullen Defendants continue to deny any and all liability and allegations set forth in the pending Third Amended Complaint. RYVYL Inc. is a financial technology company that develops, markets, and sells innovative blockchain-based payment solutions, which offer significant improvements for the payment solutions marketplace. SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Settlement in Tax Surplus Suit Has Prelim. OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Thomas A. Fox, et al., Plaintiffs v. County of Saginaw, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-11887 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Thomas L. Ludington of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan grants the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class settlement. The Court noted that this case boils down to a basic principle: A taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but no more. The dispute centered on Michigan's General Property Tax Act (GPTA) which created a process that authorized Michigan counties to foreclose on and auction tax-delinquent property. However, until late 2020, when the auction price exceeded the taxes, interest, penalties, and fees owed, the GPTA permitted counties to keep the difference -- what courts have called surplus proceeds. According to the Court, all agree that part of the law could not stand after multiple appellate decisions found the practice unconstitutional. The Court explained that in 2020, in Rafaeli, LLC v. Oakland County, the Michigan Supreme Court found that this statutory scheme violated Michigan's takings clause and in 2022, the Sixth Circuit found that it violated the United States Constitution's Takings Clause. Plaintiff Thomas Fox filed suit after Defendant Gratiot County foreclosed on his property, auctioned it for $25,000, and retained the $21,908.77 in surplus proceeds based on a tax delinquency of approximately $3,091.23. The Court noted that Fox filed a putative class action against several Michigan Counties and their treasurers, challenging the pre-PA 256 GPTA tax-foreclosure scheme's lawfulness. The original complaint alleged five claims including constitutional taking violations, while the amended complaint added three claims for a total of eight claims in total against 27 counties and their treasurers. After various motions, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss the amended complaint, leaving four claims: (1) The Fourteenth Amendment Takings claim; (2) The state-law inverse condemnation claim; (3) The Fourteenth Amendment Procedural Due Process Claim; and (4) The state-law unjust enrichment claim. The Court observed that the litigation faced myriad motions and procedural hurdles, noting that by October 2024, the Parties' pending motions approached double digits. The Court found that the parties shifted gears and on November 9, 2024, the Parties attended mediation, resulting in a settlement framework. The settlement includes several key components: The Settlement Agreement defines the primary class as "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. 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 the County did not refund the Surplus Proceeds." The Court explained that Class Members generally receive 125% of their surplus proceeds -- defined as the difference between the property's auction price and the sum of all delinquent taxes, interest, penalties, fees, costs, and related expenses -- less any attorneys' fees that this Court approves. The settlement caps any attorneys' fee requests with Class Counsel may only seek 20% of the payments made to Class Members and may petition for costs up to $25,000. The Court conducted a thorough analysis under Federal Rule of Civil Rule 23, finding that the proposed class likely satisfied all four Civil Rule 23(a) requirements. Numerosity: The Court determined that based on public records submitted by Plaintiffs, which include only three of the seven-year class period, the proposed class likely exceeds 1,000 people. Commonality: The Court identified "common questions of law and fact" including whether Class Members hold a property interest in their surplus proceeds" and whether the Defendant Counties improperly retained surplus proceeds under the GPTA without offering former owners a chance to recover them. Typicality: The Court found that Plaintiff Fox's claims are typical of the potential absent Class Members because both Plaintiff Fox and the proposed Class Members' claims stem from the same practice among the Defendant Counties. Adequacy: The Court concluded there is no evidence that Plaintiff Fox's interests are at odds with the Class and found that proposed class counsel are qualified and competent to represent the Class. And like Plaintiff Fox, they negotiated a substantial remedy on behalf of the class, further demonstrating their adequacy. Accordingly, the adequacy prerequisite is likely fulfilled. Predominance: The Court addressed the critical predominance requirement, noting that "in GPTA tax foreclosure cases, the Sixth Circuit has directed courts to ensure that they address three issues that could create predominance problems. The Court found these issues were resolved because: 1. The Settlement Agreement provides a formulaic, classwide damages calculation; 2. Potentially unique defenses, like res judicata, present no predominance problems; 3. The Settlement Agreement eliminates lienholder problems in two ways: (a) it defines the Class to include only those who held a fee simple interest in the property. Lienholders hold only security interests, not fee title. They are therefore excluded from the Class at the outset. This prevents a single property from having both a former owner and a lienholder pursuing overlapping claims within the Class; and (b) the Agreement removes from the Settlement Class any former owner whose property is subject to a lienholder dispute being litigated elsewhere. It does so by excluding properties pending a non-Class Member's PA 256 Motion. Superiority: The Court determined that the class vehicle for settlement purposes is likely superior to all other methods of litigation because it resolves almost a decade's worth of surplus proceeds claims for 27 counties in one fell swoop, avoiding continued delays and litigation expenses. The Court applied both Federal Rule 23(e) factors and Sixth Circuit factors in evaluating the settlement's fairness: The Court found all four factors favored approval: 1. Adequate Representation: Plaintiff Fox and Interim Class Counsel have adequately represented the Class; 2. Arm's Length Negotiation: The Parties negotiated the Settlement Agreement at arm's length. Thus, the second Civil Rule 23(e) factor favors approval; 3. Adequate Relief: This factor requires courts to assess four subfactors: (1) "the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal"; (2) "the effectiveness of any proposed method of distributing relief to the class, including the method of processing class-member claims"; (3) "the terms of any proposed attorney's fee, including timing of payment"; and (4) "any agreement required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(3)"; and 4. Equitable Treatment: The Settlement Agreement provides classwide relief using a uniform formula applicable to all Class Members. Sixth Circuit Factors: The Court found six of the following seven factors supported approval, with one neutral factor: (1) the risk of fraud or collusion; (2) the complexity, expense, and likely duration of the litigation; (3) the amount of discovery engaged in by the parties; (4) the likelihood of success on the merits; (5) the opinions of class counsel and class representatives; (6) the reaction of absent class members; and (7) the public interest. The Court ordered as follows. The Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval is granted. The Court certified the primary class and 27 subclasses solely for the purpose of settlement. The Court reaffirmed the appointment of Mr. E. Powell Miller and Mr. Philip L. Ellison as Interim Class Counsel. The Court approved the proposed notice plan and ordered that within 14 days of entry of this Order, the Claims Administrator shall begin providing notice. Key Deadlines: Claim submission deadline: 194 calendar days after entry of this Order; Opt-out deadline: 120 calendar days after entry of this Order; Objection deadline: Same as opt-out deadline. The Court scheduled a Settlement Fairness Hearing for 2:00 p.m. on May 20, 2026. The Court noted that the order is applicable to the following defendants, which have approved and joined the settlement agreement: Alcona, Alpena, Bay, Clare, Crawford, Genesee, Gladwin, Huron, Isabella, Jackson, Lapeer, Lenawee, Macomb, Montmorency, Ogema, Oscoda, Presque Isle, Roscommon, Sanilac, and Tuscola Counties. The Court emphasized the historical foundation of the case, noting that these principles are centuries old and that at Runnymede in 1215, King John swore in the Magna Carta that sheriffs could seize property to pay debts 'until the debt which is evident shall be fully paid. The Court explained that more than two centuries of Anglo-American property law made clear that governments cannot retain surplus proceeds without providing recovery mechanisms. The Court concluded by emphasizing that Michigan's Legislature enacted Public Act 256 in 2020 to cure constitutional defects, but "what Michigan lawmakers did not do is perhaps as telling as what they did: though they created the unconstitutional regime by authorizing counties to retain surplus proceeds, their 'curative' amendments did not include the funds to repay the taxpayers." A copy of the Court's decision is also available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vkkhIu from PacerMonitor.com. SANGAMON COUNTY, IL: Link Suit Removed to C.D. Ill. --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as JOHN R. LINK, as Trustee of the John R. Link Trust, KATHLEEN A. LINK, as Trustee of the Kathleen A. Link Trust, on behalf of themselves and others in privity with them and/or similarly situated as custodians of Lake Springfield lake front lots in Sangamon County Assessment areas 2087, 2088, 2089 and 2138, 2139, and 2140, Plaintiffs v. BYRON DEANER, as Supervisor of Assessments of Sangamon County, LARRY McCARTHY, as Chief Deputy Assessor of Capital Township, CAROL VON LANKEN, as Woodside Township Assessor, ANJANETTE LORD, as Rochester Township Assessor, JOHN) CHRIS GREGURICH, as Ball Township Assessor, JOHN HAWKINS, as Chairman of the Sangamon County Board of Review, and SANGAMON COUNTY, ILLINOIS, a unit of local government, Defendants, Case No. 2025-LA-000167, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Sangamon County to the United States District Court for the Central District Of Illinois on August 22, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-03245-CRL-DJQ to the proceeding. This civil rights complaint contains seven counts all based upon 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. BYRON DEANER, is sued in his capacity as Supervisor of Assessments of Sangamon County, Illinois.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Thomas R. Ysursa, Esq. BECKER, HOERNER, & YSURSA, P.C. 5111 West Main Street Belleville, IL 62226 Telephone: (618) 235-0020 Facsimile: (618) 235-8558 E-mail: try@bhylaw.com SENTINELONE INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- SentinelOne Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending July 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 28, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On June 6, 2023, a securities class action was filed against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its former Chief Financial Officer, in the Northern District of California, captioned Johansson v. SentinelOne, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-02786. The suit is brought on behalf of an alleged class of stockholders who purchased or acquired shares of the Company's Class A common stock between June 1, 2022 and June 1, 2023. The complaint alleged that defendants made false or misleading statements about its business, operations and prospects, including its annual recurring revenues and internal controls, and purports to assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act). A substantially similar suit was filed on June 16, 2023 in the same court against the same defendants asserting the same claims, captioned Nyren v. SentinelOne, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-02982. On October 4, 2023, the court issued an order consolidating both cases under the caption In re SentinelOne, Inc. Securities Litigation Case No. 4:23-cv-02786 and appointing a lead plaintiff. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On July 2, 2024, the District Court granted defendants' motion, dismissing the consolidated complaint with leave for plaintiff to amend the complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 1, 2024. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on September 16, 2024. The Company believes the case is without merit and defendants intends to defend the suit vigorously. SentinelOne, Inc. is a cybersecurity provider that delivers an artificial intelligence-powered platform to enable autonomous cybersecurity defense. SILVER CINEMAS: Paulsen Sues Over Accessibility Barriers -------------------------------------------------------- MEG PAULSEN, Plaintiff, v. SILVER CINEMAS ACQUISITION, CO. D/B/A LANDMARK THEATRES, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01626 (W.D. Wash., August 25, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated patrons with disabilities, for Defendant's alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Washington Law Against Discrimination. Plaintiff Paulsen has a mobility disability. She cannot walk due to her disability and currently uses a power wheelchair for mobility. Ms. Paulsen also uses an accessible vehicle for transportation. According to the complaint, the Defendant continued to discriminate against Plaintiff and other moviegoers with disabilities by failing to remove accessibility barriers that ensure full access for people with disabilities. For example, Crest's parking lot has a barrier separating the designated accessible parking space with the sidewalk along the shortest accessible route to the entrance of Crest. The Plaintiff also encountered interior routes to auditoriums that were too narrow for her wheelchair, thus impacting her ability to navigate inside the theater. Silver Cinemas Acquisition, Co., d/b/a Landmark Theatres, is a privately held corporation headquartered in West Hollywood, California. Landmark Theatres owns and operates Crest Cinema.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Conrad Reynoldson, Esq. Dustine Bowker, Esq. WASHINGTON CIVIL & DISABILITY ADVOCATE 4115 Roosevelt Way NE, Suite B Seattle, WA 98105 Telephone: (206) 876-8515 (206) 428-3172 E-mail: Conrad@wacda.com Dustine@wacda.com - and - Aubrie Hicks, Esq. DOBSON HICKS, PLLC 12055 15th Ave NE, Suite D Seattle, WA 98125 Telephone: (206) 492-5183 E-mail: Aubrie@dobsonhicks.com SSR MINING: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ SSR Mining Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 25, 2025, that on March 18, 2024, a putative securities class action, "Karam Akhras v. SSR Mining Inc., et. al.," Case No. 24-cv-00739 was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. On August 2, 2024, this was consolidated as Consolidated Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-00739-DDD-SBP and the court appointed lead counsel and a lead plaintiff for the putative class. On October 15, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on December 17, 2024, which is currently pending before the court. The US Securities Actions assert claims for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against the company, as well as certain of its current and former members of management and for alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. The complaints allege that certain public statements made by the defendants were rendered materially false and misleading with respect to, among other things, the adequacy of the company's internal controls relating to its safety practices and operational integrity at its Çöpler mining facility in Türkiye. SSR Mining Inc. and its subsidiaries is a precious metals mining company with four producing assets located in the United States, Türkiye, Canada and Argentina. SSR MINING: Liang Shareholder Suit Ongoing in Ontario Court ----------------------------------------------------------- SSR Mining Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 25, 2025, that two additional putative securities class actions, "Chao Liang v. SSR Mining Inc., et. al." was filed on April 5, 2024, in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. On August 9, 2024, carriage of the proposed Ontario actions was granted to this action. This action asserts claims for alleged misrepresentations by the defendants at common law and in contravention of applicable Provincial securities law disclosure obligations. It seeks unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of the putative class members. SSR Mining Inc. and its subsidiaries is a precious metals mining company with four producing assets located in the United States, Türkiye, Canada and Argentina. SULLIVAN AUTOMOTIVE GROUP: Younes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sullivan Automotive Group, LLC. The case is styled as Younes Younes, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sullivan Automotive Group, LLC, Does 1 through 100, Case No. 25SMCV04172 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 14, 2025). The Sullivan Auto Group -- https://www.shopsullivanauto.com/ -- is one of the largest & fastest-growing automotive dealer groups in the Western US.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noam Glick, Esq. GLICK LAW GROUP, PC 225 Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, California 92101 Phone: (619) 382-3400 Email: noam@glicklawgroup.com SUPER MICRO: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Super Micro Computer, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending August 2, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 28, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On August 30, 2024, three putative class action complaints were filed against the Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and the Company's Chief Financial Officer in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Averza v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al., No. 5:24-cv-06147, Menditto v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al., No. 3:24-cv-06149, and Spatz v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al., No. 5:24-cv-06193). On October 4, 2024, a fourth putative class action complaint was filed in the same court (Norfolk County Retirement System v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al., No. 5:24-cv-06980). On October 18, 2024, a fifth putative class action complaint was filed in the same court (Covey Financial Inc., et al. v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al., No. 5:24-cv-07274). The complaints contain similar allegations, claiming that (i) each of the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii) each of the Company's Chief Executive Officer and the Company's Chief Financial Officer violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act as controlling persons of the Company for the alleged violations under (i), due (in each case) to alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions in public statements regarding our financial results and its internal controls and procedures. The Spatz and Menditto plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their respective complaints without prejudice against all Defendants, ending the suits. The Averza, and Covey Financial, and Norfolk County complaints are pending as the Court finalizes the appointment of Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiff and prepares to consolidate the cases. These matters are too preliminary to form a judgment as to whether the likelihood of an adverse outcome is probable and we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any. Super Micro Computer, Inc. is a Silicon Valley-based provider of accelerated compute platforms that are server and storage systems. SUZUKI MOTOR OF AMERICA: Lopez Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Alex Lopez, Travell Woods, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Suzuki Motor of America, Inc., Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV07961 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. 14, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-07808-JLS-AGR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Suzuki -- https://suzuki.com/ -- manufactures legendary motorcycles such as the GSX-R, championship winning RM-Z motocross bikes, agile scooters, and revolutionary ATVs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Glenn A Danas, Esq. Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Zarrina Ozari, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM PC 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Phone: (213) 788-4050 Fax: (213) 788-4070 Email: gdanas@clarksonlawfirm.com rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com zozari@clarksonlawfirm.com - and - Paula R Brown, Esq. Timothy G Blood, Esq. BLOOD HURST AND O'REARDON LLP 501 West Broadway Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 338-1100 Fax: (619) 338-1101 Email: pbrown@bholaw.com tblood@bholaw.com The Defendant is represented by: David H. Marenberg, Esq. Blakeley S. Oranburg, Esq. Robert J. Herrington, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 1840 Century Park East Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121 Phone: (310) 586-7700 Fax: (310) 586-7800 Email: marenbergd@gtlaw.com oranburgb@gtlaw.com robert.herrington@gtlaw.com SWEET JULY: Bahena Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Bahena, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Sweet July, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-10328 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 28, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through https://sweetjuly.com (hereinafter "Sweetjuly.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Sweetjuly.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Sweet July provides to the public a website known as Sweetjuly.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a rich selection of kitchenware, home goods, and skin-care products including bowls, plates, cups, mugs, towels, creams, serums, oils, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law SYNERGY INSURANCE: Serratos Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Synergy Insurance Affiliates LLC. The case is styled as Fernando Serratos, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Synergy Insurance Affiliates LLC, Case No. 9:25-cv-81070-AMC (S.D. Fla., Aug. 28, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Synergy Insurance Affiliates -- https://siabenefits.com/ -- is a full-service insurance agency infrastructure upline that operates across more than 50 locations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com - and - Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 31 Samana Drive Miami, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com T-MOBILE US: Court Allows Zajonc to Amend Religious Exemption Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Paula Zajonc, Plaintiff v. T-Mobile US, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-02860-JSC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint while allowing the Plaintiff one final opportunity to amend. The Court granted the motion to dismiss after reviewing the parties' briefs and conducting oral argument on August 21, 2025. This putative class action originally was filed in Alameda County Superior Court challenging Defendant's denial of a religious exemption to its Covid-19 vaccine requirement. Defendant removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, and the Court previously granted Defendant's motion to dismiss the original complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court found that Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint still failed to state a claim for religious discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. To state a claim for religious discrimination under Title VII or FEHA a plaintiff must allege, among other things, that she holds a bona fide religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement, the Court explained, citing Bolden-Hardge v. Off. of California State Controller. The Court determined that Plaintiff's allegations remained insufficient. The First Amended Complaint alleged: Plaintiff had bona fide religious beliefs which prevented her from taking the Covid vaccine. Indeed, in support of Plaintiff's exemption request, she attached a letter from the Pastor of her church, of which Plaintiff was a disciple, which outlined the religious reasons for Plaintiff's refusal to take the Covid-19 vaccine. However, the Court found that Plaintiff still does not allege facts that plausibly support an inference she had a bona fide religious belief which prevented her from taking the Covid vaccine. The Court distinguished several appellate cases cited by Plaintiff, noting that these case merely highlight the insufficiency of Plaintiff's pleading. In each the plaintiff alleged facts supporting an inference of a sincerely held religious belief, not just the bare conclusion that the plaintiff had such a belief." The Court examined cases including Sturgill v. Am. Red Cross, Bazinet v. Beth Israel Lahey Health, Inc., and Passarella v. Aspirus, Inc., finding that each contained detailed factual allegations about the plaintiff's specific religious beliefs. The Court also found that Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege she was terminated because of her religious beliefs. Rather, she alleged Defendant initially approved her request, but then later refused to allow any accommodations, resulting in the termination of Plaintiff's employment. The Court determined these conclusory allegations, which do not even allege when she was terminated, are insufficient. The Court dismissed Plaintiff's claim under California's Unfair Competition Law on multiple grounds. First, the Court found Plaintiff lacked Article III standing to obtain injunctive relief. To establish a right to forward-looking relief, Plaintiff must demonstrate that she faces a substantial risk of future injury, the Court explained. According to the Court "As Plaintiff has not alleged T-Mobile in fact has a policy of terminating employees for failing to take the Covid vaccine or that she, a former employee, faces a substantial risk of future injury, her UCL claim for injunctive relief fails for lack of Article III standing." The Court also found that even if Plaintiff had standing, her UCL claim failed to state a claim. Under the unlawful prong, Plaintiff's unlawful claim is predicated on the FEHA violation and thus must be dismissed for the same reason as the FEHA claim. Under the unfair prong, Plaintiff has not alleged any additional facts in support of her claim. Under the fraudulent prong, although Plaintiff added allegations about her manager initially approving her accommodation request before revoking approval, the Court found this insufficient to state a claim under the unlawful prong. Despite dismissing both claims, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend one final time. Because Plaintiff represented at oral argument that she could plead additional facts in support of her claims, the Court will give her one final opportunity to amend." The Court ordered that Any amended complaint is due by September 11, 2025. The Court also scheduled an initial case management conference for October 29, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. via videoconference, with a joint case management conference statement due October 22, 2025. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B8CjBj from PacerMonitor.com. TALPHERA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- Talphera Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 12, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On June 8, 2021, a securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and two of its officers. The plaintiff is a purported stockholder of the Company. The complaint alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact about the Company's disclosure controls and procedures with respect to its marketing of DSUVIA. The complaint sought unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. On December 16, 2021, the Court appointed co-lead plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' amended complaint was filed on March 7, 2022. The amended complaint named the Company and three of its officers and continued to allege that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact about the Company's disclosure controls and procedures with respect to its marketing of DSUVIA. The amended complaint also asserted a violation of Section 20A of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants for alleged insider trading. The amended complaint sought unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. The Court granted three motions to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint: the first on September 28, 2022, the second on November 28, 2022, and the third, with prejudice on May 7, 2024. Judgment was entered for defendants on plaintiffs' claims on May 7, 2024. On June 5, 2024, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Briefing on the appeal was complete on January 21, 2025. The Court held oral argument on June 12, 2025 and took the appeal under submission. San Mateo, CA-based Talphera, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of innovative therapies for use in medically supervised settings. TILEIMPACT INC: Serna Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TileImpact, Inc. The case is styled as Juan Lopez Serna, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TileImpact, Inc., Case No. 25CV137555 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Aug. 15, 2025). TileImpact, Inc. -- https://www.tileimpact.com/ -- are a full-service commercial tile and stone contractor that serves the greater San Francisco Bay area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin A. Lipeles, Esq. LIPELES LAW GROUP, APC 880 Apollo St., Ste. 336 El Segundo, CA 90245-4783 Phone: 310-322-2211 Fax: 310-322-2252 Email: kevin@kallaw.com TRADE DESK: Bid to Dismiss "Gunderson" Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------ The Trade Desk, 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 its motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit captioned Gunderson v. The Trade Desk, Inc., No. 2024-1029 (Del. Ch.), remains pending. "On October 4, 2024, a stockholder filed a class action complaint in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware alleging claims for breach of contract against the Company and breach of fiduciary duties against the Company's directors, in connection with the Company's reincorporation from Delaware to Nevada. On October 24, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The complaint sought, among other things, an order declaring that the Company's conversion required approval by a supermajority of the Company's stockholders and an order enjoining the November 14, 2024 stockholder vote on the conversion. On October 28, 2024, the parties completed expedited briefing on cross motions for partial summary judgment regarding the causes of action asserted in the original complaint, and the court heard oral argument on the motions on October 30, 2024. On November 6, 2024, the court granted the defendants' summary judgment motion and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion, finding that the conversion did not require supermajority approval of the Company's stockholders, and that the defendants did not breach their fiduciary duties by disclosing that the conversion required a vote of a simple majority of the Company's stockholders. The plaintiff chose not to appeal. The case is now proceeding as to the plaintiff's remaining claims that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties because the reincorporation to Nevada was substantively and procedurally unfair, and that the transaction is not subject to the business judgment rule because it was not subject to approval by a special committee of the board or by a majority of the disinterested stockholders. The defendants have moved to dismiss, but no briefing schedule has been set. On April 28, 2025, the plaintiff in the Scarantino Action moved to intervene and stay the Gunderson Action. On May 20, 2025, the Court granted the motion to intervene and stayed the Gunderson Action pending completion of the books and records inspection in the Scarantino Action. On November 15, 2024, a different stockholder filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware requesting production of the Company's corporate books and records relating to the Nevada conversion, pursuant to 8 Del. C. Sec. 220. City of Roseville Employees Retirement System v. The Trade Desk, Inc., No. 2024-1173 (Del. Ch.). On November 27, 2024, the parties agreed to stay the proceeding in exchange for the production of certain documents to the plaintiff; the court granted the stay the same day. On April 18, 2025, the stockholder voluntarily dismissed the complaint without prejudice. On April 24, 2025, a different stockholder filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware requesting production of the Company's corporate books and records relating to the Nevada conversion and the Company's dual class capital structure, among other things, pursuant to 8 Del. C. Sec. 220. Richard Scarantino v. The Trade Desk, Inc., No 2025-0442 (Del. Ch.). A trial was held by the Court of Chancery on July 16, 2025. The parties are awaiting a decision. TRADE DESK: Securities Suits in California Remain Pending --------------------------------------------------------- The Trade Desk, 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 action lawsuits filed in the in the United States District Court, Central District of California remain pending. On February 19, 2025, plaintiff United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers & Allied Workers Local Union No. 8 WBPA Fund filed a purported federal securities class action complaint in the United States District Court, Central District of California, captioned United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers, and Allied Workers Local Union No. 8 v. The Trade Desk, Inc. et al. (No. 2:25-cv-01396), against the Company as well as its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The action purports to be brought on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between May 9, 2024 and February 12, 2025 and seeks unspecified damages and other relief. On March 20, 2025, the court granted the parties' joint stipulation, ordering that defendants need not respond to the current complaint, pending the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On March 5, 2025, two additional related purported class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California, captioned Savorelli v. The Trade Desk, Inc. et al. (No. 2:25-cv-01915), bringing claims against the Company as well as its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, and New England Teamsters Pension Fund v. The Trade Desk, Inc. et al. (No. 2:25-cv-01936), bringing claims against the Company as well as its Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Strategy Officer. Both complaints allege that the defendants made false and misleading statements, similar to the allegations contained in the United Union of Roofers action, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The actions are also purportedly brought on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between May 9, 2024 and February 12, 2025 and seek unspecified damages and other relief. On March 18, 2025, the court entered orders relating the Savorelli and New England actions to the first-filed United Union of Roofers action, 2:25-cv-01396 (CAS). On March 28, 2025, the court granted the parties' joint stipulations in the Savorelli and New England matters, ordering that defendants need not respond to the current complaints, pending the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel. UNITED STATES: Sued Over Delayed Processing of REAP Applications ---------------------------------------------------------------- OVANOVA, INC., OVANOVA ENERGY CORPORATION, OVANOVA CONSTRUCTION SERVICES LLC, and OVANOVA SOLAR CORPORATION, et al., on behalf of similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; BROOKE L. ROLLINS in her official capacity as Secretary of United States Department of Agriculture; BASIL GOODEN in his official capacity as Under Secretary for Rural Development; DEBRA YOCUM in her official capacity as Branch Chief – Field Operations, Rural Business Cooperative Services, USDA Rural Development; JOHN BEELER in his official capacity as USDA Regional Coordinator Northeast; and JOHN DOES 1-10, in their official capacities as USDA representatives, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02843 (D.D.C., August 25, 2025) is a first amended complaint brought by the Plaintiffs against the United States Department of Agriculture and its senior officials for violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, the Rural Electrification Act, due process, and other federal law in connection with the USDA's administration of the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP). The Ovanova Plaintiffs are a collection of affiliated renewable energy companies focused on designing and deploying solar and battery storage systems for rural agricultural producers and small businesses. Other Plaintiffs include APPLE BAR ORCHARD LLC; ATKINSON POULTRY, LLC; AUSABLE RIVER RANCH LLC; BCGAN, LLC DBA BARRY FARM; BEN OR FARM LLC; BLAWSOME, LLC; CEDAR RIDGE EGG FARM LLC; CHARLES A FUNKHOUSER DBA ROLLING HILLS FARM; CKM LLC DBA ELEVATE FITNESS; COOKEVILLE AUTO SALVAGE, LLC; ELETICIA VARGAS DBA SIERRA BLANCA HISTORIC LODGE; HOWARD L WILSON II DBA WALNUT GROVE FARM; JAMES MACKUS DBA MODERN ELECTRIC COMPANY; JAMISON LEE FRIESEN; JEFFREY CAREY DBA HIDDEN VALLEY ACRES; JIMMY LYNCH; LONG-CALLES FARMS, INC.; MARK SUSTAIRE; MIGHTY TENDRIL FARM; PVEGA VENTURES, LLC; RICHARD YOUNG JR DBA HORSEBRANCH FARM; RODNEY A FUNKHOUSER DBA RF MANUFACTURING CORP; RSR FARM; SOHEL KHAN DBA THREE DIAMONDS FARM; STANLEY REDDEN; THE ELECTRIC TRIBE LLC; TINY ESCAPES, LLC; WILDBUD NATIVES, LLC; and WILKINS FARMS, INC. This case arises from the USDA's alleged unlawful, retroactive application of unpublished evaluation criteria; unreasonable and unexplained delays in processing more than 90 REAP applications submitted by Plaintiffs; and a sustained pattern of arbitrary and inconsistent decision-making. In several cases, the Agency has attributed delays in application processing to the mere fact that applicants exercised their legal rights, for instance, citing the existence of pending litigation as a basis for pausing review, raising concerns of retaliation or improper procedural bias. The Agency further failed to comply with its own stated obligations to notify applicants when additional information was required to complete the review of an application. This obligation was formally codified in the Federal Register, Vol. 89, No. 135 (July 15, 2024), which mandates that applicants be given 15 days to respond to any identified deficiencies or to provide clarifications relevant to project eligibility, financial viability, or technical feasibility. However, Agency records, including acknowledgment letters stored in the administrative file, demonstrate inconsistent adherence to this requirement, with numerous cases showing no documented notice prior to adverse decisions. This systemic failure deprived applicants of a fair opportunity to cure alleged deficiencies and resulted in the summary denial of otherwise eligible projects without meaningful procedural safeguards, says the suit. United States Department of Agriculture is an executive department and agency of the United States government, headquartered in Washington, D.C.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alex Menendez, Esq. Gregory Sussman, Esq. WATKINSON MILLER PLLC 1100 New Jersey Ave. SE, Suite 910 Washington, D.C. 20003 Telephone: (202) 842-2345 E-mail: amenendez@watkinsonmiller.com gsussman@watkinsonmiller.com - and - James A. Wolff, Esq. WARSHAW BURSTEIN, LLP 575 Lexington Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 984-7795 E-mail: JWolff@wbny.com UPONOR INC: Riviera Homeowners Balks at Leaks From Pipes' Cracks ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1625 RIVIERA HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UPONOR, INC. and DOES 1 through 200, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-07176 (N.D. Cal., August 25, 2025) is a class action for damages and other relief on behalf of the Plaintiff and all incorporated condominium common interest developments and co-ops similarly situated in the United States and the State of California that have installed, in their common area and separate property, red-colored or blue-colored, or both, cross-linked-polyethylene tubing (PEX) for potable water systems. The Plaintiff is a multi-unit condominium located in Walnut Creek, California. It has Uponor PEX pipe installed for use as a potable water system. The Plaintiff has suffered multiple leaks from cracks and pinholes in the pipes. These leaks are often latent, concealed, and/or located behind walls; this delays discovery and enhances damage, alleges the suit. The Defendant knowingly and actively concealed and failed to disclose relevant information, related to the defective nature of the Uponor PEX pipe, to Plaintiff, the Class, and the Sub-Class. The Defendant responded to warranty claims by concealing the Uponor PEX pipe's defective nature and instead blaming the claimant or the installers for the problem, the suit asserts. Uponor, Inc. designs, develops, tests, manufactures, advertises, sells, warrants, and distributes PEX pipe, throughout the United States, for installation in homes and other structures.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael F. Ram, Esq. Colin Losey, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 846-3862 Facsimile: (415) 358-6923 E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com colin.losey@forthepeople.com - and - Jeffrey B. Cereghino, Esq. CEREGHINO LAW GROUP LLP 737 Bryant Street San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: (415) 433-4949 Facsimile: (415) 433-7311 E-mail: jbc@cereghinolaw.com - and - Charles LaDuca, Esq. Brendan Thompson, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LaDUCA, LLP 2445 M Street, NW, Suite 740 Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 789-1813 E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com brendant@cuneolaw.com - and - Robert Shelquist, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LaDUCA, LLP 5775 Wayzata Blvd. Suite 620 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: (612) 254-7288 E-mail: Rshelquist@cuneolaw.com - and - Colette F. Stone, Esq. STONE & ASSOCIATES, APC 2125 Ygnacio Valley Road, Ste. 101 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Office: (925) 938-1555 Direct: (925) 400-9612 - and - J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE, PC 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 Facsimile: (515) 223-8887 E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com USA FENCING: Sued Over Biological Men Competing in Women's Events ----------------------------------------------------------------- Julia Ya Zhao, Frederick Hausheer, Nana Pan, Hongran Stone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. USA FENCING ASSOCIATION, a Colorado Corporation, and Donald Alperstein, David Arias, Phil Andrews, Damien Lehfeldt, Lauryn Deluca, Kat Holmes, individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-02283-K (N.D. Tex., August 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972; false advertisement under the Lanham Act and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act; and for breach of contract. The class action is brought by parents of minor athletes who were discriminated against, defrauded, and otherwise harmed by Defendant USFA and each individual defendant, through the purposeful defrauding of parents of minor athletes regarding events falsely advertised as women's sporting events, intentionally allowing biological men to compete in events specifically for women, and promoting alcohol at competitions exclusively designed for minors. During a couple of tournaments, Defendant USFA, authorized by the individual Defendants, brazenly violated Title IX by discriminating against biological women athletes, defrauded Plaintiffs by falsely advertising women's events while at all times intending to include men in those events, and illegally promoted alcohol specifically targeting minor athletes at the tournament venue, the suit alleges. USA Fencing Association is a Colorado nonprofit membership organization.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Timothy T. Wang, Esq. NI, WANG & MASSAND, PLLC 8140 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 615 Dallas, TX 75231 Telephone: (972) 331-4603 Facsimile: (972) 314-0900 E-mail: twang@nilawfirm.com - and - Charles Xiaolin Wang, Esq. James T. Bacon, Esq. MAHDAVI, BACON, HALFHILL & YOUNG, PLLC 11350 Random Hills Road, Suite 700 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 420-7620 E-mail: cwang@mbhylaw.com jbacon@mbhylaw.com VIATRIS INC: Appeal in Securities Class Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Viatris 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 an appeal from a court order granting a motion to dismiss the putative securities class action lawsuit filed by Company shareholders remains pending. Beginning in May 2023, putative class action complaints were filed against the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers, directors, and employees in the WDPA on behalf of certain purchasers of securities of the Company. These actions have been consolidated and, on October 23, 2023, a consolidated amended putative class action complaint was filed in the WDPA against the Company, a director, and a former officer and director ("WDPA Viatris Class Action Litigation"). The operative complaint alleges that defendants made false or misleading statements and omissions of material fact, in violation of federal securities laws, in connection with disclosures relating to the Company's projected financial performance and biosimilars business. Plaintiffs seek certification of a class of purchasers of Company securities between March 1, 2021 and February 25, 2022. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, reasonable costs and expenses, and certain other relief. On September 20, 2024, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss all of Plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which remains pending. VIATRIS INC: Faces Securities Class Suit Over Indore Facility ------------------------------------------------------------- Viatris 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 putative class action lawsuit was filed by shareholders concerning the Company's Indore manufacturing facility. In April 2025, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain of the Company's officers, one of whom is also a director, in the WDPA on behalf of certain purchasers of the Company's securities. The complaint alleges that defendants made false or misleading statements or omissions of material fact, in violation of federal securities laws, in connection with disclosures relating to regulatory issues and actions concerning the Company's Indore manufacturing facility. Plaintiffs seek certification of a class of purchasers of Company securities between August 8, 2024 and February 26, 2025. Plaintiffs seek various forms of relief, including damages, costs and fees. VIATRIS INC: Mylan Securities Class Suit Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Viatris 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 putative securities class action lawsuit filed against Mylan N.V., certain of Mylan N.V.'s former directors and officers, and a former officer/current director of the Company remains pending. On June 26, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed by the Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi, which was subsequently amended on November 13, 2020, against Mylan N.V., certain of Mylan N.V.'s former directors and officers, and a former officer/current director of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of certain purchasers of securities of Mylan N.V. The amended complaint includes allegations that defendants engaged in a scheme and made false or misleading statements and omissions of purportedly material fact, in violation of federal securities laws, in connection with disclosures relating to the Nashik and Morgantown manufacturing plants and inspections at the plants by the FDA. Plaintiff seeks certification of a class of purchasers of Mylan N.V. securities between February 16, 2016 and May 7, 2019. In July 2025, the Court held that Plaintiffs' misstatements claim as to 1 of the 46 challenged statements, and their scheme claim, may proceed to discovery. The complaint seeks monetary damages, as well as the plaintiff's fees and costs. VIATRIS INC: Reaches Settlement Framework in Opioid Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Viatris 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 reached a nationwide settlement framework to resolve opioid-related claims. The Company, along with other manufacturers, distributors, pharmacies, pharmacy benefit managers, and individual healthcare providers, is a defendant in more than 1,000 cases in the United States and Canada filed by various plaintiffs, including counties, cities and other local governmental entities, asserting civil claims related to sales, marketing and/or distribution practices with respect to prescription opioid products. In addition, lawsuits have been filed as putative class actions including on behalf of children with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome due to alleged exposure to opioids. The lawsuits generally seek equitable relief and monetary damages (including punitive and/or exemplary damages) based on a variety of legal theories, including various statutory and/or common law claims, such as negligence, public nuisance and unjust enrichment. The vast majority of these lawsuits have been consolidated in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District Court of Ohio. In April 2025, the Company has reached a nationwide settlement framework to resolve opioid-related claims by States, local governments, and Native American tribes against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries. Under the agreed upon framework, which has been initiated by a process to determine the level of participation in the settlement, the Company would pay up to a maximum of $335 million, consisting of annual payments over a nine-year period of between approximately $27.5 and $40 million each, to help support state and local efforts to address opioid-related issues. The settlement framework is not an admission of wrongdoing or liability. WHOLE SPICE INC: Bahena Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Ashley Bahena, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Whole Spice, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-10301 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 28, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.wholespice.com (hereinafter "Wholespice.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Wholespice.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Wholespice.com is a commercial website that offers products and services for online sale. The online store allows the user to view seasonings, spices and herbs, make purchases, and perform a variety of other functions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law WM TECHNOLOGY: Nov. 10 Hearing on Bid to Junk Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- WM Technology, 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 hearing on the motion to dismiss the putative shareholder class suit has been noticed for November 10, 2025. On October 17, 2024, a putative shareholder class action complaint, captioned Seret Ishak v. WM Technology, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-08959, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, naming the Company and certain former and current officers and/or directors of the Company and Silver Spike as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the Company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact relating to historical public reporting of MAUs in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The putative class action is brought on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between May 25, 2021, and September 24, 2024, inclusive, and seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. On May 12, 2025, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint. On July 11, 2025, the Company moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended class action complaint. A hearing on the motion to dismiss has been noticed for November 10, 2025. At this early stage of the proceedings, the Company is unable to make any prediction regarding the outcome of the litigation. ZUMIEZ INC: Hernandez Sues Over Discriminative Website ------------------------------------------------------ Yudy Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ZUMIEZ INC., a Foreign Profit Corporation D/B/A ZUMIEZ, Case No. 1:25-cv-23872-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 28, 2025), is brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), as a result of the Defendant's discriminative website. The Defendant was and still is an organization owning and operating the website located at https://www.zumiez.com/. Since the website is open through the internet to the public as an extension of the retail stores, by this nexus the website is an intangible service, privilege and advantage of Defendant's brick and mortar locations, the Defendant has subjected itself and the associated website it created and maintains to the requirements of the ADA. The website also services Defendant's physical stores by providing information on its brand and other information that Defendant is interested in communicating to its customers about its physical locations. Although the Website appeared to have an "accessibility" statement displayed and an "accessibility" widget/plugin added, the "accessibility" statement and widget/plugin, when tested, still could not be effectively accessed by, and continued to be a barrier to, blind and visually disabled persons, including Plaintiff as a completely blind person. Plaintiff, although she attempted to access the statement, thus, was unable to receive any meaningful or prompt assistance through the "accessibility" statement and the widget/plugin to enable her to quickly, fully, and effectively navigate the Website, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses the computer regularly, but due to her visual disability, Plaintiff cannot use her computer without the assistance of appropriate and available auxiliary aids, screen reader software, and other technology and assistance. ZUMIEZ, is a company that sells men, women, and kids clothing, shoes, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Diego German Mendez, Esq. MENDEZ LAW OFFICES, PLLC P.O. BOX 228630 Miami, FL 33172 Phone: 305.264.9090 Facsimile: 1-305.809.8474 Email: info@mendezlawoffices.com - and - Richard J. Adams, Esq. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 6500 Cowpen Road, Suite 101 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Phone: 786-290-1963 Facsimile: 305-824-3868 Email: radamslaw7@gmail.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***