250915.mbx

250915.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, September 15, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 184 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Pace Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Paese Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Palmisano Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Parker Sues Over Exposure to Toxic film-forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Passmore Sues Over Negligent Acts and Omissions A-LINE STAFFING: Misak Class Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA ACG FOODS: Stifel Class Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under Labor Code ACUSHNET COMPANY: Faces Long Class Suit Over Deceptive Golf Balls AEGIS TRUST: Faces Ralston Suit Over Alleged ERISA Violations ANTHEM HEALTH PLANS: Mazzola Sues Over Inaccurate Directories ANTHEM HEALTH: Mazzola Balks at Inaccurate Health Care Directories ATKORE INC: Faces MCB Class Action Suit Over PVC Pipe Price Hike AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL: Class of Tenants Certified in Schultz Suit BLUFOX MOBILE: Barbour Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Store Managers BOISE CASCADE: Orchard Suit Removed from State Court to Washington CAREMARK RX: Denies Medicine Coverage, Larkin Class Suit Alleges CENDYN GROUP: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Conspiracy Suit CHEBOYGAN COUNTY, MI: Settlement in Surplus Proceeds Suit Approved CHEWY INC: Overcharges Autoship Program Customers, Cavas Suit Says CINMAR LLC: Sud Class Suit Removed from State Court to Washington CONNEX CREDIT: Faces Arroyo Suit Over Clients' Hacked Private Info CONVERSENOW TECHNOLOGIES: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Suit DAVID SIN: Grossman Suit Seeks to Certify Class DELTA AIR: Berrin Suit Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal DELTA AIR: Berrin Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification DELTA AIR: Goodyear Suit Seeks to Seal Exhibits Under Seal DELTA COUNTY, TX: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Taylor DENTALPLANS.COM: Seeks to Reconsider June 6, 2024 Order in Bradley DRURY HOTELS: Court Sets Conference on Settlement Terms EDFINANCIAL SERVICES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Nov. 13 EDWARD ABER: C.B. Sues Over Sexual Misconduct EI DU PONT: Allen Suit Seeks Class Certification FERROCRETE STRUCTURES: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines GENERATIONS FEDERAL: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action Suit GLOBE LIFE: Refuses to Pay Life Insurance Policies, Jennings Says HARLANS AUTO: Miday Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Akins Sues Over Negligent Cybersecurity HIRERIGHT LLC: Faces Millsap Suit Over Misleading Consumer Reports JOY CONE: Davey's Bid for Conditional Class Certification Granted KELEOPS USA: Must Face Garon Class Action Over Website Trackers KRAFT HEINZ: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Contaminated Bacon Products LA PLATA, CO: Women Sue Over Jail Commander Strip Search Video LANGDON & COMPANY: Nobles Balks at Unprotected Personal Info LASERSHIP INC: Butler Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info LASERSHIP INC: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Contreras Alleges LASERSHIP INC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Martinez Says LASERSHIP INC: Salgado Sues Over Hacked Personal Info of Customers LENNAR HOMES: Court Tosses Schwarz Complaint as Shotgun Pleading MARRIOTT HOTEL: Williamson Removed from State Court to Colorado MDL 2873: Adams v. 3M Removed From State Court to N.D. Ala. MDL 2873: Akins Suit Seeks Damages Over Toxic Chemical Exposure MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Banfield Alleges MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Banks Alleges MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Boucos Alleges MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Cisneros Says MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Derflinger Says MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Dowden Says MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Fortenberry Says MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Garcia Alleges MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Harr Alleges MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Hodges Alleges MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Jacobs Says MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Jefferson Says MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Monk Alleges MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Murdock Says MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Pennywell Says MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Romero Alleges MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Sines Alleges MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Sparks Alleges MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Tipton Alleges MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Toliver Says MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Underwood Says MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Varnell Says MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Wanderscheid Says MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Wilkinson Says MDL 2873: Cantu Sues for Injury Over Toxic Chemical Exposure MDL 2873: Exposes Resident to Toxic Chemicals, McMillan Says MDL 2873: Faces Doan Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MDL 2873: Faces Garcia Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MDL 2873: Faces Harman Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MDL 2873: Faces McGillan Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MDL 2873: Faces Medlin Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MDL 2873: Faces Olson Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MDL 2873: Faces Parker Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MDL 2873: Faces Ramos Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MDL 2873: Faces Rossi Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MDL 2873: Jones v. 3M Suit Removed from State Court to N.D. Alabama MDL 2873: Rodriguez Seeks Damages From Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MDL 2873: Venable Seeks Damages from Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MDL 2873: Williams Seeks Damages from Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MESK INVESTMENTS: Agrees to Settle Wage Transparency Suit for $6.3M MYEYEDR OPTOMETRY: Espanol TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class NADS LLC: Lopez Sues Over Blind User-Inaccessible Website NATIONAL BEVERAGE: Founds Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania NATIONAL ELECTRIC WORKS: Quiroz Suit Removed to S.D. California NRA GROUP LLC: Hartoonian Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania OAK-LEYDEN DEVELOPMENTAL: Higgins-Bey Seeks Proper OT Wages OAKWOOD MANAGEMENT: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 6, 2026 ODESSA, TX: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Water Billing Issues OHIO MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Jindra Says PETSMART LLC: Benefiel Suit Removed to W.D. Washington PF CALI: Strandholt Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification PRIME HYDRATION: Court Narrows Claims in Kennedy Consumer Suit PROCAPS LABORATORIES: Jackson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website QUANTUM CORP: Faces Lee Class Action Suit Over Stock Price Drop REDFIN CORPORATION: Esparza Suit Removed to C.D. California REPUBLIC SERVICES: Bid for Class Cert Hearing Tossed in CIS Suit REPUBLIC SERVICES: Bid for Class Cert Hearing Tossed in Pietoso S.D.V.P. MANAGEMENT: Ramos Files Suit in S.D. California SABATER USA INC: Bribiesca Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SELLAN STRUCTURAL: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert. SIXT RENT A CAR: Nova Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SPORT SQUAD: Agrees to Settle Paddles' False Ads Class Action Suit STAKE CENTER: Holtsclaw Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid STEVEN RAGA: Kulis Suit Transferred to E.D. New York SUTHERLAND GLOBAL: Lee Suit Certified as FLSA Collective Action TMX FINANCE: Settlement in Kolstedt Data Breach Suit Has Final OK TRANSUNION LLC: Faces Perkins Suit Over Unauthorized Access of Info TRANSUNION LLC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Meyer Suit Says TRIPLE CANOPY: Williams Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert TRONOX HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Material Info TRONOX HOLDINGS: Faces Keller Suit Over Common Stock Price Drop TTI OUTDOOR: Sells Defective Pressure Washers, Angelini Suit Says TUNGSTEN AUTOMATION: Clarke Sues Over Compromised Customers' Info UHS OF LAKESIDE: Levine Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA UNITED BANK: Davis Suit Seeks Class Settlement Prelim. Approval UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 1, 2026 UNITED STATES: AV Bid for Class Certification Tossed UNITED STATES: ICE, Feeley Must Respond to Vazquez Immigration Suit UNITED SURGICAL: Final Approval of Class Settlement Sought UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces Class Action Suit Over System Breach UPLEAD LLC: Disseminates Telephone Numbers Without Consent VALLEY HOSPITAL: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Laurino Class Suit Says VITAS HEALTHCARE: Lanes Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA WANTABLE INC: Rodriguez Sues Over Automatic Renewal of Subscription WASHINGTON: 9th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Professor Flaxman Suit XEROX CORP: Fails to Pay Sales Commission, McCarthy Class Suit ********* 3M COMPANY: Pace Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Pace, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-08445-RMG (D.S.C., July 25, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were being exposed to toxic chemicals until the contamination was recently discovered. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or the Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF product. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Paese Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- William Paese, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-08447-RMG (D.S.C., July 25, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were being exposed to toxic chemicals until the contamination was recently discovered. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or the Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF product. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Palmisano Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Palmisano, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORP., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA INC., DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; JOHNSON CONTROLS INC., KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-08504-RMG (D.S.C., July 25, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was exposed to PFAS chemicals through their drinking water and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' PFAS containing products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chandler B. Duncan, Esq. Andrew T. Kagan, Esq. Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq. KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC. 295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6 Humacao, PR, 00791 Phone: 939-220-2424 Facsimile: 939-220-2477 3M COMPANY: Parker Sues Over Exposure to Toxic film-forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pamela Parker, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORP., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA INC., DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; JOHNSON CONTROLS INC., KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-08506-RMG (D.S.C., July 25, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was exposed to PFAS chemicals through their drinking water and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' PFAS containing products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chandler B. Duncan, Esq. Andrew T. Kagan, Esq. Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq. KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC. 295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6 Humacao, PR, 00791 Phone: 939-220-2424 Facsimile: 939-220-2477 3M COMPANY: Passmore Sues Over Negligent Acts and Omissions ----------------------------------------------------------- Robert Passmore, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC., AMEREX CORPORATION, ARKEMA, INC., ARCHROMA U.S. INC., BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba Inc., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation, CORTEVA, INC., individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, L.L.C., TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P., and UTC FIRE and SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-08489-RMG (D.S.C., July 27, 2025), is brought for compensatory and punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff, and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing, reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in connection with Aqueous Film-Forming Foam ("AFFF") containing Perfluorooctanoic Acid ("PFOA") and Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS"). All Defendants were involved in the manufacturing, marketing, design, sale, and/or distribution of fluorochemical products, fluorosurfactants, AFFF, PFOA, PFOS, PFAS, and/or the precursors to PFOA and PFOS (collectively hereinafter "fluorochemical products" or "C8") to which Plaintiff was exposed. PFOS and PFOA are fluorosurfactants that repel oil, grease, and water. PFOS, PFOA, or their chemical precursors, are or were components of AFFF products, which are firefighting suppressant agents used in training and firefighting activities for fighting Class B fires. Class B fires involving hydrocarbon fuels such as petroleum or other flammable liquids. The Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, or sold AFFF/Component Products with the knowledge that these toxic compounds would be released into the environment during fire protection, training, and response activities, even when used as directed and intended by Defendants. Since its creation in the 1960s, AFFF designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, or sold by Defendants, or that contained fluorosufactants or PFCs designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, or sold by Defendants, used as directed and intended by Defendants, and subsequently released into the environment during fire protection, training, and response activities, resulting in widespread PFAS contamination. Due to this contamination, the Plaintiff has suffered real personal injuries, bioaccumulation of PFAS in their bodies, as a result of the release of PFAS to their water supplies. The Plaintiff has been unknowingly exposed to the PFAS through contamination of their drinking water supply for many years at concentrations hazardous to their health. The Plaintiff's unwitting exposure to PFAS in the water supply as a result of the Defendants' conduct, is the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF/Component Products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's life, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was exposed to Defendants' fluorochemical products as a result of ingesting drinking water contaminated with Defendants' fluorochemical products. The Defendants designed, developed, manufactured, marketed and/or sold the AFFF or fluorochemical products containing PFOA or PFOS to which Plaintiff was exposed.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. Fantini, Esq. ROSEN INJURY LAWYERS 101 Greenwood Ave., Suite 510 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Phone: (215) 310-9649 Facsimile: (215) 989-4424 Email: jfantini@roseninjurylawyers.com A-LINE STAFFING: Misak Class Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ CORRIN MISAK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. A-LINE STAFFING SOLUTIONS LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, Case No. 2:25-cv-12796-MFL-EAS (E.D. Mich., Sept. 4, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, throughout the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant, the Defendant failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's monthly commission pay and other non-discretionary remuneration in the regular rate for proper overtime rate calculation. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, she has earned monthly commission pay and other non-discretionary remuneration. The Plaintiff is currently employed with Defendant. Additional putative Collective members were or are employed by Defendant as hourly employees during the past three years and their consent forms will also be filed in this case. A-LINE STAFFING SOLUTIONS LLC is a staffing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7501 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com ACG FOODS: Stifel Class Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under Labor Code ----------------------------------------------------------------- LAWRENCE STIFEL, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ACG FOODS LLC DBA CHICK-FIL-A, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV26022 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 4, 2025) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay minimum and straight time wages, failed to pay overtime wages, and failed to provide meal periods under the California Labor Code. During the Plaintiff's employment for the Defendants, the Defendants paid Plaintiff an hourly wage and classified Plaintiff as non-exempt from overtime. The Defendants repeatedly and frequently scheduled Plaintiff to work at least five days in a workweek and at least eight hours per day, but Plaintiff also worked more than eight hours in a workday and more than 40 hours in a workweek, the suit says. Plaintiff Lawrence Stifel is a resident of Monrovia, California who worked for the Defendants in Los Angeles County, California as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee from June 2023 to June 2025. ACG supplies agriculture products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John G. Yslas, Esq. Arrash T. Fattahi, Esq. John O. Bishay, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 660 S. Figueroa St., Sky Lobby Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: john.yslas@wilshirelawfirm.com arrash.fattahi@wilshirelawfirm.com john.bishay@wilshirelawfirm.com ACUSHNET COMPANY: Faces Long Class Suit Over Deceptive Golf Balls ----------------------------------------------------------------- GEOFF LONG, JEREMY MELETTI, TUAN THIES, WILLIAM "BILL" BYRD, JOSHUA YOON, AND BRETT GEORGULIS, each individually and on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated individuals v. ACUSHNET COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 4:25-cv-01332 (E.D. Mo., Sept. 4, 2025) is a consumer protection class action concerning unfair and/or deceptive acts and misrepresentations. According to the complaint, Acushnet made, labeled, and sold boxes of golf balls (and sleeves contained) that were represented as containing twelve Titleist -- Pro V1x (Left Dash) golf balls with "Enhanced Alignment" ("Left Dash EA"), but the boxes that Plaintiffs received (each a "Mixed Box") contained only nine Left Dash EA golf balls and three unwanted Titleist 2023 Pro V1x golf balls with "Enhanced Alignment" ("Pro V1x EA"). The ProV1x EA golf balls have substantially different performance characteristics than the Left Dash EA golf balls. Between May 2024, when the Defendant launched the Left Dash EA golf ball, and the end of that year, each of Plaintiffs attempted to purchase at least one box of twelve Left Dash EA golf balls through one of two major golf retailers, Golf Galaxy and PGA TOUR Superstore, which sell golf balls nationwide. However, every Left Dash EA box that Plaintiffs purchased from Golf Galaxy or PGA TOUR Superstore was a Mixed Box, containing nine Left Dash EA golf balls and three unwanted Pro V1x EA golf balls. Thus, the Defendant deceived Plaintiffs and Class Members into buying a Mixed Box containing nine of the desired Left Dash EA rather than the advertised twelve, says the suit. The Defendant knew about its false marketing, advertising, packaging, distribution, and/or sale of its Mixed Boxes. It created Mixed Boxes to sell lower in-demand Pro V1x EA balls masquerading in the place of higher in-demand Left Dash EA balls. The Plaintiffs would not have purchased the Mixed Box had they known only nine of the twelve balls inside were Left Dash EA, the suit contends. The Defendant provides Missouri golf courses and other Missouri retailers with promotional materials including posters, giveaways, and display cases.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bryan J. Schrempf, Esq. David R. Bohm, Esq. Katherine M. Flett, Esq. DANNA MCKITRICK, P.C. 7701 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO 63105-3907 Telephone: (314) 726-1000 E-mail: bschrempf@dmfirm.com dbohm@dmfirm.com kflett@dmfirm.com - and - Fernando Bermudez, Esq. BERMUDEZ LAW FIRM 222 S. Central Blvd., Suite 550 St. Louis, MO 63108 Telephone: (314) 339-3082 E-mail: fbermudez@bermudezlawstl.com AEGIS TRUST: Faces Ralston Suit Over Alleged ERISA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- HEIDI RALSTON, on behalf of the ARCO Holdings Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated v. ROBERT E. LESSER, AEGIS TRUST COMPANY, LLC, CRAIG A. BRIDELL, JAMES P. KEEVEN, CHRISTOPHER WILSON, JEFFREY L. COOK, STEPHEN F. HOLSTE, and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1–10, Case No. 4:25-cv-01325 (E.D. Mo., Sept. 3, 2025) is a class action suit brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 for losses suffered by the Plan and its participants caused by the Trustee when it caused the Plan to engage in ERISA prohibited transactions in connection with its leveraged purchase of ANH stock from the Selling Shareholders, and other plan-wide relief. Specifically, the Trustee caused the Plan to engage in prohibited transactions under ERISA Section 406(a)(1)(A), (B) and (D), 29 U.S.C. section 1106(a)(1)(A), (B) and (D), when it caused the Plan to purchase Company stock from the Selling Shareholders and transfer assets of the Plan to them, and financed that purchase with loans from the Selling Shareholders and the Company, who were parties in interest to the Plan. The Selling Shareholders, as the counterparties to the transactions and ANH executives, were knowing participants in the prohibited transactions, asserts the suit. As alleged, the Plan, Plaintiff, and all Plan participants have been injured and participants deprived of hard-earned retirement benefits resulting from Defendants' violations of ERISA. On Dec. 31, 2019, the Plan, through its trust, the ARCO National Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Trust (ESOT), purchased from the party in interest Selling Shareholders, directly or indirectly, 647,353 shares of the Company's common stock for an ultimate purchase price, after a working capital adjustment, of approximately $160,834,853. The ESOP financed the entire purchase with loans from the Selling Shareholders that were subsequently assigned to the Company. The Trustee represented the Plan and its participants as fiduciary trustee in the ESOP Transaction. It had sole and exclusive authority to negotiate the terms of the ESOP Transaction and to authorize the Transaction on the Plan's behalf. Accordingly, the Trustee and its financial advisor caused the ESOP to pay a control value even though the ESOP did not obtain control of ANH. And the Trustee and its advisor applied a discount for lack of marketability premised on the ESOP obtaining put rights that it did not receive, as put rights ran to participants and not to the buyer ESOP. These valuation errors caused the ESOP to pay tens of millions of dollars in excess of fair market value. The Employees of ANH and participants in the ANH ESOP including Plaintiff have not been provided details about the ESOP Transaction or provided with documents that memorialized the Transaction. Aegis provided trustee services to privately held companies wishing to sponsor employee stock ownership plans. Aegis Fiduciary's "type of business or services" was reported by the company to be "Fiduciary services." The Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark G. Boyko, Esq. Gregory Y. Porter, Esq. Ryan T. Jenny, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 34 N. Gore Avenue, Suite 102 Webster Groves, MO 63119 Telephone: (314) 863-5446 Facsimile: (304) 342-1110 E-mail: mboyko@baileyglasser.com gporter@baileyglasser.com rjenny@baileyglasser.com - and - Daniel Feinberg, Esq. Todd Jackson, Esq. Mary Bortscheller, Esq. FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW, LLP 2030 Addison Street, Suite 500 Berkeley, California 94704 Telephone: (510) 269-7998 Facsimile: (510) 269-7994 E-mail: dan@feinbergjackson.com todd@feinbergjackson.com mary@feinbergjackson.com ANTHEM HEALTH PLANS: Mazzola Sues Over Inaccurate Directories ------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Mazzola, in her individual capacity and in her capacity as Mother of BABY DOE, Guy Mazzola in his individual capacity and in his capacity as Father of BABY DOE, AMEC, LLC, and LISA KULLER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. ANTHEM HEALTH PLANS, INC., CARELON BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC., and ELEVANCE HEALTH, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-01433 (D. Conn., Sept. 3, 2025), is brought against the Defendants, that mislead vulnerable individuals in need of qualified mental health providers by publishing grossly inaccurate directories of doctors and therapists. These inaccurate directories are known as "ghost networks." The Defendants' intentional publication of an inaccurate provider directory is not just an inconvenience for people searching for mental health providers; it is far more insidious and costly. By publishing an inaccurate provider directory where over 70% of doctors listed do not exist, are not actually in-network, or do not have accurate contact information, Defendants misled and deceived Plaintiffs. The Defendants further mislead, defraud, and harm people by telling them there are in network providers who accept the insurance and new patients when they do not; by denying covered services; by failing to properly apply members' out-of-pocket expenditures to deductibles; and by failing to reimburse members reasonable or consistent amounts when they use out-of-network providers. Because of these ghost networks, many insurance customers--including Plaintiffs--have suffered damages. Plaintiffs have had to utilize out of-network providers and, as a result, have incurred thousands of dollars in unexpected and unfair mental health-related expenses. The Defendants knowingly and intentionally publish an inaccurate and misleading provider directory in order to attract customers. Defendants are knowingly engaging in a deceptive and fraudulent advertising campaign intended to lure people (like Plaintiffs) into choosing their plan based on false promises of a robust and geographically comprehensive provider network, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Michelle Mazzola is a member of the Anthem Silver Pathway CT PPO plan, which is currently an ERISA plan. Anthem Health Plans, Inc. is a Connecticut company that administers Plaintiffs' health insurance plan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig Raabe, Esq. Robert Izard, Esq. Seth Klein, Esq. IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP 29 South Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Phone: (860) 493-6292 Email: craabe@ikrlaw.com - and - Adam Pollock, Esq. Steve Cohen, Esq. POLLOCK COHEN LLP 111 Broadway, Suite 1804 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 337-5361 Email: Adam@Pollockcohen.com Scohen@PollockCohen.com - and - Jacob Gardener, Esq. WALDEN MACHT HARAN & WILLIAMS LLP 250 Vesey St., 27th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 335-2965 Email: jgardener@wmhwlaw.com ANTHEM HEALTH: Mazzola Balks at Inaccurate Health Care Directories ------------------------------------------------------------------ MICHELLE MAZZOLA, in her individual capacity and in her capacity as Mother of BABY DOE, Guy Mazzola in his individual capacity and in his capacity as Father of BABY DOE, AMEC, LLC, and LISA KULLER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. ANTHEM HEALTH PLANS, INC., CARELON BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC., and ELEVANCE HEALTH, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-01433 (D. Conn., Sept. 3, 2025) is a class action for damages, equitable relief, and injunctive relief against the Defendants. According to the complaint, the Defendants mislead vulnerable individuals in need of qualified mental health providers by publishing grossly inaccurate directories of doctors and therapists. These inaccurate directories are known as "ghost networks." Ghost networks are directories of supposedly available, in-network providers that contain so many errors and duplications, the network is largely illusory. Mental health provider directories are more likely than any other medical specialty to be ghost networks, asserts the suit. The Defendants' intentional publication of an inaccurate provider directory is not just an inconvenience for people searching for mental health providers; it is far more insidious and costly. By publishing an inaccurate provider directory where over 70% of doctors listed do not exist, are not actually in-network, or do not have accurate contact information, Defendants misled and deceived Plaintiffs. The Defendants further mislead, defraud, and harm people by telling them there are in-network providers who accept the insurance and new patients when they do not; by denying covered services; by failing to properly apply members' out-of-pocket expenditures to deductibles; and by failing to reimburse members reasonable or consistent amounts when they use out-of-network providers, the suit adds. Anthem is a health insurance plan provider.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig A. Raabe, Esq. Robert Izard, Esq. Seth Klein, Esq. IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP 29 South Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 493-6292 E-mail: craabe@ikrlaw.com - and - Adam Pollock, Esq. Steve Cohen, Esq. POLLOCK COHEN LLP 111 Broadway, Suite 1804 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 337-5361 E-mail: Adam@Pollockcohen.com Scohen@PollockCohen.com - and - Jacob Gardener, Esq. WALDEN MACHT HARAN & WILLIAMS LLP 250 Vesey St., 27th Floor New York, NY 10281 Telephone: (212) 335-2965 E-mail: jgardener@wmhwlaw.com ATKORE INC: Faces MCB Class Action Suit Over PVC Pipe Price Hike ---------------------------------------------------------------- MCB PLUMBING & MECHANICAL, INC., d/b/a INTEGRITY MECHANICAL, and NORTH SUBURBAN PLUMBING, INC., individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. ATKORE, INC., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-10645 D (N.D. Ill., Sept. 4, 2025) is a civil antitrust action brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and on behalf of proposed Classes of all persons and entities who purchased PVC municipal water pipes and electrical-conduit pipes (PVC Pipes) manufactured by the Converter Defendants, through a non-converter PVC Pipe seller, in the United States beginning on January 1, 2021, to the present. The Plaintiffs bring this action for injunctive relief and damages under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and under the antitrust laws, unfair-competition laws, consumer-protection laws, and the common law of various states. In the wake of persistent price increases initially stemming from supply chain disruptions caused by COVID-19, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice became concerned about persons and entities seeking to exploit the supply-chain disruptions to engage in unlawful anticompetitive behavior. The Defendants did precisely what the DOJ feared: PVC converters exploited the COVID-19 supply-chain disruptions to fix prices and overcharge their customers for PVC municipal water and electrical-conduit pipes. The Defendants boldly declared that "price hikes won't work unless everyone is working together to implement them," says the suit. Accordingly in this case, the information-exchange firm is Defendant Oil Price Information Service, LLC (OPIS), a reporting service that provides pricing and market intelligence in various industries to its paying subscribers. In the PVC Pipe industry, OPIS created the proverbial smoke-filled backroom that enabled Converter Defendants to discuss and signal their pricing activities, gain access to standardized pricing data from their erstwhile competitors, and collectively extract artificially inflated profits from their customers, the suit asserts. Integrity Mechanical provided residential and commercial construction services, and purchased PVC Pipes produced by one or more of the Converter Defendants or their co-conspirators through a non-converter PVC Pipe seller. North Suburban provided residential and commercial construction services, and purchased PVC Pipes produced by one or more of the Converter Defendants or their co-conspirators through a non-converter PVC Pipe seller. The Defendants include CANTEX INC.; DIAMOND PLASTICS CORPORATION; IPEX USA LLC; J-M MANUFACTURING COMPANY,INC. d/b/a JM EAGLE,INC.; NATIONAL PIPE & PLASTICS, INC.; NORTHERN PIPE PRODUCTS, INC.; OTTER TAIL CORPORATION; PIPELIFE JETSTREAM, INC.; PRIME CONDUIT, INC.; SANDERSON PIPE CORPORATION; SOUTHERN PIPE, INC.; WESTLAKE CORPORATION; WESTLAKE PIPE & FITTINGS CORPORATION; VINYLTECH CORPORATION; and OIL PRICE INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. Zoran Tasic, Esq. WEXLER BOLEY & ELGERSMA LLP 311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5450 Chicago, IL , 60606 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 E-mail: kaw@wbe-llp.com zt@wbe-llp.com - and - Jason Gustafson, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL: Class of Tenants Certified in Schultz Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jennifer Schultz, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Avenue5 Residential, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-CV-00088-SAB (E.D. Wash.), Judge Stan Bastion of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington grants the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. The court held a motion hearing on August 7, 2025, in Spokane, Washington, where Plaintiff was represented by Shayne Sutherland and Christopher Hogue, and Defendant was represented by Robert Lee. After reviewing the briefs, arguments, and case law, the court granted Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The case was filed in Spokane County Superior Court on January 3, 2023, and removed to federal court in the Eastern District of Washington on March 30, 2023. Defendant properly based removal on the Class Action Fairness Act, giving the court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). Plaintiff seeks to file for class action for all class members who rented property owned or managed by Defendant as the landlord, as defined by Washington Revised Code Section 59.18.030(16), and who signed a lease agreement containing provisions prohibited by the Washington Residential Landlord-Tenant Act. She brings claims for violations of Washington State's RLTA pursuant to Washington Revised Code Section 59.18, et seq., unjust enrichment, and violations of Washington State's Consumer Protection Act pursuant to Washington Revised Code Section 19.86, et seq. Plaintiff claims Defendant included several illegal lease provisions in her and other tenants' agreements in violation of the RLTA, and Defendant was unjustly enriched by illegal fees. The court noted that Plaintiff points to seven alleged illegal and unenforceable provisions from her lease, including to pay late fees on rent paid within five days of rental payment due dates in violation of Washington Revised Code Section 59.18.230(2)(f) and 59.18.170, and to pay the landlord's attorney's fees that are not otherwise authorized by the RLTA in violation of Washington Revised Code Section 59.18.230(2)(c). On January 4, 2021, Plaintiff signed a rental agreement for an apartment unit at River House at the Trail Head along East Mission Parkway in Spokane, Washington, which was managed by Defendant Avenue5. Plaintiff's lease contract contained more than 70 pages and was identical or similar to the lease agreements for other tenants in the complex. Her lease term ran from January 2021 to March 2022. The court applied the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, which requires federal court original jurisdiction for class action cases involving more than $5,000,000, exclusive of interests and costs, when minimal diversity exists between any one plaintiff and any one defendant, and involving 100 or more proposed class members. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), a party seeking to certify a class must show the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, there are questions of law or fact common to the class, the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the proposed class. The court found numerosity satisfied based on Defendant's discovery disclosures showing 78,535 of its leases contained the alleged illegal class action waiver, 38,850 leases contained the alleged illegal attorney's fees provision, 36,384 leases contained the alleged illegal construction liability waiver, 44,482 leases contained an alleged illegal provision requiring tenants pay for service of notice fees as additional rent, 27,413 leases contained an alleged illegal requirement tenants pay a fee for service of landlord tenant notices, 14,223 tenants were required to pay alleged illegal pest control fees, and at least 179 leases contained alleged illegal requirements tenants pay a late fee before the 7th of each month. The court found commonality satisfied because Plaintiff's common question regarding the challenged lease provisions will drive the litigation resolution and will generate a common answer regarding whether or not they violated state law. The challenge to even one shared lease provision across the putative class lease agreements is enough to satisfy Rule 23(a). The court found typicality satisfied because Plaintiff allegedly suffered injury from illegal lease provisions and seeks to represent a class where other members have the same or similar injury under the statute and the other proposed class members have been injured in the same course of conduct through the alleged illegal lease provisions. The court found Plaintiff to be a fair and adequate class representative given the availability of statutory damages in this matter and Plaintiff's and counsel's assertions they have no conflicts that would interfere with their ability to represent the class in this matter. The court found class action the superior method of managing this litigation, noting that if provisions of Defendant's lease agreements are found to be illegal, then the common question of statutory damages under Washington State law, as shared by the proposed class, will predominate as the central issue in the litigation. The court ordered that Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is granted. The court certified this matter as a class action with the class and subclass defined as follows: Main Class: All persons who rented any property in Washington State where Avenue5 was the landlord of the rental property, as defined by Washington Revised Code Section 59.18.030(16), who signed any lease agreement where the lease agreement contained provisions prohibited by the RLTA. Subclass A: Those individuals who meet the requirements for all class members above and who are required to pay any amounts for late fees imposed before five days had passed since the rent was due, for pest control charges (excluding those in a single-family dwelling), for a service fee imposed for notice served under Washington Revised Code Section 59.12, et seq., and/or attorney's fees and costs that were not allowed under the RLTA. The court ordered that the parties shall file a Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan, including proposed trial dates, on or before September 26, 2025. The court noted it may revisit the issue of class certification during litigation and will exercise its discretion to decertify the class if discovery indicates certification is no longer appropriate. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vHKRYI from PacerMonitor.com. BLUFOX MOBILE: Barbour Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Store Managers --------------------------------------------------------------- RANDY BARBOUR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUFOX MOBILE LLC, and CHAITANYA KRISHNA a/k/a CHETAN KRISHNA, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-04842 (E.D.N.Y., September 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Barbour worked for Blufox as a store manager from about August 2022 through March 2023. Blufox Mobile LLC is a retail company, headquartered in Plainview, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Troy L. Kessler, Esq. Garrett Kaske, Esq. KESSLER MATURA, PC 534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 499-9100 Email: tkessler@kesslermatura.com gkaske@kesslermatura.com - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Camar R. Jones, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 981 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com cjones@shavitzlaw.com BOISE CASCADE: Orchard Suit Removed from State Court to Washington ------------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned as MARK ORCHARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BOISE CASCADE COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 25-00002-00184-33 (Filed May 19, 2025) from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of Stevens to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on Sept. 2, 2025. The Eastern District of Washington Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00337 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff filed the Class Action Complaint for Unpaid Wages. The Complaint alleges eight causes of action: failed to provide rest periods, failure to provide meal periods, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to accrue and allow use of paid sick leave, unlawful deductions of rebates, failure to pay all wages due at termination, and willful refusal to pay waged. Boise Cascade Company is an American manufacturer of wood products and wholesale distributor of building materials, headquartered in Boise, Idaho.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Dean Petitta, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com statavos@justicelawcorp.com dpetitta@justicelawcorp.com The Defendant is represented by: Breanne Sheetz Martell, Esq. Brian Rho, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 3200 Telephone: (206) 623-3300 Facsimile: (206) 447-6965 E-mail: bsmartell@littler.com brho@littler.com CAREMARK RX: Denies Medicine Coverage, Larkin Class Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS LARKIN and DANIELLE GOSLINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CAREMARK RX, L.L.C. (d/b/a CVS CAREMARK), Case No. 1:25-cv-07307 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 3, 2025) is brought as a class action lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, on behalf of Plaintiffs and a class consisting of members of an employer-sponsored health benefit plan for whom Defendant acts as a pharmacy benefit manager, whose requests for coverage of Zepbound (tirzepatide) were denied by Defendant due to alleged lack of medical necessity and not being covered under the plan. According to the complaint, in a fully insured plan, the employer pays a fixed premium to an insurance carrier, who assumes the financial risk and administrative burden of paying claims. In a self-funded plan, the employer pays for employee claims directly from their own funds, including contributions made by employees, and often hire third-party administrators (TPAs) to help administer the plan. One type of TPA hired by both self-funded plans and insurance carriers that issue fully insured plans is a PBM. PBMs are engaged to oversee and administer prescription drug coverage for plan participants. Among other things, PBMs manage formularies, maintain pharmacy networks, negotiate rebates with drug manufacturers, process prescription drug claims and appeals, provide mail order services, and manage drug use. In 2024, CVS Caremark administered approximately 27% of all pharmacy benefit claims for the more than 154 million people covered under employer-sponsored health plans. While PBMs can sometimes reduce prescription drug costs for employers who offer health plans, PBMs in some cases reduce access to prescribed medication and increase the price of drugs for beneficiaries of employer-sponsored plans, the suit says. The Defendant entered into a prescription drug rebate agreement with Novo Nordisk for the weight management drug Wegovy (semaglutide). As part of that rebate agreement, beginning on July 1, 2025, CVS Caremark stopped covering Zepbound (tirzepatide). Zepbound is an FDA approved drug for the treatment of obesity and weight management, and on December 20, 2024, Zepbound became the first and only FDA-approved drug to treat moderate-to-severe obstructive sleep apnea for adults with obesity. Wegovy is not FDA approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe obstructive sleep apnea in adults with obesity. Plaintiff Larkin participates in his employer's self-funded health plan. Mr. Larkin's plan uses CVS Caremark to manage pharmacy benefits for its covered employees and participants. He received a prescription for Zepbound from his physician in December of 2023, for the purpose of weight management. At the time of Mr. Larkin's initial prescription for Zepbound, his employer did not use CVS Caremark as its PBM. Shortly thereafter, on or about April 22, 2024, after beginning treatment with Zepbound, Mr. Larkin was also diagnosed with severe obstructive sleep apnea. CVS Caremark approved Mr. Larkin's physician's request for coverage for Zepbound in January 2025, and Mr. Larkin continuously refilled his prescription until June 19, 2025, when Defendant denied Mr. Larkin's request for coverage of his Zepbound prescription, stating that Mr. Larkin's plan no longer covered Zepbound, the suit adds. CAREMARK RX, L.L.C. is the pharmacy benefit management subsidiary of CVS Health.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Brian Hufford, Esq. THE HUFFORD LAW FIRM PLLC 76 Midland Ave. Rye, NY 10580 Telephone: (614) 371-3657 E-mail: dbhufford@huffordlawfirm.org - and - Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Natalie Lesser, Esq. Amey J. Park, Esq. Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq. Julie Selesnick, Esq. Zoe Seaman-Grant, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-4656 E-mail: scarson@bergermontague.com nlesser@bergermontague.com apark@bergermontague.com Eapiazza@bergermontague.com jselesnick@bergermontague.com zseamangrant@bergermontague.com CENDYN GROUP: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Conspiracy Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- August Gweon & Brandon Gould, writing for Covington, reports that on August 15, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a class action complaint in Gibson v. Cendyn Group, No. 24-3576, rejecting plaintiffs' arguments that Las Vegas hotels violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act through their common use of revenue management software. The decision follows two previous orders by a Nevada federal court that dismissed plaintiffs' arguments that the hotels engaged in a per se illegal "horizontal" conspiracy with each other to fix their prices at levels recommended by the software vendor (Gibson I) and plaintiffs' alternative theory that their separate "vertical" licensing agreements with the software vendor unreasonably restrained trade in violation of the Rule of Reason (Gibson II). Although the plaintiffs initially appealed both decisions, they abandoned their "horizontal" conspiracy claim and focused instead on their theory that the hotels' separate "vertical" licensing agreements with the same software vendor caused prices to rise "in the aggregate," allegedly harming competition in the market for Las Vegas hotel room rentals. The Ninth Circuit, however, disagreed that the hotels' licensing agreements with the software provider were even "vertical" agreements at all. As the court explained, revenue management software was "not an input that goes into the production of hotel rooms for rentals"; instead, the licenses between the hotels and the software vendor were nothing more than "ordinary sales contracts" that did not necessarily affect competition in the market for hotel room rentals. The Ninth Circuit then determined that, as alleged, the software licenses did not restrain competition in the relevant market for hotel room rentals for two reasons. First, the court concluded that the hotels' common use of the same revenue management software did not affect their incentives to compete. Each hotel independently had the same incentives to set prices at profit-maximizing levels, regardless of whether each hotel used the same revenue management software or not. And, as the court explained, the antitrust laws do not "require businesses to decline to take advantage of a service because its competitors already use that service." Second, the court found that the licensing agreements did not limit the hotels' ability to compete in the market for hotel room rentals because the agreements "provide[d] for the payment for and provision of software products, not the rental price of the hotel rooms." Without a horizontal agreement among the hotels or vertical agreements between the hotels and the vendor requiring that they adopt the software's price recommendations, the licensing agreements did not restrain the hotels' ability to price or sell hotel rooms "in accordance with their own judgment." The Ninth Circuit is the first federal appeals court to address allegations of antitrust violations arising from so-called "algorithmic pricing" software, which have proliferated in class actions across multiple industries in recent years. The Gibson decision suggests that, absent evidence of a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy, courts may be skeptical that competitors' common use of the same revenue management software suffices to state an claim under the antitrust laws, even if it is accompanied by allegations of higher market prices. [GN] CHEBOYGAN COUNTY, MI: Settlement in Surplus Proceeds Suit Approved ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Arkona LLC, et al., Plaintiffs v. County of Cheboygan, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-12372 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Thomas L. Ludington of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan grants the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class settlement. Judge Ludington approved a settlement that provides affected property owners with 125% of their surplus proceeds from tax foreclosure sales. The court granted preliminary approval after finding the settlement fair enough to begin the class-notice process and determined that Plaintiff's Motion will be granted. The court certified a class defined 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 appointed Matthew E. Gronda and Philip L. Ellison as interim class counsel, finding they have unquestionably invested a substantial amount of effort in this case and possess extensive experience handling class action disputes and complex constitutional litigation. The case centers on Michigan's General Property Tax Act (GPTA), which permitted counties to keep the difference between auction prices and actual tax debts owed. Judge Ludington explained that until late 2020, when the auction price exceeded the taxes, interest, penalties, and fees owed, the GPTA permitted counties to keep the difference. Plaintiff Arkona LLC faced foreclosure in 2016 when Cheboygan County foreclosed on its property, auctioned it for $307,000, and retained the approximately $267,250 in surplus proceeds" despite a tax delinquency of only approximately $39,750. The court noted that Michigan's Legislature enacted Public Act 256 in December 2020, attempting to cure the constitutionally defective GPTA process but emphasized that 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. Under the approved settlement, Class Members generally receive 125% of their surplus proceeds with surplus defined as the difference between the property's auction price and the sum of all delinquent taxes, interest, penalties, fees, costs, and related expenses. The settlement caps attorney fees at 20% of the payments made to Class Members with costs limited to $25,000. The agreement includes provisions for situations where a defendant county's obligations exceed its Maximum Liability, defined as 90% of the total surplus proceeds from eligible properties sold between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2020. In such cases, the court ordered that the Maximum Liability is distributed on a pro rata basis. Judge Ludington conducted a rigorous analysis under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), finding the settlement meets all required factors. The court determined that the Settlement Agreement provides classwide relief using a uniform formula applicable to all Class Members and ensures Recovery scales with the size of each member's surplus, ensuring proportionality. Regarding the likelihood of success on the merits, the court emphasized that according to Sixth Circuit precedent, tax-foreclosure cases challenging the pre-PA 256 version of the GPTA are not about whether Michigan counties violated the law -- they did." The court concluded that this case is about how former landowners can recover their surplus proceeds. According to the Court, the Settlement is superior to individual litigation, as it resolves almost a decade's worth of surplus proceeds claims for two counties in one fell swoop, avoiding continued delays and litigation expenses. Additionally, the Settlement Agreement provides more relief than a PA 256 Motion, one of the alternative methods of recovery. The court determined the class satisfies all Rule 23(a) prerequisites including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. For numerosity, the court found the proposed class likely exceeds hundreds of people making joinder of that many plaintiffs dispersed over two counties impracticable. On commonality, Judge Ludington identified common questions of law and fact meaningfully advance each claim, specifically 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. The court also satisfied Rule 23(b)(3) requirements for predominance and superiority, finding that questions common to the class predominate and noting the Settlement Agreement's structural mechanics avoid these snags altogether. The court approved the proposed notice plan, finding it provides the best notice practicable under the circumstances and constitutes sufficient notice of the proposed Settlement Agreement. RG/2 Claims Administration LLC was appointed as claims administrator to provide Notice to Potential Claimants and administer the process of soliciting, receiving, reviewing, approving or denying claims. Class members have 194 calendar days after entry of the order to submit claims, while the deadline for opting out is 120 calendar days after entry of this Order or 30 days following the filing with the Court of a Fee Petition by Plaintiff's counsel, whichever is later. The court scheduled a Settlement Fairness Hearing for May 20, 2026 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Northern Division to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed Settlement Agreement. Judge Ludington ordered that all proceedings in the action other than such as may be necessary to carry out the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement are stayed until further notice. The court emphasized that Monroe County may join the settlement by filing of a notice within 7 days of entry of this order. Therefore, the court granted Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval, finding the settlement agreement preliminarily fair, reasonable, and adequate while directing notice to all class members bound by the proposed settlement. A copy of the court's order is available for free at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eZPIMu from PacerMonitor.com. CHEWY INC: Overcharges Autoship Program Customers, Cavas Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ ALIX CAVAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHEWY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00428 (D.R.I., September 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Rhode Island Deceptive Trade Practices Act, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and negligence. The case arises from Chewy's deceptive trade practice of overcharging its Autoship program customers more sales tax than is due on goods which are discounted through the program. Alternatively, Chewy engages in a deceptive and unfair trade practice of advertising a "discount" via its Autoship program but in fact offers a rebate or similar, which is material to consumers as it impacts sales tax calculations. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful practices, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages. Chewy, Inc. is an online retailer, headquartered in Plantation, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Ruggieri, Esq. HIGGINS, CAVANAGH & COONEY, LLP 10 Dorrance Street, Suite 400 Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 490-3914 Facsimile: (401) 273-8780 Email: jruggieri@hcc-law.com - and - Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. Christopher M. Brain, Esq. GAINEY MCKENNA & EGLESTON 260 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 983-1300 Facsimile: (212) 983-0383 Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com gegleston@gme-law.com cbrain@gme-law.com CINMAR LLC: Sud Class Suit Removed from State Court to Washington ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANKIT SUD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CINMAR, LLC and FRONTGATE MARKETING, INC., Case No. 25-2- 22196-2-SEA (Filed July 31, 2025), was removed from the Superior Court of Washington, King County to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The Western District of Washington Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01687-TLF to the proceedings. The Plaintiff broadly alleges that Defendants' "email advertisements contain subject lines that misstate the duration of its purported sales and that misstate the discount that recipients would purportedly receive for purchasing during the sale." The Plaintiff asserts two causes of action: violations of Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act (Count 1) and violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act (Count 2). The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, the greater of actual or statutory damages of $500 per email, treble damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. Cinmar manufactures home decor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq. Martin Brenner, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: jonas@dovel.com martin@dovel.com - and - Cody Hoesly, Esq. BARG SINGER HOESLY PC 121 SW Morrison St., Ste. 600 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 241-3311 E-mail: choesly@bargsinger.com Defendants Cinmar, LLC and Frontgate Marketing, Inc. are represented by: Blake Marks-Dias, Esq. Colin M. George, Esq. CORR CRONIN LLP 1015 Second Avenue, Floor 10 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 625-8600 Facsimile: (206) 625-0900 E-mail: bmarksdias@corrcronin.com cgeorge@corrcronin.com - and - Jason D. Russell, Esq. Hillary A. Hamilton, Esq. Michael W. McTigue, Jr., Esq. Meredith C. Slawe, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 200N Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (213) 687-5000 Facsimile: (213) 687-5600 E-mail: jason.russell@skadden.com hillary.hamilton@skadden.com michael.mctigue@skadden.com meredith.slawe@skadden.com CONNEX CREDIT: Faces Arroyo Suit Over Clients' Hacked Private Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANDREA ARROYO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONNEX CREDIT UNION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01415-VDO (D. Conn., September 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, and injunctive/declaratory relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on June 2, 2025, and June 3, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Connex Credit Union, Inc. is a credit union, headquartered in North Haven, Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurie Rubinow, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 65 Main Street Chester, CT 06412 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 Email: lrubinow@millershah.com - and - Amber L. Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union St., Ste. 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 Email: aschubert@sjk.law CONVERSENOW TECHNOLOGIES: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied a motion on August 11, 2025 to dismiss a California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) class action lawsuit filed against ConverseNow Technologies, Inc. ConverseNow offers restaurants an AI-powered virtual assistant to process and manage customer phone calls, drive-thru orders, and text messaging conversations. In January 2025, plaintiff Eliza Taylor initiated a putative class action against ConverseNow alleging that the company violated CIPA's wiretapping and call recording prohibitions found in California Penal Code sections 631 and 632 when it intercepted and recorded a call that she had placed to Domino's Pizza, which used ConverseNow's services. All businesses developing or deploying AI-powered customer service agents or other AI services that take part in customer communications should take heed of the court's decision to allow the plaintiff's claims to proceed. CIPA Background CIPA (codified at Cal. Penal Code Secs. 630 et seq.) is a California anti-wiretapping and anti-eavesdropping statute originally enacted in 1967 that prohibits wiretapping and recording private communications without consent. At a high level, section 631 of CIPA prohibits a third-party from intentionally wiretapping, or willfully intercepting communications while "in transit" and prohibits them from attempting to read or learn the contents of such communications without consent. California courts have stated that section 631's liability does not apply to parties to the communication themselves "because parties to a conversation cannot eavesdrop on their own conversations."1 Nevertheless, courts have split on how to best approach the question of whether an entity included in a conversation on behalf of a party is a third-party eavesdropper. Some courts have adopted an "extension" approach, which analyzes whether a defendant is a mere "extension" of a party to the communication (for example, akin to a tape recorder2) and therefore not a third party. Other courts, meanwhile, have adopted a "capability" approach, which analyzes whether the defendant has the "capability" of using the communication for an independent purpose and, if so, classifying the defendant as a third party. CIPA section 632(a), meanwhile, prohibits the intentional recording or eavesdropping on a "confidential communication" without the consent of all parties involved. CIPA section 632(c) defines "confidential communication" as "any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but exclud[ing] a communication made . . . in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded." The California Supreme Court has interpreted this language to mean "that a conversation is confidential under section 632 if a party to that conversation has an objectively reasonable expectation that the conversation is not being overheard or recorded."3 The Court's Decision In this case, plaintiff Taylor, a California resident, alleged that when she placed a pizza order by phone to a California Domino's Pizza location, her call was intercepted by ConverseNow and routed through its servers, where her name, address, and credit card details were recorded by ConverseNow without her knowledge or consent. Taylor claimed she was unaware that her conversation was being intercepted by ConverseNow's AI system and that she believed she was speaking with a Domino's employee when she provided her order along with her personal and payment information. She further alleged that ConverseNow uses the recorded conversations and data to enhance its AI services. The court denied ConverseNow's motion to dismiss both the CIPA section 631 and 632 claims. For the section 631 claim, the court adopted the "capability" approach for determining third-party status. The court stated that ConverseNow should not merely be viewed as an extension of Domino's because the plaintiff had plausibly alleged that ConverseNow uses caller data to enhance its own services. The court pointed to citations from the complaint, including statements from ConverseNow's website and privacy policy stating that "by processing millions of live conversations each month, our self-learning system evolves even faster every day to improve the guest experience for new and existing partners alike" and that caller data is used to "improv[e] our ordering platform, advertisements, products, and services." Further, the court held that the plaintiff met CIPA section 631's live interception prong by alleging that she and other customers believed they were speaking directly to Domino's but instead had their calls redirected to ConverseNow's AI voice assistant. The court also held that section 631's intent prong was met by the plaintiff's allegations that ConverseNow's technology was specifically created to record and analyze calls for Domino's. Regarding the CIPA section 632 claim, the court rejected ConverseNow's "flippant" argument that pizza orders did not warrant a reasonable expectation of privacy. Rather, the court held that the plaintiff's allegations that she had shared personally identifiable information and personal financial information, including her name, address, and credit card details, were sufficient to allege that a "confidential communication" under section 632 took place. Takeaways As this case illustrates, businesses developing or deploying AI-powered customer service agents or other tools that take part in customer communications should take note of the risks of being subjected to privacy class actions. In particular, AI agents that are permitted to use customer communications for product development and improvement, including training AI models, could be considered third-party eavesdroppers because of their "capability" to use the communications for their own ends. This risk is particularly present where such communications may include personal or financial information, and the customer is unaware that their communication is being recorded by an AI agent. Further, in addition to these CIPA risks, new state laws are emerging to regulate AI systems used to make certain consequential decisions around education, employment, lending, healthcare, housing, insurance, and legal services. For example, the Colorado AI Act imposes a duty of reasonable care on developers and deployers to avoid "algorithmic discrimination" in high-risk AI systems. California, meanwhile, is in the process of finalizing rules on AI-related, automated decision-making technologies used to make "significant decisions" around financial or lending services, housing, education enrollment or opportunities, employment or independent contracting opportunities or compensation, or healthcare services. Additionally, state laws in California, Colorado, and Utah require consumer-facing bots to disclose, in certain circumstances, that the consumer is interacting with AI and not a human. Finally, misrepresentations, fraudulent claims, and inaccurate marketing statements made by customer-facing AI agents can give rise to claims under state consumer protection laws. Fortunately, businesses developing or deploying AI customer service agents can take concrete steps to help mitigate these risks, for example, by: -- Requiring customer-facing AI agents to clearly announce, at the beginning of inbound and outbound communications, that those communications are being recorded and that the agent is an AI assistant. -- Either disabling and contractually prohibiting the use of recorded communications for product improvement, development, and AI training, or making clear in the announcement that the AI agent is operated by a third-party (though note that there is a risk that some courts may conclude that both are required). -- Testing and verifying that deployed AI agents are not making independent marketing claims and offers, and that AI agents provide factual, accurate information that is not misleading. -- Placing technical limits on how far AI agents may be configured and how long they can speak with a customer so as to avoid going "off script" and making claims contradictory to recording disclosures. -- Regularly auditing compliance with the controls above using human review to ensure they are operating correctly. -- Evaluating whether emerging state AI laws regulating the use of AI systems to make consequential decisions may apply to the AI agent you are developing or deploying and either restrict the use of the agent in connection with such decisions or ensure that the agent meets those compliance requirements. In light of the U.S. District Court's decision to allow the CIPA class action against ConverseNow to proceed, as well as related emerging regulatory risks, businesses developing or deploying AI-powered customer service agents should prioritize compliance with privacy and AI laws and regulations to mitigate legal risks. While the recommendations above are not intended to be comprehensive and businesses should consult with counsel on their own compliance strategy, they outline some proactive measures that can form part of a risk mitigation plan. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati routinely helps companies navigate complex privacy and AI regulatory issues and has deep experience representing companies subject to regulatory investigations and CIPA lawsuits. For more information or advice concerning your AI and CIPA risks, please contact Eddie Holman, Tracy Shapiro, Doo Lee, or any member of the firm's Data, Privacy, and Cybersecurity practice. [GN] DAVID SIN: Grossman Suit Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH S. GROSSMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. DAVID SIN, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-09501-MRA-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Dec. 22, 2025, will move the Court for an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class, appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives, and appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Class Counsel. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qadg7s at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven W. Pepich, Esq. Thomas E. Egler, Esq. Nathan R. Lindell, Esq. Kevin S. Sciarani, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: stevep@rgrdlaw.com tome@rgrdlaw.com nlindell@rgrdlaw.com ksciarani@rgrdlaw.com DELTA AIR: Berrin Suit Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAYANNA BERRIN, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DELTA AIR LINES INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-04150-MEMF-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting request permission to file the following documents under seal or, alternatively, an order providing that the following documents need not be filed under seal: The documents were designated "Confidential" by defendant Delta Air Lines, Inc., such that Local Rule 79-5.2.2(b) governs the Plaintiff's application. The Plaintiff seeks to file the following documents designated by Defendant as confidential pursuant to the Parties' Protective Order under seal: a. Exhibit 3 -- documents produced by Delta in this matter and bates-numbered DELTA_00077287-300. b. Exhibit 4 -- excerpts from the transcript of the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Stephanie Zhu, which was taken on July 16, 2025 in this matter. (Defendant has proposed redactions and the redacted version has been filed publicly.) c. Exhibit 5 -- documents produced by Delta in this matter and bates-numbered DELTA_00007760-61. d. Exhibit 6 -- documents produced by Delta in this matter and bates-numbered DELTA_00005010-5022. e. Exhibit 8 -- documents produced by Delta in this matter and bates-numbered DELTA_00003754-57. The Plaintiff additionally seeks to file: An unredacted Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Class Certification which incorporates the Exhibits marked Confidential; The Declarations of Plaintiff's experts Bruce G. Silverman, William R. Ingersoll, and Joseph Romm, who necessarily rely on Exhibits and other materials Defendant produced which have been designated confidential. Delta is a major airline in the United States. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f6Mxwn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Haderlein, Esq. Krikor Kouyoumdjian, Esq. HADERLEIN AND KOUYOUMDJIAN LLP 700 Flower St., Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (818) 304-34345 E-mail: jhaderlein@handklaw.com kkouyoumdjian@handklaw.com - and - L. David Russell, Esq. RUSSELL LAW, PC 1500 Rosecrans Ave, Suite 500 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (323) 638-7551 E-mail: david@russelllawpc.com DELTA AIR: Berrin Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAYANNA BERRIN, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DELTA AIR LINES INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-04150-MEMF-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Dec. 18, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, will move for class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). The Plaintiff moves this Court for an Order as follows: 1. The Plaintiff seeks class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) on all causes of action set forth in Plaintiff's Third Amended Class Action Complaint filed against the Defendant on behalf of the following Class: "All California residents exposed to Delta's representations that it was carbon neutral made between Sept. 1, 2021 through March 31, 2022, who purchased tickets to fly on Delta Airlines from Sept. 1, 2021 through the present." The Plaintiff additionally seeks certification of the following subclass: "All California residents, who between Sept. 1, 2021 through March 31, 2022, purchased tickets to fly on Delta Airlines on the Delta.com website." 2. That Plaintiff Mayanna Berrin is appointed as Class Representative. 3. That Jonathan Haderlein and Krikor Kouyoumdjian of Haderlein and Kouyoumdjian LLP, and L. David Russell of Russell Law, PC are appointed Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). 4. The Plaintiff will also move the Court for injunctive relief. The Plaintiff Mayanna Berrin was exposed to Delta's Carbon Neutral Representations, and relied on them prior to making purchases of Delta flights during the class period. Delta is a major airline in the United States. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0u96ir at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Haderlein, Esq. Krikor Kouyoumdjian, Esq. HADERLEIN AND KOUYOUMDJIAN LLP 700 Flower St., Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (818) 304-3435 E-mail: jhaderlein@handklaw.com kkouyoumdjian@handklaw.com - and - L. David Russell, Esq. RUSSELL LAW, PC 1500 Rosecrans Ave, Suite 500 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (323) 638-7551 E-mail: david@russelllawpc.com DELTA AIR: Goodyear Suit Seeks to Seal Exhibits Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUKAS GOODYEAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DELTA AIR LINES, Case No. 1:23-cv-05712-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file under seal: Mr. Goodyear moves to seal the following documents filed in support of the Plaintiff's opposition to the Defendant's motion for summary judgement: -- Exhibit 19, DELTA_LG_00001354 -- Exhibit 29, DELTA_LG_00015758 -- Exhibit 30, DELTA_LG_00010061 -- Exhibit 32, DELTA_LG_00005763 -- Exhibit 33, DELTA_LG_00016707 Delta is a major airline in the United States. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ee03nu at no extra charge.[CC] he Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Daniel R. Ferri, Esq. Anna Claire Skinner, Esq. Madeline E. Hills, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 Facsimile: (312) 253-1443 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com dferri@dicellolevitt.com askinner@dicellolevitt.com mhills@dicellolevitt.com - and - Jonathan Palmer, Esq. KNIGHT PALMER, LLC 1360 Peachstreet Street, N.E. Suite 1201 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 228-4822 Facsimile: (404) 228-4821 E-mail: jpalmer@knightpalmerlaw.com DELTA COUNTY, TX: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Taylor ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK ANDRE TAYLOR II & TITUS WILEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. DELTA COUNTY, FORMER SHERIFF RICKY SMITH, CHARLA SINGLETON, COUNTY ATTORNEY JAY GARRETT, COUNTY JUDGE JASON MURRAY, and ZACH WILLIAMSON, Case No. 4:22-cv-00250-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Mazzant entered an order that: 1. The Defendant Jason Murray's motion for summary judgment should be granted; 2. The Defendant Jay Garrett's motion for summary judgment should be granted; 3. The Defendant Charla Singleton's motion for summary judgment should be granted; 4. The Defendant Ricky Smith's motion for summary judgment should be granted; 5. The Defendant Zach Williamson's motion for summary judgment should be granted; and 6. The Defendant Delta County's motion for summary judgment should be granted. As to Wiley, his claims under Counts I, II, III, IV, V, VIII, IX, X, and XI are dismissed with prejudice until the Heck conditions are satisfied. Further, Wiley's claim under Count VII is dismissed with prejudice. As to Taylor, Counts I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VIII, IX, X, and XI are dismissed with prejudice. Finally, Taylor and Wiley's state law claims are dismissed with prejudice. The Court will enter a separate final judgment. The Plaintiffs claim to have been victimized by numerous civil rights violations at the hand of Delta County and its officials. According to the Plaintiffs, this case involves an unlicensed law enforcement officer wielding the power entrusted to him as a peace officer without a valid Texas peace officer's license to do so. Delta is located in northeastern Texas seventy miles from the eastern and thirty miles from the northern state boundaries. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jWYIIj at no extra charge.[CC] DENTALPLANS.COM: Seeks to Reconsider June 6, 2024 Order in Bradley ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH BRADLEY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. DENTALPLANS.COM, and CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01094-BAH (D. Md.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for reconsideration of the Court's June 6, 2024 Order denying DentalPlans' motion for summary judgment and decertifying the class and subclass. DentalPlans states that there is no genuine issue with respect to any material fact to be tried, DentalPlans is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law, and the requirements to maintaining this case as a class action are no longer met. DentalPlans.com is a dental and health savings marketplace. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y7cJc4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Brian D. Frey, Esq. Derin B. Dickerson, Esq. David B. Carpenter, Esq. Kelsey L. Kingsbery, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP The Atlantic Building, 950 F Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 239-3300 Facsimile: (202) 239-3333 E-mail: brian.frey@alston.com derin.dickerson@alston.com david.carpenter@alston.com kelsey.kingsbery@alston.com DRURY HOTELS: Court Sets Conference on Settlement Terms ------------------------------------------------------- A conference via Zoom was held Sept. 10 in the case captioned as Kayla Knighten, Plaintiff, v. Drury Hotels Company, LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:24-cv-00666-SEP (E.D. Mo.), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Following the conference, the Hon. Sarah E. Pitlyk held that if the parties intend to file a joint submission as discussed on the record, it must be filed no later than Sept. 17. The proceedings started 3:03 p.m. and ended 3:14 p.m. Charles R. Ash, IV attended for the Plaintiff, and John Lassetter and Adam Green for Defendant. Judge Pitlyk ordered the conference to determine appointment issues regarding settlement collective representation. Judge Pitlyk said "Before the Court is Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Settlement Approval. Section III of the proposed notice states: The Court has appointed the Named Plaintiff as collective representative to represent the Settlement Collective. The Court has appointed the following attorneys to represent the Settlement Collective as Settlement Collective Counsel." However, the Court has not been asked to appoint Kayla Knighten as collective representative or Plaintiff's attorneys as collective counsel, and it is unclear whether such appointments are required for collective actions." The Court referenced precedent from Fry v. Accent Marketing Services, which noted that plaintiffs point to no authority requiring such appointment for collective actions. Similarly, Vallone v. CJS Solutions Group declined to appoint counsel because Plaintiff offered no argument supporting the request and the court found no cases discussing appointment at the conditional certification stage. Accordingly, the Court ordered that this case is set for a Zoom conference on Wednesday, September 10, 2025, at 3:00 P.M., for the limited purpose of determining whether the Court should appoint the Named Plaintiff as collective representative to represent the Settlement Collective and Charles R. Ash, IV, and Oscar Rodriguez as the attorneys for the Settlement Collective. As reported by Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff alleges Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and for common law claims of breach of contract or unjust enrichment. Knighten worked for Defendant as a remote customer service representatives (CSR)in Missouri. Allegedly, the Defendant requires its CSRs to work a full-time schedule, plus overtime, however, Defendant does not compensate CSRs for all work performed. Through its attendance, schedule adherence, and performance metrics, Defendant requires their CSRs to perform compensable work tasks off-the-clock before and after their scheduled shifts, during their unpaid meal periods, and at the end of their scheduled shifts, the Plaintiff said. A settlement was announced in February 2025. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XqT9Uq from PacerMonitor.com. Defendant is represented by: Harry W. Wellford, Jr. Littler Mendelson PC Tel: 314-659-2004 E-mail: hwellford@littler.com - and - John Lassetter, Esq. Littler Mendelson PC Tel: 612-313-7648 E-mail: jlassetter@littler.com Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah Jane Hunt, Esq. Kennedy Hunt PC Tel: 314-872-9041 E-mail: sarahjane@kennedyhuntlaw.com - and - Oscar A. Rodriguez, Esq. Hooper Hathaway PC Tel: 734-662-4426 E-mail: orod@hooperhathaway.com - and - Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq. Ash Law PLLC E-mail: 734-234-5583 E-mail: cash@nationalwagelaw.com EDFINANCIAL SERVICES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Nov. 13 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bailey v. EdFinancial Services, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00144 (N.D. Ga., Filed June 6, 2024), the Hon. Judge William M. Ray, II entered an order on motion for extension of time to complete discovery: -- The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification due Nov. 13, 2025. -- The Defendant's Opposition to Class Certification due Dec. 15, 2025. -- The Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Class Certification due Jan. 16, 2026. -- Motions for summary judgment no later than June 30, 2026. -- Proposed Pretrial Order due by June 30, 2026, or within thirty days from a final ruling on any motion for summary judgment that is not dispositive of all claims advanced by the parties. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. EdFinancial is a financial company which provides student loans servicing.[CC] EDWARD ABER: C.B. Sues Over Sexual Misconduct --------------------------------------------- C.B.; R.C.; J.E.; S.H.; A.H.; A.H.; M.J.; J.L.; M.N.; E.P.; S.R.; M.S.; A.S.; N.T.; K.T.; R.W.; I.W.; and J.W., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EDWARD ABER, in his individual capacity and official capacity as Jail Commander of the La Plata County Jail; BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF LA PLATA; JACOB HARRIS, in his individual capacity; MICHAEL SLADE, in his individual capacity; and SEAN SMITH, in his official capacity as Sheriff of La Plata County; Case No. 1:25-cv-02763 (D. Colo., Sept. 3, 2025), is brought against the Defendants as a result of Commander Aber's unlawful sexual misconduct. At La Plata County Sheriff Sean Smith's direction, every woman entering the La Plata County Jail is forced to strip naked and endure visual and physical penetration on camera. Even if that strip search did not reveal anything abnormal, that footage is stored for years on a server that is freely accessible to everyone ranked lieutenant or higher. Sheriff Smith placed no limits on the purpose for which his team could access those videos, what time of day they could access the videos, where they could access those videos from, how many times they could view the videos, or whether they could download the videos. Sheriff Smith did not even monitor or audit how the videos were being accessed. The Commander of the La Plata County Jail, Defendant Edward Aber, spent years abusing his authority to access and sexually stimulate himself to video recordings in which incarcerated people were forced to strip naked and endure physical and visual penetration. Throughout his tenure, Commander Aber would log in to his Jail's evidence database using the credentials he received as Jail commander, use a VPN to conceal that he was often at home or in a hotel room, harvest hundreds of videos of over a hundred people download his favorites to his personal devices, and view them repeatedly for his own sexual pleasure. Commander Aber's sexual misconduct is depraved, but it is not a surprise. During his nearly thirty years as a law enforcement officer in southern Colorado, Commander Aber left in his wake a trail of victims, credible reports of sexual misconduct, and buried complaints. Rather than, take his misconduct seriously, his employers downplayed concerns and promoted him to higher and higher offices. Now that the dam is broken, and reports of his misconduct have flooded national headlines, Commander Aber's enablers have attempted to distance themselves from his misconduct. But the record reveals that Commander Aber was able to inflict this harm only because the institutions that were charged with protecting the women of La Plata County--including La Plata's sheriff and Jail guards--turned a blind eye to Commander Aber's sordid pattern of sexual misconduct, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are eighteen of the women whose bodies have been invaded by Commander Aber, and whose rights have been abandoned by the officials who swore to protect them. The Defendant Commander Edward Aber ("Commander Aber") is an individual who was employed as a law enforcement officer in southern Colorado from 1997 to 2024.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Felipe Bohnet-Gomez, Esq. Matthew Cron, Esq. Iris Halpern, Esq. Qusair Mohamedbhai, Esq. Siddhartha Rathod, Esq. Omeed M. Azmoudeh, Esq. Virginia Hill Butler, Esq. Neil Singh Sandhu, Esq. Katie Wiese Valiant, Esq. Crist Whitney, Esq. RATHOD | MOHAMEDBHAI LLC 2701 Lawrence St., Suite #100 Denver, CO 80238 Phone: (303) 578-4400 Email: fbg@rmlawyers.com mc@rmlawyers.com ih@rmlawyers.com qm@rmlawyers.com sr@rmlawyers.com oa@rmlawyers.com vb@rmlawyers.com ns@rmlawyers.com kw@rmlawyers.com cw@rmlawyers.com - and - John Baxter, Esq. JOHN BAXTER ATTORNEY AT LAW 1099 Main Ave., Suite 500 Durango, CO 81301 Phone: (970) 903-9578 Email: baxterlaw@gmail.com EI DU PONT: Allen Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as S. A. BY NEXT FRIEND SHANTELL ALLEN, et al., v. E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00359-PPS-AZ (N.D. Ind.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter the attached order: 1. Certifying the Personal Injury Class under Rule 23(b)(3) defined as: "All individuals born on or after Dec. 20, 2002, who, between Dec. 20, 2002 and Dec. 31, 2016, resided at the USS Lead Superfund Site, the West Calumet Housing Complex, or attended Carrie Gosch Elementary School, have tested positive for lead exposure, and have been diagnosed with and/or treated for one or more medical conditions associated with exposure to lead."; 2. Certifying the Medical Monitoring Class under Rule 23(b)(2); "All individuals born on or after Dec. 20, 2002, who, between Dec. 20, 2002 and Dec. 31, 2016, resided at the West Calumet Housing Complex, or attended Carrie Gosch Elementary School, and have tested positive for lead exposure but have not yet been diagnosed with a disease or condition associated with such exposure;" 3. Alternatively, certifying an Issues Class under Rule 23(c)(4) limited to liability and causation questions common to all Plaintiffs, including whether the Defendants owed and breached duties of care, whether the Defendants' conduct caused exposure, whether exposure to lead at documented levels is capable of causing the alleged injuries, and whether Indiana's modified impact rule is satisfied; 4. Appointing the Named Plaintiffs as class representatives; 5. Appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel under Rule 23(g); and 6. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. The Plaintiffs bring this action in a representative capacity seeking authorization to proceed on behalf of hundreds of similarly situated children who resided at, or attended school within, the USS Lead Superfund Site in East Chicago, Indiana, during the relevant period, all of whom have been exposed to hazardous levels of lead as a result of the Defendants' conduct. The Defendant is an American multinational chemical company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=12jSMP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gabriel M. Vazquez, Esq. Paul J. Napoli, Esq. Coral M. Odiot-Rivera, Esq. Cristina M. Rodriguez-Torres, Esq. Veronica N. Vazquez-Santiago, Esq. NAPOLI SHKOLNIK 1302 Avenida Ponce de Leon San Juan PR 00907-3982 Telephone: (833) 271-4502 Facsimile: (646) 843-7603 E-mail: gvazquez@nsprlaw.com pnapoli@nsprlaw.com codiot@nsprlaw.com crodriguez@nsprlaw.com vvazquez@nsprlaw.com - and - Eric S. Pavlack, Esq. Colin E. Flora, Esq. PAVLACK LAW, LLC 50 East 91st Street, Suite 305 Indianapolis IN 46240 Telephone: (317) 251-1100 Facsimile: (317) 252-0352 E-mail: eric@pavlacklawfirm.com colin@pavlacklawfirm.com - and - Walter J. Alvarez, Esq. Brock Alvarado, Esq. Steven J. Alvarez, Esq. WALTER J. ALVAREZ, P.C. 1524 West 96th Avenue Crown Point IN 46307 FERROCRETE STRUCTURES: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ferrocrete Structures, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Juan Garcia, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ferrocrete Structures, Inc., Ferrocrete Builders, Inc., Calcrete, Inc., Case No. 25STCV25864 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 3, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Ferrocrete Structures, Inc. -- https://www.ferrocretebuilders.com/ -- is a commercial and structural concrete contracting company with over two decades of experience in California.[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 FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Atiles v. Finastra Technology, Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-01481 (M.D. Fla., Filed Aug. 4, 2025), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery - class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury. Finastra provides banking software and solutions.[CC] GENERATIONS FEDERAL: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that Generations Federal Credit Union (GFCU) has agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it failed to protect consumers from a 2022 data breach. The settlement benefits individuals who received a written notification from Generations Federal Credit Union informing them that their personal information was potentially compromised in a data breach between Dec. 13 and 15, 2022. According to the data breach class action lawsuit that this settlement resolves, Generations Federal Credit Union failed to protect consumers from a 2022 data breach that occurred between Dec. 13 and 15, 2022. The breach allegedly compromised sensitive information, such as Social Security numbers, financial account numbers and more. Generations Federal Credit Union is a Texas-based credit union that offers banking services to members. Generations Federal Credit Union has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Generations Federal Credit Union settlement, class members can receive up to $500 for out-of-pocket expenses, such as bank fees, communication charges and travel expenses, and up to four hours of lost time at a rate of $20 per hour. Class members who experienced extraordinary losses as a result of the data breach can receive additional compensation of up to $4,500 for documented monetary losses. All class members are eligible for two years of free three-bureau credit monitoring and identity theft protection services with at least $1 million in identity theft insurance. Generations Federal Credit Union also agreed to implement security-related improvements to better protect consumer data. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Sept. 30, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Generations Federal Credit Union data breach settlement is scheduled for Jan. 20, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Sept. 15, 2025. Who's Eligible Consumers who reside in the United States and were mailed a written notification by Generations Federal Credit Union that their personal information was potentially accessed, viewed and/or obtained as a result of a data breach that occurred between Dec. 13 and Dec. 15, 2022. Potential Award Up to $5,000 for documented losses, plus credit monitoring. Proof of Purchase Documentation of losses, such as bank statements, phone bills, postage receipts and gas receipts, among others. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 09/15/2025 Case Name Davis v. Generations Federal Credit Union, Case No. 2023-CI-17034, in the 131st Judicial District Court for Bexar County, Texas Final Hearing 01/20/2026 Settlement Website GFCUDataSettlement.com Claims Administrator GFCU Data Settlement P.O. Box 25226 Santa Ana, CA 92799 (833) 360-6879 Class Counsel Lynn A. Toops COHENMALAD LLP Defense Counsel Michelle R. Gomez BAKER HOSTETLER LLP [GN] GLOBE LIFE: Refuses to Pay Life Insurance Policies, Jennings Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DEBRA JENNINGS, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v. GLOBE LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:25-cv-00172-BSM (E.D. Ark., Sept. 3, 2025) arises from Globe Life's uniform practice of refusing to pay on life insurance policies based on non-disclosure of health conditions in an application even when the health condition bears no causal relationship to the policy owner's death. Accordingly, this practice is illegal in Arkansas and has been since 2011. The case involves one of the largest life insurance conglomerates in the nation, Globe Life. Globe Life sells what are commonly known as "burial policies." Burial policies are specifically designed to cover end-of-life expenses. Because of this, they are sold primarily to elderly Arkansans, often of limited means, the suit says. The only underwriting due diligence Globe Life appears to perform before issuing burial policies in Arkansas is a short phone interview. During the phone interview, Globe Life asks a few vague questions about the insured's health and then generates an "application" form that is not filled out by or signed by the person buying the policy, asserts the suit. When the policy owner dies and the beneficiary files a claim, Globe Life looks for a pretext to rescind the policy and avoid paying. To avoid payment, Globe Life performs-for the first time-an exhaustive review of the insured's medical records (which it could have done before issuing the policy). Globe Life then claims the now-deceased policy owner "incorrectly" answered one of its vague questions during the phone interview. Globe Life then claims it would not have provided a policy had the policy owner correctly answered its vague questions, rescinds the policy, and refuses to pay, the Plaintiff contends. Plaintiff Hartley purchased a life insurance policy from Defendant on October 31, 2023. She is the beneficiary of the life insurance policy. Globe Life, based in McKinney, Texas, provides life and health insurance coverage nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason W. Earley, Esq. Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 500 President Clinton Ave. Little Rock, AR 7220 I Telephone: (50l) 255-8569 E-mail: jason@jefinn.com chris@jefirm.com HARLANS AUTO: Miday Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- ACOB MIDAY v. HARLANS AUTO CARE, LTD and JACK M. HARLAN, Case No. 4:25-cv-01833-BYP (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 3, 2025) alleges that the Defendants operated a knowing, company-wide scheme to deny overtime wages to Plaintiff Miday and other similarly situated employees by failing to pay them one and one-half times their regular rate for hours worked in excess of forty per week in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. Plaintiff Miday brings this collective action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated or exemplary damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other relief authorized by law under the FLSA. Plaintiff Miday performed work for Defendants within the last three years for which he was not paid overtime wages due, as guaranteed by the FLSA. Harlan is an Ohio limited company who maintains its principal place of business in Mahoning County, Ohio. Jack Harlan is an individual residing in Mahoning County, Ohio and is the owner and/or principal of Harlan Auto Care.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Chris Wido, Esq. SPITZ, THE EMPLOYEE'S ATTORNEY 3 Summit Park Drive, Suite 200 Independence, Ohio 44131 Telephone: (216) 364-1330 Facsimile: (216) 291-5744 E-mail: Chris.Wido@Spitzlawfirm.com HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Akins Sues Over Negligent Cybersecurity ------------------------------------------------------------ Eva Akins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HEALTHCARE SERVICES GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-05048-JDW (E.D. Pa., Sept. 3, 2025), is brought to hold Defendant responsible for its grossly negligent--indeed, reckless--failure to use statutorily required or reasonable industry cybersecurity measures to protect Class Members' PII. As part of its business, Defendant obtained and stored the personal information of Plaintiff and Class Members. By taking possession and control of Plaintiff's and Class Members' personal information, Defendant assumed a duty to securely store and protect it. The Defendant breached this duty and betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their personal information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view it. On October 7, 2024, HSG detected suspicious activity on its computer network, indicating a data breach. Based on a subsequent investigation, HSG determined that cybercriminals infiltrated its inadequately secured computer environment and thereby gained access to its data files (the "Data Breach"). The personally identifiable information accessed by cybercriminals included names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, financial account information, driver's license numbers, and state identification numbers (collectively, "PII"). As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have already suffered damages. For example, now that their PII has been released into the criminal cyber domains, Plaintiff and Class Members are at imminent and impending risk of identity theft. This risk will continue for the rest of their lives, as Plaintiff and Class Members are now forced to deal with the danger of identity thieves possessing and using their PII, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former customer of HSG. HSG provides environmental, dining, and nutritional support services to healthcare facilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. SHUB JOHNS & HOLBROOK LLP Four Tower Bridge 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Office: (610) 477-8380 Main: (610) 585-1195 Email: bjohns@shublawyers.com - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Drive, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (213) 474-3800 Email: daniel@slfla.com - and - M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: (916) 239-4778 Email: aberry@justice4you.com gharoutunian@justice4you.com bjack@justice4you.com HIRERIGHT LLC: Faces Millsap Suit Over Misleading Consumer Reports ------------------------------------------------------------------ PRISCA MILLSAP, on behalf of herself and Others similarly situated v. HIRERIGHT, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-04090 (D. Kan., Sept. 4, 2025) alleges that the Defendant's production of misleading Consumer Reports results in an inaccurate report in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to the complaint, the reports produced by the Defendant, concerning the Plaintiff and other members of each Putative Class, contained items which were matters of public record and were likely to have an adverse effect on a consumer's ability to obtain employment. The reports provided by the Defendant contained information that would mislead the reader, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, as set forth under 15 U.S.C. section 1681n(a) and all other available relief as allowed by law. The Plaintiff asserts the following classes: -- Education Class "All individuals who were the subject of one or more Consumer Reports that failed to accurately report the proper level of education achieved by the consumer for the period of the previous two years prior to the date of filing, through the conclusion of this matter." -- Criminal History Class "All individuals who were the subject of one or more Consumer Reports that failed to accurately report that criminal charges were no longer pending for the period of the previous two years prior to the date of filing, through the conclusion of this matter." HIRERIGHT, LLC produces background screening reports to third-party entities for employment purposes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jayson A. Watkins, Esq. Richard Parks, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP Telephone: (929) 274-2944 745 Fifth Avenue Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 E-mail: jwatkins@sirillp.com rparks@sirillp.com JOY CONE: Davey's Bid for Conditional Class Certification Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Ryan Davey, Plaintiff v. Joy Cone Co., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-CV-1246 (W.D. Pa.), Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification and denies the Defendant's motions to strike declarations. The parties were required to submit a joint proposed notice and consent form consistent with the court's order, as well as a plan for notifying the conditionally certified class, on Sept. 5, 2025. The court granted in part and denied in part Mr. Davey's motion for conditional class certification and denied his requests related to notice without prejudice. The court denied Joy Cone's motion to strike Mr. Davey's declaration and denied Joy Cone's motion to strike Ms. Portillo's declaration. Joy Cone manufactures ice cream cones and related food products at several facilities in the United States, including Hermitage, Pennsylvania, Le Mars, Iowa, and Flagstaff, Arizona. In Hermitage, there are two facilities, known as Cone and Cookie. The Cone facility produces cake cones and sugar cones in the same building. Joy Cone employed Mr. Davey as a cone packer at the Cone facility in Hermitage, Pennsylvania from February 2023 to July 14, 2024. As a cone packer, Mr. Davey was generally responsible for monitoring and inspecting cones produced in industrial ovens and operating the machines that package them for shipment. Mr. Davey alleged that Joy Cone only paid him and the putative class for work between their scheduled start and stop times, and not for work performed pre- and post-shift, including: (a) changing into and out of their personal protective equipment, including but not limited to gloves, hairnets and/or beard nets, ear plugs, safety glasses, and non-slip shoes; (b) washing their hands; (c) obtaining their work assignments/locations; and (d) walking to and from their assigned area of the manufacturing floor. According to Mr. Davey, that means that he, and other Joy Cone employees, necessarily worked overtime. Mr. Davey sought to recover unpaid overtime on behalf of All current and former non-exempt manufacturing employees of Joy Cone, Co. who worked at one or more of its manufacturing plants in the United States at any time between three (3) years prior to the filing of this suit and the date of final judgment in this matter. Under the FLSA, Section 7 requires employers to pay overtime to certain employees who work more than 40 hours in a work week. Under the FLSA, a plaintiff may bring a collective action on behalf of themselves and other employees similarly situated to recover unpaid overtime compensation. Courts in the Third Circuit follow a two-step process for deciding whether an action may properly proceed as a collective action under the FLSA. At the first step, the court makes a preliminary determination as to whether the named plaintiffs have made a modest factual showing that the employees identified in their complaint are similarly situated. A plaintiff's burden at the first step is light and can be met by producing some evidence, beyond pure speculation, of a factual nexus between the manner in which the employer's alleged policy affected her and the manner in which it affected other employees. Joy Cone moved to strike: (1) paragraphs 9, 11, 12, 12(d), 12(e), 12(f), and 12(g) of Mr. Davey's declaration; and (2) Alexandra Portillo's declaration in its entirety. The court found that the appropriate approach here was not to strike the declarations, but instead disregard any declarations or portions of declarations that were not supported by personal knowledge or were otherwise not properly before the court. Regarding Mr. Davey's declaration, Joy Cone argued that it contradicted his deposition testimony and contained legal conclusions and false assertions. The court was satisfied that the contents of the challenged paragraphs that related to the Cone facility in Hermitage were based on Mr. Davey's personal observations, including his observations of other employees arriving at the start time of their scheduled shifts already wearing their PPE and his conversations with two other employees regarding their experiences. However, the court disregarded any reference to other facilities because Mr. Davey testified at his deposition that he had no personal knowledge about facilities other than Cone. Joy Cone argued that Mr. Davey's assertion that he was similarly situated to members of the proposed class was a legal conclusion and the court must strike it. The court did not strike these paragraphs, but only disregarded the legal conclusions within them. Regarding Ms. Portillo's declaration, Joy Cone moved to strike it in its entirety due to what it contended were false allegations. Ms. Portillo's declaration stated that she regularly worked 40 hours or more per week. Joy Cone produced Ms. Portillo's time records which showed that Ms. Portillo was a part-time employee who never worked more than 25 hours in a workweek. The court viewed Joy Cone's concerns about Ms. Portillo's declaration as primarily a credibility issue. The court did not consider the merits of the claims, decide credibility issues or resolve factual disputes at the conditional class certification stage. Instead, the court disregarded the paragraph that contained the allegedly false testimony. For conditional certification, the court found that Mr. Davey made the modest factual showing that he and the putative notice recipients were similarly situated for step one of the certification analysis as to the Pennsylvania and Arizona facilities, but not the Iowa facility. To support the FLSA class claim, Mr. Davey offered declarations from himself and four individuals that they were all subject to the same requirement to perform pre- and post-shift work to don and doff their personal protective equipment. The individuals were required to come into work early and leave work late to perform pre- and post-shift work, including: changing into and out of personal protective equipment, including gloves, a hairnet, a beard net, ear plugs, safety glasses, and shoes; washing hands; obtaining work assignments/locations; and/or walking to and from assigned areas of the manufacturing floor. Joy Cone contested conditional certification arguing that Mr. Davey had not identified a single decision, policy, or plan impacting him and the opt-in plaintiffs. The court found that the common policy being alleged was that Joy Cone required their employees to be at their workstations at their scheduled shift time already wearing their PPE, and thus they were not paid for pre- and post-shift work. At this stage, Mr. Davey made a modest factual showing that he and the opt-in plaintiffs were subject to a single policy. Joy Cone argued that conditional certification should be denied because Mr. Davey did not have personal knowledge about the claims at issue. The court concluded that Mr. Davey had sufficient personal knowledge to support his statements about individuals who worked in the Cone facility. As to the other facilities, Mr. Davey produced declarations from three opt-in plaintiffs to support his allegations as to those facilities, and Joy Cone had not challenged those declarations as insufficient for lack of personal knowledge. The court agreed with Joy Cone that the class should not be certified as to the Iowa facility. The Le Mars, Iowa facility was operated by BoDeans, a Joy Cone subsidiary. BoDeans was not named in the complaint. Because BoDeans was not a defendant in this case, Mr. Davey could not seek conditional certification of its employees. The court granted Mr. Davey's motion in part and ordered that notice be sent to the putative class, excluding any employees or former employees of the Iowa facility. A collective action was conditionally certified, comprised of all current and former non-exempt manufacturing employees of Joy Cone, Co. who worked at the Hermitage or Arizona manufacturing plants in the United States at any time between 3 years prior to the filing of this suit and the date of final judgment in this matter. The court ordered the parties to meet and confer to devise a fair and accurate notice and procedure that was reasonable and agreeable to the parties and the court. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WNxYfM from PacerMonitor.com. KELEOPS USA: Must Face Garon Class Action Over Website Trackers --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jeffrey Garon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Keleops USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 25-cv-02124-DMR (N.D. Cal.), Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in its entirety. The Court denied Keleops USA's motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) related to website tracking software. Plaintiff Jeffrey Garon alleges that when users visit the website https://gizmodo.com, which Keleops owns and operates, the company causes various trackers to be installed on users' internet browsers without consent or court order. According to the First Amended Complaint, when users visit the Website, Keleops causes various trackers -- the Steam Rail Tracker, AGKN Tracker, and Crowd Control Tracker -- to be installed on the user's internet browsers. These trackers are operated by third parties ironSource, Neustar, and Lotame. To load the Website onto a user's browser, the browser sends an HTTP or GET request to Keleops' server where the Website data is stored. Keleops' server then sends an HTTP response back to the browser with instructions that not only include how to properly display the Website, but also cause the Trackers to be installed on the browser. The Trackers then cause the browser to send identifying information to the Third Parties, including the user's IP address, the user-agent string (browser, operating system, and device type), and device capabilities. A number of elements - such as persistent identifiers and fingerprinting and server-side matching - remain and allow users to be identified even after clearing standard session data, such as cookies. This device identifier information forms a detailed, unique fingerprint that allows for cross-site tracking and behavioral profiling. Garon alleges that these Trackers constitute a pen register within the meaning of CIPA Section 638.50(b), and that Keleops has violated CIPA Section 638.51(a) by installing the Trackers absent his consent and a court order. The case was initiated in the Superior Court of California, County of Marin on January 28, 2025, on behalf of all California residents who accessed the Website while in California and had their IP address collected by the Trackers. Keleops removed the case to federal court on February 28, 2025, based on diversity jurisdiction. Keleops argued the CIPA claim fails because Garon has not alleged the existence of a pen register for two reasons. First, Keleops contended that the First Amended Complaint alleges the transmission of Plaintiff's IP address, but that recording an IP address is not equivalent to recording the numbers dialed from a phone and does not make any record of other outgoing routing, dialing, or signaling information. Second, Keleops asserted that software is not a device or process within the meaning of CIPA. Keleops further argued that CIPA was intended to protect individuals from the use of devices or processes that could be used for telephone surveillance, and nothing in the Penal Code extends a pen register to software. The company contended that the device or process required under Section 638.50 must be tied to telephonic functionality. The Court found that the First Amended Complaint contains sufficient allegations that the Trackers constitute pen registers within the meaning of CIPA. CIPA provides that a person may not install or use a pen register without first obtaining a court order. A pen register is defined as a device or process that records or decodes dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information transmitted by an instrument or facility from which a wire or electronic communication is transmitted, but not the contents of a communication. First, the Court determined that the First Amended Complaint adequately alleges that the Trackers constitute a device or process. The complaint alleges that each tracker is at least a process because it is software that identifies consumers, gathers data, and correlates that data, and is a device because in order for software to work, it must be run on some kind of computing device. The Court noted that a process can take many forms including software that identifies consumers, gathers data, and correlates that data through unique fingerprinting. These allegations are sufficient to withstand Keleops' motion, citing multiple federal district court decisions that found similar tracking software constituted pen registers. Second, the Court found plausible allegations that the Trackers record or decode addressing information but not the contents of a communication. The First Amended Complaint alleges that an IP address is a unique identifier for a device, and that public IP addresses can be used to determine the approximate physical location of a device. Moreover, while the Trackers enabled the Third Parties to collect Plaintiffs and Class Members' IP addresses, they do not collect the content of Plaintiffs and the Class's electronic communications with the Website. The Court stated that construing the pleadings in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the IP addresses collected by the Trackers fall within the statutory definition of addressing information, citing precedent that IP addresses constitute addressing information and do not necessarily reveal any more about the underlying contents of communication than do phone numbers. The Court rejected Keleops' arguments as based on an unsupported and impermissibly narrow reading of the statute. Contrary to Keleops' argument, nothing in the statutory definition limits pen registers to those that operate the same way as a traditional phone pen register. Rather, the expansive language in the California Legislature's chosen definition of a pen register is specific as to the type of data a pen register collects--'dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information transmitted by an instrument or facility from which a wire or electronic communication is transmitted,' but is vague and inclusive as to the form of the collection tool. The Court explained that if the drafters of Section 638.50 had intended for pen register to be limited to telephone technologies, they knew how to do so - as evidenced by other sections of CIPA where they imposed such limitations. The statutory language indicates courts should focus less on the form of the data collector and more on the result. The Court noted that as the statute does not specify the form of the device or process, the idea of what constitutes such device or process has evolved. Traditionally, law enforcement used pen registers in investigations to record all numbers called from a particular telephone, and pen registers required physical machines. Today, pen registers take the form of software. Courts have thus repeatedly rejected the contention that a private company's surreptitiously embedded software installed in a telephone cannot constitute a pen register. Keleops cited three state court cases that dismissed similar CIPA pen register claims, but the Court respectfully declined to follow those decisions. The Court noted that those cases reached their conclusions based on an analysis of CIPA's legislative history rather than the plain statutory language. The Court was persuaded by the reasoning in federal cases-Greenley, Shah, and Mirmalek, which was based on the plain statutory language. The Court also rejected Keleops' argument that the case should be dismissed under the rule of lenity. The Court explained that the rule of lenity applies to criminal and punitive statutes and requires ambiguities to be resolved in favor of the defendant, but only applies if there remains a grievous ambiguity or uncertainty in the statute after considering text, structure, history, and purpose. Regarding Keleops' claim of exemption under Section 638.51(b), which allows a provider of electronic or wire communication service to use a pen register to operate, maintain, and test a wire or electronic communication service, the Court declined to dismiss on these grounds. The Court determined that whether Keleops uses the Trackers to operate, maintain, and test a wire or electronic communication service is a question of fact not suitable for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Finally, the Court denied Keleops' request to stay the case while California Senate Bill 690, which would amend California Penal Code sections including 638.50, is pending in the California Legislature. The Court found that the proposed legislation is too tenuous to form a basis to stay the case, noting there is no indication when the bill will be enacted or whether the proposed language will be part of the final bill. Therefore, the Court denied Keleops' motion to dismiss and ordered that Keleops shall file an answer to the First Amended Complaint within two weeks of the order. A copy of the court's order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UJ1MjN from PacerMonitor.com. KRAFT HEINZ: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Contaminated Bacon Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports plaintiff Steven Horne filed a class action lawsuit against The Kraft Heinz Co. Why: Horne claims Kraft Heinz failed to disclose that certain Oscar Mayer turkey bacon products may be contaminated with listeria. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in Florida federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges The Kraft Heinz Co. failed to disclose that certain Oscar Mayer turkey bacon products may be contaminated with listeria. Plaintiff Steven Horne filed the class action complaint against Kraft Heinz on Aug. 25 in Florida federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the lawsuit, Kraft Heinz manufactures, markets and sells turkey bacon products under the Oscar Mayer brand. However, Horne claims the company has inadequately and misleadingly labeled and marketed its turkey bacon products to reasonable consumers by failing to disclose on the packaging that the products may be contaminated with listeria monocytogenes. Listeria can cause serious and life-threatening health issues, lawsuit says Listeria monocytogenes is a pathogen that can lead to serious and life-threatening adverse health consequences, the lawsuit says. The risk of severe infection poses significant concerns for pregnant individuals, infants, the elderly and those with compromised immune systems, the plaintiff claims. The lawsuit claims consumers trust manufacturers like Kraft Heinz to sell products that are safe and free from known harmful substances, including listeria monocytogenes. Horne alleges Kraft Heinz's marketing and advertising campaign fails to disclose on the packaging the presence of listeria monocytogenes in the products. "The knowledge of listeria monocytogenes is significant for reasonable consumers," the Oscar Mayer class action says. "This information regarding the presence of listeria monocytogenes is exclusively within the defendant's possession, and consumers would only be able to obtain it by sending the products to a laboratory for comprehensive testing." Listeria monocytogenes can survive refrigeration and freezing, making it a resilient and dangerous bacterium, the lawsuit explains. Horne is looking to represent anyone who purchased the products anywhere in the United States during the class period. He is suing for violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment and is seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. In 2024, an Illinois federal judge refused to dismiss a class action lawsuit against Kraft Heinz, which claims the company falsely marketed several Kraft macaroni and cheese products as free of artificial flavors, preservatives and dyes. The plaintiff is represented by William Wright of The Wright Law Office P.A. The Kraft Heinz class action lawsuit is Steven Horne v. The Kraft Heinz Company, Case No. 6:25-cv-01630, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division. [GN] LA PLATA, CO: Women Sue Over Jail Commander Strip Search Video -------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia Prentzel, writing for The Colorado Sun, reports that eighteen women are suing La Plata County in southwestern Colorado alleging that its jail's top commander accessed invasive videos of deputies searching and prodding their naked bodies for contraband and watched the footage thousands of times from his home, office and hotel rooms for his personal gratification. The federal class-action lawsuit filed Wednesday, September 3, accuses Edward Aber, the former jail commander, of watching strip-search videos of 115 women over and over by accessing the jail's evidence database at least 3,166 times over five years. Attorneys expect the number of victims to grow. Aber allegedly accessed the videos in the early-morning and late-night hours, stored the videos and screenshots from the strip searches on his personal devices and wiped them when he realized he was being investigated, the lawsuit said. The lawsuit names Aber, as well as Sheriff Sean Smith, the county's board of commissioners and two other jail officials, who attorneys say failed to report Aber's misconduct and failed to place controls on access to strip-search footage. "This wasn't just one person who abused these women. It was a system that abused these women," Siddhartha Rathod, an attorney on the case, said. "It was deputies recording cavity searches of women. It was deputies uploading these highly explicit videos to a database. It was other deputies ignoring huge red flags of sexual harassment." A La Plata County sheriff's employee deferred all questions on the case to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, which launched a probe into Aber earlier this year. The county's commissioners did not immediately return a request for comment. Aber, 62, was charged in July with 117 counts of invasion of privacy for sexual gratification and one count of first-degree official misconduct, all misdemeanors, court records show. CBI investigators found that he viewed the sensitive footage between Feb. 14, 2019, and Jan. 14, 2024. His lawyer in the criminal case, Barrie Newberger King, did not immediately return an email or a voicemail left at her office. A 44-year-old woman from Cortez told The Colorado Sun that deputies did not tell her she was being recorded as they ordered her to take her clothes off and inspected her body, sometimes three to four times a month. "It's really uncomfortable for us who are vulnerable to what is going on . . . . They tell us what to do and that's basically it. We have no voice in there at all," said the woman, who asked to be identified as C.B. to protect her identity as a victim of sexual abuse. "It's really a huge violation of our privacy when things like this happen." C.B., who was incarcerated for 22 months inside the La Plata County jail, said her criminal attorney contacted her earlier this summer alerting her that the invasive videos showing her being strip-searched may have been viewed by Aber. "I believe that he should be definitely held accountable for the things that he has done in his power that not a lot of us were even aware of," she said. "I think that it should be out there and people should know about it." Aber gained access to the videos through evidence.com, a digital evidence management system, when he was promoted to jail commander in 2018. Aber resigned in July 2024 as officials investigated allegations that he made sexual contact with female inmates and sexually harassed numerous female employees, the CBI said. No charges were filed in the case. The La Plata County sheriff's policy was to store every strip-search video on the jail's database, even if no contraband was found and allow every employee with a lieutenant rank or higher, to access the videos at any time, even after the person was no longer incarcerated at the jail, the lawsuit said. Per jail policy, jail deputies are required to wear body-worn cameras during the strip searches and the footage includes up-close shots of the most intimate parts of the women's bodies. "Nobody ever told you why you were getting strip-searched," C.B. said, describing deputies forcing her to reveal her genitals for inspection, squat and cough without explanation. "They just took us in there and did it." The sheriff "placed no limits" on the purpose for which his employees could access the strip-search videos, what time of day they could access them, where they could access them from or how many times they could view the videos, the lawsuit said. Employees could also download the videos and the sheriff did not monitor or audit how the videos were being accessed, according to the lawsuit. Aber told employees he was watching the videos and asked his male subordinates to join him, the lawsuit said. He also visited female inmates in their cells and brought them into his office, where one jail employee once found Aber at his desk with a female inmate crouched beneath it near his crotch, the lawsuit said. Aber said the inmate was fixing wires under his desk, the lawsuit said. He also took women out of the jail on "errands," bringing them to industrial parks where they would do chores, like fold clothes, while he watched and talked to them, the lawsuit said. The trips were apparent to the public, as the women who were eager to leave the jail were still wearing their "highly visible" jail uniforms, according to the lawsuit. Aber allegedly sent a nude cartoon to a woman through social media after she was released from the jail and told her it reminded him of her, the lawsuit said. The lawsuit accuses the sheriff of failing to train, supervise or discipline Aber and other staff who "looked away." Prior to the La Plata County sheriff's office, Aber worked for the Durango police department from 1997 to 2005, according to the lawsuit. Last month, a separate class-action lawsuit was also filed against Aber, La Plata County and the sheriff's office. [GN] LANGDON & COMPANY: Nobles Balks at Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------ KERMIT NOBLES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LANGDON & COMPANY, LLP., Case No. 5:25-cv-00554-M (E.D.N.C., Sept. 3, 2025) is a class action against Langdon for its failure to secure and safeguard Personally Identifiable Information and Protected Health Information that was entrusted to Langdon. Between April 21, 2024, and April 28, 2024, Langdon experienced a cyberattack, which resulted in the breach of certain files it received from Easter Seals UCP North Carolina & Virginia, Inc., including but not necessarily limited to names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers (SSN), Taxpayer Identification numbers, financial account numbers, medical information, and health insurance information and/or digital signatures (the Data Breach). Accordingly, Langdon, as a substantial business, had the resources to take seriously the obligation to protect private information. However, Langdon failed to invest the resources necessary to protect the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class members. The actions of Langdon related to this Data Breach are unconscionable. Upon information and belief, Langdon failed to implement practices and systems to mitigate against the risks posed by Langdon's negligent (if not reckless) IT practices. As a result of these failures, the Plaintiff and Class members face a litany of harms that accompany data breaches of this magnitude and severity. As such, the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, brings this Action for restitution, actual damages, nominal damages, statutory damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, and all other relief that this Court deems just and proper. Langdon is a North Carolina-based Certified Public Accounting Firm serving clients throughout the southeastern United States and globally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel R. Rhine, Esq. Ruth A. Sheehan, Esq. Justin P. Hayes, Esq. JoAnna S. Ivey, Esq. RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C. 1612 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 300 Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 Telephone: (910) 772-9960 Facsimile: (910) 772-9062 E-mail: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com ras@rhinelawfirm.com jph@rhinelawfirm.com jsi@rhinelawfirm.com - and - Israel David, Esq. Adam. M. Harris, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 60 Broad Street, Suite 2900 New York, New York 10004 Telephone: (212) 350-8850 E-mail israel.david@davidllc.com adam.harris@davidllc.com - and - Mark A. Cianci, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 399 Boylston Street, Floor 6, Suite 23 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 295-7771 E-mail: mark.cianci@davidllc.com LASERSHIP INC: Butler Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info --------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD BUTLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LASERSHIP, INC. d/b/a ONTRAC FINAL MILE, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01453 (E.D. Va., September 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and invasion of privacy. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between April 13 and April 15, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Lasership, Inc., doing business as OnTrac Final Mile, is a delivery carrier for e-commerce with its principal place of business in Chantilly, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee A. Floyd, Esq. Justin M. Sheldon, Esq. BREIT BINIAZAN, PC 2100 East Cary Street, Suite 310 Richmond, VA 23223 Telephone: (804) 351-9040 Facsimile: (804) 351-9170 Email: Lee@bbtrial.com Justin@bbtrial.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com LASERSHIP INC: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Contreras Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARY CONTRERAS and JUAN CONTRERAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LASERSHIP, INC. d/b/a ONTRAC FINAL MILE, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01448 (E.D. Va., September 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment/injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach detected on or around April 15, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Lasership, Inc., doing business as OnTrac Final Mile, is a delivery carrier for e-commerce with its principal place of business in Chantilly, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ramon Rodriguez, III, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: rrodriguez@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy., Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 Email: abm@murphylegalfirm.com LASERSHIP INC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Martinez Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- MARTICA MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. LASERSHIP, INC. d/b/a ONTRAC FINAL MILE, Case No. 1:25-cv-01467 (E.D. Va., Sept. 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI). On April 15, 2025, the Defendant detected potentially suspicious activity on a portion of its computer network. Through an investigation, the Defendant determined that certain files may have been accessed without authorization between April 13 and April 15, 2025 (the Data Breach). The third-party data review concluded and determined that the files at issue included names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, Driver's License or State IDs, medical information, and health insurance information. On Aug. 27, 2025, the Defendant finally started to notify impacted individuals, including Plaintiff, about the Data Breach. The . Defendant waited four months before informing Class Members about the Breach even though Plaintiff and Class Members had their most sensitive personal information accessed and abused, causing them to suffer ascertainable losses in the form of identity theft and fraud, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack. The Defendant's failure to timely report the Data Breach made the impacted individuals vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their Private Information.      The Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class are victims of the Defendant's negligence and inadequate cyber security measures. The Defendant is an e-commerce delivery company that serves 35 states and Washington, D.C. Defendant operates across the United States to reach approximately 70% of the population.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee A. Floyd, Esq. Justin M. Sheldon, Esq. BREIT BINIAZAN, PC 2100 East Cary Street, Suite 310 Richmond, VA 23223 Telephone: (804) 351-9040 Facsimile: (804) 351-9170 E-mail: Lee@bbtrial.com Justin@bbtrial.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Courtney Maccarone, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com maccarone@kolawyers.com LASERSHIP INC: Salgado Sues Over Hacked Personal Info of Customers ------------------------------------------------------------------ CRISTELIA SALGADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LASERSHIP, INC. d/b/a ONTRAC FINAL MILE, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00693 (E.D. Va., September 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach detected on or around April 15, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Lasership, Inc., doing business as OnTrac Final Mile, is a delivery carrier for e-commerce with its principal place of business in Chantilly, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ramon Rodriguez, III, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Neil P. Williams, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: rrodriguez@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com nwilliams@sirillp.com LENNAR HOMES: Court Tosses Schwarz Complaint as Shotgun Pleading ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Steve Schwarz and Brian Heymann, Plaintiffs v. Lennar Homes LLC, LEN-CG South, LLC, LEN OT Holdings, LLC, and Lennar Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 6:25-cv-00466-PGB-NWH (M.D. Fla.), Judge Paul G. Byron of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint as an impermissible shotgun pleading. The plaintiffs initiated this purported class action in state court on Dec. 31, 2024, and the defendants removed the case to federal court on March 17, 2025. The complaint asserted claims for injunctive relief under Florida's Homeowners' Association Act, violation of Florida Statute Section 720.308, and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The defendants' sole contention was that the plaintiffs' complaint constituted a shotgun pleading warranting dismissal. The court agreed with this assessment. According to the court, the Eleventh Circuit has been roundly, repeatedly, and consistently condemning shotgun pleadings for years, as established in Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. The court explained that there are four acknowledged types of shotgun pleadings. The most common type--by a long shot--is a complaint containing multiple counts where each count adopts the allegations of all preceding counts, causing each successive count to carry all that came before and the last count to be a combination of the entire complaint. The next most common type is a complaint replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of action. The third type of shotgun pleading is one that commits the sin of not separating into a different count each cause of action or claim for relief, fourth type being the relatively rare sin of asserting multiple claims against multiple defendants without specifying which of the defendants are responsible for which acts or omissions, or which of the defendants the claim is brought against, as outlined in Weiland v. Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office. Upon examination, the court determined that the plaintiffs' complaint falls within the fourth category of shotgun pleadings. The complaint begins by renaming the defendants collectively as the Lennar Controlled Entities, then references this collective term throughout much of its introduction while also referring to each individual defendant by name in other parts. Most problematically, the complaint proceeds to vaguely reference the defendants in each of the plaintiffs' claims for relief without identifying which of the defendants the claim is brought against. The court found that the defendants were left guessing which claim is asserted against which defendant, and the court was unable to decipher which of the defendants are responsible for which acts or omissions. The unifying characteristic of all types of shotgun pleadings is that they fail to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon which each claim rests. The court noted that the plaintiffs' response to the motion largely presented arguments that were irrelevant to whether the complaint constituted a shotgun pleading. The court determined that repleader was necessary to correct the complaint's deficiency in asserting multiple claims against multiple defendants without specifying which defendants are responsible for which acts or omissions. Therefore, the court grants the defendants' motion to dismiss. The complaint is dismissed without prejudice as a shotgun pleading. The plaintiffs may file an amended complaint on Sept. 4, 2025, consistent with the directives of this order and all applicable rules and law. Failure to timely file an amended complaint may result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice. A copy of the Court's order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TNk2Sy from PacerMonitor.com. MARRIOTT HOTEL: Williamson Removed from State Court to Colorado --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action captioned as KIMEKA WILLIAMSON, ROWEAN BRENNAN, and IVAN WILLIAMSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware company, Case No. 2025CV31798 (Filed Aug. 19, 2025,) was removed from Arapahoe County District Court, State of Colorado, to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on Sept. 2, 2025. The District of Colorado Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-02732-SBP to the proceeding. In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs also allege various state law claims, including violations of the Colorado Wage Act, and Colorado Minimum Wage Orders and Colorado Overtime and Minimum Wage Standards, in Count I of the Complaint, related to allegations regarding failure to pay hours worked and overtime compensation. The Defendant is an entity under the parent company Marriott International, a global hospitality leader that operates, franchises, and licenses hotel and lodging properties. This specific entity was likely involved in managing or providing hotel services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam M. Harrison, Esq. Cynthia J. Sanchez, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 518 17th Street, Suite 1100 Denver, CO 80202 E-mail: aharrison@hkm.com csanchez@hkm.com The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer S. Harpole, Esq. Lukasz Gilewski, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 1900 Sixteenth Street, Suite 800 Denver, CO80202 Telephone: (303) 629-6200 Facsimile: (303) 629-0200 E-mail: jharpole@littler.com lgilewski@littler.com MDL 2873: Adams v. 3M Removed From State Court to N.D. Ala. ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as AMAR ADAMS et al., v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 01-CV-2025-903063.00 (Filed July 28, 2025) was removed from the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on Sept. 2, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-11914 to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs seek to hold Tyco and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and/or selling aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) that Plaintiffs allege caused them personal injuries. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' AFFF contained per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), and that Plaintiffs were exposed to these substances through drinking water, which in turn caused them to develop various injuries. The case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. The Plaintiffs include THADDEUS ANCAR; ANNA ANDERS; SAM APPEL; TANYA AUSTIN; DWIGHT BALLARD; JEFF BARKAN; DAVID BEACHUM; ERICKA BELL-DANIELS; CHEVELLE BOONE; SUNNY BOYEJO; STAN BURLAND; DAVID BURLESON; DENNIS CALDWELL; LEE CASTLEBERRY; JERRY CHRISTIAN; TYLER COOK; CEDRIC CUBLE; DALVIN DARDIZ; PATRICIA DAVIDSON; PERCY DAVIS; JOSH DE VORE; RONALD DEAL; TIMOTHY DELANEY; ERICKY DENER; MARIAN DINU; BALLARD DORTON; THOMAS DRAKE; HANNAH DYER; JOHN ELBERT; BRIAN EMERSON; DAVID FENDLEY; FRANCIS FERRANTE; JEFFREY FORRESTER; DONNA FORRISTER; ERIKA GIBSON; MARK GORDON; SEYERICK GRACE; BETRICE GRAY; CHRIS HAGAN; ANTHONY HALL; BLAKKI HALL; DERRICK HAMILTON; DONALD HARMON, JR.; PATRICIA HEFFNER; RODNEY HENSON; JILL HESS; THOMAS HUNTER; RICHARD HYDE; GARY HYMES; JEFFREY INGRAM; DAVID IRVIN; DAVID JACKSON; ANN JOHNSON; BENJAMIN JOHNSON; KIMBERLY JOHNSTON; DONALD JONES; REGINALD JORDAN; WALTER KAHL; ANTONIO KIRKLAND; ANDREW KLINE; MIRIAM KNIGHT; EUGENE KRISE; PATRICK LEISURE; JUSTIN LENSBOWER; MARISOL LOPEZ; MELVIN LOVE; JACK LUTHER; CELESTIN MACFONGIM; JERLENE MAGEE; CHARLES MAHONEY; VERONICA MANZO; JOSEPH MARRA; PHIL MARTIN; CLAUDIA MARTIN; KEVIN MCCORMACK; MALIK MCRAE; ERICK MEDINA; CONNIE MERCHAIN; DARRYL MILLER, JR; JOSE MONTIJO; STANLEY MORTON; JERRY MUELLER; TAUHEEDAH MUSADDIQ; JOE NEMETH; DEBRA NICKERSON; RICHARD NORRID; ANGELIC ORTIZ; BERNARD OSBORNE; DON OSTROM; EDDIE PARSONS; SHELDON PAYNE; REYES PEREZ; SHAYLA PIERCE; REX POLLOCK; TIM PORTER; ROBERT QUEEMAN; RYAN RAMSEY; KEMBROLY RAWAL; DANIEL RAY; JAMARIO REEVES; JACK RITTER; THERESA RIVERA; MICHAEL ROWAN; COLEMAN ROWE; STACEY RUPPE; KEN SCHWARTZ; JUDY SCOTT; WILLIAM SEARS; FREDERICK SEED; PAIGE SELF; LEONARD SLADE; FREDRICO SMITH; ROBERT SMITH; WILLIAM ST. JEAN; JAMES STEVENS; SHAWN STOKES; KEVIN STOUT; TERESA STRINGER; JAMES SYDNOR; KEVIN TAYLOR; PENTANIOUS THOMPKINS; EMADE TIME; KEVIN TRENTOWSKI; DENISE TREPAGNIER; JAMES TURPIN; LAUREN VALLEY; RICHARD VISER; DANA WALKER; LEO WARD; DEBORAH WATKINS; FELIX WELLER; REINA WEST; MARY WILLIAMS, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF EDWIN WILLIAMS, JR.; ANTWON WILLIAMS; DEBBIE WILLIAMS; THOMAS WILLIAMS; KHAREY WOOD; STEPHEN WOODYARD; KEVIN WYRICK; MITSY YOUNG; and SEAN YOUNG. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION. Tyco manufactures and delivers an unmatched range of fire suppression systems. Chemguard develops and produces fire suppression foams, equipment, and systems. 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, and consumer goods.[BN] Defendants Tyco Fire Products LP and Chemguard, Inc. are represented by: Gregory M. Taube, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 201 17th Street, NW, Suite 1700 Atlanta, GA 30363 Telephone: (404) 322-6000 Facsimile: (404) 322-6050 E-mail: greg.taube@nelsonmullins.com MDL 2873: Akins Suit Seeks Damages Over Toxic Chemical Exposure --------------------------------------------------------------- FREDERICK AKINS, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC., AMEREX CORPORATION, ARKEMA, INC., ARCHROMA U.S. INC., BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba Inc., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation, CORTEVA, INC., individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, L.L.C., TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P., and UTC FIRE and SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-08491-RMG (D.S.C., July 27, 2025) is an action for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications, says the suit. The Plaintiff was exposed to Defendants' fluorochemical products as a result of ingesting drinking water contaminated with Defendants' fluorochemical products. As a result of Plaintiff's exposure to Defendants' fluorochemical products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer, which has caused Plaintiff to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, and emotional distress. The Akins case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. Fantini, Esq. ROSEN INJURY LAWYERS 101 Greenwood Ave., Suite 510 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 310-9649 Facsimile: (215) 989-4424 E-mail: jfantini@roseninjurylawyers.com MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Banfield Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ Roger Banfield v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-08339-RMG (D.S.C., July 24, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiff contends that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with liver and testicular cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' PFAS containing products. The Banfield case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew T. Kagan, Esq. Chandler B. Duncan, Esq. Andrew T. Kagan FL Bar: 26291 Elizabeth P. Kagan FL Bar: 330779 KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC. 295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6 Humacao, PR, 00791 Telephone: (939) 220-2424 Facsimile: (939) 220-2477 MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Banks Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- FREDERICK BANKS v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-08335-RMG (D.S.C., July 24, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiff contends that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. Mr. Banks was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Banks case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, Oh 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Boucos Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- PETER LEO BOUCOS v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-08366-RMG (D.S.C., July 24, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiff contends that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. As a result of his exposure to Defendants' AFFF and TOG products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer, which has caused Plaintiff to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress. The Boucos case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Ryan Ziminskas, Esq. THEMIS LAW, PLLC 7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 105 Austin, TX 78731 Telephone: (737) 208-1636 E-mail: rziminskas@themislawpllc.com MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Cisneros Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Henry Cisneros v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-08269-RMG (D.S.C., July 24, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiff contends that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. Mr. Cisneros was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Cisneros case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 E-mail: tshah@millerfirmllc.com MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Derflinger Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- STELLA STARNS-DERFLINGER as Personal Representative/Executor/ Administrator of the Estate of ROLLAND WAYNE DERFLINGER, deceased,v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-08290-RMG (D.S.C., July 24, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiff contends that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. Prior to death, Decedent was diagnosed with liver cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG products. Decedent’s diagnosis caused and/or contributed to his death. The Derflinger case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Ryan Ziminskas, Esq. THEMIS LAW, PLLC 7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 105 Austin, TX 78731 Telephone: (737) 208-1636 E-mail: rziminskas@themislawpllc.com MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Dowden Says ------------------------------------------------------------- LORETTA DOWDEN, AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF ROY DOWDEN, JR. v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-11890-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 2, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiff contends that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. As a result of his exposure to Defendants' fluorochemical products, Decedent was diagnosed with testicular cancer, which caused Decedent to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, and emotional distress, and ultimately caused Decedent's death. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Dowden case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, Oh 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Fortenberry Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ TAMMIE FORTENBERRY v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-08340-RMG (D.S.C., July 24, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiff contends that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' PFAS containing products. The Fortenberry case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew T. Kagan, Esq. Chandler B. Duncan, Esq. Andrew T. Kagan FL Bar: 26291 Elizabeth P. Kagan FL Bar: 330779 KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC. 295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6 Humacao, PR, 00791 Telephone: (939) 220-2424 Facsimile: (939) 220-2477 MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Garcia Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- RUDOLPH JAMES GARCIA, JR v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-08328-RMG (D.S.C., July 24, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiff contends that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. As a result of his exposure to Defendants' AFFF and TOG products, Plaintiff was diagnosed with thyroid disease, which has caused Plaintiff to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress. The Garcia case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Ryan Ziminskas, Esq. THEMIS LAW, PLLC 7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 105 Austin, TX 78731 Telephone: (737) 208-1636 E-mail: rziminskas@themislawpllc.com MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Harr Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory Harr v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-08273-RMG (D.S.C., July 24, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiff contends that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. Mr. Harr was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Harr case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 E-mail: tshah@millerfirmllc.com MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Hodges Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM DOUGLAS HODGES v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No2:25-cv-08375-RMG (D.S.C., July 24, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiff contends that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. As a result of his exposure to Defendants' AFFF and TOG products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with thyroid disease, which has caused Plaintiff to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress. The Hodges case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Ryan Ziminskas, Esq. THEMIS LAW, PLLC 7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 105 Austin, TX 78731 Telephone: (737) 208-1636 E-mail: rziminskas@themislawpllc.com MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Jacobs Says ------------------------------------------------------------- David Jacobs v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-08277-RMG (D.S.C., July 24, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiff contends that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants’ AFFF products. The Jacobs case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 E-mail: tshah@millerfirmllc.com MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Jefferson Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Keith Jefferson v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-08345-RMG (D.S.C., July 24, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiff contends that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer , which has caused him to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress. The Jefferson case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew T. Kagan, Esq. Chandler B. Duncan, Esq. Andrew T. Kagan FL Bar: 26291 Elizabeth P. Kagan FL Bar: 330779 KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC. 295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6 Humacao, PR, 00791 Telephone: (939) 220-2424 Facsimile: (939) 220-2477 MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Monk Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- DONALD MONK JR v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-08347-RMG (D.S.C., July 24, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiff contends that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants’ PFAS containing products. The Monk case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew T. Kagan, Esq. Chandler B. Duncan, Esq. Andrew T. Kagan FL Bar: 26291 Elizabeth P. Kagan FL Bar: 330779 KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC. 295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6 Humacao, PR, 00791 Telephone: (939) 220-2424 Facsimile: (939) 220-2477 MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Murdock Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Margaret Murdock, on behalf of the Estate and Next of Kin of David Murdock v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-08283-RMG (D.S.C., July 24, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiff contends that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. Mr. Murdock was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. He died on Nov. 27, 2013 as a result of his kidney cancer. The Murdock case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 E-mail: tshah@millerfirmllc.com MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Pennywell Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- GARRY LAMETT PENNYWELL v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-08302-RMG (D.S.C., July 24, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiff contends that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. As a result of his exposure to Defendants’ AFFF and TOG products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with thyroid disease, which has caused Plaintiff to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress. The Pennywell case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Ryan Ziminskas, Esq. THEMIS LAW, PLLC 7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 105 Austin, TX 78731 Telephone: (737) 208-1636 E-mail: rziminskas@themislawpllc.com MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Romero Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- PEGGY ROMERO v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-08352-RMG (D.S.C., July 24, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiff contends that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' PFAS containing products. The Romero case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew T. Kagan, Esq. Chandler B. Duncan, Esq. Andrew T. Kagan FL Bar: 26291 Elizabeth P. Kagan FL Bar: 330779 KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC. 295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6 Humacao, PR, 00791 Telephone: (939) 220-2424 Facsimile: (939) 220-2477 MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Sines Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN FREDERICK SINES v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-08322-RMG (D.S.C., July 24, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiff contends that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with thyroid disease, which has caused him to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress. The Sines case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Ryan Ziminskas, Esq. THEMIS LAW, PLLC 7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 105 Austin, TX 78731 Telephone: (737) 208-1636 E-mail: rziminskas@themislawpllc.com MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Sparks Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dean Sparks v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-08353-RMG (D.S.C., July 24, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiff contends that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' PFAS containing products. The Sparks case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew T. Kagan, Esq. Chandler B. Duncan, Esq. Andrew T. Kagan FL Bar: 26291 Elizabeth P. Kagan FL Bar: 330779 KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC. 295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6 Humacao, PR, 00791 Telephone: (939) 220-2424 Facsimile: (939) 220-2477 MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Tipton Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Raymond Tipton v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-08355-RMG (D.S.C., July 24, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiff contends that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer, which has caused him to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress. The Tipton case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew T. Kagan, Esq. Chandler B. Duncan, Esq. Andrew T. Kagan FL Bar: 26291 Elizabeth P. Kagan FL Bar: 330779 KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC. 295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6 Humacao, PR, 00791 Telephone: (939) 220-2424 Facsimile: (939) 220-2477 MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Toliver Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Jack Toliver v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-08285-RMG (D.S.C., July 24, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiff contends that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. Mr. Toliver was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Toliver case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 E-mail: tshah@millerfirmllc.com MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Underwood Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Howard Francis Underwood v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-08357-RMG (D.S.C., July 24, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiff contends that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. Mr. Underwood was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' PFAS containing products. The Underwood case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew T. Kagan, Esq. Chandler B. Duncan, Esq. Andrew T. Kagan FL Bar: 26291 Elizabeth P. Kagan FL Bar: 330779 KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC. 295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6 Humacao, PR, 00791 Telephone: (939) 220-2424 Facsimile: (939) 220-2477 MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Varnell Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Varnell v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-08342-RMG (D.S.C., July 24, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiff contends that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer, which has caused him to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress. The Varnell case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew T. Kagan, Esq. Chandler B. Duncan, Esq. Andrew T. Kagan FL Bar: 26291 Elizabeth P. Kagan FL Bar: 330779 KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC. 295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6 Humacao, PR, 00791 Telephone: (939) 220-2424 Facsimile: (939) 220-2477 MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Wanderscheid Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- NICHOLAS WANDERSCHEID v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-08344-RMG (D.S.C., July 24, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiff contends that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' PFAS containing products. The Wanderscheid case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew T. Kagan, Esq. Chandler B. Duncan, Esq. Andrew T. Kagan FL Bar: 26291 Elizabeth P. Kagan FL Bar: 330779 KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC. 295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6 Humacao, PR, 00791 Telephone: (939) 220-2424 Facsimile: (939) 220-2477 MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Substances, Wilkinson Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- VERNON WILKINSON, AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF STEVEN WILKINSON v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-11884-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 2, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiff contends that he regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' fluorochemical products, Decedent was diagnosed with kidney cancer, which caused Decedent to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, and emotional distress, and ultimately caused Decedent's deaths. The Wilkinson case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, Oh 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: 216-274-9365 MDL 2873: Cantu Sues for Injury Over Toxic Chemical Exposure ------------------------------------------------------------ Chris Carlo Cantu, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-08403-RMG (D.S.C., July 25, 2025) is an action for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications, says the suit. Plaintiff Cantu is a resident and citizen of Houston, Texas. He was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use. During Plaintiff's career, he was directly exposed to AFFF and/or resided and/or worked on bases and obtained drinking water from sources that have been found to have a groundwater supply contaminated with PFAS. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, the suit alleges. The Cantu case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Hochman Esq. THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC 5411 McPherson Rd., Ste. 110 Laredo, TX 78041 Telephone: (956) 704-5187 Facsimile: (956) 368-1343 MDL 2873: Exposes Resident to Toxic Chemicals, McMillan Says ------------------------------------------------------------ CLIFFORD McMILLAN, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORP., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA INC., DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; JOHNSON CONTROLS INC., NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-08484-RMG (D.S.C., July 25, 2025) is an action for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications, says the suit. Plaintiff McMillan is a resident and citizen of Yantis, Texas, and previously resided in Houston, Texas, and Missouri City, Texas. Plaintiff was exposed to PFAS chemicals through their drinking water. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' PFAS containing products. The McMillan case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chandler B. Duncan, Esq. Andrew T. Kagan, Esq. Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq. KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC 295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6 Humacao, PR 00791 Telephone: (939) 220-2424 Facsimile: (939) 220-2477 MDL 2873: Faces Doan Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------- JASON DOAN, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA LUSS., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORP.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; JOHNSON CONTROLS INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-08481-RMG (D.S.C., July 25, 2025) is an action for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications, says the suit. Plaintiff Doan is a resident and citizen of Days Creek, Oregon, and previously resided in Redding, California. Plaintiff was exposed to PFAS chemicals through their drinking water. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' PFAS containing products, the suit alleges. The Doan case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chandler B. Duncan, Esq. Andrew T. Kagan, Esq. Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq. KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC 295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6 Humacao, PR 00791 Telephone: (939) 220-2424 Facsimile: (939) 220-2477 MDL 2873: Faces Garcia Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ------------------------------------------------------------ Charlotte A. Garcia, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-08401-RMG (D.S.C., July 25, 2025) is an action for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications, says the suit. Plaintiff Garcia is a resident and citizen of San Antonio, Texas. During Plaintiff's career, he was directly exposed to AFFF and/or resided and/or worked on bases and obtained drinking water from sources that have been found to have a groundwater supply contaminated with PFAS. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer and thyroid disease as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, the suit alleges. The Garcia case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Hochman Esq. THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC 5411 McPherson Rd., Ste. 110 Laredo, TX 78041 Telephone: (956) 704-5187 Facsimile: (956) 368-1343 MDL 2873: Faces Harman Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ------------------------------------------------------------ DONALD HARMAN, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC., AMEREX CORPORATION, ARKEMA, INC., ARCHROMA U.S. INC., BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba Inc., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation, CORTEVA, INC., individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, L.L.C., TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P., and UTC FIRE and SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-08492-RMG (D.S.C., July 27, 2025) is an action for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications, says the suit. The Plaintiff was exposed to Defendants' fluorochemical products as a result of ingesting drinking water contaminated with Defendants' fluorochemical products. As a result of Plaintiff's exposure to Defendants' fluorochemical products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer, which has caused Plaintiff to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, and emotional distress. The Harman case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. Fantini, Esq. ROSEN INJURY LAWYERS 101 Greenwood Ave., Suite 510 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 310-9649 Facsimile: (215) 989-4424 E-mail: jfantini@roseninjurylawyers.com MDL 2873: Faces McGillan Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals -------------------------------------------------------------- DEANA MCGILLAN, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA LUSS., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORP.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; JOHNSON CONTROLS INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-08488-RMG (D.S.C., August 14, 2025) is an action for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications, says the suit. The Plaintiff was exposed to Defendants' fluorochemical products as a result of ingesting drinking water contaminated with Defendants' fluorochemical products. As a result of Plaintiff's exposure to Defendants' fluorochemical products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer, which has caused Plaintiff to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, and emotional distress. The McGillan case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. Fantini, Esq. ROSEN INJURY LAWYERS 101 Greenwood Ave., Suite 510 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 310-9649 Facsimile: (215) 989-4424 E-mail: jfantini@roseninjurylawyers.com MDL 2873: Faces Medlin Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ------------------------------------------------------------ DAVID MEDLIN, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA LUSS., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORP.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; JOHNSON CONTROLS INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-08503-RMG (D.S.C., July 25, 2025) is an action for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications, says the suit. Plaintiff Medlin is a resident and citizen of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina and previously resided in the Former Naval Training Center in Orlando, Florida, and Naval Air Station Chase Field in Beeville, Texas. The Plaintiff was exposed to PFAS chemicals through their drinking water. He was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' PFAS containing products, the suit alleges. The Medlin case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chandler B. Duncan, Esq. Andrew T. Kagan, Esq. Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq. KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC 295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6 Humacao, PR 00791 Telephone: (939) 220-2424 Facsimile: (939) 220-2477 MDL 2873: Faces Olson Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ----------------------------------------------------------- Charlotte Olson, on behalf of the Estate and Next of Kin of Richard Olson, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA LS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.l. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.) Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-08444-RMG (D.S.C., July 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. Plaintiff Charlotte Olson is a resident and citizen of Mesa, Arizona. She is the next of kin of Plaintiff Richard Olson who suffered injuries attributable to AFFF/PFAS. Plaintiff Richard Olson regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during his working career in the military and/or as a civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Plaintiff passed on May 31, 2024. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications, says the suit. The Olson case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 E-mail: tshah@millerfirmllc.com MDL 2873: Faces Parker Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ------------------------------------------------------------ CHESSICA M. PARKER, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA LUSS., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORP.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; JOHNSON CONTROLS INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-08505-RMG (D.S.C., July 25, 2025) is an action for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications, says the suit. Plaintiff Parker is a resident and citizen of Summerville, Georgia and was exposed to PFAS chemicals through their drinking water. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' PFAS containing products, the suit alleges. The Parker case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chandler B. Duncan, Esq. Andrew T. Kagan, Esq. Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq. KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC 295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6 Humacao, PR 00791 Telephone: (939) 220-2424 Facsimile: (939) 220-2477 MDL 2873: Faces Ramos Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ----------------------------------------------------------- GREGORIO R. RAMOS, JR., Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.L. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-08456-RMG (D.S.C., July 25, 2025) is an action for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and in extinguishing fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. As a result of his exposure to Defendants' AFFF and TOG products, Plaintiff was diagnosed with thyroid disease, which has caused Plaintiff to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress, the suit alleges. The Ramos case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Ryan Ziminskas, Esq. THEMIS LAW, PLLC 7718 Wood Hollow Drive Suite 105 Austin, TX 78731 Telephone: (737) 208-1636 E-mail: rziminskas@themislawpllc.com MDL 2873: Faces Rossi Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ----------------------------------------------------------- FRANK ROSSI, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC., AMEREX CORPORATION, ARKEMA, INC., ARCHROMA U.S. INC., BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba Inc., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation, CORTEVA, INC., individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, L.L.C., TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P., and UTC FIRE and SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-08495-RMG (D.S.C., July 27, 2025) is an action for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications, says the suit. The Plaintiff was exposed to Defendants' fluorochemical products as a result of ingesting drinking water contaminated with Defendants' fluorochemical products. As a result of Plaintiff's exposure to Defendants' fluorochemical products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer, which has caused Plaintiff to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, and emotional distress. The Rossi case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. Fantini, Esq. ROSEN INJURY LAWYERS 101 Greenwood Ave., Suite 510 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 310-9649 Facsimile: (215) 989-4424 E-mail: jfantini@roseninjurylawyers.com MDL 2873: Jones v. 3M Suit Removed from State Court to N.D. Alabama ------------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA JONES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2025- 903042 (Filed July 28, 2025) was removed from the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on Sept. 2, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01469 to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and/or selling aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) that Plaintiffs allege were used at various U.S. military facilities, thereby causing injury to the Plaintiffs. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), were contained in the Defendants' AFFF, that these substances were used at military facilities, and that these same substances caused injury to Plaintiffs. The case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. Yahn E. Olson, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com gary@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com yolson@elglaw.com The Defendants are represented by: M. Christian King, Esq. Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq. W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. Colin Matthaei, IV, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203-3200 Telephone: (205) 581-0700 E-mail: cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com cmatthaei@lightfootlaw.com MDL 2873: Rodriguez Seeks Damages From Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dagoberto Rodriguez, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-08549-RMG (D.S.C., July 25, 2025) is an action for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications, says the suit. Plaintiff Rodriguez is a resident and citizen of Reedley, California. The Plaintiff regularly used and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian firefighter. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with thyroid disease and high cholesterol as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, the suit alleges. The Rodriguez case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Hochman Esq. THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC 5411 McPherson Rd., Ste. 110 Laredo, TX 78041 Telephone: (956) 704-5187 Facsimile: (956) 368-1343 MDL 2873: Venable Seeks Damages from Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC VENABLE, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA LUSS., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORP.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; JOHNSON CONTROLS INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-08475-RMG (D.S.C., July 25, 2025) is an action for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications, says the suit. Plaintiff Venable is a resident and citizen of Destin, Florida, and previously resided in Boca Raton, Florida. The Plaintiff was exposed to PFAS chemicals through their drinking water. He was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' PFAS containing products, the suit alleges. The Venable case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chandler B. Duncan, Esq. Andrew T. Kagan, Esq. Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq. KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC 295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6 Humacao, PR 00791 Telephone: (939) 220-2424 Facsimile: (939) 220-2477 MDL 2873: Williams Seeks Damages from Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ----------------------------------------------------------------- DON WILLIAMS, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA LUSS., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORP.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; JOHNSON CONTROLS INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-08479-RMG (D.S.C., July 25, 2025) is an action for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications, says the suit. Plaintiff Williams is a resident and citizen of Westville, Oklahoma, and previously resided in Anchorage, Alaska. The Plaintiff was exposed to PFAS chemicals through their drinking water. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' PFAS containing products, the suit alleges. The Williams case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chandler B. Duncan, Esq. Andrew T. Kagan, Esq. Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq. KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC 295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6 Humacao, PR 00791 Telephone: (939) 220-2424 Facsimile: (939) 220-2477 MESK INVESTMENTS: Agrees to Settle Wage Transparency Suit for $6.3M ------------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that Mesk Investments agreed to pay up to $6.298 million to resolve claims that it violated Washington job posting laws by failing to disclose wage scales and salary ranges in IHOP job postings. The IHOP settlement benefits individuals who applied for a job opening with Mesk Investments in Washington between Jan. 1, 2023, and Nov. 30, 2023, where the job posting did not disclose the wage scale or salary range and/or a general description of benefits or other compensation for the position. Mesk Investments owns and operates several IHOP restaurants in Washington. According to a class action lawsuit, the company failed to disclose wage scales and salary ranges in its job postings, violating Washington law. Under Washington law, employers are required to disclose wage scales and salary ranges in job postings to promote pay transparency and ensure that employees are paid fairly. Mesk Investments has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $6.298 million class action settlement to resolve the allegations. Class members who submit a valid claim form will be eligible to receive an equal share of the IHOP class action settlement fund, up to a maximum of $5,000 each. Exact payments will vary depending on the number of participating class members and the amount deducted for attorneys' fees and other costs. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Sept. 26, 2025. The final approval hearing for the IHOP settlement is scheduled for Oct. 31, 2025. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Sept. 26, 2025. Who's Eligible Individuals who, from Jan. 1, 2023, through Nov. 30, 2023, applied for a job opening in Washington with Mesk Investment where the job posting did not disclose the wage scale or salary range and/or a general description of benefits or other compensation for the position. Potential Award Up to $5,000 Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form Deadline 09/26/2025 Case Name McClendon v. Mesk Investment Lakewood Inc., et al., Case No. 23-2-22579-1 KNT, in the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of King Final Hearing 10/31/2025 Settlement Website MILISettlement.com Claims Administrator In re Shimano Crankset Litigation Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 4150 Portland, OR 97208-4150 (888) 873-3150 [GN] MYEYEDR OPTOMETRY: Espanol TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BYRON ESPANOL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MYEYEDR. OPTOMETRY OF FLORIDA, LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-01024-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) certifying a class under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"); (2) appointing the Plaintiff as Class Representative; and (3) appointing the Plaintiff's counsel as Class Counsel. Accordingly, the Plaintiff moves to certify the following Class of individuals who were sent the Defendant's text message solicitations in violation of the TCPA's do-not-call provisions: "All individuals in the United States who, during the four years prior to the filing of this case (1) received more than one "recall" text message from Defendant during any 12- month period; (2) that was sent utilizing the Braze, Inc. text messaging software; (3) after the individual requested to not receive text messages from the Defendant by responding with a "stop" or similar opt-out request; (4) where the "recall" messages were received by the individual more than 30 days after the opt-out request; and (5) where the person was re subscribed to receive text messages via a rest application programming interface instruction to the Braze software after the opt-out request." In violation of the TCPA, the Defendant sent hundreds of thousands of text messages to over 70,000 Class Members that had opted out of Defendant's solicitations. These estimates were confirmed by the Defendant's own expert; i.e., the existence of numerous Class members is undisputed. The Defendant's lack of policies and oversight over its automated text messaging software resulted in Plaintiff and the Class Members being spammed with hundreds of thousands of text messages. The Defendant operates over 862 optometry offices. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=H7jC4E at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 533-4092 E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com NADS LLC: Lopez Sues Over Blind User-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NADS LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-07302 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 3, 2025) alleges that Canali failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://nadsunder.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The Defendant operates the NADS Under online retail store, as well as the NADS Under interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[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 NATIONAL BEVERAGE: Founds Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as James Founds, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NATIONAL BEVERAGE CORP., Case No. GD-25-008559 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for Western District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01337. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that, notwithstanding the ingredient label, National Beverage made fraudulent omissions about brominated vegetable oil contained in its product, Faygo. The Complaint sets forth eight causes of action for: Violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (Count I); Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Count II); Fraudulent Concealment (Count III); Negligent Misrepresentation (Count IV); Unjust Enrichment (Count V); Negligence (Count VI); Negligent Failure to Warn (Count VII); and Strict Product Liability (Count VIII).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David A. Fusco, Esq. Nathan Townsend, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 210 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 355-6500 Email: david.fusco@klgates.com nathan.townsend@klgates.com NATIONAL ELECTRIC WORKS: Quiroz Suit Removed to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Isaac Baez Quiroz, an individual, on behalf of Plaintiff, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. National Electric Works Incorporated. Does 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. 25CU034742C was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on Sept. 3, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02286-WQH-AHG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor. National Electric Works (NEW) -- https://nationalelectricworks.com/ -- is a full service Electrical and Telecommunications solutions provider.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jackland K. Hom, Esq. Jaclyn Joyce, Esq. Jennifer Michelle Gerstenzang, Esq. Rachel N. Newman, Esq. Shani Or Zakay, Esq. ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC 5440 Morehouse Drive, Suite 3600 San Diego, CA 92121 Phone: (619) 255-9047 Email: jackland@zakaylaw.com jaclyn@zakaylaw.com jenny@zakaylaw.com rachel@zakaylaw.com shani@zakaylaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Bradley A. Lebow, Esq. Kevin V. DeSantis, Esq. DUNN DESANTIS WALT & KENDRICK 750 B Street, Suite 2620 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 573-4488 Fax: (619) 255-4868 Email: blebow@ddwklaw.com kdesantis@ddwklaw.com NRA GROUP LLC: Hartoonian Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NRA Group, LLC. The case is styled as Allen Hartoonian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NRA Group, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01652-KMN (M.D. Pa., Sept. 3, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. NRA -- https://nragroup.com/ -- is a full service collection agency that offers a wide range of services in a number of industries.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (615) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Jeremy C. Jackson, Esq. BOWER LAW ASSOCIATES, PLLC 403 South Allen Street, Suite 210 State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 234-2626 Fax: (814) 237-8700 Email: jjackson@bower-law.com OAK-LEYDEN DEVELOPMENTAL: Higgins-Bey Seeks Proper OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE MARIE HIGGINS-BEY, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Oak-Leyden Developmental Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10545 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 3, 2025) alleges that the Defendant did not factor all given incentives into the overtime rate and, therefore, substantially underpaid its workforce when they worked overtime and earned these incentives in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Accordingly, the Defendant gave various incentive compensation to employees to work at its facilities. The law requires that when Defendant's workers received these incentives, the workers' overtime rate should have increased because the additional compensation should have factored into the "regular rate" of pay. The Plaintiff worked as an hourly employee for Defendant at a community living facility in Franklin Park, Illinois. The Defendant is an Illinois Corporation owning and operating at least 12 residential community facilities for residents with intellectual and developmental disabilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Kunze, Esq. Martin Stainthorp, Esq. WORKPLACE LAW PARTNERS, P.C. 155 N. Michigan Ave, Suite 719 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 861-1800 Facsimile: (630) 778-0400 E-mail: docketing@fishlawfirm.com kunze@fishlawfirm.com mstainthorp@fishlawfirm.com OAKWOOD MANAGEMENT: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 6, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARL GREEN, v. OAKWOOD MANAGEMENT CO., Case No. 2:25-cv-00380-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Chelsey M. Vascura entered a preliminary pretrial order as follows: The parties have agreed to make initial disclosures by Sept. 30, 2025. Motions or stipulations addressing the parties or pleadings, if any, must be filed no later than Dec. 31, 2025. A motion for class certification shall be filed by March 6, 2026. All discovery shall be completed by Feb. 6. 2026. The Plaintiff's claims stem from fees the Defendant charged him and others. He brings individual and class claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Ohio law for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, disgorgement, and conversion, and he seeks injunctive and declaratory relief. Oakwood is a property management company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oKiMs9 at no extra charge.[CC] ODESSA, TX: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Water Billing Issues ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kim Smith, writing for OA Online, reports that a $1 million class action breach of contract lawsuit has been filed against the City of Odessa and the manufacturer of the city's water meters over water billing issues. The lawsuit was filed by the Potts Law Firm out of Houston on behalf of four named plaintiffs and "thousands of similar situated aggrieved Odessa residents and businesses" Tuesday, September 2. According to the lawsuit, Odessans "have for years been subjected to inflated water bills due to water meters that do not work properly." The lawsuit further alleges Odessa officials and employees continue to inflate customers' water bills by "refusing to investigate and correct clearly false monthly water usage amounts shown by Master Meter's flawed water meters." In addition, the lawsuit alleges the city is "conveniently" blaming a software error for billing inaccuracies. In addition to seeking damages in excess of $1 million, the attorneys want a judge to order the city to "immediately cease and desist on its back charging efforts until it investigates its metering and billing practices starting in 2022." The attorneys also allege city officials didn't inform Odessans about the meter errors until customers began complaining in July, causing the media to start reporting on it. Odessans Matthew Fuentes, Dillon Smith, Jesus Chavez and L.J. Dutchover are the plaintiffs named in the lawsuit. According to the lawsuit, Fuentes and his wife have been billed for anywhere from 6,000 gallons of water per month up to 30,000 gallons. Smith, who lives alone, is being back billed for allegedly using 137,000 gallons over the course of 10 months. "Smith does not own a swimming pool, his garden is small and he does not even consume tap water," the lawsuit stated. The lawsuit alleges the city is billing Chavez as though he, his wife and two small children use an entire swimming pool's worth of water every month. According to the lawsuit, Dutchover and his family typically use 7,000 gallons of water per month, but the city is demanding payment for roughly double that amount. "Odessa admits that Dutchover's meter is malfunctioning, but insists on his paying the amounts he is told by such malfunctioning equipment," the lawsuit stated. When the city admitted there were software issues in July impacting 1,500 customers, officials unilaterally back charged everyone, the lawsuit stated. "Consumers have no option to pay or lose their water service. Some were subject to autopay agreements and had their money simply swept from their bank accounts, sometimes resulting in negative bank balances," the lawsuit stated. The lawsuit also stated that more than 5,600 customers on auto-pay can see their payments being taken from their bank accounts, but not from the city's website. Although the City of Odessa has a policy of not commenting on pending litigation, Councilman Craig Stoker last month urged the rest of the city council in a letter to freeze water and sewer rate increases "until the billing and collections department can demonstrate that all accounts are being billed accurately and that the city is collecting the full revenue it is due." He stated, "my intent is to ensure fairness and accuracy in the city's billing system before additional financial burdens are placed on the people we serve." The council has been discussing raising utility rates by 1.5%. [GN] OHIO MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Jindra Says -------------------------------------------------------- JAMES JINDRA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. OHIO MEDICAL ALLIANCE LLC d/b/a OHIO MARIJUANA CARD, Case No. 1:25-cv-01837-SO (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 3, 2025) is a class action arises out of the Defendant's failure to adequately secure the personally identifiable information and protected health information of individuals whose information was provided to the Defendant in connection with Defendant's services. On July 14, 2025, cybersecurity researcher Jeremiah Fowler discovered an unencrypted and non-password-protected database containing 957,434 records with a total size of 323 gigabytes. According to the complaint, these records included high-resolution images of driver's licenses or identification documents that contained names, physical addresses, dates of birth, and license numbers; first and last names; intake forms; medical records; release forms; physician certification forms with Social Security numbers; mental health evaluations; diagnoses; and identification documents from multiple states. There was also a comma-separated values (CSV) file that contained internal communications, notes about clients, appointments, status, or personal situations, and an estimated 210,620 email addresses of clients and internal employees or business partners. The records are believed to belong to Defendant Ohio Medical Alliance d/b/a Ohio Marijuana Card. Fowler immediately informed Defendant upon discovering the database, but it is unknown how long the records were exposed prior to Fowler's discovery. In the course of providing the services, the Defendant received PII and PHI from numerous individuals, including Plaintiff. In turn, Defendant came into the possession of, and maintains extensive files containing PII and PHI of these individuals, and owes these individuals an affirmative duty to adequately protect and safeguard this private information against theft and misuse, says the suit. The Defendant provides telehealth and in-person services to patients seeking medical evaluations for state medical marijuana cards in Ohio, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Virginia, and West Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terence R. Coates, Esq. Dylan J. Gould, Esq. Spencer D. Campbell, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com dgould@msdlegal.com scampbell@msdlegal.com - and - Amber L. Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union St, Ste 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 E-mail: aschubert@sjk.law PETSMART LLC: Benefiel Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Emma Benefiel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PETSMART LLC, a foreign limited liability company; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 25-2-22212-8 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Sept. 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01691. The Plaintiff seeks to represent "all current and former employees of PetSmart LLC who worked in Washington and earned less than twice the applicable state minimum hourly wage from July 1, 2022, through the date of certification of the Class."[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: Andrew E. Moriarty, Esq. Kevin J. Hamilton, Esq. Heather Shook, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 4200 Seattle, WA 98101-3804 Phone: +1.206.359.8000 Facsimile: +1.206.359.9000 Email: KHamilton@perkinscoie.com AMoriarty@perkinscoie.com HShook@perkinscoie.com PF CALI: Strandholt Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOEL STRANDHOLT and FRANK LAWSON, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. PF CALI PAYROLL, LLC; PF SUPREME, LLC d.b.a. PLANET FITNESS; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 8:24-cv-01256-CV-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, at 1:30 p.m. on Oct. 10, 2025, before the Honorable Cynthia Valenzuela, will move the Court for orders: 1. Certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. 2. Certifying the following Class and Subclasses: a. The Class: "All current and former hourly non-exempt employees employed by the Defendants at fitness centers in California from Aug. 17, 2018, to the date of class Certification i. Rounding Subclass: "Class Members who worked at least one shift between Aug. 17, 2018 to Jan. 31, 2023." ii. Unpaid Minimum Wage Subclass: "Class Members who worked at least one shift during the Covered Period." iii. Unpaid Overtime Subclass: "Class Members who worked at least one shift in excess of eight (8) hours and/or during a workweek wherein they worked in excess of 40 hours during the Covered Period." iv. Unpaid Meal Break Premium Subclass: "Class Members who worked at least one shift greater than five (5) hours in length during the Covered Period." v. Unpaid Rest Break Premium Subclass: "Class Members who worked at least one shift of 3.5 hours or more during the Covered Period." vi. Failure to Reimburse Subclass: "Class Members who worked at least one shift during the Covered Period." vii. Wage Statement Violation Subclass: "Class Members who were provided a wage statement by Defendants during the Covered Period." viii. Waiting Time Subclass: "Class Members whose employment with the Defendants in California ended during the Covered Period." 3. Certifying the Plaintiffs as the class representatives. 4. Certifying the Plaintiffs' counsel, namely Joseph Lavi, Vincent C. Granberry, Jeffrey D. Klein, and Cassandra A. Castro of Lavi & Ebrahimian, LLP, and Michael Nourmand and James De Sario of The Nourmand Law Firm, APC, as class Counsel. PF is a payroll service provider. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S6j3T0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. Cassandra A. Castro, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com jklein@lelawfirm.com ccastro@lelawfirm.com - and - Michael Nourmand, Esq. James A. De Sario, Esq. THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC 8822 West Olympic Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 553-3600 Facsimile: (310) 553-3603 E-mail: mnourmand@nourmandlawfirm.com jdesario@nourmandlawfirm.com PRIME HYDRATION: Court Narrows Claims in Kennedy Consumer Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Turkoise Kennedy, et al., Plaintiffs v. Prime Hydration, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00476-GNS (W.D. Ky.), Judge Greg N. Stivers of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Fifth, Sixth, Eleventh Affirmative Defenses. The Court struck six of Defendant's affirmative defenses as improperly pleaded, finding they were actually negative defenses rather than true affirmative defenses. The ruling allows the consumer protection lawsuit to proceed on a stronger footing while clarifying proper pleading standards. Plaintiffs Turkoise Kennedy and Jamal Harper, representing themselves, their minor children, and all similarly situated parties, sued Prime Hydration, LLC, and Congo Brands, LLC. The lawsuit asserts various consumer protection and tort claims under California and Kentucky law related to the energy drink, Prime Energy, being marketed and branded similarly to a non-energy drink, Prime Hydration. The Court previously permitted Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint adding additional claims, but denied the addition of unjust enrichment because Plaintiffs failed to properly state a claim. The case proceeded under the Class Action Fairness Act jurisdiction. Plaintiffs moved to strike various affirmative defenses raised by Defendants in their Answer. The contested defenses included arguments that the California Unfair Competition Law claim failed because Plaintiffs did not show legal remedies are inadequate to correct past harms ("First Affirmative Defense");,the Kentucky Consumer Practices Act claim failed since Plaintiffs did not purchase Prime Energy from Defendants directly, and various arguments about class certification, materiality, damages, and causation. Defendants withdrew their third, fourth, and fifteenth defenses during the proceedings. Plaintiffs also withdrew their arguments against certain standing-related defenses. The Court explained that an affirmative defense is a defense that asserts that even if the plaintiff proves every allegation within his complaint, his claims would still fail as a matter of law. In contrast, a negative defense is a defense that demonstrates that a plaintiff has not met his burden of proof. The Sixth Circuit requires that an affirmative defense must only be "pleaded in general terms and will be held to be sufficient as long as it gives plaintiff fair notice of the nature of the defense." However, a defense is insufficient if, as a matter of law, the defense cannot succeed under any circumstances. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), "the court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." The Court noted that motions to strike are viewed with disfavor and are not frequently granted and that striking an affirmative defense is a drastic remedy to be resorted to only when required for the purposes of justice. The Court determined that many of Defendants' arguments that Plaintiffs seek to strike are actually negative defenses rather than affirmative defenses. Specifically, the First, Second, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Affirmative Defenses were negative defenses because Defendants are arguing Plaintiffs failed to allege the proper elements needed to state a claim or seek relief. The Court found these defenses were incorrectly raised as affirmative defenses and therefore struck them. However, the Court clarified that Defendants may raise these same arguments during a later phase of the litigation. The Court ordered that Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses is granted in part and denied in part. The motion was granted as to the First Affirmative Defense, Second Affirmative Defense, Third Affirmative Defense, Fourth Affirmative Defense, Seventh Affirmative Defense, Eighth Affirmative Defense, Ninth Affirmative Defense, Tenth Affirmative Defense, and Fifteenth Affirmative Defense. Because Plaintiffs withdrew their arguments, the motion was denied as to the Fifth Affirmative Defense, Sixth Affirmative Defense, and Eleventh Affirmative Defense. These affirmative defenses were permitted to proceed. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iSy8E0from PacerMonitor.com. PROCAPS LABORATORIES: Jackson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ SYLINIA JACKSON, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. PROCAPS LABORATORIES, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-07339 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 4, 2025) alleges that Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.procapslabs.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. Because Defendant's interactive website, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services -- all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals -- thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the suit. The Defendant offers the commercial website, https://www.procapslabs.com/, to the public. The Website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services offered by Defendant and which Defendant ensures delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal QUANTUM CORP: Faces Lee Class Action Suit Over Stock Price Drop --------------------------------------------------------------- SEUNG LEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. QUANTUM CORPORATION, JAMES J. LERNER, KENNETH P. GIANELLA, and LAURA NASH, Case No. 1:25-cv-02770-CYC (D. Colo., Sept. 4, 2025) is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Quantum Corporation securities between Nov. 15, 2024, and Aug. 18, 2025, inclusive. On November 14, 2024, Quantum Corporation filed with the SEC its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2024. The statement in paragraph 18 was materially false and misleading at the time it was made because, due to the Company's improper revenue recognition practices, the condensed consolidated financial statements included in the 2Q24 Report did not fairly represent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows of the Company. On June 30, 2025, after the market closed, Quantum Corporation filed with the SEC a Notification of Late Filing on Form 12b-25, announcing that it would be postponing the filing of its Annual Report because it was in the process of reviewing its revenue recognition accounting practices. On this news, the price of Quantum Corporation stock fell $1.00 per share to close at $8.97 on July 1, 2025. Then, on August 8, 2025, after the market closed, the Company filed with the SEC a current report on Form 8-K which announced, among other things, that the Company's 3Q24 financials could not be relied upon and would be restated to show a new decrease of approximately $3.9 million in revenue, and that there were deficiencies in the Company's internal control over financial reporting and the Company's disclosure controls and procedures that constituted material weaknesses as of December 31, 2024 and March 31, 2025. On this news, the price of Quantum Corporation stock fell by $0.14 per share to close at $7.43 on August 11, 2025. 31. Finally, on August 18, 2025, after the market closed, the Company filed with the SEC a current report on Form 8-K. Amidst the fallout from the Company's financial restatement, the August 18 8-K disclosed, among other things, that the Company's CFO, Lewis W. Moorehead, would be resigning from his role -- after holding it for less than five months. On this news, the price of Quantum Corporation stock fell by $0.61 per share to close at $6.83 on August 19, 2025. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common shares, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff purchased Quantum Corporation securities during the Class Period and was economically damaged thereby. Quantum is a technology company focused on data management solutions. It creates products including primary storage software and systems, secondary storage software and systems, and devices and media. The Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: philkim@rosenlegal.com REDFIN CORPORATION: Esparza Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Miguel Esparza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REDFIN CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation d/b/a WWW.REDFIN.COM, Case No. 25STCV22418 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Sept. 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-08339. On July 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed the State Court Action alleging a single claim for violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Pen. Code Sections 630, et seq. On behalf of a putative class of Redfin.com users in California, Plaintiff alleges that Redfin violated section 638.51 of CIPA by installing software created by TikTok on Redfin's website that collects certain information from visitors to Redfin.com, such that it is a prohibited "trap and trace" device.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Rachel E. K. Lowe, Esq. Gillian H. Clow, Esq. Omar Morquecho, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 51st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-576-1000 Facsimile: 213-576-1100 Email: rachel.lowe@alston.com gillian.clow@alston.com omar.morquecho@alston.com REPUBLIC SERVICES: Bid for Class Cert Hearing Tossed in CIS Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CIS Communications, L.L.C. et al., v. Republic Services, Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-00359-JAR (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge John Ross entered an order denying the Defendants' request for a hearing on pending motions for class certification and to exclude Plaintiffs' damages expert. On Aug. 27, 2025, the Court convened a telephone conference with counsel for the parties to discuss Defendants' request for a hearing on the Plaintiffs' motions for class certification and the Defendants' motions to exclude Plaintiffs' damages expert. Upon consideration of the parties' respective positions and reasons, the Court finds that a hearing is unnecessary. The issues are clearly and thoroughly briefed, and the Court has a full understanding of the matters to be resolved. As such, the Court declines to set a hearing on the pending motions. Republic provides non-hazardous solid waste collection, transfer, and disposal services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zSSuUa at no extra charge.[CC] REPUBLIC SERVICES: Bid for Class Cert Hearing Tossed in Pietoso --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PIETOSO, INC., et al., v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC. et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-00397-JAR (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge John Ross entered an order denying the Defendants' request for a hearing on pending motions for class certification and to exclude Plaintiffs' damages expert. On Aug. 27, 2025, the Court convened a telephone conference with counsel for the parties to discuss Defendants' request for a hearing on the Plaintiffs' motions for class certification and the Defendants' motions to exclude Plaintiffs' damages expert. Upon consideration of the parties' respective positions and reasons, the Court finds that a hearing is unnecessary. The issues are clearly and thoroughly briefed, and the Court has a full understanding of the matters to be resolved. As such, the Court declines to set a hearing on the pending motions. Republic provides non-hazardous solid waste collection, transfer, and disposal services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZBCdEu at no extra charge.[CC] S.D.V.P. MANAGEMENT: Ramos Files Suit in S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against S.D.V.P. Management, Inc. The case is styled as Florencio Ramos, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. S.D.V.P. Management, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-02280-TWR-VET (S.D. Cal., Sept. 3, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. SVDP Management, Inc. (SVDP), develops, maintains and leases property, receives and sells donated automobile.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura Grace Van Note, Esq. Scott Edward Cole, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: (510) 891-9800 Email: lvn@colevannote.com sec@colevannote.com SABATER USA INC: Bribiesca Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sabater USA, Inc. The case is styled as Isidro Bribiesca, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Sabater USA, Inc., Case No. 25STCV25882 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 3, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Sabater USA, Inc. -- https://sabaterglobal.com/eu-en/ -- offer spices, custom blends as well as botanical powders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010-2003 Phone: 213-761-5484 Fax: 818-561-3938 Email: nazo@koullaw.com SELLAN STRUCTURAL: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert. --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Conejo, et al., v. Sellan Structural Erectors, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-02930 (D. Colo., Filed Nov. 6, 2023), the Hon. Judge S. Kato Crews entered an order granting unopposed motion for extension of time to file the Defendants' response to the Plaintiffs' motion for Rule 23 class certification. The Defendants are granted an extension of up to and including Sept. 8, 2025, to respond to motion to certify class. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Sellan provides structural erecting services.[CC] SIXT RENT A CAR: Nova Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sixt Rent A Car, LLC. The case is styled as Francisco Nova, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Sixt Rent A Car, LLC, Case No. 25STCV25897 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 3, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Sixt Rent A Car -- https://www.sixt.com/ -- was founded in 1912 making it the first rent a car in Europe and is the Oldest car rental company today.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com SPORT SQUAD: Agrees to Settle Paddles' False Ads Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that Sport Squad, Inc., which does business as JOOLA, has agreed to settle two class action lawsuits that claimed the pickleball paddle manufacturer falsely advertised that its Gen3 line of paddles was approved by the USA Pickleball Association. The JOOLA class action settlement covers a class of more than 17,000 United States residents who own and have in their possession a Gen3 paddle, including the following models: -- Tyson McGuffin Magnus 3 14mm; -- Tyson McGuffin Magnus 3 16mm; -- Collin Johns Scorpeus 3 16mm; -- Anna Bright Scorpeus 3 14mm; -- Simone Jardim Hyperion 3 16mm; -- Ben Johns Hyperion 3 16mm; -- Ben Johns Hyperion 3 14mm; -- Ben Johns Perseus 3 14mm; and -- Ben Johns Perseus 3 16mm. The settlement agreement notes that consumers who accepted JOOLA’s prior offer to return their products are not included in the Gen3 paddle settlement unless they have remaining products that have not been returned. As part of the deal, class members who submit a timely, valid claim form and return their Gen3 paddle or paddles -- which, according to court documents, retail for between $235 and $279.95 -- will be eligible to receive benefits from the JOOLA settlement, the agreement shares. Consumers who provide proof of purchase from an authorized retailer will receive a $300 refund, while those who do not include this documentation are entitled to a one-time $150 gift code for use on JOOLA.com, the settlement agreement relays. Per the agreement, JOOLA settlement claim forms can be filed by mail or online through the court-approved website once it is established. The deadline to submit a claim form is December 15, 2025. ClassAction.org will update this page when the official JOOLA settlement website is launched. The agreement says that class members with more than one qualifying paddle should complete and submit a separate claim form for each product. According to the settlement agreement, JOOLA will provide each class member who has filed an approved claim a prepaid FedEx shipping label and unique claimant identifier code, as well as notice of the deadline by which all paddles must be given to FedEx in order to be considered for a refund. The document states that there is no requirement regarding the condition of returned paddles and notes that envelopes may not contain more than one item. The court granted preliminary approval to the deal on August 19, 2025 after receiving a report and recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Panayotta Augustin-Birch. Next, the court will determine whether to grant final approval to the terms of the settlement at a hearing set for January 27, 2026. The settlement agreement shares that, should the deal be ultimately approved, payments and gift codes will be issued to eligible class members within 30 days following the date it goes into effect. [GN] STAKE CENTER: Holtsclaw Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN HOLTSCLAW, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. STAKE CENTER LOCATING, LLC, a Utah limited liability company, Case No. 1:24-cv-00490-RMR-SBP (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion to extend his deadline to file for class certification to Sept. 23, 2025. On the afternoon of Aug. 22, 2025, Defendant supplemented its document production. The document production was a voluminous data dump containing six Excel spreadsheet files consisting of a total of 21,199 lines. Given the very short turn around between Aug. 22, 2025, and Sept. 2, 2025, the Plaintiff has not been able to adequately review and properly analyze the voluminous data production dump to prepare his motion for class certification. Moreover, the Plaintiff's primary counsel has had numerous other briefing deadlines since Aug. 22, 2025. The Plaintiff's counsel has conferred with the Defendant's counsel regarding this request and Defendant—despite the late production of the enormous amount of data a mere 11 days (only 6 full weekdays) before the Plaintiff's motion for class certification deadline -- is opposed. On July 31, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for leave to file his first amended complaint. Stake is engaged in high-risk infrastructure and fiber optic network locating. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h2786r at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com - and - Brian D. Gonzales, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC 2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201 Fort Collins, CO 80528 Telephone: (970) 214-0562 E-mail: bgonzales@coloradowagelaw.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com STEVEN RAGA: Kulis Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Magdalena Kulis, Shahar Kenan, both doing business as: Miss Immigrant USA, individually, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Steven Raga, in his individual and official capacity as New York State Assembly Member, John Doe's, XYZ Organization(s) 1-10, Case No. 1:25-cv-06821 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Sept. 3, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-04893-PK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights Act. Steven Raga is an American politician and academic serving as a member of the New York State Assembly for the 30th district.[BN] The Plaintiffs appears pro se. SUTHERLAND GLOBAL: Lee Suit Certified as FLSA Collective Action --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Darnell Lee, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sutherland Global Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 6:23-cv-06549-EAW-CDH (W.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Colleen D. Holland of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff brings this putative collective action asserting that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay him and other non-exempt employees their full overtime premiums. The Defendant is a nationwide employer that provides business process and technology management services. The Defendant employs hourly employees who generally assist patrons with phone-based troubleshooting for Sutherland clients' products or services. The Plaintiff and the putative collective are current and former non-exempt hourly employees who worked for the Defendant for at least a portion of time following December 11, 2021. On December 11, 2021, the Defendant's timekeeping and payroll system, Kronos, suffered a disruption in service due to a ransomware attack. The Kronos outage caused a temporary loss of time and pay data, and the Defendant was unable to use Kronos to track hours and pay employees. The Kronos outage fell in the middle of the Defendant's two-week pay period, and the Defendant lost access to employees' time data that had been entered from December 5, 2021 through December 11, 2021. The Plaintiff alleges that in response to the Kronos outage, the Defendant used various methods to estimate the number of hours hourly employees worked in each pay period. Specifically, the Plaintiff claims that at the beginning of the Kronos outage, Sutherland told us we would be paid for the highest number of hours that we had worked in a pay period over the four prior pay periods, even if we worked more hours than that amount. The Defendant utilized this system until December 18, 2021, at which time the Plaintiff says the Defendant informed employees they would have to manually clock in and out using an alternative timesheet. According to the Plaintiff, this manual timekeeping system was also inaccurate, and the Defendant told us that timekeeping errors occurred. The Defendant's Kronos system was not restored until on or after January 30, 2022. According to the Defendant, the Kronos system was restored, and Sutherland resumed its standard timekeeping and payroll practices, effective January 31, 2022. The Court applied the two-step method endorsed by the Second Circuit for determining whether a case should proceed as a collective action under FLSA. At the first stage, typically referred to as conditional certification, the plaintiff must only make a modest factual showing that they and potential opt-in plaintiffs together were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law. The purpose of this first stage is merely to determine whether similarly situated plaintiffs do in fact exist. The Court rejected the Defendant's argument to adopt the Sixth Circuit's more stringent strong likelihood standard from Clark v. A&L Homecare & Training Ctr., LLC. The Court stated that the Second Circuit in Myers recognized the two-step method as sensible, and has twice since characterized Myers as having endorsed the two-step method. The Court concluded that its endorsement of the approach suggests, at the very least, that the Court should not depart from it absent a compelling reason. Because this action had been pending for over 15 months when the Plaintiff moved for conditional certification and some discovery had been taken, the Court applied the modest plus standard, with an understanding that the body of evidence is necessarily incomplete. The Court granted conditional certification but only for a limited time period. The Court found that the Plaintiff's allegations encompass two distinct timekeeping policies. The Defendant implemented the first policy immediately at the start of the Kronos outage. For a single two-week period from December 5, 2021 through December 18, 2021, the Defendant calculated its employees' hours based on the highest number of hours they worked during the four previous pay periods. However, after December 18, 2021, the Defendant implemented a new policy, requiring its employees to manually input their time on a substitute timekeeping system, SmartSheets. The Court concluded that the Plaintiff has shown that there could be similarly situated employees with respect to the first policy. It is essentially undisputed that, immediately following the Kronos outage, the Defendant adopted a uniform practice whereby it calculated its non-exempt employees' hours, and concomitantly, their pay, without reference to their actual hours worked. It is also apparent what feature of the policy binds the Plaintiff and the putative collective together as victims of the alleged FLSA violation, namely, the use of estimated hours to determine their pay. However, the Court found that the same cannot be said of the second policy. In his complaint, the Plaintiff does not reference either SmartSheets or a manual timekeeping system generically, and only states that the Defendant used various methods to estimate the number of hours employees worked. In his declaration, the Plaintiff mentions a manual timekeeping system, but only makes vague allegations that it was inaccurate. The Court determined that this sort of unsupported, conclusory assertion does not satisfy the standard for conditional certification. Therefore, the Court conditionally certified a collective only for the period from December 5, 2021 to December 18, 2021. The Defendant argued that approximately 1,463 (approximately 41%) of the 3,594 non-exempt employees who worked during the Kronos outage executed mandatory arbitration agreements that waive their right to bring or participate in a collective action. The Plaintiff did not execute an arbitration agreement. The Court followed the approach of excluding employees who signed arbitration agreements from receiving notice. The Court agreed that it would be a disservice to judicial efficiency to certify a collective encompassing employees who signed arbitration agreements, when those employees will be subject to additional, prolonging motion practice which will likely disqualify them from the collective. The Court found that deferring consideration of the relevance of facially enforceable arbitration agreements, particularly when they would impact a significant number of potential opt-in plaintiffs, would be inconsistent with the Court's managerial responsibility under section 216(b) to oversee the joinder of additional parties to assure that the task is accomplished in an efficient and proper way. The Defendant argued that approximately 339 non-exempt employees who worked during the Kronos outage cashed settlement checks from another collective action, Roper v. Sutherland Global Services, Inc., and thereby released their FLSA claims against the Defendant. The Court followed the uniform view in the Second Circuit that considering the release of FLSA claims through a prior settlement is not appropriate at the conditional certification stage. The Court distinguished the Roper settlement from the arbitration agreements, noting that addressing the eligibility of opt-in plaintiffs who released their claims through the Roper settlement is unlikely to require an especially intensive examination of individualized circumstances. The Court determined that the Roper settlement does not raise the same efficiency concerns as the arbitration agreements. Therefore, the Court did not exclude employees who have cashed settlement checks from Roper from receiving notice. The Defendant also argued that the Plaintiff is not similarly situated to the members of the putative collective because their claims will fall outside the statute of limitations by the time they opt in to the lawsuit. Since the willfulness of the Defendant's alleged FLSA violation is in dispute, the Court followed the general approach in this Circuit and applied a three-year notice period. The Court noted that the parties executed a tolling agreement on October 23, 2023, under which they agreed to toll the statute of limitations for each opt-in plaintiff by 35 days. The tolling agreement would thereby extend the cutoff date for opt-in plaintiffs' claims to January 27, 2022. Because the Plaintiff moved for conditional certification on January 10, 2025, before the potential opt-in plaintiffs' claims became time-barred under the three-year limitations period, there is still a possibility that an opt-in plaintiff's claim could be revived through equitable tolling. The Court found that given these circumstances, potential opt-in plaintiffs may have viable equitable tolling arguments in this case, and the statute of limitations should not impact the temporal scope of notice. The Court authorized distribution of notice by email but denied the Plaintiff's requests for text message distribution and website hosting. The Court found that the Plaintiff had not made any showing that there was a high turnover rate among the Defendant's employees to justify text message distribution. Regarding the proposed website, the Court found that the Plaintiff's description of the proposed website was too cursory and unclear to permit its use at this time. The Court ordered the Defendant to produce the requested contact information within 10 days of the Court's order approving the final notice. The contact information shall be limited to those employees who worked during the December 5, 2021 to December 18, 2021 pay period, for which the Court granted conditional certification, and shall not include employees who executed arbitration agreements. The Court directed the parties to meet and confer for the purpose of drafting a revised proposed notice and consent form within 21 days of entry of this Decision and Order. The Court established a 60-day opt-in period from the dissemination of notice and consent forms and permitted the Plaintiff's counsel or the third-party administrator to send identical copies of the notice and consent form 30 days after their initial dissemination as reminder notices. The Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification in part and denied it in part. The conditional certification is limited to the period from December 5, 2021 to December 18, 2021, and excludes employees who executed arbitration agreements. The Court's ruling demonstrates the importance of providing specific, non-conclusory allegations when seeking collective action certification under the FLSA, particularly when multiple timekeeping policies are at issue. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ovIUO1 from PacerMonitor.com. TMX FINANCE: Settlement in Kolstedt Data Breach Suit Has Final OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Savannah Kolstedt, et al., Plaintiffs v. TMX Finance Corporate Services, Inc.; TMX Finance LLC d/b/a "TitleMax" d/b/a "TitleBucks" d/b/a "InstaLoan," Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00076-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga.), Chief Judge R. Stan Baker of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia grants final approval of a class action settlement resolving claims related to a data breach affecting personal information. The Court determined that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate, is in the best interests of the Settlement Class, and is therefore approved. The settlement followed extensive arm's length negotiations between the parties after preliminary approval was granted on March 25, 2025. The Court certified for settlement purposes a class defined as All residents of the United States whose Personal Information was accessed, stolen, impacted, or compromised as a result of the Data Breach as identified in the Class List. The settlement class excludes TMX entities, their controlling interests, officers, directors, judicial personnel, and individuals who opted out of the settlement. The Court appointed fourteen individuals as Settlement Class Representatives: Makecia Berry, Sheneequa Carrington, Antonio DeJesus, Tommy Domino, Patsy Eslinger, Evelyn Francis, Dewayne Jackson, Von King, Melvin Nicholas, Jodie Petty, LaPetra Robinson, Edwin Scheide, Joseph Trottier, and Francis Ann Washington. The Court concluded these representatives have fairly and adequately represented the Settlement Class and will continue to do so. MaryBeth V. Gibson of Gibson Consumer Law Group, LLC; Kelly K. Iverson of Lynch Carpenter, LLP; and Amy Keller of DiCello Levitt LLP were appointed as Class Counsel. The Court found that Class Counsel have adequately represented the Settlement Class and will continue to do so. The Court awarded Class Counsel $5,750,000 as attorneys' fees and costs and expenses, finding this amount of fees, costs, and expenses to be fair and reasonable. The settlement provides relief to class members who submit valid claim forms pursuant to the settlement terms and conditions. For Settlement Class Representatives whose debt is reduced to zero dollars pursuant to Section 5.3 of the Settlement, additional releases apply beyond the standard class member releases. The Court found the Notice Plan was the best notice practicable under the circumstances, was reasonably calculated to provide and did provide due and sufficient notice to the Settlement Class Members. The notice informed class members of the pendency of the Action, certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only, the existence and terms of the Settlement, their right to exclude themselves, their right to object to the Settlement and to appear at the final approval hearing. Significantly, No objections were submitted by Settlement Class Members. All persons who did not object in the prescribed manner are deemed to have waived any objections to the Settlement, including but not limited to by appeal, collateral attack, or otherwise. A list of individuals who validly opted out of the settlement was submitted to the Court and attached as Exhibit A to the order. These opt-out members are not bound by the Settlement or this Final Approval Order and Judgment and are not entitled to any of the benefits under the Settlement. Opt-Out Members listed in Exhibit A shall be deemed not to be Releasing Parties. The settlement includes broad releases covering any and all claims related to the data breach. Released Claims encompass any and all common law, equitable, and statutory claims arising under the laws of any jurisdiction, including those arising under state and/or federal laws of the United States. The releases specifically include claims under various legal theories such as unjust enrichment, negligence, bailment, conversion, negligence per se, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, misrepresentation (whether fraudulent, negligent, or innocent), fraudulent concealment or nondisclosure, invasion of privacy, public disclosure of private facts, and misappropriation of likeness and identity. The Court noted that Unknown Claims were separately bargained for and was a key element of the Settlement Agreement. Settlement Class Members waived rights under statutes similar to California Civil Code Section 1542, which typically protects against releasing unknown claims. The Court dismisses all claims against TMX in the Action, including in the Consolidated Complaint, on the merits and with prejudice, without fees or costs to any Party except as provided in this Final Approval Order and Judgment. The settlement 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 involving Settlement Class Members who did not opt out. The Court retained exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter and the Parties with respect to the interpretation and implementation of the Settlement for all purposes, including enforcement of its terms at the request of any party. The final approval hearing was held on August 12, 2025, with the final order entered on September 2, 2025. The Court granted the pending motions, dismissed the action with prejudice, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1socCVfrom PacerMonitor.com. TRANSUNION LLC: Faces Perkins Suit Over Unauthorized Access of Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT PERKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSUNION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10444 (N.D. Ill., September 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach that began on July 28, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. TransUnion, LLC is a global credit reporting agency, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com TRANSUNION LLC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Meyer Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA MEYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRANSUNION, LLC, Case No. : 1:25-cv-10527 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 3, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information including names, Social Security numbers, addresses, and dates of birth that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed on Aug. 26, 2025. The Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. On July 30, 2025, the Defendant became aware of unauthorized activity on its IT Network. In response, the Defendant engaged third-party forensic specialists to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. The Defendant's investigation confirmed an unauthorized individual accessed data within its IT Network. The Defendant then began a review of the impacted portions of its IT Network to determine the types of information impacted, and to whom the information related. On Aug. 26, 2025, Defendant made a public disclosure about the Data Breach, and began sending out notice letters to individuals impacted. The Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure, asserts the suit. The Defendant is a major consumer credit reporting agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. Shamis & Gentile, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 475-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com lloginov@shamisgentile.com TRIPLE CANOPY: Williams Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY WILLIAMS et al., v. TRIPLE CANOPY, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01633-RBW (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting consent motion to enlarge time for filing motion for class certification. Triple is an American private security company and private military company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lzLwHS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott Kamins, Esq. OFFIT KURMAN P.A. 7021 Columbia Gateway Dr., Suite 200 Columbia, MD 21046 Telephone: (301) 575-0347 E-mail: skamins@offitkurman.com - and - Sarah R. Goodman, Esq. OFFIT KURMAN P.A. 1801 Market St., Suite 2300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 338-1319 E-mail: sarah.goodman@offitkurman.com TRONOX HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Material Info --------------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Tronox Holdings plc ("Tronox" or the "Company") (NYSE: TROX). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse information, including allegations that Tronox created the false impression that it possessed reliable information pertaining to the Company’s projected revenue outlook and anticipated growth while also minimizing risk from seasonality and macroeconomic fluctuations. If you purchased shares of Tronox between February 12, 2025 and July 30, 2025, and experienced a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832, or by visiting the firm’s website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/tronox/ for more information. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is November 3, 2025. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. Tel: (888) 508-6832 cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] TRONOX HOLDINGS: Faces Keller Suit Over Common Stock Price Drop --------------------------------------------------------------- MAXWELL KELLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRONOX HOLDINGS PLC, JOHN D. ROMANO, and D. JOHN SRIVISAL, Case No. 3:25-cv-01441 (D. Conn., Sept. 3, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Tronox common stock between February 12, 2025, to July 30, 2025, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws. The Defendants provided investors with material information concerning Tronox's overall expected growth and strength in the Company's pigment and zircon commercial division. The Defendants' statements included, among other things, confidence in Tronox's ability to achieve its fiscal 2025 revenue growth projections on back of its ability to both appropriately forecast and execute upon the alleged demand for its TiO2 and zircon products. The Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Tronox's ability to forecast the demand for its pigment and zircon products or otherwise the true state of its commercial division, despite making lofty long-term projections, Tronox's forecasting processes fell short as sales continued to decline and costs increased, ultimately, derailing the Company's revenue projections. Such statements absent these material facts caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Tronox's securities at artificially inflated prices, alleges the suit. On July 30, 2025, Tronox announced its financial results for the second quarter of fiscal 2025, revealing a significant reduction in TiO2 sales for the quarter. The Company attributed the decline to "softer than anticipated coatings season and heightened competitive dynamics." As a result of the setback in sales, the Defendants revised the Company's 2025 financial outlook lowering its full-year revenue guidance and reducing its dividend by 60%. Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Tronox's revelation. The price of Tronox's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $5.14 per share on July 30, 2025, Trox's stock price fell to $3.19 per share on July 31, 2025, a decline of about 38% in the span of just a single day, the suit further asserts. The Plaintiff purchased Tronox common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the Defendants' fraud. Tronox operates titanium-bearing mineral sand mines and processes them to produce titanium dioxide products. The Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1111 Summer Street, Suite 403 Stamford, Connecticut 06905 Telephone: (203) 992-4523 Facsimile: (212) 363-7500 E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com aapton@zlk.com TTI OUTDOOR: Sells Defective Pressure Washers, Angelini Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- KEN ANGELINI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TTI OUTDOOR POWER EQUIPMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-02280 (C.D. Cal., September 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, breach of implied warranty, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's manufacture, importation, distribution, and sale of defective electric pressure washers. According to the complaint, the pressure washer's capacitor can overheat and burst, causing parts to be forcefully ejected, posing a risk of serious injury from impact to the user or bystanders. The Defendant recalled its electric pressure washers and instructed consumers to immediately stop using them. However, the Defendant refused to provide refunds for the products. As a result of the Defendant's action, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered damages, says the suit. TTI Outdoor Power Equipment, Inc. is a manufacturer of consumer equipment with a principal place of business in Anderson, South Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 28 Geary Street, Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 839-7000 Email: yeremey@skclassactions.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor, Ste. 1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 377-7404 Email: joel@skclassactions.com TUNGSTEN AUTOMATION: Clarke Sues Over Compromised Customers' Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL CLARKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TUNGSTEN AUTOMATION CORPORATION F/K/A KOFAX, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-01955 (C.D. Cal., September 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, violation of California Unfair Competition Law, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach in or around May 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Tungsten Automation Corporation, formerly known as Kofax, Inc., is an intelligent automation software provider, headquartered in Irvine, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew G. Gunem, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 2261 Market St., Suite 22946 San Francisco, CA 94114 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: agunem@straussborrelli.com UHS OF LAKESIDE: Levine Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- WHITNEY M. LEVINE Individually, and on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated current and former employees v. UHS OF LAKESIDE, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-02844 (W.D. Tenn., Sept. 3, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages owed to Plaintiff and others similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated for all hours worked over 80 within bi-weekly pay periods at one and one-half times their regular hourly rates of pay. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid mental health tech. She brings this action on behalf of herself and the following similarly situated persons: "All current and former hourly-paid mental health techs of Defendant who have performed work for Defendant anywhere in the United States during the applicable limitation’s period (i.e. two years for FLSA violations and three years for willful FLSA violations) up to and including the date of final judgment in this matter including the Named Plaintiff and those who elect to opt-in to this action pursuant to the FLSA." The Defendant provides inpatient and outpatient mental health services in West Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT Attorneys at Law 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com UNITED BANK: Davis Suit Seeks Class Settlement Prelim. Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUTH DAVIS and JIM OGLETREE, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, v. UNITED BANK CORPORATION RETIREMENT PLAN COMMITTEE, JENNIFER W. EAVENSON, JAMES J. EDWARDS, JR., J. JOSEPH EDWARDS, SR., ALLIE E. ARMISTEAD, CHRISTOPHER C. EDWARDS, JOHN W EDWARDS, JR., LAURIE E. FISHER, C. THOMAS HOPKINS, JR., STEVE C. KEADLE, DOUGLAS J. TUTTLE, AND FORREST A. WATSON, JR., UNITED BANK CORPORATION, UNITED BANK, JOHN DOES 1-10, and JANE ROES 1-10, and THE UNITED BANK EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN, Case No. 5:24-cv-00328-MTT (M.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting unopposed motion for extension of stay and to file motions for preliminary approval of settlement and class certification: The Plaintiffs request an extension of the stay and until Sept. 19, 2025, to file (1) the motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement; (2) the motion for class certification, and (3) other associated documents. On June 13, 2025, the Parties notified the Court of a Settlement Agreement in Principle to resolve the above-reference case. In order to conform their motions to the finalized settlement agreement, and to prepare their motions for class certification and for preliminary approval, the Plaintiffs request an extension of the stay to file their motions to effectuate the class action settlement. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8t7eHT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roy E. Barnes, Esq. J. Cameron Tribble, Esq. BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC 31 Atlanta Street Marietta, GA 30060 Telephone: (770) 227-6375 Facsimile: (770) 227-6373 E-mail: roy@barneslawgroup.com ctribble@barneslawgroup.com - and - R. Joseph Barton, Esq. THE BARTON FIRM, LLP 1633 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20009 E-mail: jbarton@thebartonfirm.com UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 1, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA BEACH, on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor daughter and all others similarly situated, et al., v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Case No. 3:21-cv-08612-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order regarding class certification briefing schedule and discovery deadlines: 1. The deadline for the Plaintiffs' class certification expert disclosure and report is July 2, 2026; 2. The deadline for the Defendant's class certification expert disclosure and report is Aug. 6, 2026; 3. The deadline to complete class certification discovery is Sept. 3, 2026; 4. The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file a Motion for Class Certification is October 1, 2026; 5. The deadline for the Defendant to file an opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is Nov. 5, 2026; 6. The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file a reply to a Motion for Class Certification is Nov. 25, 2026; and 7. The hearing for the Motion for Class Certification shall be set for Dec. 17, 2026. Entering the parties' proposed schedule will not affect any other deadlines. United is a provider of mental and behavioral health services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OXKioA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Caroline E. Reynolds, Esq. D. Brian Hufford, Esq. Jason S. Cowart, Esq. M. Moore, Esq. Meiram Bendat, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 100 L Street NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20037-1525 Telephone: (202) 778-1800 Facsimile: (202) 822-8106 - and - Meriam Bendat, Esq. PSYCH-APPEAL, INC. 560 W Sunset Blvd Ste 500 West Hollywood, CA, 90069-2342 The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer S. Romano, Esq. Andrew Holmer, Esq. CROWELL & MORING LLP 515 South Flower Street, 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 622-4750 Facsimile: (213) 622-2690 E-mail: JRomano@Crowell.com AHolmer@Crowell.com UNITED STATES: AV Bid for Class Certification Tossed ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as APPALACHIAN VOICES et al., v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01982-RJL (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Richard Leon entered an order -- denying the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction; -- denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; and -- granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is a federal agency tasked with protecting human health and the environment A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Uhvn8s at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: ICE, Feeley Must Respond to Vazquez Immigration Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Miguel Angel Maldonado Vazquez, on behalf of himself as an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated, Petitioner v. Director Thomas E. Feeley, et al., Respondents, Case No. 2:25-cv-01542-RFB-EJY (D. Nev.), Judge Richard F. Boulware, II, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada directs the Respondents to appear in the case and to file a response within 20 days of the order date. Miguel Angel Maldonado Vazquez, who is represented by counsel and detained at Nevada Southern Detention Center, filed a Class Action Complaint and Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241. He challenges his continued detention during removal proceedings after an Immigration Judge granted his release on a $1,500 bond. The petitioner argues that the automatic stay provision under 8 C.F.R. Section 1003.19(i)(2) nullifying the Immigration Judge's release order violates his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and violates the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court conducted a preliminary review of the petition and directed that it be served on respondents. The Court ordered service electronically through CM/ECF on the United States Attorney for the District of Nevada and by mail to Thomas E. Feeley, acting Field Office Director; John Mattos, Warden, Nevada Southern Detention Center; Kristi Noem, Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security; Pamela Bondi, Attorney General; and Sirce Owen, Director of Executive Office for Immigration Review. The Court further ordered that respondents must appear within 5 days and file a response within 20 days of the order date. The petitioner will have 15 days following the response filing to file a reply. All exhibits must be filed with a separate index identifying exhibits by number or letter, with each exhibit as a separate attachment. The Court further ordered that all exhibits filed by Respondents and Petitioner must be filed with a separate index of exhibits identifying the exhibits by number or letter. The CM/ECF attachments that are filed further shall be identified by the number or letter of the exhibit in the attachment. Each exhibit must be filed as a separate attachment. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sq31ZW from PacerMonitor.com. UNITED SURGICAL: Final Approval of Class Settlement Sought ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA PERKINS, HEATHER C. HOLST, TERRY J. WILLIAMS, TANYA C. STANDIFER and KARLEY MAYHILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNITED SURGICAL PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC., and THE RETIREMENT PLAN ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE OF UNITED SURGICAL PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00973-X (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23, to enter an order: 1. Granting final approval to the class action settlement in this action on the terms of the Class Action Settlement Agreement, fully executed on Jan. 3, 2025, and previously filed with the Court on Jan. 3, 2025; and 2. Finding that the manner in which the Settlement Class was notified of the Settlement was the best practicable under the circumstances and adequately informed the Settlement Class members of the terms of the Settlement, how to lodge an objection and obtain additional information. United is an American ambulatory care company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AqkAxo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. James A. Wells, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com jaywells@capozziadler.com - and - Daniel L. White, Esq. WARD + WHITE PLLC 114 ½ E. Louisianna Street, Suite 206 McKinney, TX 75069 Telephone: (469) 941-0040 E-mail: dwhite4@wardwhitepllc.com UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces Class Action Suit Over System Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- New Jersey Pediatric Neuroscience Institute, LLC, Insight Chicago, Inc., Jawad A. Shah, M.D., P.C. d/b/a Insight Institute of Neurosurgery & Neuroscience, and Southeast Michigan Surgical Hospital, LLC d/b/a Insight Surgical Hospital, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, UnitedHealthCare Services, Inc., Optum Insight, Change Healthcare Inc., Change Healthcare Operations, LLC, Change Healthcare Solutions, LLC, Change Healthcare Holdings, Inc., Change Healthcare Technologies, LLC, Change Healthcare Pharmacy Solutions, Inc. Optum, Inc., Optum Financial, Inc., Optum Bank, and Optum Pay, Defendants, Case No. 0:25-cv-03494-DWF-DJF (D. Minn., Sept. 4, 2025) is a class action suit arising from the Defendants' alleged inadequate security measures, including the reasonably foreseeable harm to Plaintiffs and Class members from a System breach and disconnection. According to the complaint, Change Health Defendants control the largest healthcare payment platform in United States (the Change Platform), providing, among other things, a claims processing service that is used by healthcare providers and pharmacies (Providers) to submit claims to insurance companies and receive reimbursement for services performed. To operate the Change Platform, Change Health Defendants transact in and store huge volumes of confidential information including highly sensitive and confidential patient information including full names, phone numbers, addresses, Social Security numbers, emails, and payment information. They also store patients' medical records, claims information, provider information, diagnoses, medicines, test results, images, care and treatment, and billing, claims and payment information including health insurance information (such as health plans and policies, insurance companies, member and group ID numbers, and Medicaid-Medicare-government payer ID numbers) (Private Health Information), says the suit. In February 2024, as a direct result of Change Health Defendants' failure to employ even rudimentary cybersecurity precautions to authenticate the identities of users logging in to their networks, Change Health Defendants' systems were compromised in the largest health care ransomware attack in history (the Ransomware Attack), which compromised millions of patients' Private Information. In the aftermath of the Ransomware Attack, Change Health Defendants' systems were left in gross disrepair. Change Health Defendants had no viable backup plans or systems. And in a largely futile effort to prevent further collapse of its systems, Change Health Defendants elected to take the remaining systems -- including the Change Platform -- offline completely, rendering it useless to Providers (Service Shutdown). During the Service Shutdown, Providers were unable to verify insurance, determine copays, submit claims, or receive payment. As a result, Providers did not timely receive billions of dollars in earned reimbursements. The impact on the U.S. health care system, and particularly Providers, was devastating. Hospitals, clinics, doctors, and therapists were left without a mechanism to be paid for their services for months. As a result of Defendants' conduct, Providers have suffered and will continue to suffer substantial harm. The event pushed many Providers to the brink of closure (and forced some Providers to close altogether). To survive, Providers necessarily incurred extra costs to make up for unpaid claims and in an attempt to submit claims without the Change Platform. Moreover, Providers will never see any compensation for claims that they were unable to submit during the Service Shutdown. Over a year after the Ransomware Attack, Providers are still in a precarious financial situation due to Defendants' conduct and failures, asserts the suit. The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following nationwide classes: National Providers Class: All Providers whose use of Change's Services, either directly or indirectly, was disrupted, or whose payments were delayed or denied because of the Ransomware Attack and Service Shutdown. National Provider Loan Assistance Sub-Class: Members of the National Providers Class that accepted a Temporary Funding Assistance Program loan from Defendants. UHG is a vertically integrated healthcare company comprised of non-defendant UHIC, the largest commercial health insurer in America, and three Optum divisions: Optum Health, Optum Insight, and Optum Rx. UHG is a health care leviathan that, in 2023, "generated $324 billion in revenue, making it the fifth largest company in America."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com UPLEAD LLC: Disseminates Telephone Numbers Without Consent ---------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW GARGUS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UPLEAD, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-08337 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 3, 2025) seeks redress for Uplead's pervasive practice of compiling and commercially disseminating the cellular telephone numbers of Colorado residents without their explicit, affirmative consent in violation of the Colorado's Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act (PTFA). Accordingly, the Defendant operates a website, uplead.com, which functions as a data aggregator, openly collecting and listing personal information -- including cell phone numbers, job history, and email addresses—without explicit consent. Uplead touts that its directory includes "Real-time verified" "mobile numbers". This data, sourced from various public records and third-party data brokers, is made readily available to anyone with internet access. Uplead monetizes this personal data, including the cell phone numbers of Colorado residents, through its publicly accessible directory, thereby profiting from the unauthorized disclosure of private information, asserts the suit. Uplead's readily accessible compilation of personal data, including cell phone numbers, creates a fertile ground for malicious actors to exploit this information for harmful purposes, such as scams, phishing, and doxxing, the suit adds. The Defendant is a California limited liability company with its principal place of business in Covina, California. The Defendant owned and operated the website with the URL uplead.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. Michael T. Houchin, Esq. Adam C. York, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: zach@crosnerlegal.com mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com adam@crosnerlegal.com VALLEY HOSPITAL: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Laurino Class Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA LAURINO and RICARDO MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE VALLEY HOSPITAL, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VALLEY HOSPITAL, THE VALLEY HOSPITAL PLAN COMMITTEE, LINCOLN NATIONAL CORPORATION d/b/a LINCOLN FINANCIAL GROUP, and LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:25-cv-15263 (D.N.J., Sept. 4, 2025) is a class action suit brought the Plaintiffs, individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan for Employees of The Valley Hospital (the Plan), for breach of fiduciary duties in the management, operation, and administration of the Plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) against the Defendants. In this case, the Plan's fiduciaries failed to properly discharge their duties of prudence and loyalty in several basic ways. The Defendants wasted participants' money by failing to appropriately select and monitor the Plan's primary fixed income investment option, the Lincoln Stable Value Account (Lincoln SVA). The action is brought by and on behalf of current and former participants in an ERISA defined contribution retirement plan sponsored by Valley Hospital to recover losses due to mismanagement of Valley Hospital's 401(k) retirement plan, including the selection and retention of imprudent investment options and engaging in prohibited transactions with a party in interest. Defined contribution plans, such as 401(k) and 403(b) plans, have become America's primary retirement system. Unlike traditional defined-benefit pension plans, which provide guaranteed payouts for life and where the employer assumes the investment risks and pays the fees and expenses of the investments, 401(k) plan accounts rise and fall with financial markets. Employees bear the market risk of a 401(k) plan's investments and must pay the fees and expenses of the investment options and plan administrative services. Thus, the proliferation of 401(k) plans has exposed millions of American workers to the volatility and risk of the stock market as well as high fees charged by Wall Street money managers. The Plan, established on March 28, 2004, is a 401(k) defined contribution, individual account, employee benefit plan under 29 U.S.C. section 1002(2)(A) and section 1002(34), covering substantially all employees of The Valley Hospital and affiliated employers that have adopted the Plan, who have met the age and service requirements of the Plan. Ms. Maria was a participant in the Plan under section 1002(7) because she and her beneficiaries were eligible to receive benefits under the Plan. She suffered economic losses as a direct result of the alleged Defendants' conduct. The Valley Hospital is a 370-bed, acute-care, not-for-profit hospital in Paramus, New Jersey, United States, in the heart of Bergen County. Valley staff includes more than 1,100 physicians, 3,700 employees, and 3,000 volunteers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq. Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Natalie Lesser, Esq. Olivia S. Lanctot, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 8241 La Mesa Blvd., Suite A La Mesa, CA 91942 Telephone: (215) 875-3063 Facsimile: (215) 875-4620 E-mail: apiazza@bergermontague.com scarson@bergermontague.com nlesser@bergermontague.com olanctot@bergermontague.com - and - Eric Lechtzin, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com VITAS HEALTHCARE: Lanes Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- RONALD LANE v. VITAS HEALTHCARE CORPORATION OF FLORIDA, Case No. 1:25-cv-23979 (S.D. Fla., Sept. 3, 2025) is a class action seeking overtime compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant refused to pay the Plaintiff earned regular wages throughout Plaintiff's employment. The Defendant refused to pay the Plaintiff earned overtime throughout the Plaintiff's employment. By failing to pay regular wages to Plaintiff, Defendant have violated the parties' agreement. By failing to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff, the Defendant have violated the FLSA, asserts the suit. The Defendant is an independent provider of end-of-life care in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan S. Minick, Esq. JONATHAN S. MINICK, P.A. 169 E. Flagler Street, Suite 1600 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 441-8909 Facsimile: (786) 523-0610 E-mail: jminick@jsmlawpa.com WANTABLE INC: Rodriguez Sues Over Automatic Renewal of Subscription ------------------------------------------------------------------- REBEKA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WANTABLE, INC., d/b/a WWW.WANTABLE.COM, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-02267-BEN-MMP (S.D. Cal., September 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law. The case arises from the Defendant's unlawful practice of automatically renewing paid subscription via its website, https://wantable.com. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated California laws by: (1) failing to provide clear and conspicuous disclosures mandated by California law; and (2) failing to provide an acknowledgment to consumers that includes the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms, the cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful business practice, the Plaintiff and similarly situated customers incurred charges. Wantable, Inc. is an online retailer doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com WASHINGTON: 9th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Professor Flaxman Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Abraham Flaxman, individually and for a proposed class; Amy Hagopian, individually and for a proposed class, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Bob Ferguson, in his official capacity as the Attorney General of the State of Washington; Kate Reynolds, in her official capacity as Executive Director of the Executive Ethics Board of the State of Washington, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 24-919 (9th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reverses the district court's judgment dismissing as unripe the underlying putative class action lawsuit challenging investigatory policies of the Washington State Executive Ethics Board. The Washington State Executive Ethics Board investigated two University of Washington professors for misusing their state email addresses after they forwarded to a faculty listserv several emails that allegedly contained political discussion and fundraising requests. Abraham Flaxman and Amy Hagopian are professors at the University of Washington who serve as the primary moderators of the University's Faculty Issues and Concerns email listserv, to which more than 2,000 other instructors subscribe. Washington's Ethics in Public Service statute, Washington Revised Code Section 42.52, prohibits state employees, including University of Washington professors, from using state resources for the private benefit or gain of the officer, employee, or another. Another section of the statute prohibits the use of public resources for political campaigns, defined as acts taken for the purpose of assisting a campaign for election of a person to an office or for the promotion of or opposition to a ballot proposition. Washington's Executive Ethics Board is charged with enforcing the law as to institutions of higher education and may issue sanctions for violations, including reprimands and monetary penalties. In December 2022, the Ethics Board received an anonymous complaint alleging that Flaxman used public resources for political purposes when he forwarded to the listserv an email about Whole Washington, a campaign to bring universal healthcare to Washington state. Even though Flaxman admitted to forwarding the email, the Ethics Board, as part of its investigation, gained access to all of Flaxman's emails for the surrounding three-month period. The Board's email review was not limited to emails that Flaxman forwarded to the listserv; the Board instead reviewed all his emails over that time span. In June 2023, the Ethics Board received another anonymous complaint about Flaxman forwarding an email to the listserv concerning a potential strike by University of Washington research scientists and postdoctoral scholars. The email contained a list of ways to support the striking colleagues, including by donating to their hardship fund. After investigating the matter, including another review of Flaxman's email files over the relevant three-month period, the Ethics Board found that Flaxman had again violated Washington's Ethics in Public Service law, but that the violation was minor and did not warrant discipline. The Ethics Board investigated Professor Hagopian based on similar allegations. In December 2022, the Board received an anonymous complaint alleging that Hagopian used public resources for political campaigns after she forwarded to the listserv an email about a strike of researchers and graduate students in the University of California system. After reviewing her response and reviewing her email files over 2,000 emails, the Ethics Board found that Hagopian had improperly used state resources to solicit donations and had used her state email for private benefit. While this appeal was pending, the Ethics Board issued a final decision fining Hagopian $750. Flaxman and Hagopian filed this lawsuit in October 2023, on behalf of themselves and a putative class of listserv subscribers. Their operative amended complaint alleged that the Ethics Board's policies and practices in enforcing the Ethics in Public Service law chill listserv subscribers' exercise of First Amendment rights. The complaint focuses specifically on the following Board practices: its allowance of anonymous complaints, its broad searches of professors' emails during investigations, its treatment of incidental financial solicitations in emails as violative of state law, and its levying of allegedly excessive and disproportional monetary penalties. The district court dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), concluding that the professors' claims were unripe under Article III. The court concluded that the professors did not allege that the Ethics Board's policies had chilled their speech. The district court further concluded that the professors' claims were prudentially unripe because Ethics Board investigations against both professors were ongoing. The Court of Appeals held that the district court erred in dismissing the professors' lawsuit as unripe under Article III. Circuit Judge Daniel A. Bress explained that Article III's ripeness doctrine is designed to prevent the courts, through premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements. Constitutional ripeness equates with Article III's injury-in-fact requirement for standing. The Court found that in the First Amendment context, because of the nature of the interests at stake, we apply the principle that one need not await consummation of threatened injury before challenging a statute restricting speech, to guard the risk that protected conduct will be deterred. The Court noted that the professors allege that the Ethics Board policies will chill their speech, and so they are bringing a pre-enforcement challenge. The Court determined that the professors easily clear the required hurdles for a pre-enforcement challenge. They remain affiliated with the University and allege they are the moderators of the listserv, which requires them to decide whether or not to send emails that may be deemed to violate Ethics Board policies. The Ethics Board's challenged policies are alleged to remain in place, and the State has not disavowed enforcement if the professors make similar statements in the future. The Court emphasized that the Board's history of enforcement is more than sufficient to demonstrate a plausible and reasonable fear of prosecution, especially when enforcement can result from anonymous complaints. The Court stated: We do not need to derive a threat of enforcement from the statute when we know that the Ethics Board has already enforced the statute, against these plaintiffs no less, using the very policies that plaintiffs claim violate the First Amendment. To the extent the professors are also advancing a retaliation theory based on past events, rather than solely bringing a pre-enforcement challenge, the Court found their claim is ripe from that perspective as well. The Court noted that the professors were injured under a regime that has penalized them for their speech to the listserv, subjecting the professors to investigations, an allegedly intrusive and excessive review of their emails, and enforcement proceedings, with the Board levying a $750 fine on Hagopian. The Court rejected the State's argument that the professors' complaint was unripe. The Court found that the complaint does allege chilling sufficient to proceed under the pre-enforcement framework. The complaint alleges that the Ethics Board allowing anonymous complaints encourages and has resulted in the submission of complaints to intimidate and silence discussion of specific topics on the Faculty Issues and Concerns mailing list. The complaint asserts that the Board's overbroad email searches chill academic discussions on the listserv. The Court concluded that it hardly takes imagination to conclude that a state Ethics Board that investigates anonymous complaints about forwarded emails, reviews months' worth of faculty emails in the process, and then threatens and imposes monetary fines and other sanctions based on allegedly minute references to monetary contributions, creates a genuine risk of a chilling effect. The Court held that the district court erred by concluding that the professors' claims were prudentially unripe. Prudential ripeness turns on two considerations: (1) the fitness of the issues for judicial decision, and (2) the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration. The Court found that these factors point overwhelmingly in favor of ripeness, as the issues are primarily legal, involving specific Ethics Board investigatory policies that have already been applied to these plaintiffs. The Court determined that withholding judicial review would impose a substantial hardship on the professors, who have been investigated and punished for their allegedly protected speech, and who are subject to an Ethics Board regime that will continue to do so going forward, including through substantial reviews of the professors' email files. Circuit Judge Mark J. Bennett dissented, concluding that Plaintiffs' operative complaint fails to plead an injury that confers standing. Judge Bennett stated that the complaint fails to establish Plaintiffs' Article III standing under both pre-enforcement and post-enforcement frameworks. The dissent argued that Plaintiffs never allege that their own speech or participation in academic discussion was chilled and that many allegations are made solely in reference to unidentified members of the class to which Plaintiffs belong, which cannot confer standing on Flaxman or Hagopian. However, Judge Bennett noted that because facts on the ground material to the prudential ripeness analysis changed during the pendency of this appeal, he would remand to allow the professors to amend their complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's dismissal of the professors' complaint and remanded for further proceedings. Circuit Judge Bress concluded that because the professors' claims are ripe, the Panel reverses the district court's dismissal of their complaint and remands for further proceedings. The Court emphasized that the professors' claims are fit for judicial decision because the issues are primarily legal, involving the Board's investigatory policies that have already been applied to the professors, and that withholding review would impose a substantial hardship on the professors. A copy of the Court's Opinion is available for free at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y5Amyc from PacerMonitor.com. XEROX CORP: Fails to Pay Sales Commission, McCarthy Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN MCCARTHY, on behalf of himself, the aggrieved employees, and the similarly situated v. XEROX CORPORATION; MR. COPY, INC.; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 8:25-cv-01976 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 3, 2025) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendants for: -- Disability Discrimination; -- Failure to Engage in the Good-Faith Interactive Accommodation Process; -- Failure to Accommodate Disability; -- Retaliation for Seeking Disability Accommodations; -- Whistleblower Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code; -- Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation; -- Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and/or Retention; 8. Wrongful Termination; -- Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; -- Failure to Produce Employment Records; -- Cal. Private Attorneys General Act; and -- Class and Collective Action for Violations of the California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code, including California's Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants each paid Mr. McCarthy on a salary-bases, treating him an exempt employee. The remainder of Mr. McCarthy's wages came in the form of sales commissions and bonuses, which varied significantly over time. Furthermore, Defendants consistently failed to pay Mr. McCarthy his sales commissions on a bi-weekly basis, choosing instead to pay him these wages on a monthly (or longer) basis. While Mr. McCarthy worked for Defendants, he always did so under direct supervision -- meaning that he did not spend 50% or more of his time exercising independent judgment or discretion, supervising others, or crafting/implementing corporate policy. The Defendants did not tell Mr. McCarthy that he could (or should) be taking meal and rest breaks each day as required for non-exempt employees under the California Labor Code. Accordingly, Mr. McCarthy consistently and knowingly worked through all of the time periods in which Defendants were lawfully obligated to provide him with these breaks. Defendants also did not pay Mr. McCarthy any of the break premiums required by the foregoing statutes whenever one of his breaks was missed, short, interrupted, or untimely (i.e., not taken at the time required by statute). These missed break premiums, which California law treats as wages earned and owing, were also not reflected on Mr. McCarthy’s pay stubs that he received from Defendants. The Defendants consistently failed to pay Mr. McCarthy his foregoing wages in the pay period in which they were earned, as required by California Labor Code. Mr. McCarthy also incurred numerous expenses for Defendants’ benefit, which they knew (or should have known) of and did not reimburse. These included, but were not limited to: (1) internet expenses incurred while working from home whenever Mr. McCarthy was not in the office; and (2) costs related to use of personal computing equipment (e.g., mice, monitors, keyboards, printers with toner and paper, etc.) When Xerox terminated Mr. McCarthy, it failed to pay him all of his business expenses, let alone his earned and owing wages (e.g., hourly wages owed due to misclassification, break premiums, and sales commissions) as required by California Labor Code. The aggrieved employees and putative class members each suffered the same knowing and intentional violations by Defendants. The Plaintiff has worked for Xerox and/or MRC while residing and working in the state of California. The Aggrieved Employees are all of Xerox' non-exempt and sales employees (regardless of their exemption status) working in California at any time between June 30, 2024, and the date Plaintiff's Private Attorneys' General Act (PAGA) claim in this action is resolved. Sales employees -- like the Plaintiff -- are included in the definition for the Aggrieved Employees because it is easily determined whether they were misclassified as exempt employees (i.e., they should have been paid and treated as non-exempt employees). The putative "Xerox Class" includes all of Defendant Xerox Corporation’s employees who worked in California in a sales or sales-related role -- like Plaintiff -- at any time from four years prior to the date this lawsuit is filed and the date Plaintiff's class claims are resolved. The "MRC Class" includes all of Defendant Mr. Copy, Inc.'s employees who worked in California in a sales or sales-related role -- like Plaintiff -- at any time from four years prior to the date this lawsuit is filed and the date Plaintiff’s class claims are resolved. Together, the Xerox Class and MRC Class (and their subclasses, if any) are collectively referred as the putative class" or the "similarly situated employees." The company provides printing, scanning, and photocopy technology and related services (e.g., document management, workflow automation, and IT support). Xerox is presently a Fortune 500 company, which is publicly traded on major, global stock exchanges, including the NASDAQ under ticker symbol $XRX. At all times relevant to this action, Xerox employed more than 50 individuals. Furthermore, since 2019 Xerox controls the Human Resources (including payroll and discipline) for each of its down-stream subsidiaries operating in California (which are wholly or majority owned by Xerox), and those subsidiaries operate under the same policies and practices outlined herei Xerox is headquartered in Norwalk Connecticut, but is incorporated in the state of New York. The company provides printing, scanning, and photocopy technology and related services (e.g., document management, workflow automation, and IT support). Xerox is presently a Fortune 500 company, which is publicly traded on major, global stock exchanges, including the NASDAQ under ticker symbol $XRX. MRC remains a California corporation. Xerox, however, has reported to the Securities Exchange Commission that it owned 50% or more of MRC's voting stock between at least 2016 to 2023. Accordingly, Xerox directed MRC in the management of its employees and its operations, including the sale of Xerox (and Xerox-related) products and services in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Erik J. Christensen, Esq. GOLD SUMMIT LEGAL, INC. 548 Market St., Ste. 41750 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 516-2760 E-mail: erik@goldsummit.legal ********* 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 ***