250916.mbx

250916.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, September 16, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 185 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Romero Sues Over Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Rusinyak Sues Over Negligent Acts and Omissions 3M COMPANY: Russell Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Santos Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Steinway Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Tynes Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Wallace-Walbancke Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams 3M COMPANY: Williams Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ACUSHNET COMPANY: Faces Class Action Over Mixed Box Golf Balls AKUMIN INC: Appeals Court Upholds Proposed Securities Class Suit ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE: Krisanits Files Suit in D. Minnesota AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Won's Bid to Certify Class Partly OK'd AMERICAN ECONOMY: Parties Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ARBOR FINANCIAL: Staubus Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages in N.D. Illinois ARCHERY TRADE: Controls Archery Equipment Prices, Reznich Alleges BARK INC: Continues to Defend Shareholders' Suit in Delaware BEAUTY HEALTH: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California BEAZER HOMES: Fogle Appeals Arbitration Ruling to 4th Circuit BERGEN IMPORTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Vanegas Alleges BHP GROUP: Settles Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit for A$110-Mil. BUBOLO MEDICAL: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert BUFFALO EXCHANGE: Bryant Bid to Certify Class Tossed w/o Prejudice CALIFORNIA: Saddozai Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates CAMPBELL'S COMPANY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Humphrey Says CANVAS ENERGY: Class Settlement in Wake Suit Gets Initial Nod CASSAVA SCIENCES: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Bozorgis Litigation CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL: Class Settlement in Arevalo Gets Initial Nod CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Clark Alleges CHEWY INC: Faces Class Action Over Overcharging Customers Taxes CITYWIDE SECURITY: Underpays Security Guards, Reyes Suit Claims COMMUNITY CARE ADHC: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS: Watson Files Suit in D. Columbia CONTACT LENS: Searle Sues Over Total Price's Hidden Junk Fees CVS CAREMARK: Faces Class Suit Over Weight-Loss Drug Coverage CVS CAREMARK: Faces Suit Over Denied Zepbound Drug Coverage Claims CYGNUS HOME: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hensley Alleges DASHING DIVA: Scott Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Medley Seeks More Time to File Class Cert DONALD TRUMP: Class Cert Hearing in Thakur Reset to Sept. 18 DOORI INC: Stivers Sues Over Improper Tip Retention in D. Ariz. DR PEPPER: Canada Dry Drink Label Misleading, Piotroski Says EL POPOCATEPETL: Faces Villa Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Ill. EVERLAST SIGN: Appeals Judgment in Rafter Wage Suit to 2nd Circuit EXTRA SUPERMARKET: Sends Unsolicited Marketing Calls, Turizo Says FARMERS GROUP: Rice Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Clients' Info FARMERS GROUP: Scorio Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info FEDERAL HOME: Syron's Bid for Summary Judgment Granted FLOYD BONNER: Court Extends Time to File Dispositive Bids GEICO INDEMINTY: Harn Suit Seeks Class Certification GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over Windshield Wiper Defect GOOGLE LLC: Court Awards $30MM Attys' Fee to Class Counsel GROUP SOLAR: Lojewski Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement GUARANTY BANCSHARES: M&A Investigates Sale to Glacier Bancorp HERTZ CORPORATION: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by Oct. 3 HYATT HOTELS: So Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois HYSTER-YALE MATERIALS: Deol Suit Removed to C.D. California ICF TECHNOLOGY: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response JACKSBORO, TN: Faces Madison Suit Over Firefighters' Unpaid Wages JPAY LLC: Pyron Appeals Civil Rights Suit Order to 8th Circuit LEGACY TREATMENT: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Travis Alleges LOUIS VUITTON: Moran Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info MONROE GROUP: Faces Stacker Suit Over Adverse Employment Action MORRIS HOSPITAL: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set Oct. 24 MY TECHNOLOGY: Operates Illegal Online Casino , Mirzayan Says NEW YORK, NY: Seabrook Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. ORACLE AMERICA: Realscape Group Suit Transferred to N.D. California OTTER.AI INC: Theus Sues Over Unlawful Collecting Practices PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Requests for Writ of Mandamus to 2nd Circuit PICTSWEET COMPANY: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to Nov. 17 PRIME HYDRATION: Vera Appeals Class Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Thurston Appeals Judgment Order to 1st Cir. PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Actual Cash Value Case Loses Class Status PSYCHOLOGICAL CENTER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Pappalardo Says PUBMATIC INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 20 PUBMATIC INC: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in N.D. Cal. QUAKER OATS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Life Cereal Marketing REALPAGE INC: Class Cert Filing in Goldman Reset to August 31, 2026 REALPAGE INC: Class Cert Filing Modified to August 31, 2026 REALPAGE INC: Haynes Class Cert Filing Modified to August 31, 2026 REALPAGE INC: Kabisch Class Cert Filing Modified to August 31, 2026 REALPAGE INC: Weaver Class Cert Filing Modified to August 31, 2026 RELIANCE SECURITY: Scott Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Office Managers SAFEWAY INC: Bid to Strike Class Allegations in Wilson Tossed SALESFORCE INC: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Morgan Says SAVARA INC: Faces Class Action Over Securities Law Violations SEMLER SCIENTIFIC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set Oct. 28 SEMLER SCIENTIFIC: Krishnamoorthy Files Securities Class Suit SIG SAUER: Appeals Court Order in Glasscock MMPA Suit to 8th Cir. SIGNATURE GROUP: Faces Schmidt Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Oregon SONY ELECTRONICS: Improperly Ends Software License, Rodriguez Says SPEEDWAY LLC: Agrees to Settle BIPA Class Action Suit for $12MM T-MOBILE USA INC: Ortiz Suit Removed to C.D. California TENNESSEE GAS: Bradish Suit Seeks Class Certification TESLA INC: Denies Refunds for Full Self-Driving Feature, Suit Says TEXTRON AVIATION: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Corrosion Defect TEXTRON AVIATION: JCC Transport Files Suit in D. Kansas TFI INTERNATIONAL: Bid for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff OK'd TOAST INC: May Face Class Suit Over Alleged Data Breach TRANS UNION: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Samoza Says TRANSUNION LLC: Smalls Sues Over Failure to Protect Customers' Info TRIPLE CANOPY: Bid for More Time to File Class Cert Tossed UNDERCLUB INC: Automatically Renews Subscription, Garcia Alleges UNICOIN INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims VGW LTD: King Seeks to Recover Losses from Illegal Online Gambling WEXFORD HEALTH: Appeals Class Certification Order to 4th Circuit YIELD ENGINEERING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Navarro Alleges ZALE DELAWARE: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set Nov. 17 ********* 3M COMPANY: Romero Sues Over Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------- Jorge Romero, Jr., 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-08490-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 3M COMPANY: Rusinyak Sues Over Negligent Acts and Omissions ----------------------------------------------------------- Maryann Rusinyak, 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-08496-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 3M COMPANY: Russell Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ------------------------------------------------------------------ Theodore Russell, 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-08449-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: Santos Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ------------------------------------------------------------ Heidi Corne De Los Santos, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-08563-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 perfluoro octane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF 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: Michael A. Hochman, Esq. THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC 5411 McPherson Rd Ste. 110 Laredo, TX 78041 Phone: (956) 704-5187 Facsimile: (956) 368-1343 3M COMPANY: Steinway Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------- Peggy Angel Steinway, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-08551-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 perfluoro octane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or Plaintiff's water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use and was diagnosed with thyroid cancer and thyroid disease as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF 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: Michael A. Hochman, Esq. THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC 5411 McPherson Rd Ste. 110 Laredo, TX 78041 Phone: (956) 704-5187 Facsimile: (956) 368-1343 3M COMPANY: Tynes Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Junius Tynes, 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 2:25-cv-08451-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: Wallace-Walbancke Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- Karol Kay Wallace-Walbancke, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-08476-RMG (D.S.C., July 25, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with thyroid disease. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Ryan Ziminskas, Esq. THEMIS LAW, PLLC 7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 105 Austin, TX 78731 Phone: (737) 208-1636 Email: rziminskas@themislawpllc.com 3M COMPANY: Williams Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Bernard Williams, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2025-903082.00 was removed from the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Alabama on Sept. 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01488-AMM. 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, 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.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gregory M. Taube, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 201 17th Street, NW, Suite 1700 Atlanta, GA 30363 Phone: (404) 322-6000 Fax: (404) 322-6050 Email: greg.taube@nelsonmullins.com ACUSHNET COMPANY: Faces Class Action Over Mixed Box Golf Balls -------------------------------------------------------------- Tony Covey, writing for MyGolfSpy, reports that Titleist, the brand that has built its reputation on precision and quality, is being sued in a proposed class action alleging that boxes of its premium Pro V1x Left Dash with Enhanced Alignment (EA) golf balls didn't actually contain what was promised. Filed September 4, 2025, in the Eastern District of Missouri, the complaint names six golfers from across the country as plaintiffs, each claiming they purchased boxes labeled as containing a dozen Pro V1x Left Dash EA balls. Instead, the boxes allegedly contained only nine of the lower-spin Left Dash EA and three Pro V1x EA balls (a higher-spin model with different performance characteristics). The lawsuit, Long et al. v. Acushnet Company (Case No. 4:25-cv-01332), seeks class certification on behalf of all similarly situated buyers and requests damages in excess of $5 million. (I held my pinky to the corner of my mouth when I wrote that last sentence.) The Allegations According to the complaint, Titleist's "Mixed Boxes" deceived consumers by: -- Substituting three balls per dozen with a different model -- Selling those boxes through major retailers including Golf Galaxy and PGA TOUR Superstore -- Allowing the substitutions to persist despite tight quality control standards Titleist frequently touts The plaintiffs claim they would not have paid full price for the product had they known it contained fewer than the advertised twelve Left Dash EA balls. The 12 Complaints The plaintiffs have packed the lawsuit with a variety of legal claims: -- Massachusetts Unfair & Deceptive Acts -- Violation of ch. 93A by misrepresenting the contents of the boxes -- Fraudulent Misrepresentation/Deceit -- Knowingly selling boxes with fewer Left Dash EA balls than advertised -- Fraud by Omission -- Failing to disclose the substitution of Pro V1x EA balls -- Negligent Misrepresentation -- Failing to exercise reasonable care in representing the product contents -- Breach of Express Warranty -- The "one dozen Left Dash EA" labeling created a warranty that was not honored -- Breach of Implied Warranty -- Merchantability -- The goods did not conform to the label and were not of even kind and quality -- Breach of Implied Warranty -- Fitness for Particular Purpose -- Buyers specifically sought lower-spin Left Dash EA balls; higher-spin Pro V1x EA balls don't serve that purpose -- Unjust Enrichment -- Titleist allegedly profited by stretching Left Dash inventory while moving less popular Pro V1x EA stock -- Missouri Merchandising Practices Act -- Subclass claim for deceptive sales in Missouri -- Missouri Breach of Express Warranty -- State-specific warranty claim -- Missouri Implied Warranty -- Merchantability -- Same as Count VI, under Missouri law -- Missouri Implied Warranty -- Fitness for Particular Purpose -- Same as Count VII, under Missouri law Our Take On the surface, this is a bad look for Titleist. When a brand builds its reputation on precision, consistency, and quality control, even the suggestion that it can't reliably get the right golf balls into the right sleeves should sting. If the allegations are true, it's a blemish on an otherwise excellent reputation. That said, there's an important distinction here. The case isn't about ball quality -- nobody is suggesting the Pro V1x EA or the Left Dash EA aren't up to Titleist's usual standards. If you overlook the conspiratorial elements of the complaint, the allegations boil down to a packaging problem. Frankly, the notion that Acushnet (Titleist's parent company) hatched a plot to dump unwanted inventory doesn't pass the sniff test. The fact is, Titleist continues to produce prior-generation Pro V1 and Pro V1x balls because they still sell well. They help satisfy consumers looking for a premium product at a slightly lower price point. It's also true that Titleist routinely keeps older versions in production for tour players who prefer the performance characteristics to those offered by the latest model. These simple facts should raise an obvious question: why would Titleist need to dump inventory of a product it still intentionally manufactures in quantity? Accusations of a deliberate purge strike me as absurd. More likely, Hanlon's Razor -- "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence" -- probably applies here. The simple explanation (I guess we can integrate Occam's Razor into the discussion, as well) is that a batch of #4 Pro V1x balls got funnelled into the wrong sleeves. Call it cross-contamination. And as any golfer knows, Pro V1x and Left Dash look nearly identical, especially with the enhanced alignment sidestamp. If I could wager on such things, I'd put my money on the idea that a big basket of Pro V1x got put where an equally big basket of Left Dash was supposed to go. Does somebody putting a load of Pro V1x where Dash should be really qualify as malice? Does it support the notion of a conspiratorial inventory dump? Or, is it just a mistake on a massive production line? My best guess is that we're talking about a single batch of swapped balls. While that's not an insignificant number, against the backdrop of Titleist's production volume, it falls well short of anything that would provide credibility to the notion of a widespread inventory dump. Titleist's Ball Plant III, where Pro V1 and Pro V1x (including Left Dash) are made, produces somewhere between 300,000 and 400,000 balls every single day. Given that scale, it's arguably remarkable that errors don't happen more often. The $5 Million Question The plaintiffs seek damages exceeding $5 million. To put it bluntly, that feels comical. In a sensible world, this is the sort of issue that could probably be resolved with an email to customer service and a replacement dozen. Sorry for the inconvenience. Feel free to keep what you already have. I guess that says something about the increasingly litigious nature of the world in which we live. Why send an email when you can hire a lawyer to allege a widespread conspiracy that involves (checks notes) putting golf balls in the wrong sleeves? You can't fix that with a dose of Ivermectin. Final Thoughts If proven, the allegations remind us that even the most trusted brands aren't immune to mistakes. Whether those mistakes warrant a multi-million-dollar class action is another story entirely. What do you think? Is this a black eye for Titleist, or just an overblown packaging mix-up? [GN] AKUMIN INC: Appeals Court Upholds Proposed Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- James Langton, writing for Investment Executive, reports that a proposed securities class action for alleged misstatements in an issuer's disclosure has been given the go-ahead by the Court of Appeal for Ontario -- rejecting arguments from the company that, the court said, would undermine the purpose of the investor protection provisions of securities law on corporate disclosure. In June 2024, a judge with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified a proposed class action against Akumin Inc. -- a company that trades on the TSX and Nasdaq and operates medical imaging clinics in the U.S. -- and its officers and directors. They faced allegations the company made material misrepresentations in its financial statements and other public disclosures involving its accounts receivable, revenues, shareholders' equity and internal controls. In late 2021, the company had to restate its financials for fiscal 2019, 2020 and the first quarter of 2021 after discovering issues with its disclosures. In the lower court, the company argued the alleged misstatements weren't material and the corrections didn't result in the share price dropping substantially. The court rejected those arguments, ruling shareholders have a reasonable prospect of proving their case against the company and its officers and directors -- but it dismissed proposed claims against the company's auditors, finding there was no reasonable possibility a case could be made against them. On appeal, the company argued the lower court judge erred in granting leave to bring the proposed class action and in certifying the proceeding as a class action. Among other things, it argued the judge erred by certifying the case as a class action on behalf of investors that bought secured notes in the secondary market, since these notes don't trade on an efficient market, "which they allege is a requirement before granting leave under [securities law]." "The appellants argue that a corrective statement can only constitute a 'public correction' for purposes of [secondary market misrepresentation] claims if the corrective statement relates to securities that trade in an efficient market. Therefore, because the secured notes did not trade in an efficient market, the motion judge erred in granting leave to proceed with this aspect of the claim," the court noted. The appeal court rejected this argument, upholding the lower court's ruling that investors in the secured notes could be covered by the class action and that excluding these investors "would be inconsistent with the text of the statute as well as the underlying goals of the statutory scheme" -- including the goal of protecting investors from erroneous corporate disclosures. "In fact, it would frustrate those objectives by denying investors who had suffered losses from secondary market misrepresentation from accessing the statutory remedy merely because the market in which their securities traded was not an efficient one. There is no support for the view that the legislature intended to protect only investors in exchange-traded securities," the appeal court said. Similarly, the appeal court rejected the company's argument that a statement indicating it would be late filing its financials because of possible issues with its previous disclosures didn't amount to a public correction -- an argument it made on appeal and in the lower court. "The motion judge rightly rejected the suggestion that this was not a public correction merely because Akumin was not then in a position to specify the extent of its prior misstatements," the appeal court said in its decision. "As the motion judge observed, such an interpretation might well encourage issuers to make vague disclosures such as 'something has happened, and we are looking into it' in the hopes of escaping liability," the court said -- adding this would also be inconsistent with the purpose of providing investors with protection from material misstatements under the law. The court found there was no error in the lower court's rulings and dismissed the appeal. [GN] ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE: Krisanits Files Suit in D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America. The case is styled as Paul Krisanits, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, Case No. 0:25-cv-03475 (D. Minn., Sept. 3, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Allianz Life -- https://www.allianzlife.com/ -- is an American life insurance company owned by German global financial services group Allianz.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melinda Jeanne Morales, Esq. WEXLER BOLEY & ELGERSMA LLP 311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5450 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 346-2222 Fax: (312) 346-0022 Email: mjm@wbe-llp.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Won's Bid to Certify Class Partly OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAONAISSA WON, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02867-NGG-LKE (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Nicholas Garaufis entered an order: -- Overruling in part and sustaining in part the parties' objections, -- Adopting in part and rejecting in part the R&R, -- Granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs motion to certify a class, to be appointed class representative, and to have her counsel appointed class counsel; -- Denying the Plaintiff's motion to be appointed class Representative; -- Granting the Plaintiffs motion to have her counsel appointed Class Counsel; -- Denying the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2); and -- Granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3), subject to an order due 60 days from the date of this Memorandum & Order which shall propose at least one plaintiff to proceed as representative on behalf of the class. The plaintiff(s) to be proposed to the court shall be nominated by the Plaintiffs counsel from those plaintiffs most willing and able to serve. The order shall also contain a form of proposed notice and plan for service of this class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(d)(l). Accordingly, the court finds that common questions of law and fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and the proposed class satisfies the predominance requirement under Rule 23(b)(3). The court concurs with Judge Eskehanzi that "a class action is a superior method of resolving these claims on behalf of the proposed class." Accordingly, the court finds that the second prong of Rule 23(b) (3) is satisfied: the class action is superior to other forms of adjudication. The Plaintiff Caonaissa Won brings this action, on behalf of herself and other persons similarly situated, against the Defendant for alleged violations of the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 ("USERRA"). The Plaintiffs proposed class is: All current and former employees of Amazon in work groups F, H, or R who took one or more short term military leaves of absence of no more than 30 days at any time between April 1, 2012 and the date of judgment in this action." Amazon.com provides e-commerce services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7Vtv5S at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN ECONOMY: Parties Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY GLASNER, DWIGHT SEELEY, PAMELA SEELEY, ARIJ ALI, MALINA ALI, and THOMAS LARSEN, as trustee of THE LARSEN FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN ECONOMY INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF INDIANA, Case No. 1:21-cv-11047-DJC (D. Mass.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion such that the following deadlines will apply: a. the Plaintiffs' reply in support of their class certification motion due by Sept. 12, 2025, and b. the Defendants' motion for leave to file a reply in support of their summary judgment motion due by Sept. 12, 2025. The Plaintiffs and Defendants jointly move the Court for an Order to extend the briefing deadlines related to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, Appointment of Class Representatives and Appointment of Class Counsel. The parties have good cause for the extensions because there are numerous and complex issues raised in the opposition briefs, and additional time is appropriate so that each party has sufficient time to respond to the opposing arguments. The requested extensions of time are not sought for purposes of delay and will not prejudice any party. Rather, the requested extensions will allow the parties sufficient time to develop their arguments in response to the opposition briefs. On May 30, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their class certification motion. The Defendants filed their opposition to the Plaintiffs' class certification motion on Aug. 5, 2025. On July 28, 2025, the Defendants filed their summary judgment motion. American operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q6arUJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq. SNODGRASS LAW LLC 100 S. Fifth Street, Suite 800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 448-2600 E-mail: jsnodgrass@snodgrass-law.com - and - Jonathan M. Feigenbaum, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN M. FEIGENBAUM 184 High Street, Suite 503 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 357-9700 Facsimile: (617) 227-2843 E-mail: jonathan@erisaattorneys.com - and - Erik D. Peterson, Esq. ERIK PETERSON LAW OFFICES 110 West Vine Street, Suite 300 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (800) 614-1957 E-mail: erik@eplo.law - and - J. Brandon Mcwherter, Esq. MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC 341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite 230 Franklin, TN 37067 Telephone: (615) 354-1144 E-mail: brandon@msb.law The Defendants are represented by: Daniel P. Tighe, Esq. Nicholas J. Ramacher, Esq. DONNELLY, CONROY, & GELHAAR, LLP 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1600 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 720-2880 E-mail: dpt@dcglaw.com njr@dcglaw.com - and - David T. Moran, Esq. Christopher A. Thompson, Esq. Michael J. Murtha, Esq. Marilyn Brown, Esq. JACKSON WALKER L.L.P. 2323 Ross Avenue, Suite 600 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 953-6000 Facsimile: (214) 953-5822 E-mail: dmoran@jw.com cthompson@jw.com mmurtha@jw.com mbrown@jw.com ARBOR FINANCIAL: Staubus Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages in N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARTER STAUBUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARBOR FINANCIAL ADVISORS, LLC, and DANNY DELGADO, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10547 (N.D. Ill., September 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from June 16, 2025 to August 22, 2025. Arbor Financial Advisors, LLC is a financial advisory firm in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James B. Zouras, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Anna M. Ceragioli, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC 222 West Adams Street, Suite 2020 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 Email: jzouras@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com aceragioli@stephanzouras.com ARCHERY TRADE: Controls Archery Equipment Prices, Reznich Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY REZNICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARCHERY TRADE ASSOCIATION, INC.; BOWTECH INC.; BPS DIRECT, LLC d/b/a BASS PRO SHOPS; CABELA'S LLC; DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC.; HOYT ARCHERY, INC.; JAY'S SPORTS INC. d/b/a JAY'S SPORTING GOODS; KINSEY'S OUTDOORS, INC.; LANCASTER ARCHERY SUPPLY, INC.; MATHEWS ARCHERY, INC.; and PRECISION SHOOTING EQUIPMENT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:25-cv-03480 (D. Minn., September 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act. The case arises from the Defendants' unlawful agreement to raise, fix, maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of archery products, purchased from one or more of the Manufacturer Defendants and/or Retailer Defendants from January 1, 2014, through the present. According to the complaint, the Defendants exchanged competitively sensitive, non-public information concerning, inter alia, seasonal sales numbers, prices, output, percentages of sales by product type, capacity, demand, sales volume, and future sales strategies to carry out their price-fixing conspiracy. As a result of the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, the Plaintiffs and Class members have sustained antitrust injury and damages. Archery Trade Association, Inc. is a trade group focused on the sports of archery and bowhunting with its primary place of business in New Ulm, Minnesota. Bowtech, Inc. is an archery equipment company with its primary place of business in Eugene, Oregon. BPS Direct, LLC, doing business as Bass Pro Shops, is a retail company with its primary place of business in Springfield, Missouri. Cabela's LLC is a retail company with its primary place of business in Sidney, Nebraska. DICK'S Sporting Goods, Inc. is a retail company with its primary place of business in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania. Hoyt Archery, Inc. is an archery equipment company with its primary place of business in Salt Lake City, Utah. Jay's Sports, Inc., doing business as Jay's Sporting Goods, is a retail company with its primary place of business in Clare, Michigan. Kinsey's Outdoors, Inc. is a retail company with its primary place of business in Mount Joy, Pennsylvania. Lancaster Archery Supply, Inc. is an archery distributor with its primary place of business in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Mathews Archery, Inc. is an archery equipment company with its primary place of business in Sparta, Wisconsin. Precision Shooting Equipment, Inc. is an archery equipment company with its primary place of business in Tucson, Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vildan A. Teske, Esq. Lee Owen, Esq. TESKE LAW PLLC 80 South Eighth Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 746-1558 Email: teske@teskelaw.com - and - Kevin S. Landau, Esq. Brett Cebulash, Esq. Evan Rosin, Esq. TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP 123 William Street, Suite 1900A New York, NY 10038 Email: klandau@tcllaw.com bcebulash@tcllaw.com erosin@tcllaw.com BARK INC: Continues to Defend Shareholders' Suit in Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------ Bark, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against a putative class action lawsuit pending in a Delaware court. On March 20, 2024, three alleged shareholders filed a putative class action complaint in the lawsuit styled Kenville v. Northern Star Sponsor LLC, et al., Case No. 2024-276, which is pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery. On September 30, 2024, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint is currently pending against (a) certain officers and directors of Northern Star Acquisition Corp. at the time of its proposed acquisition of Legacy BARK, and (b) Northern Star Sponsor, LLC. The alleged class consists of Company stockholders who held stock as of the redemption deadline and who elected not to redeem all or some of their stock, and the claims alleged are for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. At this time, the Company is not able to quantify any potential liability in connection with this litigation because the case is in its early stages. BEAUTY HEALTH: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Beauty Health Company disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the securities class action lawsuit pending in a California court. On November 16, 2023, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company, its then-current President and Chief Executive Officer, Andrew Stanleick, its former Chief Financial Officer, Liyuan Woo, and its current Chief Financial Officer, Michael Monahan. The complaint, styled Abduladhim A. Alghazwi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. The Beauty Health Company, Andrew Stanleick, Liyuan Woo, and Michael Monahan, Case No. 2:23-cv-09733 (C.D. Ca.), asserts claims for violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all defendants (First Claim), and violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants (Second Claim). The complaint alleges that, between May 10, 2022 and November 13, 2023, defendants materially misled the investing public by publicly issuing false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions relating to Hydrafacial's business, operations, and prospects, specifically with respect to the performance of and demand for the Syndeo 1.0 and 2.0 devices. The relief sought in the complaint includes a request for compensatory damages suffered by the plaintiff and other members of the putative class for damages allegedly sustained as a result of the alleged securities violations. BEAZER HOMES: Fogle Appeals Arbitration Ruling to 4th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------- MICAH J. FOGLE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Micah J. Fogle, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Beazer Homes, LLC a/k/a Beazer Homes Corp., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00830-RMG, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was transferred from the Berkeley County Court of Common Pleas to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, is brought against the Defendant for (1) negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, willfulness, and wantonness; (2) breach of warranty of workmanlike services, breach of warranty for fitness for a particular purpose, breach of warranty of merchantability and serviceability, and breach of warranty against latent defects; and (3) unfair trade practices. On Feb. 20, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, which Judge Richard M. Gergel granted on Aug. 21, 2025. The Court concludes that it was the Plaintiffs who violated the Purchase and Sale Agreement's (PSA) arbitration provision in the first place by suing in state court. By contrast, the Defendant has done nothing to waive its right to arbitrate the Plaintiffs' claims. Nor have the Plaintiffs shown that the Defendant's actions (removing this action and quickly moving to compel arbitration) have prejudiced the Plaintiffs. The appellate case is entitled Micah Fogle v. Beazer Homes, LLC, Case No. 25-194, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on September 2, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners MICAH J. FOGLE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Amanda Morgan Blundy, Esq. BLUNDY LAW FIRM, LLC 297 Seven Farms Drive Charleston, SC 29492 Telephone: (843) 867-6050 Defendant-Respondent BEAZER HOMES, LLC is represented by: James Weatherholtz, Esq. WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP P.O. Box 999 Charleston, SC 29402 Telephone: (843) 722-3400 BERGEN IMPORTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Vanegas Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- TEOFILO VANEGAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BERGEN IMPORTS INC.; SAM KAPROS; HARRY KAPROS; and HELEN CAREY, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-14373-CCC-MAH (D.N.J., Aug. 9, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Vanegas was employed by the Defendants as a mechanic. Bergen Imports Inc. specializes in German imports, collision, mechanical repairs, performance enhancement, diagnostics, body repair car repair. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 www.stillmanlegalpc.com BHP GROUP: Settles Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit for A$110-Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Rajasik Mukherjee, writing for Reuters, reports that global miner BHP Group (BHP.AX), said on Tuesday, September 2, it would pay A$110 million ($72.52 million) to settle an Australian shareholder class action related to the deadly 2015 Fundao tailings dam collapse. The class action was filed in the Federal Court of Australia in 2018 on behalf of the shareholders who had acquired BHP shares prior to the Fundao Dam failure. The dam collapse at an iron ore mine owned by Samarco near the city of Mariana in southeastern Brazil had killed 19 people. The disaster also left hundreds of people homeless and flooded forests and polluted the Doce River. Samarco is a joint venture between BHP's Brazilian unit and miner Vale (VALE3.SA), opens new tab. In 2024, a Brazilian federal court ruled that Vale, BHP and Samarco were not criminally liable for the dam collapse. BHP, the world's largest listed miner, said it expects to recover the majority of the settlement amount from its insurers. [GN] BUBOLO MEDICAL: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ethan Radvansky, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. Bubolo Medical, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-04365-SCJ (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Steve Jones entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to extend the time to file a motion for class certification. The time for filing a motion for class certification will be addressed in the Court's scheduling order following the submission of the Parties' joint preliminary report and discovery plan. Bubolo is a wellness center. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DSFhWr at no extra charge.[CC] BUFFALO EXCHANGE: Bryant Bid to Certify Class Tossed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DELANEY BRYANT, BRIANNA LEMMON, and VIOLET OSPINA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. BUFFALO EXCHANGE, LTD., Case No. 1:23-cv-08286-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Arun Subramanian entered an order denying the plaintiffs' motion to certify the class without prejudice. The Court says that to the extent that the plaintiffs believe they can satisfy the certification requirements for a subclass of retail employees across locations or at a particular store, they may submit a motion to that effect by Oct. 24, 2025, with opposition briefing due Nov. 7, 2025, and the reply due Nov. 14, 2025. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Dkt. 68. The Plaintiffs allege that their former employer, Buffalo Exchange, violated the New York Labor Law by paying them biweekly instead of weekly. The Plaintiffs move to certify a class of: "All current and former retail employees in Buffalo Exchange's New York locations." On Sept. 19, 2023, the plaintiffs sued Buffalo Exchange on behalf of a putative class of current and former New York retail employees. Bryant and Lemmon worked as buyers at Buffalo Exchange's East Village location until September 2019 and October 2020, respectively. Until November 2022, Ospina worked as a cashier at the store in Astoria, Queens, which has since closed. The Defendant is a clothing retailer. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kPsYCE at no extra charge.[CC] CALIFORNIA: Saddozai Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shikeb Saddozai, et al., v. A. Long, et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-07253-KAW (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class of: "All persons similarly situated inmates prisoners who are confined in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and as a result of their confinement will be subjected to violations, fraud, self enrichment, trespass to personal property, violations right to use and control property, discrimination, denialof due process and equality protection under the law to hearing or notice of any opportunity for some kind of hearing, by the Defendant(s)." A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3Dksmd at no extra charge.[CC] CAMPBELL'S COMPANY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Humphrey Says --------------------------------------------------------------- JAY HUMPHREY, WALTER TERRELL, and DEVIN ROBINSON, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE CAMPBELL'S COMPANY, PEPPERIDGE FARM INCORPORATED, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-15108 (D.N.J., August 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to pay employees overtime wages. The complaint seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as under the state laws of Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Connecticut. Plaintiffs Humphrey, Terrell, and Robinson worked for the Defendants as hourly, non-exempt production workers in Denver, Pennsylvania facility from approximately December 2021 to July 2024, in Downers Grove, Illinois facility from approximately July 2023 to June 2025, and in Bloomfield, Connecticut facility from approximately May 2023 to January 2024, respectively. During their employment with Campbell, Named Plaintiffs and other similarly situated production/manufacturing employees were not paid for all overtime wages they earned because employees were not paid for all work time, including overtime, says the suit. The Campbell's Company is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in Camden, New Jersey. The Company produces and markets branded convenience food products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Krysten Connon, Esq. Sarah Schalman-Bergen, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Direct: (267) 256-9973 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: kconnon@llrlaw.com ssb@llrlaw.com - and - Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com CANVAS ENERGY: Class Settlement in Wake Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wake Energy LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. Canvas Energy LLC, f/k/a Chaparral Energy, L.L.C., Case No. 6:25-cv-00249-JAR (E.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Jason Robertson entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement, certifying the class for settlement purposes, approving form and manner of notice, and setting date for final fairness hearing. 1. The certified Settlement Class are defined as follows: "All non-excluded persons or entities who: (1) (A) received late payments under the PRSA from the Defendant (or Defendant's designee) for oil-and-gas proceeds from Oklahoma wells; or (B) whose proceeds were remitted to unclaimed property divisions of any government entity by the Defendant; and (2) whose payments or whose unclaimed property did not include the statutory interest required by the PRSA." Excluded from the Class are: (1) the Defendant, its affiliates, predecessors, and employees, officers, and directors; (2) agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the State of Oklahoma or the United States of America, including any Indian tribe as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(4) or Indian allottee as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(2); (3) Alta Mesa Resources, LP; and (4) Oklahoma Energy Acquisitions, LP. 2. A Final Fairness Hearing shall be held on Jan. 8, 2026, at 11:30 a.m. The class action lawsuit is brought by the Plaintiff for the alleged failure to pay statutory interest on payments made outside the time periods set forth in the Production Revenue Standards Act (the "PRSA") for oil and gas production proceeds from oil and gas wells in Oklahoma. On July 17, 2025, the Parties executed a stipulation and agreement of settlement finalizing the terms of the Settlement. Canvas is an independent oil and natural gas exploration and production company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V29Nmj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brady L. Smith, Esq. Harry "Skeeter" Jordan, Esq. BRADY SMITH LAW, PLLC One Leadership Square, Suite 1320 211 N. Robinson Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 293-3029 E-mail: Brady@BLSmithLaw.com Skeeter@BLSmithLaw.com - and - Randy C. Smith, Esq. RANDY C. SMITH AND ASSOCIATES One Leadership Square, Suite 1310 211 North Robinson Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 212-2786 Facsimile: (405) 232-6515 E-mail: randy@rcsmithlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Jodi C. Cole, Esq. Patrick Stein, Esq. MCAFEE & TAFT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 8th Floor, Two Leadership Square 211 N. Robinson Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-9621 Facsimile: (405) 235-0439 E-mail: Jodi.cole@mcafeetaft.com Patrick.stein@mcafeetaft.com CASSAVA SCIENCES: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Bozorgis Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------------ CASSAVA SCIENCES, INCORPORATED, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Mohammad Bozorgis, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cassava Sciences, Incorporated, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00751, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. On Aug. 27, 2021, the Plaintiff Pierre Brazeau filed in this Court the first securities fraud class action against Cassava, which was followed by four more. On June 30, 2022, the District Court consolidated the cases and appointed Mohammad Bozorgis as Lead Plaintiff and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Lead Counsel. On June 20, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a renewed opposed motion for class certification, which Judge David A. Ezra granted on Aug. 12, 2025. The Court finds that adjudicating this case as a class action is the superior method. Because the Plaintiffs meet all requirements under Rule 23 to certify this class action, the Court concludes the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Rule 23 is granted. Therefore, the Court certifies a class of all purchasers or acquirers of Cassava common stock or call options on Cassava common stock or sellers of put options on Cassava common stock (Cassava Securities) between September 14, 2020 and October 12, 2023. The appellate case is entitled Bozorgis v. Cassava Sciences, Case No. 25-90021, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on September 2, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents MOHAMMAD BOZORGIS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Daniel S. Drosman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, L.L.P. 655 W. Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 - and - Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY, PRONGAY & MURRAY, L.L.P. 1925 Century Park, E. Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Defendants-Petitioners CASSAVA SCIENCES, INCORPORATED, et al. are represented by: Gregg Costa, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, L.L.P. 811 Main Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (346) 718-6600 - and - Zachary Rowen Taylor, I, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER, L.L.P. 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10111 Telephone: (212) 589-4645 CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL: Class Settlement in Arevalo Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSA AREVALO, et al., v. CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-01124-LS-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine Staton entered an order granting motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Court appoints Christina Humphrey Law, P.C., and Bradley Grombacher, LLP as Class Counsel, and appoints Rosa Arevalo, Michelle Cornejo, and Theresa Phuong T Mai, the Named Plaintiffs, as the Class Representatives. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to change the case caption to remove the names of Jason Zimmerman, Lillian Mena, and Asia Fowler as class representatives. The Court sets the following deadlines in connection with the Order and the Final Fairness Hearing: Event Deadline Provision of Class Member List to Sept. 16, 2025 Settlement Administrator: Notice to be substantially completed: Sept. 26, 2025 The Plaintiffs' motion, memorandum of law Oct. 21, 2025 and other materials in support of their requested award of attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards: The Plaintiffs' motion for final approval Oct. 21, 2025 of class action settlement: Deadline for class member objections to Nov. 7, 2025 Settlement: Final fairness hearing: Dec. 5, 2025, at 10:30 a.m. The Plaintiffs include MICHELLE CORNEJO, ASIA FOWLER, THERESA PHUONG T MAI, and LILLIAN MENA individually and as representatives of a Putative Class of Participants and Beneficiaries, on behalf of all similarly situated participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH SYSTEM 403(B) RETIREMENT PLAN. The Defendants include THE CEDARS-SINAI BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ PENSION INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, THE CEDARS-SINAI DEFINED CONTRIBUTION RETIREMENT PLANS’ COMMITTEE, ANDY ORTIZ, DEBRA LEE, ERIC HOLOMAN, JOSHUA LOBEL, LESLIE VERMUT, RICHARD SINAIKO, STEVEN ROMICK, MARK RAPAPORT, JAMES NATHAN, DAVID WRIGLEY, JEFF SMITH, DAVID MARSHALL, PASY WANG, BRYAN CROFT and DOES 1 through 10, Cedars-Sinai is a non-profit, tertiary teaching hospital and multi-specialty academic health science center. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SsUVKP at no extra charge.[CC] CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Clark Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ VICTORIA CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC; CENTENE CORPORATION HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; HEALTH NET, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV23417 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 8, 2025) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. Plaintiff Clark was employed by the Defendants as a staff. Centene Management Company LLC provides healthcare solutions, medicaid and medicare health plans, treatment compliance, and nurse triage. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. Farrah Grant, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 420 N. Camden Dr., Suite 100 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com thomas@setarehlaw.com farrah@setarehlaw.com CHEWY INC: Faces Class Action Over Overcharging Customers Taxes --------------------------------------------------------------- Katie Mulvaney, writing for Providence Journal, reports that a Rhode Island resident has filed a class action lawsuit against the pet supply company Chewy. The lawsuit alleges Chewy overcharged sales tax for customers in its Autoship program. Customers who used the Autoship program from 2022 to the present may be included in the class action. A Rhode Islander is suing the pet supply company Chewy, alleging that it engaged in deceptive trade practices by overcharging customers taxes. Alix Cavas has filed a class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court accusing the online retailer of charging sales tax on the full price of goods in its allegedly discounted Autoship program for pet products. What's behind the Chewy class action lawsuit? According to Cavas' complaint, the Autoship terms clearly state that Chewy's method of calculating the total amount charged to its Autoship customers will be "the price of the item, less the Autoship & Save discount or any other discount, if applicable, plus any applicable shipping charges and sales tax." That means the sales tax is to be calculated after the "discount" is applied, the complaint states. Instead, Cavas alleges that Chewy's "deceptive trade practices overcharges its Autoship customers more sales tax than is due on goods which are discounted through the Autoship program." The complaint charges that the company calculates the tax based on the full price of items. "If [Cavas] and/or the Class members had knowledge of defendant's unfair methods of competition and deceptive acts or practices described herein, they would not have enrolled on to Chewy's Autoship program, or they would have been made aware that the Autoship program did not offer a 'discount,'" the New York law firm Gainey, McKenna & Egleston wrote in the complaint. Who can join the Chewy Autoship class action lawsuit? The allegations apply to customers who enrolled in the company's Autoship program between 2022 and today. [GN] CITYWIDE SECURITY: Underpays Security Guards, Reyes Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITYWIDE SECURITY AND PRIVATE INVESTIGATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04894 (E.D.N.Y., September 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages and failure to furnish accurate wage statements in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Mr. Reyes was employed by the Defendant as a security guard from January 2024 until October 18, 2024. Citywide Security and Private Investigation, Inc. is a security services provider based in Brooklyn, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Katz, Esq. Nicole D. Grunfeld, Esq. KATZ MELINGER PLLC 370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 460-0047 Facsimile: (212) 428-6811 Email: kjkatz@katzmelinger.com - and - Christopher Q. Davis, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER Q. DAVIS, PLLC 80 Broad Street, Suite 703 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 430-7930 COMMUNITY CARE ADHC: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Care ADHC, Inc. The case is styled as Sonia Galvan Martinez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Community Care ADHC, Inc., Case No. 25STCV25904 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 3, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Community Care ADHC, Inc. -- https://communitycareph.com/ -- provides health care services.[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 COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS: Watson Files Suit in D. Columbia ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Connections, Inc. The case is styled as Shantierra Watson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Community Connections, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-02991 (D.D.C., Sept. 3, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Community Connections, Inc. -- https://communityconnectionsinc.org/ -- provides life-enriching services that promote optimal independence for people with disabilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Kevin Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Fax: (202) 686-2877 Email: dlietz@milberg.com CONTACT LENS: Searle Sues Over Total Price's Hidden Junk Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- TAMMY SEARLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONTACT LENS KING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-01211-BKS-DJS (N.D.N.Y., September 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the New York General Business Law, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the False Advertising Law, and the Unfair Competition Law, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged use of an unfair and deceptive fee practice called drip pricing. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in listing one price for a good or service up front, then adding one or more hidden "junk fees" to the total price just before the consumer decides to complete the transaction. As a result of the Defendant's unfair business practice, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered damages. Contact Lens King, Inc. is an online seller, with its principal place of business in Champlain, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Natalie Lyons, Esq. Ian R. Bensberg, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 Email: ltoops@cohenmalad.com nlyons@cohenmalad.com ibensberg@cohenmalad.com - and - Gerard J. Stranch, IV, Esq. Michael C. Tackeff, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com mtackeff@stranchlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1100 Email: sam@straussborellli.com raina@straussborrelli.com CVS CAREMARK: Faces Class Suit Over Weight-Loss Drug Coverage ------------------------------------------------------------- Heather Miller, writing for Live NOW, reports that a class-action lawsuit accuses CVS Caremark of denying medically necessary treatments by stopping coverage of Zepbound, Eli Lilly's blockbuster weight-loss drug. CVS Caremark stopped covering Zepbound on July 1 after reaching a deal with Novo Nordisk, the maker of Wegovy. The lawsuit says some 200,000 people were impacted by the decision. CVS Caremark is facing a class-action lawsuit over its decision to stop covering Zepbound, Eli Lilly's blockbuster GLP-1 weight-loss drug. The suit was filed on behalf of two people who lost Zepbound coverage through their employer-sponsored health care plan, though the lawsuit says some 200,000 people were impacted by Caremark's decision. Zepbound patients whose employers use CVS Caremark as a pharmacy benefits manager were told they'd have to switch to Wegovy, a similar drug that studies have shown is less effective than Zepbound for treating obesity. Why is CVS Caremark being sued? The lawsuit accuses Caremark, the nation's largest pharmacy benefit manager, of denying medically necessary drugs in violation of federal law. CVS Caremark stopped covering Zepbound on July 1 after reaching a deal with Novo Nordisk, the maker of Wegovy. As part of the deal, Caremark agreed to remove Zepbound from its formulary. RELATED: Zepbound vs. Wegovy: Here's which weight loss drug worked best in first trial The lawsuit claims Caremark cannot deny Zepbound as "not medically necessary" while approving Wegovy as a necessary treatment for the same condition, particularly when Zepbound has been proven to be more effective and has a lower list price than Wegovy. Wegovy's list price is about $1,350 a month, while Zepbound's is roughly $1,100 for a month's supply. But both drugmakers offer it for about $500 a month to people without insurance coverage. What they're saying: According to the lawsuit, one of the plaintiffs switched from Zepbound to Wegovy in August after exhausting all appeals to Caremark, then "experienced a number of side effects, including the return of his Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease, stomach pain, hunger, and, most notably, weight gain." "Because of their different methods of action, different clinical outcomes, and different side effects for individual patients, Zepbound and Wegovy are not clinically interchangeable," the lawsuit states. RELATED: Eli Lilly's new GLP-1 weight loss pill showed success in clinical trial CVS Caremark disagrees. A spokesperson told FOX TV Stations in May that despite what studies have shown, "real-world evidence suggests that they are comparable in actual use." Wegovy-maker Novo Nordisk says that's not true. "The notion that all GLP-1s are the same and 'interchangeable' is not correct," Jason Brett, executive medical director for Novo Nordisk, said in a statement to CNN. The other side: A CVS Caremark spokesperson told Bloomberg Law the lawsuit is "without merit." "We'll defend ourselves vigorously against those claims," the spokesperson said. Big picture view: The lawsuit highlights ongoing issues with access and affordability as GLP-1 drugs become more popular. The medications still amount to around $500 per month for those without insurance, and even for people with insurance, some plans don't cover the obesity medications at all. Dr. Brett Osborn, a Florida neurosurgeon and longevity expert, called the medications "the holy grail of modern medicine." "These medications don't just treat obesity -- they're already showing promise in everything from cardiovascular disease to neurodegenerative disease to addiction," he told Fox News Digital. "I've said it before, and I'll say it again: These are not amenities. They are the holy grail of modern medicine." Zepbound vs. Wegovy Dig deeper: Zepbound and Wegovy are both GLP-1 drugs approved for weight loss, but Zepbound targets two hormones, GIP and GLP-1, while Wegovy only targets GLP-1. According to a study funded by Eli Lilly and published in the New England Journal of Medicine, people taking Zepbound lost nearly 50% more weight than those using rival Wegovy. Clinical trial participants who took Zepbound lost an average of 50 pounds over 72 weeks, while those who took semaglutide, or Wegovy, lost about 33 pounds. Zepbound is also FDA-approved to treat sleep apnea in patients with obesity, while Wegovy is FDA-approved to treat cardiovascular disease. How do GLP-1 drugs work? The backstory: GLP-1s, a class of drugs that include semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Mounjaro and Zepbound), were initially prescribed to treat Type 2 diabetes, but have soared in popularity because of weight loss. Wegovy and Zepbound are FDA approved for weight loss, while Ozempic and Mounjaro are approved for Type 2 diabetes. The drugs work by mimicking the actions of hormones, found primarily in the gut, that kick in after people eat. The hormones help regulate blood sugar by triggering the pancreas to release insulin, another hormone, and slowing the release of sugar from the liver. People who are overweight or have obesity can become insulin-resistant, which means the body doesn't respond to insulin properly. The obesity drugs lower blood sugar and slow down digestion, so people feel full longer. They also affect signals in the brain linked to feelings of fullness and satisfaction, tamping down appetite, food-related thoughts and cravings. Because people feel full longer, they eat less and lose weight. However, it appears that if people taking the drugs stop, most regain the weight they lost -- and the health problems that come with weight gain. [GN] CVS CAREMARK: Faces Suit Over Denied Zepbound Drug Coverage Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Paige Minemyer, writing for Fierce Healthcare, reports that a new class-action lawsuit alleges CVS Caremark unlawfully changed its coverage for popular GLP-1 drug Zepbound. Earlier this year, Caremark revealed that it would remove Eli Lilly's blockbuster drug from its standard control, advanced control and value formularies, effective July 1. The pharmacy benefit manager said it would instead give preferred status to Novo Nordisk's GLP-1 drug Wegovy, arguing that the two medications are interchangeable. The plaintiffs in the class action, filed in New York's Southern District Court on Wednesday, September 3, say the PBM is instead shirking its fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, as their providers have deemed Zepbound medically necessary for them. For example, one patient in the suit was later diagnosed with sleep apnea, which Zepbound is approved to manage. "Plaintiffs' claims for coverage for their Zepbound prescriptions were improperly denied, and the arbitrary and capricious denials issued by CVS Caremark ignored the language of the underlying plans, the reasons why Zepbound is medically necessary for each Plaintiff, and overruled the recommendations of Plaintiffs' skilled and knowledgeable medical providers," per the lawsuit. The lawsuit also disputes that the drugs are clinically interchangeable given that they're different molecules despite both being within the broader GLP-1 class. Zepbound is a tirzepatide drug while Wegovy is a semaglutide product. The plaintiffs note that some patients who experienced severe symptoms with semaglutide had a milder experience with tirzepatide. Different drugs within this class also have separate approvals for additional indications, with Zepbound being the only product approved by the FDA for patients with obesity and sleep apnea. The lawsuit also argues that Zepbound has been proven to be more effective for weight loss, and, on its formulary page for the switch, CVS acknowledges that studies with that implication exist while saying "real-world evidence suggests the two are comparable." "Because of their different methods of action, different clinical outcomes, and different side effects for individual patients, Zepbound and Wegovy are not clinically interchangeable," the plaintiffs said in their complaint. CVS said on its website that offering preferred formulary status to Wegovy is critical to promoting competition that can drive down costs. GLP-1s are a critical area of concern for employers and other plan sponsors as a cost driver in the pharmacy benefit. Formulary placement is one of the general tools PBMs use to manage costs on behalf of clients. A Caremark spokesperson told Fierce Healthcare that the lawsuit is "without merit" and that the PBM intends to defend itself against the suit. They added that Caremark does have an exemption process in place if necessary. "Our formulary strategy maintains clinically appropriate coverage while using competition to drive lower costs," the spokesperson said. "By drawing upon our decades of expertise in making prescription drugs more affordable and accessible, we are confident that our formulary move means lower costs and better outcomes for consumers and our customers." [GN] CYGNUS HOME: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hensley Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- EARL HENSLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CYGNUS HOME SERVICE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09462 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 25, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Hensley was employed by the Defendant as a driver. Cygnus Home Service, LLC, doing business as Yelloh, operates as a food delivery application. The Company delivers frozen food including meat, ice-cream, and pizza to home. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey J. Levine, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY J. LEVINE 100 North La Salle Street, Suite 1410 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 372-4600 Email: jeffjlev@yahoo.com - and - James A. Hasier, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES A. HASIER 18400 Maple Creek Drive, Suite 500 Tinley Park, IL 60477 Telephone: (312) 401-1387 Email: jhasier@jhasierlaw.net - and - Terrence Buehler, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF TERRENCE BUEHLER 417 North Marion Street Oak Park, IL 60302 Telephone: (312) 371-4385 Email: tbuehler@tbuehlerlaw.com DASHING DIVA: Scott Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dashing Diva Franchise Corp. The case is styled as Jayanna Scott, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Dashing Diva Franchise Corp., Case No. 1:25-cv-01117-SKO (E.D. Cal., Sept. 3, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Dashing Diva -- https://dashingdiva.com/ -- offers a nail salon experience.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Medley Seeks More Time to File Class Cert --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as William Medley II, et al., individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. District of Columbia, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00724-AHA (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline to file his motion for class certification. The current class certification deadline is Sept. 8, 2025. The Court set this deadline upon the Plaintiff's consented-to request on the good cause that the Parties were at the time briefing the Defendants' dispositive motions to dismiss. The Motions remain pending and as a result, discovery had not yet commenced in this action. District of Columbia is located on the Potomac River bordering Maryland and Virginia. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VXrArM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Randolph T. Chen, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H St., NE, Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 Facsimile: (202) 800-2730 E-mail: rchen@classlawdc.com - and - Courtney L. Weiner, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF COURTNEY WEINER PLLC 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 827-9980 E-mail: cw@courtneyweinerlaw.com DONALD TRUMP: Class Cert Hearing in Thakur Reset to Sept. 18 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Thakur, et al., v. Donald Trump, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-04737 (N.D. Cal., Filed June 4, 2025), the Hon. Judge Rita F. Lin entered an order granting motion to reset time of hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Provisional Class Certification. -- The hearing is reset for Sept. 18, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Trump is an American politician, media personality, and businessman.[CC] DOORI INC: Stivers Sues Over Improper Tip Retention in D. Ariz. --------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW STIVERS, DALLIN HUISH, and SIMEON HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DOORI INC., an Arizona corporation, SUE JUNG KIM and PAUL YONGHWAN KIM, a married couple, and KYUNGMI KO and YOUNG TAE NAM, a married couple, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03207-KML (D. Ariz., September 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for improper tip retention in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed as servers at the Defendants' restaurant in Arizona at any time between 2022 and 2025. Doori Inc. is a restaurant owner and operator, doing business in Maricopa County, Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq. Christopher J. Bendau, Esq. BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC P.O. Box 97066 Phoenix, AZ 85060 Telephone: (480) 382-5176 Facsimile: (480) 304-3805 Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com chris@bendaulaw.com DR PEPPER: Canada Dry Drink Label Misleading, Piotroski Says ------------------------------------------------------------ KARIN PIOTROSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-04818-SIL (E.D.N.Y., August 29, 2025) is a proposed class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other New York consumers who have purchased Defendant's Canada Dry beverages with the misrepresentations on the front of the packaging that the products are from Canada. According to the complaint, the Defendant's marketing, labeling, and sale of the products mislead reasonable consumers to believe that the beverages are produced in Canada, by using the phrase Canada Dry on the label. By labeling the products with the Canada representation, the Defendant creates consumer deception and confusion. A reasonable consumer purchases the products believing that they are from Canada. However, a reasonable consumer would not deem the Products to be from Canada if they knew the Products were produced in the United States, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action to recover the monies she and the Class members paid for the products as a result of the misrepresentation, as well as statutory damages and the other relief. Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Frisco, Texas. The Company manufactures labels, distributes, and sells beverage products throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben Travis, Esq. BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 353-7966 E-mail: ben@bentravislaw.com - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com - and - Charles D. Moore, Esq. REESE LLP 121 N. Washington Ave, 2nd Floor Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: cmoore@reesellp.com EL POPOCATEPETL: Faces Villa Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Ill. ------------------------------------------------------------ LEODEGARIO VILLA and JUAN AGUILAR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EL POPOCATEPETL INDUSTRIES, INC., d/b/a EMA GROUP, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10627 (N.D. Ill., September 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages, unlawful wage deductions, and unpaid vacation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. Plaintiff Villa worked for the Defendant for approximately 6 years until he was terminated approximately on March 2023. Plaintiff Aguilar worked for the Defendant for approximately 25 years until he was terminated approximately on February 2023. El Popocatepetl Industries, Inc., doing business as Ema Group, is a factory operator in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alvar Ayala, Esq. FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT 77 West Washington, Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (224) 522-3178 EVERLAST SIGN: Appeals Judgment in Rafter Wage Suit to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ ALEXA TIEFENWORTH, et al. are taking an appeal from a court judgment in the lawsuit entitled Frank Rafter, Jr., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Everlast Sign & Service Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-4588, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint is filed against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide wage notices, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, failure to pay spread-of-hours premium, failure to reimburse business expenses, and failure to pay minimum wages for all hours worked. On Aug. 1, 2025, the Court entered judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs are awarded $110,929.32, of which $55,464.66 is in compensatory damages and $55,464.66 in liquidated damages. Named Plaintiff Rafter shall also recover $19,416.78 in pre-judgment interest. Named Plaintiff Kelly shall also recover $8,398.12 in pre-judgment interest. Named Plaintiff Simms shall also recover $2,844.66 in pre-judgment interest. The Plaintiffs shall also recover post-judgment interest on the entire money award of $141,588.88, inclusive of pre-judgment interest and liquidated damages, calculated from the date the Clerk of Court enters judgment in this action until the date of payment, at the rate set forth in 28 U.S.C. Section 1961. The appellate case is entitled Rafter v. Everlast Sign & Service Inc., Case No. 25-2101, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on September 2, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees FRANK RAFTER, JR., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Brian L. Greben, Esq. 316 Great Neck Road Great Neck, NY 11021 Defendants-Appellants ALEXA TIEFENWORTH, et al. appear pro se. EXTRA SUPERMARKET: Sends Unsolicited Marketing Calls, Turizo Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- RYAN TURIZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXTRA SUPERMARKET GROUP LLC, Defendant, Case No. CACE-25-013407 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty., September 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending unwanted telemarketing communications to the cellular phone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote its products or services without obtaining prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's action, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered harm. Extra Supermarket Group LLC is a supermarket chain, headquartered in Miami, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faaris K. Uddin, Esq. Mitchell D. Hansen, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (813) 340-8838 Email: faaris@jibraellaw.com mitchell@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com FARMERS GROUP: Rice Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Clients' Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ MELANIE RICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-08355 (C.D. Cal., September 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within Farmers' network systems following a data breach detected on or around May 29, 2025. The Defendants 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. Farmers Insurance Exchange is an insurance company, with its principal place of business in Woodland Hills, California. Farmers Group, Inc. is an insurance company, headquartered in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park E, #1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com FARMERS GROUP: Scorio Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info ----------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINA SCORIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FARMERS GROUP, INC. d/b/a FARMERS INSURANCE, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-08293 (C.D. Cal., September 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, violations of California's Unfair Competition Law and the California Customer Records Act, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach detected on or around May 29, 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. Farmers Group, Inc., doing business as Farmers Insurance, is an insurance company, headquartered in Los Angeles, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachele R. Byrd, Esq. Stephanie Aviles, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 1820, San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-4599 Facsimile: (619) 234-4599 Email: byrd@whafh.com saviles@whafh.com - and - James F. Woods, Esq. Annie E. Causey, Esq. WOODS LONERGAN PLLC One Grand Central Place 60 East 42nd St., Suite 1410 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 684-2500 Email: jwoods@woodslaw.com acausey@woodslaw.com - and - Jon Tostrud, Esq. Anthony Carter, Esq. TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, PC 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 278-2600 Facsimile: (310) 278-2640 Email: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com acarter@tostrudlaw.com FEDERAL HOME: Syron's Bid for Summary Judgment Granted ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as OHIO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, v. FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, etc., et al. Case No. 4:08-cv-00160-BYP (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Benita Y. Pearson entered an order as follows: Defendant Richard F. Syron's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. Defendant Anthony S. Piszel's Motion for Summary Judgment on All Claims is granted. Defendant Eugene McQuade's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. Defendant Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. The parties' Joint Motion to Amend Civil Trial Order is denied as moot. Final judgment will be entered in favor of Defendants and against OPERS on the Third Amended Complaint . Accordingly, summary judgment is granted in Defendants' favor on the capital position claims because OPERS fails to identify any actionable misstatement or evidence of scienter, and fails to meaningfully respond to the arguments raised. Federal is an American publicly traded, government-sponsored enterprise. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZwNWOU at no extra charge.[CC] FLOYD BONNER: Court Extends Time to File Dispositive Bids --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Just City, Inc., and class representatives Deangelo Towns and Marshawn Barnes, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Floyd Bonner Jr., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-02540 (W.D. Tenn., Filed July 31, 2024), the Hon. Judge Thomas L. Parker entered an order granting motion to extend the deadline to file dispositive motions until 30 days after the Court rules on the Motion to Certify Class. The Defendants include Shelby County Sheriff; Lee Wilson, Presiding Shelby County General Sessions Criminal Court Judge; and John Marshall, Robert Barber, Rhonda Harris, Kevin Reed, Christopher Ingram, Shayla Purifoy, Ross Sampson, Serena Gray, Terita Hewlett, Mischelle Best, Kenya Smith, Zayid Saleem, Kathy Kirk Johnson, Leslie Mozingo, Shelby County Judicial Commissioners, in their official capacities, The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC] GEICO INDEMINTY: Harn Suit Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOEL HARN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GEICO INDEMINTY COMPANY, Case No. 1:24-cv-01873-VMC (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the Class and appointing the Plaintiff as the representative of the Class and her counsel as Class counsel. The Plaintiff seeks to bring this case as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of himself and the following Class: "All individuals or legal entities who (a) were covered under a Georgia automobile insurance policy issued by Geico; and (b) made a first party claim for property damage to their covered vehicle, where: (i) Geico determined that the vehicle was not a total loss, and paid to have the vehicle repaired; (ii) the total amount of repair (including payments by GEICO, the insured or any other third party) exceeded $1,000.00; (iii) the insured vehicle, at the time of the collision, had less than 100,000 miles on it; and (iv) Geico failed to offer or pay money for diminution in value." Excluded from the Class is GEICO, any entity in which GEICO has a controlling interest; any of its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, employees and members of their immediate families; members of the federal judiciary in the Eleventh Circuit; and those with claims relating to non- owned (as that term is defined in GEICO's Georgia automobile policies) or temporary substitute vehicles. On Dec. 5, 2021, the Plaintiff's automobile, which was nearly brand new, suffered structural damage following a collision. Geico acknowledged its coverage for the claim, evaluated the physical property damage, and, as it was not a total loss, paid approximately $6,700.00 for the Plaintiff's vehicle to be repaired. However, Geico failed to pay, offer to pay, or valuate a claim for the diminution in value associated with the physical property damage of Plaintiff's vehicle. GEICO provides vehicle, property, business, and life insurance services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=z6MecZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent J. Savage, Esq. Matthew R. Bradley, Esq. SAVAGE TURNER PINCKNEY SAVAGE & SPROUSE Savannah, GA 31412 Telephone: (912) 231-1140 E-mail: lwickline@savagelawfirm.net mbradley@savagelawfirm.net GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over Windshield Wiper Defect ------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a GM vehicle owner filed a class action lawsuit against General Motors LLC. Why: The plaintiff claims certain GM vehicles suffer from a defect that causes the defective windshield wiper to fail. Where: The GM class action was filed in New Jersey Superior Court. A new class action lawsuit filed against General Motors LLC alleges certain GM vehicles suffer from a defect that causes the windshield wipers to fail. Plaintiff Kevin McKee claims GM sold and distributed defective vehicles that suffer from a latent, recurring, and dangerous electrical defect that causes the defective windshield wiper to intermittently and unpredictably fail in all operational modes. The defect, which allegedly renders the vehicles unsafe in routine rain or snow conditions, affects 2023 and 2024 GMC Yukon and Yukon XL, Chevrolet Tahoe, Chevrolet Suburban, Cadillac Escalade, and Cadillac Escalade ESV vehicles, McKee alleges. The GM class action claims the defect causes the wipers to stop functioning suddenly and without warning, disabling visibility for the driver and creating an unreasonable safety risk. Class action: GM failed to offer fix for windshield wiper defect The GM class action alleges the defect has no clear diagnostic code, has proven resistant to repair, and continues to affect vehicles that remain in active use. McKee claims GM has failed to recall the vehicles or offer an effective repair, despite receiving numerous consumer complaints and warranty repair requests and issuing a technical service bulletin acknowledging the issue across multiple model lines. The automaker instead instructed dealers to observe and report the defect to GM's engineering team -- effectively treating McKee and other class members as test subjects -- leaving them without a safe, functional vehicle, the GM class action claims. "GM's failure to remedy this defect is particularly alarming because GM has previously issued a recall for closely related windshield wiper failures," McKee says. McKee claims GM is guilty of violating the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and state consumer protection statutes and of breaching express or implied warranties. He demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of compensatory and consequential damages for himself and all class members. In other GM class actions this year, plaintiffs claim the auto company refused to provide an adequate or lasting remedy for an alleged engine defect in nearly 600,00 vehicles including Yukon, Tahoe, Escalade and other models. The plaintiff is represented by Philip J. Furia of Furia Law LLC. The GM class action lawsuit is McKee, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. UNN-L-002808-25, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Union County. [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Court Awards $30MM Attys' Fee to Class Counsel ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RENE CABRERA, et al., v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 5:11-cv-01263-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward Davila entered an order: -- granting motion for final settlement approval; and -- granting in part motion for attorneys' fees, expenses, and service award The Court finds that the terms of the Settlement Agreement are fair, adequate, and reasonable; that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) and the Ninth Circuit's fairness and adequacy factors are satisfied; and that the Settlement Agreement should be approved and implemented. Class Counsel is awarded $30,000,000 in attorneys' fees and $3,599,836.34 in litigation expenses. Cabrera is granted a service award of $9,000. The parties' statement shall include information regarding the number of claims Angeion found fraudulent as of that date. The Court sets a compliance deadline on May 28, 2026, on the Court's 9:00 a.m. calendar to verify timely filing of the post-distribution accounting. Under the Settlement Agreement, and in accordance with the Court’s order granting class certification, there are two Settlement Classes: First, the "Location Targeting Class" is defined as: "All persons and entities located in the United States who, between Jan. 1, 2004 and March 22, 2011, advertised through Google's AdWords Program and paid for clicks on their Google AdWords advertisement(s), where such clicks did not originate from the location selected by the advertiser." Excluded from the Location Targeting Class are Google and its affiliates, officers, and directors, as well as members of the judiciary, their staff and jurors in this case. Also excluded are (i) the individuals and entities who requested exclusion from the Location Targeting Class pursuant to Class Notice (as listed on Appendix 1 hereto) and do not opt back into the Location Targeting Class in connection with the Settlement; and (ii) the individuals and entities who submit timely and valid request. Second, the "Search Bundled Clicks Class" is defined as: "All persons and entities located in the United States who, between June 1, 2009 and Dec. 13, 2012, advertised through Google's AdWords Program and paid for clicks on ads on Google's Display Network where the advertiser's settings allowed its ads to show on both the Search and Display Networks and did not set a Display Network bid different from the Search Network bid. Excluded from the Search Bundled Clicks Class are Google and its affiliates, officers, and directors, as well as members of the judiciary, their staff and jurors in this case. Also excluded are (i) the individuals and entities who requested exclusion from the Search Bundled Clicks Class pursuant to Class Notice (as listed on Appendix 1 hereto) and do not opt back into the Search Bundled Clicks Class in connection with the Settlement; and (ii) the individuals and entities who submit timely and valid requests for exclusion from the Search Bundled Clicks Class in connection with the Settlement. Google is an American multinational corporation and technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Sote0s at no extra charge.[CC] GROUP SOLAR: Lojewski Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAFAL LOJEWSKI, SMITH GARCIA, DANIELLE GARCIA, MANUEL ACEVEDO, and ISAMAR DELACRUZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GROUP SOLAR USA, LLC, SOLAR MOSAIC, INC., SALAL CREDIT UNION, and DANIEL YOMTOBIAN CORP D/B/A SOLAR PROGRAM, Case No. 1:22-cv-10816-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court, before the Honorable Paul Engelmayer, for an order pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class settlement. Group is a solar energy company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Bd1Oaw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel A. Schlanger, Esq. SCHLANGER LAW GROUP, LLP 150 Allens Creek Road, Suite 240 Rochester, NY 14618 Telephone: (212) 500-6114 Facsimile: (646) 612-7996 E-mail: dschlanger@consumerprotection.net GUARANTY BANCSHARES: M&A Investigates Sale to Glacier Bancorp ------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2024 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and are investigating -- Guaranty Bancshares, Inc. (NYSE: GNTY) related to its sale to Glacier Bancorp, Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, existing Guaranty shareholders will receive 1.0000 share of Glacier common stock for each share of Guaranty (subject to certain adjustments). ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for September 17, 2025. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/guaranty-bancshares-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- DallasNews Corporation (NASDAQ: DALN) related to its sale to Hearst Communications, Inc. for $14.00 in cash per share without interest to DallasNews shareholders. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for September 23, 2025. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/dallasnews-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Veritex Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: VBTX) related to its sale to Huntington Bancshares Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, Huntington will issue 1.95 shares for each outstanding share of Veritex. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for September 22, 2025. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/veritex-holdings-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- ZimVie Inc. (NASDAQ: ZIMV) related to its sale to an affiliate of ARCHIMED. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, ZimVie shareholders will receive $19.00 in cash per share. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for October 10, 2025. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/zimvie-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] HERTZ CORPORATION: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by Oct. 3 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZABEENA MAHARAJ, an individual; RODOLFO SCHULZ, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated and other aggrieved employees, v. THE HERTZ CORPORATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-04726-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to modify the case management schedule. -- The Plaintiffs' July 9, 2025, motion for class certification is now operative. -- The deadline to file an opposition is Oct. 3, 2025. -- The Plaintiff's reply is due Oct. 17, 2025. -- The Court shall hear arguments on the motion on Dec. 4, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. The Plaintiffs instituted this action on Sept. 14, 2023. The Plaintiffs filed the operative second amended complaint on June 21, 2024. Hertz is a global car rental company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0r2rcz at no extra charge.[CC] HYATT HOTELS: So Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Juhyun So, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hyatt Hotels Corporation, Hyatt Corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-01298 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 3, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-10483 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Hyatt Hotels Corporation -- https://www.hyatt.com/ -- commonly known as Hyatt Hotels & Resorts, is an American multinational hospitality company headquartered in the Riverside Plaza area of Chicago that manages and franchises luxury and business hotels, resorts, and vacation properties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Email: sbogdanovich@bursor.com The Defendants are represented by: Terence N. Hawley, Esq. Anh Quynh La, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 543-8700 Email: thawley@reedsmith.com QLa@reedsmith.com HYSTER-YALE MATERIALS: Deol Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Gurmit Deol, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HYSTER-YALE MATERIALS HANDLING, INC. a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 30-2025-01502414-CU-MC-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Sept. 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-01973. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts a claim for violation of California Penal Code Sections 638.51. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: John A. Vogt, Esq. Ryan D. Ball, Esq. Matthew T. Billeci, Esq. JONES DAY 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612.4408 Phone: +1.949.851.3939 Facsimile: +1.949.553.7539 Email: javogt@jonesday.com rball@jonesday.com mbilleci@jonesday.com ICF TECHNOLOGY: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANA NIZEUL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ICF TECHNOLOGY, INC., ACCRETIVE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-01393-MPS (D. Conn.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion and approving their proposed order for extension of time to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Defendants propose a two (2)-week extension of time for both Defendants’ response to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and for Plaintiff’s reply (if any). As such, the Defendants would file an opposition to the Motion for Class Certification on or before September 25, 2025, with Plaintiff’s Reply due October 16, 2025. The Plaintiff does not oppose the Motion. The current deadline for the Defendants to respond in opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is Sept. 11, 2025. The Defendants, due to no fault of any Party, are unable to take the deposition of the Plaintiff until September 15, 2025. The Plaintiff's deposition will provide important evidence that Defendants may use in support of its opposition to the Motion for Class Certification. Therefore, good cause exists for the Court to grant this Motion. ICF is a streaming and processing service provider. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ekB6IX at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Michael T. Kitson, Esq. Shirley S. Lou-Magnuson, Esq. Ethan Picone, Esq. Hannah A. Ard, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4200 Seattle, WA 98111-9402 Telephone: (206) 223-7000 E-mail: kitsonm@ballardspahr.com loumagnusons@ballardspahr.com piconee@ballardspahr.com ardh@ballardspahr.com - and - Tracey Salmon-Smith, Esq. Brian M. Hayes, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 600 Campus Drive Florham Park, NJ 07932-1047 Telephone: (973) 549-7000 Facsimile: (973) 360-9831 E-mail: tracey.salmonsmith@faegredrinker.com brian.hayes@faegredrinker.com JACKSBORO, TN: Faces Madison Suit Over Firefighters' Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- DEWEY W. MADISON, JR., SAMANTHA P. ASLINGER, SEAN A. BROWN, BLAKE C. KITTS, JASON M. PAULAUSKAS, PAYTON L. SMITH, JACOB E. WILSON, SHAWN B. MCGLONE, JOSHUA L. MIRACLE, JOSEPH D. ROACH, SHANE A. SEIDNER, JR., ALEXANDER P. STANDRIDGE, ISAIAH N. VANNORSTRAN, all individually and as a collective action on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. TOWN OF JACKSBORO, TENNESSEE, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00423 (E.D. Tenn., August 29, 2025) is a class action against the Town of Jacksboro, Tennessee over unlawful violation of Plaintiffs' rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act. This action is brought to recover unpaid hourly and overtime compensation owed to Plaintiffs and all current and former employees of the Defendant, who are similarly situated to Plaintiffs, pursuant to the FLSA. The Plaintiffs and the collective group of similarly situated employees have been or are employed by the Defendant as non-exempt employees. Specifically, the Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as firefighters and an Assistant Chief for the Jacksboro Fire Department in the Town of Jacksboro, Tennessee. The Plaintiffs also sue Defendant for state law breach of contract for failure to pay them for all hours worked pursuant to the terms of their employment agreement. The Plaintiffs have been employed by Defendant's Fire Department as firefighters. Town of Jacksboro, Tennessee is a town and political subdivision of the State of Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert L. Bowman, Esq. Jonathan Swann Taylor, Esq. Hilary L. Magacs, Esq. KRAMER RAYSON LLP 800 South Gay Street, Suite 2500 P.O. Box 629 Knoxville, TN 37901-0629 Telephone: (865) 525-5134 Facsimile: (865) 522-5723 E-mail: rlbowman@kramer-rayson.com jstaylor@kramer-rayson.com hmagacs@kramer-rayson.com JPAY LLC: Pyron Appeals Civil Rights Suit Order to 8th Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- ALLEN PYRON, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Allen Pyron, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Nancy Johnston, et al., Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-04051-JMB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of the Civil Rights Act. On Jan. 31, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The appellate case is entitled Allen Pyron, et al. v. Nancy Johnston, et al., Case No. 25-2709, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on September 2, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants ALLEN PYRON, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appear pro se. Defendants-Appellees NANCY JOHNSTON, et al. are represented by: Joao C.J.G. De Medeiros, Esq. Aaron Edward Winter, Esq. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 600 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 296-9412 LEGACY TREATMENT: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Travis Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- NAIM TRAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEGACY TREATMENT SERVICES, INC. and COMMUNITY TREATMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-15249 (D.N.J., September 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and invasion of privacy. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach between October 6, 2024 and October 11, 2024. The Defendants 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. Legacy Treatment Services, Inc. is a nonprofit behavioral health organization, with a principal place of business in Marlton, New Jersey. Community Treatment Solutions, Inc. is a youth social services organization, with a principal place of business in Marlton, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com LOUIS VUITTON: Moran Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXIS MORAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOUIS VUITTON NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07241 (S.D.N.Y., August 29, 2025) is a class action arising from the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant, which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and other current and former customers of Defendant. The Defendant experienced a significant data breach on June 6, 2025, which Defendant did not discover until July 2, 2025. The Defendant learned that an unauthorized actor gained access to a database that contained information about its customers. Louis Vuitton did not begin to notify affected consumers until on or around August 22, 2025. According to the complaint, despite Defendant's awareness of both the value and sensitivity of the data it safeguarded and serious risk presented by insufficient security practices, the Defendant did not take sufficient steps to ensure that its systems were secure. The data breach was directly and proximately caused by Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and industry-standard data security practices necessary to protect its systems from a foreseeable and preventable cyberattack, says the suit. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a nationwide class, alleges claims of (1) negligence, (2) negligence per se, (3) breach of implied contract; and (4) unjust enrichment. Louis Vuitton North America, Inc. is a French luxury fashion house that markets luxury bags, shoes, watches, accessories, among other items.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurie Rubinow, Esq. James C. Shah, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 1830 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 - 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 MONROE GROUP: Faces Stacker Suit Over Adverse Employment Action --------------------------------------------------------------- PRASHAWNA STACKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONROE GROUP LTD, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02517-JWB-GEB (D. Kan., September 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of taking an adverse employment action based in whole or in part of consumer reports without first providing a copy of the report to prospective or current employees in violation of section 1681b(b)(3) of the FCRA. The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and all other relief available pursuant to the FCRA. Monroe Group Ltd. is a domestic company doing business in Kansas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jayson A. Watkins, Esq. Richard Parks, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (929) 274-2944 Email: jwatkins@sirillp.com rparks@sirillp.com MORRIS HOSPITAL: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set Oct. 24 -------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that Morris Hospital has agreed to pay more than $1.36 million to resolve claims that it failed to prevent a 2023 data breach that compromised patient information. Morris Hospital has agreed to pay more than $1.36 million to resolve claims that it failed to prevent a 2023 data breach that compromised patient information. The settlement benefits individuals whose personal information was compromised in the Morris Hospital data breach on April 4, 2023, and who received a data breach notification from Morris Hospital. Morris Hospital is a medical center in Morris, Illinois, that provides care to more than 100,000 patients each year. In April 2023, the hospital was the victim of a data breach that compromised sensitive patient information. According to a class action lawsuit against Morris Hospital, the hospital could have prevented the data breach through reasonable cybersecurity measures. The plaintiffs say that Morris Hospital failed to implement these measures, resulting in the data breach. Morris Hospital has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $1,361,571.77 class action settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the Morris Hospital settlement, class members can receive reimbursement for data breach-related expenses and losses. The settlement allows for up to $5,000 per person for documented out-of-pocket losses, such as fraud, communication charges, credit expenses, bank fees and other losses. Class members can also receive compensation for lost time. Those who did not experience any documented losses as a result of the data breach can receive an alternative cash payment of $100. These payments will be reduced if a large number of class members claim these payments, resulting in lower payments per class member. All class members are eligible for 24 months of free credit and medical monitoring services. These services include dark web monitoring, identity theft insurance, fraud resolution assistance and more. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Sept. 29, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Morris Hospital settlement is scheduled for Oct. 24, 2025. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Oct. 28, 2025. Who's Eligible Individuals whose personal information was compromised in the Morris Hospital data breach or who received a data breach notification from Morris Hospital. Potential Award Up to $5,000 in documented losses or an estimated $100 pro rata cash payment. Proof of Purchase Documentation of losses, such as bank statements, credit reports, phone bills and receipts. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 10/28/2025 Case Name In re: Morris Hospital Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 2023LA32, in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Grundy County, Illinois Final Hearing 10/24/2025 Settlement Website MorrisHospitalSettlement.com Claims Administrator Morris Hospital Data Incident c/o Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 25397 Santa Ana, CA 92799 (866) 603-5601 Class Counsel Ben Barnow BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES P.C. William B. Federman FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD Defense Counsel Scott Schmookler GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI [GN] MY TECHNOLOGY: Operates Illegal Online Casino , Mirzayan Says ------------------------------------------------------------- RAYMOND MIRZAYAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MY TECHNOLOGY, INC., d/b/a MYPRIZE. US, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-07313 (N.D. Cal., August 29, 2025) arises from Defendant's operation of an illegal online casino in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The Defendant owns and operates a casino and sweepstakes gaming website called MyPrize.US, available at https://www.myprize.us In My Prize, the Plaintiff and other users can access and play thousands of popular casino games, including, inter alia, jackpots, slots, roulette, baccarat, blackjack, poker, and scratch cards (the "Chance Games"). Some of the Chance Games can even be played with real dealers in real-time. The trick is My Prize has branded itself as a "social casino," which is simply a title to mislead regulators and consumers into believing it offers harmless gameplay instead of unlawful gambling. In reality, My Prize players can buy chips, gamble and cash out for rewards -- just like at a regular casino. Indeed, My Prize owes its overwhelming success to its authentic casino gaming experience, including games from a myriad of reputable gaming studios, generous bonus programs, and diverse, fast-paying banking options. My Prize generates revenue when players make purchases for its in-game currency, which are tokens that allow consumers to play the games offered on Defendant's website, says the suit. By law, these games can only be offered by licensed operators in licensed, physical locations. The Defendant's operations flout these legal requirements by providing unlicensed gambling services to California residents via its games, the suit alleges. My Technology Inc. is a company formed in Delaware and with its headquarters in Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com NEW YORK, NY: Seabrook Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES SEABROOK is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled James Seabrook, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. City of New York, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-2029, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Plaintiff filed this complaint against the Defendants for civil rights violations. On June 3, 2024, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss with prejudice on Oct. 18, 2024. On Aug. 4, 2025, Judge P. Kevin Castel entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the case is closed. The appellate case is entitled Seabrook v. City of New York, Case No. 25-2095, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on September 2, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JAMES SEABROOK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Alice Reiter, Esq. WANG HECKER LLP 111 Broadway, Suite 1406 New York, NY 10006 ORACLE AMERICA: Realscape Group Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Realscape Group, LLC d/b/a/ Realogic Solutions, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Oracle America, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00558 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Sept. 3, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-07398-LB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Account Receivable. Oracle Corporation -- http://www.oracle.com/-- is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Austin, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc E. Dann, Esq. Brian D. Flick, Esq. Jeffrey A. Crossman, Esq. Marita I. Ramirez, Esq. DANNLAW 15000 Madison Avenue Lakewood, OH 44107 Phone: (216) 373-0539 Fax: (216) 373-0536 Email: notices@dannlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Dylan Glenn, Esq. 330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (312) 876-7700 Email: dylan.glenn@lw.com OTTER.AI INC: Theus Sues Over Unlawful Collecting Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- Chaka Theus, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OTTER.AI, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-07462 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 3, 2025), is brought seeking hold OtterAI accountable for these unlawful practices under statutory and common law due to collecting data without user consent. The OtterAI bot hides in plain sight, often indistinguishable from a real person in the room. It appears as the user's note-taker, for instance, "Anna's Notetaker (Otter.ai)," and provides no visual or auditory notice to other meeting participants that the meeting is being recorded in real time, transcribed, and stored on OtterAI's servers for future use. Unlike Zoom's or Microsoft Teams' built-in recording features, which prominently announce that a recording is underway, automatically put all participants on mute and turn off their cameras until the participants agree to a recording, OtterAI evades any such disclosures including even a simple audio and/or visual warning in the chat that it is about to begin recording all participants. As a result, OtterAI captures hundreds of thousands if not millions of participants without their informed consent. The Plaintiff and millions of others never expected a silent AI bot in their meetings, who would record their entire conversation, take screenshots, and collect data about them to store indefinitely (collectively "Private Information"). Their private conversations were secretly harvested, stored indefinitely, and used for OtterAI's commercial gain. OtterAI's actions--conducted without user consent and for its own financial benefit--resulted in severe privacy violations for millions of individuals, including Plaintiff, across the United States, says the complaint. The Plaintiff used Zoom to communicate with a medical professional when OtterAI joined the Zoom meeting and began recording her conversation, transcribing, and storing it without her knowledge, permission, or consent. Otter.AI, Inc. is a global technology company that provides AI-powered meeting transcription, voice recording, and productivity software for independent professionals and businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Yana Hart, Esq. Bryan P. Thompson, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Phone: (213) 788-4050 Fax: (231) 788-4070 Email: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com bthompson@clarksonlawfirm.com PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Requests for Writ of Mandamus to 2nd Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC., filed on September 2, 2025, a petition for writ of mandamus with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, under Case No. 25-2098, in connection with a court order in the lawsuit entitled In Re: Peloton Interactive, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-11711, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint is brought against the Defendant for violation of New York's consumer protection and false advertising statutes, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, statutory penalties and injunctive relief. [BN] Defendant-Petitioner PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC. is represented by: Mark William Mosier, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One CityCenter 850 Tenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Plaintiffs-Respondents JILL SCHNEIDER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Benjamin J. Whiting, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4100 Chicago, IL 60606 PICTSWEET COMPANY: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to Nov. 17 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELEAZAR SANTOS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE PICTSWEET COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; EXPRESS SERVICES, INC. DBA EXPRESS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, a Colorado corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-03181-AB-SSC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order continuing deadline to file class certification motion. Deadline New Deadline Class certification expert disclosures/ Sept. 30, 2025 reports due: Last day to file motion for class Nov. 17, 2025 Certification: Opposition to motion for class Dec. 16, 2025 certification due: Reply re motion for class certification Jan. 6, 2026 Due: Hearing on motion for class certification: Jan. 23, 2026 IT IS SO ORDERED. Pictsweet is a family-owned, family-run frozen vegetable business. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VTp4dR at no extra charge.[CC] PRIME HYDRATION: Vera Appeals Class Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- LARA VERA, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled In Re: Prime Energy Consumer Litigation, Case No. 1:24-cv-2657, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint is brought against the Defendant for violations of State Consumer Fraud Acts and the New York General Business Law and for breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, and fraud. On Sept. 17, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint against the Defendant. On Oct. 16, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint. On July 31, 2025, Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered an Order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs failed to cure many deficiencies identified in their complaint. The Plaintiffs' consolidated class action complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The appellate case is entitled In Re: Prime Energy Consumer Litigation, Case No. 25-2091, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on September 2, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants LARA VERA, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA One West Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Defendant-Appellee PRIME HYDRATION LLC is represented by: Stephen Lawrence Saxl, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP One Vanderbilt Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 801-2100 PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Thurston Appeals Judgment Order to 1st Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW THURSTON, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Matthew Thurston, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00375-NT, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Hancock County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, is brought against the Defendants for violations of Maine's Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Act ("UCSPA") and the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act by failing to pay the Actual Cash Value for their totaled vehicles as their insurance policy promised. On Jan. 10, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which Judge Nancy Torresen granted on July 30, 2025. The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have not generated sufficient evidence to support their claims. The appellate case is entitled Thurston, et al. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., et al., Case No. 25-1828, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on September 2, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants MATTHEW THURSTON, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Scott C. Borison, Esq. BORISON FIRM LLC 1400 S. Charles St. Baltimore, MD 21230 Telephone: (301) 620-1016 - and - Ronald Ira Frederick, Esq. Brian Edward Roof, Esq. FREDERICK & BERLER LLC 787 E. 185 St. Cleveland, OH 44119 Telephone: (216) 502-1055 - and - John Z. Steed, Esq. ISLAND JUSTICE P.O. Box 771 Stonington, ME 04681 Telephone: (207) 200-7077 Defendants-Appellees PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. are represented by: Julia C. Barrett, Esq. James Matthew Brigman, Esq. Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq. Zachary Andrew McEntyre, Esq. Allexia Bowman Roberts, Esq. Allison Hill White, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree St. NE, Ste. 1600 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-4818 (404) 572-3566 (404) 572-5600 (404) 572-4636 (404) 572-3584 (404) 572-2440 PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Actual Cash Value Case Loses Class Status ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lurah Lowery, writing for Repairer Driven News, reports that in another undervalued actual cash value (ACV) case against Progressive, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has reversed class action status and remanded the case to the District Court. The Southern Indiana case is brought by two Progressive policyholders, Heather Schroeder and Misty Tanner, who argue the insurer based their total loss vehicle ACVs on "Projected Sold Adjustments." The District Court "concluded that each putative class member could use common evidence to establish that Progressive employed an unacceptable method for calculating the actual cash value payments it offered insureds by applying Projected Sold Adjustments [and] certified a class on this basis," according to the Seventh Circuit's opinion. "To estimate a car's actual cash value from the list prices of comparable cars, Progressive adjusts list prices to account for typical negotiation between car buyers and sellers (it applies 'Projected Sold Adjustments' to list prices). Schroeder argues that by applying these adjustments, Progressive breached its undisputed contractual duty to pay the putative class members the actual cash value of their totaled cars, as well as a disputed duty to calculate actual cash value payments using a particular method or formula." A panel of three appellate judges concluded that the District Court abused its discretion by resting its analysis of commonality and predominance, and thus its class certification decision, "on an erroneous legal conclusion about the duties contained in Progressive's standard-form Indiana auto insurance policy." Schroeder, on behalf of a class of Indiana residents, claims Progressive breached its contract and its duty of good faith. Citing case law, the judges concluded that Progressive didn't breach either since a breach of contract is "'a failure, without legal excuse, to perform any promise that forms the whole or part of a contract,'" and breaching duty of good faith would require a denial of liability "'knowing that there is no rational, principled basis for doing so.'" The opinion states, "Progressive asserts that its sole contractual duty is to pay insureds the actual cash value of their cars after a total loss. Schroeder, however, sees a second duty in Progressive's policy: a duty to 'determine [actual cash value] based on market value.' If the relevant duty is a duty to pay insureds the actual cash value of their totaled cars, each class member must show that Progressive underpaid her to prove the breach element of her breach-of-contract claim . . . Damages follow from underpayment, so a class member who proves the breach element of her claim simultaneously proves that she suffered damages resulting from the breach. "If the relevant duty is a methodological duty, each class member must show that Progressive used an invalid method to calculate actual cash value -- independent from the result of the calculation -- to prove a breach . . . Where plaintiffs claim that an insurer breached a methodological duty by applying an invalid adjustment, as Schroeder does here, courts have reached different conclusions about the evidence required to prove resulting damages." Therefore, the judges concluded that Progressive's duty was to compensate each policyholder after a total loss for the price it would sell for at the time of loss, accounting for the car's age and condition, among other factors, less the applicable deductible. "The truth or falsity of whether cars sell for their list prices will not resolve whether Progressive breached this duty by applying Projected Sold Adjustments," the opinion states. "Even if a jury found that cars always sell for their list prices, this finding would not establish that Progressive underpaid each putative class member. "It would remain possible that the comparable cars in a given valuation report for a putative class member's totaled car were more valuable than the totaled car in ways that Progressive's other adjustments did not capture, offsetting any negative effect from applying Projected Sold Adjustments . . . Because each Projected Sold Adjustment has different inputs, the amount of distortion in each one would depend on how many records J.D. Power removed from the data it used to calculate the adjustment. In this scenario, then, the jury would not only need to consider individualized evidence about each putative class member's car and the comparable cars included in her car's valuation report but also individualized evidence about how J.D. Power derived each Projected Sold Adjustment included in her car's valuation report." Two similar class action lawsuits against Progressive, also filed in 2022 but in Ohio and Pennsylvania, moved out of Appellate Courts in July with opposite decisions. The Ohio court ruled that the trial court "did not engage in rote acceptance of the plaintiffs' claims," as Progressive claimed in its appeal of the case. It also ruled that the lower court "did not abuse its discretion by finding that plaintiffs' contention about the PSA deduction as a means of valuing their claims raises common issues that predominate this litigation." In the Pennsylvania case, the Appellate Court reversed the lower court's class certification. The lawsuit is similar to the ones filed in Ohio and Indiana, stating that Progressive "systemically thumbs the scale" when calculating ACVs by applying PSAs to comparable used vehicle prices. "We conclude that proving whether Progressive undercompensated each class member is an individual issue incapable of proof on a class-wide basis," the opinion states. "And because that individual issue is the dispositive question of Progressive's liability for breach of contract, we hold both classes fail to clear Rule 23(b)(3)'s requirement that common issues predominate over individual ones. So the District Court abused its discretion in certifying the classes. Accordingly, we will reverse and remand." [GN] PSYCHOLOGICAL CENTER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Pappalardo Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carina Pappalardo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Psychological Center, Inc., Penny Hamel, and Luz Frazier, Defendants, Case No. 2577CV00953 (Mass. Super., Essex Cty., August 29, 2025) is a class action complaint for violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act and breach of contract against Plaintiff's former employer, The Psychological Center, Inc. seeking damages and declaratory relief pursuant to G.L. c.231A and Mass. R. Civ. P. 57. Plaintiff Pappalardo was employed by Psychological Center for about 14 years, including over 10 years as its chief executive officer. The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay all earned wages and other benefits due to Plaintiff and the proposed Class members in the proper time frame required by the Wage Act. The Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring the Psychological Center to cease all unlawful detention of earned wages to former employees, seeks payment of actual damages for herself and for each such former employee, and payment of triple such damages as liquidated damages, together with attorney's fees and costs as mandated under the Wage Act and/or common law for herself and for all others similarly situated for the previous three years for Wage Act damages. The Psychological Center, Inc. is a domestic nonprofit corporation with a principal office in Lawrence, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony S. Augeri, Esq. THE JACOBS LAW, LLC 1359 Hancock Street, Ste. 10 Quincy, MA 02169 Telephone: (800) 652-4783 E-mail: aaugeri@thejacobslaw.com PUBMATIC INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 20 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against PubMatic, Inc. ("PubMatic" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PUBM). Such investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. The class action concerns whether PubMatic and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. You have until October 20, 2025 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class if you purchased or otherwise acquired PubMatic securities during the Class Period. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. On August 11, 2025, PubMatic issued a press release announcing its financial results for the second quarter of 2025. Therein, the Company's Chief Financial Officer Steven Pantelick revealed that PubMatic's outlook reflects "a reduction in ad spend from one of [its] top DSP [demand side platform] partners." The Company's Chief Executive Officer Rajeev Goel further revealed that a "top DSP buyer" had "shifted a significant number of clients to a new platform that evaluates inventory differently," causing significant headwinds. Goel stated that, in response to the inventory valuation change, PubMatic would "need to do a better job . . . to prioritize across all the hundreds of billions of daily ad impressions that we have, which subset of those impressions that we send to this DSP." On this news, PubMatic's stock price fell $2.23 per share, or 21.1%, to close at $8.34 per share on August 12, 2025. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Danielle Peyton, Esq. Pomerantz LLP (646) 581-9980 ext. 7980 dpeyton@pomlaw.com [GN] PUBMATIC INC: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that the PubMatic class action lawsuit -- captioned Hsu v. PubMatic, Inc., No. 25-cv-07067 (N.D. Cal.) -- seeks to represent purchasers or acquirers of PubMatic, Inc. (NASDAQ: PUBM) securities and charges PubMatic as well as certain of PubMatic's executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the PubMatic class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-pubmatic-inc-class-action-lawsuit-pubm.html You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at info@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the PubMatic class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than October 20, 2025. CASE ALLEGATIONS: PubMatic is a technology company that engages in the provision of a cloud infrastructure platform that enables real time programmatic advertising transactions for digital content creators, advertisers, agencies, agency trading desks, and demand-side platforms ("DSPs"). The PubMatic class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) a top DSP buyer was shifting a significant number of clients to a new platform which evaluated inventory differently; and (ii) as a result, PubMatic was seeing a reduction in ad spend and revenue from this top DSP buyer. The PubMatic class action lawsuit further alleges that on August 11, 2025, PubMatic released its second quarter 2025 financial report, revealing that PubMatic's outlook reflects "a reduction in ad spend from one of [its] top DSP partners." PubMatic CEO, defendant Rajeev K. Goel, further revealed that "a top DSP buyer" had "shifted a significant number of clients to a new platform that evaluates inventory differently" causing significant headwinds, according to the complaint. On this news, the price of PubMatic stock fell more than 21%, the PubMatic class action lawsuit alleges. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired PubMatic securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the PubMatic class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the PubMatic class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the PubMatic class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the PubMatic class action lawsuit. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder litigation. Our Firm has been ranked #1 in the ISS Securities Class Action Services rankings for four out of the last five years for securing the most monetary relief for investors. In 2024, we recovered over $2.5 billion for investors in securities-related class action cases -- more than the next five law firms combined, according to ISS. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html [GN] QUAKER OATS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Life Cereal Marketing ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that Plaintiff Selassie Edwards filed a class action lawsuit against The Quaker Oats Co. Why: Edwards claims Quaker falsely advertises its Life Cereal products as containing no artificial preservatives. Where: The Quaker Life Cereal class action was filed in New York federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges that The Quaker Oats Co. falsely advertises its Life Cereal products as containing no artificial preservatives. Plaintiff Selassie Edwards claims that Quaker Life Cereal products contain tocopherols, which are well-known artificial preservatives commonly used in food products. "Defendant's 'No Artificial Preservatives' representation is featured on the Products' labeling in order to induce health-conscious consumers to purchase foods that are free from artificial preservatives," the Quaker Life Cereal class action says. Edwards wants to represent a nationwide class and New York subclass of consumers who purchased Quaker Life Cereal products during the statute of limitations period. He asserts claims for violation of New York General Business Law, breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment. Quaker Life Cereal class action: Company profited from misleading advertising Edwards argues that Quaker has profited unjustly as a result of its allegedly deceptive conduct. He claims he purchased Quaker Life Cereal products on multiple occasions, including Cinnamon Life Multigrain Cereal and Original Life Multigrain Cereal, relying on Quaker's allegedly false, misleading and deceptive marketing of the products containing "No Artificial Preservatives." Edwards argues that he believed the "No Artificial Preservatives" representation meant the products did not contain any artificial preservatives, but the products he purchased actually contained the artificial preservative tocopherols. Had he known the "No Artificial Preservatives" representation was false and misleading, he says he would not have purchased the product or would have only been willing to purchase it at a lesser price. Edwards claims Quaker's misleading advertising practices proximately caused harm to him and the proposed class members, who suffered an injury in fact and lost money or property as a result of Quaker's allegedly deceptive conduct. He is seeking certification of the class action, compensatory and statutory damages, restitution, prejudgment interest and an order enjoining Quaker from continuing the allegedly illegal practices detailed in the complaint. An Illinois federal judge recently dismissed a class action against Quaker, ruling that consumers' claims of misleading "Simply Granola" labeling were based on an unreasonable interpretation of the ingredients. Edwards is represented by Julian C. Diamond of Bursor & Fisher P.A. The Quaker Life Cereal class action lawsuit is Edwards v. The Quaker Oats Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-06794, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN] REALPAGE INC: Class Cert Filing in Goldman Reset to August 31, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Goldman v. RealPage, Inc. et al (IN: REALPAGE, INC., RENTAL SOFTWARE ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No. 3:23-cv-00552 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Waverly Crenshaw, Jr. entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to modify the case management order. The case management order is modified as follows: Deadlines Modified Deadlines Fact discovery deadline: Feb. 27, 2026 Class certification motion Aug. 31, 2026 Daubert motions for opening expert Reports: Opposition to class certification motion Oct. 14, 2026 Daubert motions for rebuttal expert reports Oppositions to Daubert motions for opening expert reports Reply in support of motion for class Nov. 13, 2026 certification Opposition to Daubert motions for rebuttal reports Replies in support of Daubert motions for opening reports: Class Certification and Daubert hearing: Jan. 11, 2027 RealPage is an American software company specialized in property management software for algorithmic rent setting. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iGl22Y at no extra charge.[CC] REALPAGE INC: Class Cert Filing Modified to August 31, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cherry, et al v. RealPage Inc et al ((IN: REALPAGE, INC., RENTAL SOFTWARE ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No. 3:23-cv-00332 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Waverly Crenshaw, Jr. entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to modify the case management order. The case management order is modified as follows: Deadlines Modified Deadlines Fact discovery deadline: Feb. 27, 2026 Class certification motion Aug. 31, 2026 Daubert motions for opening expert Reports: Opposition to class certification motion Oct. 14, 2026 Daubert motions for rebuttal expert reports Oppositions to Daubert motions for opening expert reports Reply in support of motion for class Nov. 13, 2026 certification Opposition to Daubert motions for rebuttal reports Replies in support of Daubert motions for opening reports: Class Certification and Daubert hearing: Jan. 11, 2027 RealPage is an American software company specialized in property management software for algorithmic rent setting. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=u4TLPw at no extra charge.[CC] REALPAGE INC: Haynes Class Cert Filing Modified to August 31, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Haynes v. RealPage, Inc. (IN: REALPAGE, INC., RENTAL SOFTWARE ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No. 3:23-cv-00979 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Waverly Crenshaw, Jr. entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to modify the case management order. The case management order is modified as follows: Deadlines Modified Deadlines Fact discovery deadline: Feb. 27, 2026 Class certification motion Aug. 31, 2026 Daubert motions for opening expert Reports: Opposition to class certification motion Oct. 14, 2026 Daubert motions for rebuttal expert reports Oppositions to Daubert motions for opening expert reports Reply in support of motion for class Nov. 13, 2026 certification Opposition to Daubert motions for rebuttal reports Replies in support of Daubert motions for opening reports: Class Certification and Daubert hearing: Jan. 11, 2027 RealPage is an American software company specialized in property management software for algorithmic rent setting. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VyJWtd at no extra charge.[CC] REALPAGE INC: Kabisch Class Cert Filing Modified to August 31, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kabisch v. RealPage, Inc. et al., (IN: REALPAGE, INC., RENTAL SOFTWARE ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No. 3:23-cv-00742 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Waverly Crenshaw, Jr. entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to modify the case management order. The case management order is modified as follows: Deadlines Modified Deadlines Fact discovery deadline: Feb. 27, 2026 Class certification motion Aug. 31, 2026 Daubert motions for opening expert Reports: Opposition to class certification motion Oct. 14, 2026 Daubert motions for rebuttal expert reports Oppositions to Daubert motions for opening expert reports Reply in support of motion for class Nov. 13, 2026 certification Opposition to Daubert motions for rebuttal reports Replies in support of Daubert motions for opening reports: Class Certification and Daubert hearing: Jan. 11, 2027 RealPage is an American software company specialized in property management software for algorithmic rent setting. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Fztf7k at no extra charge.[CC] REALPAGE INC: Weaver Class Cert Filing Modified to August 31, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Weaver v. Realpage, Inc. et al (IN: REALPAGE, INC., RENTAL SOFTWARE ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No. 3:23-cv-00357 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Waverly Crenshaw, Jr. entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to modify the case management order. The case management order is modified as follows: Deadlines Modified Deadlines Fact discovery deadline: Feb. 27, 2026 Class certification motion Aug. 31, 2026 Daubert motions for opening expert Reports: Opposition to class certification motion Oct. 14, 2026 Daubert motions for rebuttal expert reports Oppositions to Daubert motions for opening expert reports Reply in support of motion for class Nov. 13, 2026 certification Opposition to Daubert motions for rebuttal reports Replies in support of Daubert motions for opening reports: Class Certification and Daubert hearing: Jan. 11, 2027 RealPage is an American software company specialized in property management software for algorithmic rent setting. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kXSNNx at no extra charge.[CC] RELIANCE SECURITY: Scott Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Office Managers ------------------------------------------------------------------ AMANDA SCOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RELIANCE SECURITY SERVICES and ABDUL KHAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10538 (N.D. Ill., September 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an office manager from September 4, 2024 to April 22, 2025. Reliance Security Services is a provider of security services doing business in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Dolley, Esq. Zac Halden, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 166 W. Washington St., Ste. 400 Chicago, IL 60602 Email: kdolley@hkm.com zhalden@hkm.com SAFEWAY INC: Bid to Strike Class Allegations in Wilson Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON WILSON, individually and for others similarly situated, v. SAFEWAY, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 6:25-cv-00478-MTK (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss and strike class allegations and request for judicial notice. The Court finds that Plaintiff has plausibly stated a claim for retaliation under ORS 653.470, determination of class certification is premature, and determination of whether the Plaintiff's claim is preempted by the LMRA is outside the scope of the issues raised by the Plaintiff's Complaint. The Defendant's motion to dismiss Count Two and motion requesting judicial notice are denied. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to provide employees at least two weeks advance notice for work schedules, failed to compensate employees for work schedule changes without advance notice, and retaliated against employees that did not comply with schedule changes made without advance notice, in violation of several Oregon statutes. On behalf of himself and other Hourly Employees, Plaintiff brings a putative class action under Oregon labor law against Defendant for failure to timely pay all wages (Count 1); interference with Oregon predictive work scheduling (Count 2); and failure to timely pay earned wages upon termination (Count 3). Around August 2023, the Plaintiff was hired as a part-time deli clerk for Defendant. Safeway is an American supermarket chain. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FQUz3C at no extra charge.[CC] SALESFORCE INC: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Morgan Says ------------------------------------------------------------- LAUREN MORGAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SALESFORCE INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-07318 (N.D. Cal., August 29, 2025) arises after the Defendant lost control over its computer network and the highly sensitive personal information stored on its computer network in a data breach perpetrated by cybercriminals, impacting Plaintiff and other current and former customers and its clients' customers. The data breach began as early as May 29, 20251, and its effects continue until as recently as August 18, 2025. Following an internal investigation, the Defendant learned cybercriminals had gained unauthorized access to customers' and consumers' personally identifiable information. The complaint alleges that cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees and agents on cybersecurity, failed to adequately monitor its agents, contractors, vendors, and suppliers in handling and securing the PII of Plaintiff, and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' PII -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals. The Plaintiff and the Class are victims of Defendant's negligence and inadequate cyber security measures, the suit asserts. Specifically, the Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class trusted Defendant with their PII. But Defendant betrayed that trust as it failed to properly use up to-date security practices to prevent the data breach, it adds. Salesforce Inc. is a cloud-based software company providing its services to various corporate clients throughout the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew G. Gunem, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: agunem@straussborrelli.com SAVARA INC: Faces Class Action Over Securities Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP informs stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Savara Inc. (NASAQ: SVRA) securities between March 7, 2024 and May 23, 2025. Savara is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on rare respiratory diseases. The Company's lead product candidate is MOLBREEVI (also referred to as "molgramostim"), an inhaled granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating ("GM-CSF") factor. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that Savara Inc. (SVRA) Misled Investors About the Viability of its Lead Drug Candidate According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants failed to disclose that: (i) the MOLBREEVI Biologics License Application ("BLA") lacked sufficient information regarding MOLBREEVI's chemistry, manufacturing, and/or controls; (ii) accordingly, the FDA was unlikely to approve the MOLBREEVI BLA in its current form; (iii) the foregoing made it unlikely that Savara would complete its submission of the MOLBREEVI BLA within the timeframe it had represented to investors; and (iv) the delay in MOLBREEVI's regulatory approval increased the likelihood that the Company would need to raise additional capital. Plaintiff alleges that on May 27, 2025, Savara issued a press release "announc[ing] that the Company received [a refusal to file ("RTF")] letter from the FDA for the [MOLBREEVI BLA] as a therapy to treat patients with [aPap]." Specifically, Savara revealed that "[u]pon preliminary review, the FDA determined that the [MOLBREEVI BLA] was not sufficiently complete to permit substantive review and requested additional data related to Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls (CMC)." On this news, Savara's stock price fell $0.90 per share, or 31.69%, to close at $1.94 per share on May 27, 2025. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Savara Inc. Shareholders who wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the class should contact Robbins LLP. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action against Savara Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing. [GN] SEMLER SCIENTIFIC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set Oct. 28 ------------------------------------------------------------------ If you suffered a loss on your Semler Scientific, Inc. (NASDAQ: SMLR) investment and want to learn about a potential recovery under the federal securities laws, follow the link below for more information: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/semler-scientific-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=165659&wire=5&utm_campaign=22 THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against Semler Scientific, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between March 10, 2021 and April 15, 2025. CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (1) Semler Scientific did not disclose a material investigation by the United States Department of Justice into violations of the False Claims Act, while discussing possible violations of the False Claims Act in hypothetical terms; and (2) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Semler Scientific, Inc. stock during the relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares - go to https://zlk.com/pslra-1/semler-scientific-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=165659&wire=5&utm_campaign=22 to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 https://zlk.com/ [GN] SEMLER SCIENTIFIC: Krishnamoorthy Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- RAVI KRISHNAMOORTHY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEMLER SCIENTIFIC, INC., DOUGLAS MURPHY-CHUTORIAN, ANDREW B. WEINSTEIN, and RENAE CORMIER, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-07303 (N.D. Cal., August 29, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Semler Scientific between March 10, 2021 and April 15, 2025, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On March 7, 2024, after the market closed, the Company filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission its annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023. Attached to the 2023 Annual Report were certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 signed by Defendants Murphy-Chutorian and Cormier attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal control over financial reporting, and the disclosure of all fraud. According to the complaint, the statements were materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Semler Scientific did not disclose a material investigation by the United States Department of Justice into violations of the False Claims Act, while discussing possible violations of the False Claims Act (and aggressive DOJ enforcement thereof) in hypothetical terms; and (2) as a result, the Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times, says the suit. Semler Scientific, Inc. develops and markets technology products and services that assist customers in evaluating and treating chronic diseases.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com SIG SAUER: Appeals Court Order in Glasscock MMPA Suit to 8th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- SIG SAUER, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Joshua Glasscock, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sig Sauer, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 6:22-cv-03095-MDH, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The Plaintiff brings this complaint against the Defendant for its design, manufacture, marketing, and distribution of Sig Sauer model P320 pistol with alleged defect in violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA). On Nov. 6, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which Judge M. Douglas Harpool granted on July 28, 2025. The Court finds that a class action is the superior method for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. The appellate case is entitled Joshua Glasscock v. Sig Sauer, Inc., Case No. 25-2707, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on September 2, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee JOSHUA GLASSCOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Michael A. Williams, Esq. Matthew L. Dameron, Esq. Clinton J. Mann, Esq. WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 945-7110 Email: mwilliams@williamsdirks.com matt@williamsdirks.com cmann@willliamsdirks.com - and - Todd C. Werts, Esq. LEAR WERTS LLP 103 Ripley Street Columbia, MO 65201 Telephone: (573) 875-1991 Email: werts@learwerts.com Defendant-Appellant SIG SAUER, INC. is represented by: Colleen Michelle Gulliver, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 335-4500 - and - Cara Richelle Rose, Esq. WALLACE & SAUNDERS 901 St. Louis Street Springfield, MO 65806 - and - Robert L. Joyce, Esq. B. Keith Gibson, Esq. LITTLETON JOYCE UGHETTA & KELLY LLP 4 Manhattanville Road, Suite 202 Purchase, NY 10577 Telephone (914) 417-3400 SIGNATURE GROUP: Faces Schmidt Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Oregon -------------------------------------------------------------- GRETCHEN SCHMIDT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIGNATURE GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01561-AN (D. Ore., September 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for unpaid wages, including overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, Washington Minimum Wage Act, Washington Wage Rebate Act, and Washington Administrative Code. Plaintiff Schmidt was employed by the Defendant as an in-home nurse from approximately 2014 until October 2022. Signature Group, LLC is a provider of in-home healthcare solutions, with its principal office in Wilsonville, Oregon. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Sullivan, Esq. BUCHANAN ANGELI ALTSCHUL & SULLIVAN LLP 621 SW Morrison Street, Suite 1250 Portland, OR 97205 Telephone: (503) 974-5023 Facsimile: (971) 230-0337 Email: dana@baaslaw.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Ste. 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com SONY ELECTRONICS: Improperly Ends Software License, Rodriguez Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSE RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SONY ELECTRONICS INC. and CAPTURE ONE A/S, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-02305-WQH-SBC (S.D. Cal., September 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, breach of warranty, promissory estoppel, breach of implied contract or quasi-contract, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The case arises from the Defendants' deceptive and unfair tactic of marketing and bundling a perpetual or lifetime license for post-production editing software called Capture One Express with certain cameras, only to later improperly terminate this license. The Defendants knew or should have known that terminating and/or charging for this valuable software would harm consumers that opted to pay to continue using it. As a result of the Defendants' unfair business practice, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered harm including depriving them of functionality that had been included with their cameras, forcing them to pay for continued access to software they believed was part of their original camera purchase, and/or forcing them to pay for different replacement software. Sony Electronics Inc. is an electronic consumer goods manufacturer, headquartered in San Diego, California. Capture One A/S is a photo editing software company, headquartered in Copenhagen, Denmark. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip M. Black, Esq. Carl L. Stine, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 759-4600 Email: pblack@wolfpopper.com cstine@wolfpopper.com - and - Eric T. Finkel, Esq. 1590 1st Ave. W. Vancouver, BC V6J4X4 Telephone: (213) 465-3543 Email: eric@custom-consulting.com SPEEDWAY LLC: Agrees to Settle BIPA Class Action Suit for $12MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that Speedway agreed to pay more than $12 million to resolve claims it violated Illinois privacy laws by requiring employee fingerprint scans to clock in and out of work. The Speedway settlement benefits individuals who used a finger scanner on a time clock while working for Speedway in Illinois between Sept. 1, 2012, and Nov. 1, 2017. According to the class action lawsuit, Speedway violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by requiring employees to scan their fingerprints to clock in and out of work. The plaintiff in the case says that Speedway failed to provide the required disclosures and get the necessary consent before collecting and storing his biometrics. Speedway is a gas station and convenience store chain with locations across the Midwest. Speedway has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $12,122,775 class action settlement to resolve the BIPA allegations. Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive an equal share of the net settlement fund. According to the settlement website, each class member is estimated to receive $970. Actual payments may be higher or lower depending on the number of participating class members. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Sept. 16, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Speedway settlement is scheduled for Oct. 21, 2025. No claim form is required to benefit from the settlement. Class members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive settlement benefits. Who's Eligible Individuals who used a finger scanner on a time clock while working for Speedway in Illinois between Sept. 1, 2012, and Nov. 1, 2017. Potential Award Estimated $970 Proof of Purchase Claimants must provide receipts, work orders, credit card statements or other documentation of the replacement crankset and/or installation. 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 N/A Case Name Howe v. Speedway LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-01374, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Final Hearing 10/21/2025 Settlement Website SpeedwayBIPASettlement.com Claims Administrator Speedway BIPA Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 25226 Santa Ana, CA 92799 info@SpeedwayBIPASettlement.com (844) 496-0738 Class Counsel Ryan F. Stephan James B. Zouras Andrew C. Ficzko STEPHAN ZOURAS LLC J. Eli Wade-Scott Schuyler Ufkes EDELSON P.C. Defense Counsel Matthew C. Wolfe Tristan L. Duncan SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP [GN] T-MOBILE USA INC: Ortiz Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Aileen D. Ortiz, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., a corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV22091 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the 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-08343. The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay wages and overtime under Labor Code Section 510; meal period liability under Labor Code Section 226.7; rest-break liability under Labor Code Section 226.7; violation of Labor Code Section 226(a); penalties pursuant to Labor Code Section 203; and violation of Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Chad Greeson, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. Treat Towers, Suite 600 1255 Treat Boulevard Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Phone: (925) 932-2468 Email: cgreeson@littler.com - and - Matthew J. Ruza, Esq. Yara Mroueh, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 321 North Clark Street, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: 312.372.5520 Facsimile: 312.372.7880 Email: mruza@littler.com ymroueh@littler.com TENNESSEE GAS: Bradish Suit Seeks Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADISH JOHNSON CO., LIMITED, individually and as representative of all those similarly situated, V. TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC, et al. Case No. 2:23-cv-07363-CJB-EJD (E.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a Plaintiff class defined as follows: "All natural and juridical persons who own immovable property within the Louisiana coastal zone that is subject to pipeline right of use servitudes granted to, or pipeline right of use servitudes procured by expropriation in favor of, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC, Kinetica Energy Express, LLC, and Kinetica Partners, LLC, and/or their predecessors in interest, pursuant to which the pipelines denominated as TGP 500-1, TGP 500-2, and TGP 527A-100 were constructed in flotation canals." Tennessee provides gas transportation and storage services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U1LVtW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Swanson, Esq. Stephen J. Herman, Esq. Kerry J. Miller, Esq. H.S. Bartlett III, Esq. Lance C. McCardle, Esq. E. Blair Schilling, Esq. Julie S. Meaders, Esq. Isabel A. Englehart, Esq. FISHMAN HAYGOOD, LLP 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 4600 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 586-5252 Facsimile: (504) 586-5250 E-mail: jswanson@fishmanhaygood.com sherman@fishmanhaygood.com kmiller@fishmanhaygood.com tbartlett@fishmanhaygood.com lmccardle@fishmanhaygood.com bschilling@fishmanhaygood.com jmeaders@fishmanhaygood.com ienglehart@fishmanhaygood.com - and - Gladstone N. Jones, Esq. Kevin E. Huddell, Esq. John T. Arnold, Esq. JONES SWANSON HUDDELL, L.L.C. 601 Poydras Street, Suite 2655 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 523-2500 Facsimile: (504) 523-2508 E-mail: gjones@jonesswanson.com khuddell@jonesswanson.com jarnold@jonesswanson.com - and - S. Jacob Braud, Esq. BALLAY, BRAUD & COLON, PLC 81 l 4 Highway 23, Suite 101 Belle Chasse, LA 70037 Telephone: (504) 394-9841 Facsimile: (504) 394-9945 E-mail: Jacob@NolaAttomeys.com - and - A.M. "Tony" Clayton, Esq. Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Esq. D'Ann R. Penner, Esq. CLAYTON, FRUGE, WARD & HENDRY 3741 La. Highway 1 South Port Allen, LA 70767 Telephone: (225)344-7000 Facsimile: (225) 383-7631 E-mail: dpenner@claytonfrugelaw.com - and - T. Taylor Townsend, Esq. T. TAYLOR TOWNSEND, LLC 320 Saint Denis Street Natchitoches, LA 71457 Telephone: (318) 238-3612 Facsimile: (318) 238-6103 TESLA INC: Denies Refunds for Full Self-Driving Feature, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Zachary Ehrmann, writing for Yahoo News, reports that Tesla owners are facing mounting frustration as the company denies refunds for its Full Self-Driving feature -- even when customers' vehicles lack the hardware needed to support the promised technology. One Reddit user's six-year journey seeking a $6,400 refund underscores growing consumer dissatisfaction with Tesla's unfulfilled autonomous driving promises. What's happening? The Redditor purchased a Tesla Model 3 in December 2018 and paid $6,400 for the Full Self-Driving package the next fall, expecting autonomous capabilities to be released soon thereafter. Six years later, the feature remains unavailable, and Tesla CEO Elon Musk has admitted the car lacks compatible hardware, according to the poster. After multiple failed attempts to reach customer service and a 25-minute hold that ended in a disconnection, Tesla denied the refund request. The original poster noted that, "It doesn't matter that it's not ready six years later. It doesn't matter that they said the hardware would be upgraded free if needed." "Time for a class-action lawsuit," one Redditor said in reply. And that's just what happened, as a federal judge recently certified a class-action lawsuit against Tesla, per Electrek, finding the company likely misled consumers about its self-driving capabilities with false advertising. The case covers California drivers who purchased FSD packages between 2016 and 2024. Why is this important? Tesla's refusal to provide refunds directly impacts customers who paid thousands for unfulfilled technology. The company has been selling its FSD package for nearly a decade, claiming it would deliver unsupervised self-driving capability, but has yet to deliver. This could also make electric vehicle ownership less accessible by eroding consumer trust about getting what's paid for, potentially slowing adoption of environmentally friendly vehicles. Tesla has faced declining sales throughout the year, along with protests and boycotts in response to Musk's political activities, compounding customer relations challenges. What's being done about it? One Tesla owner successfully obtained a $10,000 refund plus taxes through arbitration after proving the feature couldn't be used as advertised, according to Electrek. The arbiter found Tesla failed to deliver the promised functionality and ordered the company to also pay nearly $8,000 in arbitration fees. Multiple class-action lawsuits are now moving forward, with five nationwide Tesla FSD lawsuits being consolidated into one case. Many established automakers now provide EVs with proven driver assistance systems and transparent capabilities, helping to reduce air pollution and supporting cleaner transportation with dependable performance. [GN] TEXTRON AVIATION: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Corrosion Defect ------------------------------------------------------------------ On September 2, 2025, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP; Epps, Holloway, Deloach & Hoipkemier, LLC; CohenMalad LLP, Wagstaff & Cartmell, LLP; and Morgan & Morgan, P.A. jointly filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court of Kansas against Textron Aviation, Inc. ("Textron") alleging that a uniform defect leads to corrosion of the structural components of Textron's Cessna Citation CJ4 aircraft, particularly the frames of the windshield and cockpit windows. If left unchecked, the corrosion caused by the defect can cause the plane to become unairworthy and potentially lead to catastrophic failure. In April of 2024, Textron issued a service bulletin (SB525C-56-01), recommending that all CJ4 aircraft be inspected and, if necessary, repaired due to a condition in the window frames that causes "moisture incursion." To date, however, Textron has not acknowledged that this "moisture incursion" is caused by a common defect present in all CJ4 aircraft. Nor has Textron warned owners of the significant potential safety risks the corrosion poses. The Complaint alleges that Textron is charging owners and lessees hundreds of thousands of dollars for repairs rather than covering the full cost to fully address the defect. "This lawsuit is not just about protecting the owners and lessees of Cessna CJ4 Aircraft; it is about protecting the families, businesses, and crew that depend on these planes daily for safe travel," notes Epps Holloway, Deloach & Hoipkemier, LLC partner Kevin Epps. "Textron Aviation is understating the actual costs to address the damage caused by this defect, while minimizing the danger every passenger of a CJ4 faces." "Preliminary expert analysis by an aerospace engineering expert has determined that this corrosion is the result of either a defective design or manufacturing process," notes Lieff Cabraser senior partner Jonathan Selbin, another of the lead attorneys representing plaintiffs in the case. "It occurs when the aircraft is maintained in accordance with the aircraft's maintenance manual and all applicable FAA standards; it is not related to the actions of any Cessna CJ4 owner." Selbin continued, "We believe Textron needs to do right by all of their customers, warn them of the danger, and fix this problem at no cost to them before someone is hurt." Owners and lessees of these aircraft can contact plaintiffs' counsel online. You can also read a copy of the Complaint in the case. Source/Contact Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP jselbin@lchb.com - and - Kevin E. Epps, Esq. Epps, Holloway, Deloach & Hoipkemier, LLC kevin@ehdhlaw.com [GN] TEXTRON AVIATION: JCC Transport Files Suit in D. Kansas ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed Textron Aviation, Inc. The case is styled as JCC Transport, LLC, CBP Air Logistics, LLC, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Textron Aviation, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-02514-HLT-GEB (D. Kan., Sept. 3, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Airplane Product Liability. Textron Aviation Inc. -- https://txtav.com/ -- is the general aviation business unit of the conglomerate Textron that was formed in March 2014 following the acquisition of Beech Holdings which included the Beechcraft and Hawker Aircraft businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Diane Watkins, Esq. Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLP 4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: (816) 701-1100 Fax: (816) 531-2372 Email: dwatkins@wcllp.com tcartmell@wcllp.com TFI INTERNATIONAL: Bid for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARRETT BROWNBRIDGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TFI INTERNATIONAL INC., ALAIN BÉDARD, and DAVID SAPERSTEIN, Case No. 1:25-cv-02159-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Edgardo Ramos entered an order granting the motion for appointment of lead plaintiff and for approval of lead counsel. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion. The Court finds that the PSLRA's statutory presumption has not been rebutted. Here, other members of the class have not raised any opposition to Douglass' motion. Accordingly, the Court finds that Douglass has satisfied all the requirements and shall be designated as lead plaintiff for this action. The Court finds that Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Douglass' chosen counsel, has substantial experience in securities class action litigation and has served as lead counsel in many cases alleging violations of the securities laws. Brownbridge asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, on behalf of putative class members who purchased TFI securities between April 26, 2024 and Feb. 19, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). TFI is a transportation and logistics company that operates in the United States and Canada. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RjLior at no extra charge.[CC] TOAST INC: May Face Class Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Toast data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who received a notice stating they were impacted. Toast Security Incident: What Happened? In early September 2025, payroll services provider Toast, Inc. began notifying individuals whose personal information may have been exposed in a data breach first reported in July. The Toast data breach, which occurred between June 30 and July 17, 2025, was discovered during an investigation prompted by suspicious login activities and reportedly affected a subset of customers that use the Toast Payroll application. It appears that the information exposed may vary by individual, with a sample data breach notice stating that an unauthorized actor may have accessed Social Security numbers, email addresses, phone numbers and dates of birth. In an initial report to the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation on July 21, 2025, Toast indicated that Social Security numbers, financial account information and driver's licenses may have been exposed. A July 21 letter from Toast customer Wusong Road LLC, a business located in Cambridge, Massachusetts, informed employees that their names, addresses, Social Security numbers and bank account information may have been compromised in the Toast data breach. What You Can Do After the Toast Data Breach If your information was exposed in the data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Toast to ensure it takes proper steps to protect the information it was entrusted with. [GN] TRANS UNION: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Samoza Says -------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH SAMOZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANS UNION LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10561 (N.D. Ill., September 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018. 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 or about 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. Trans Union LLC is a consumer credit reporting agency, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben Barnow, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq. Riley W. Prince, Esq. Nicholas W. Blue, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, PC 205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 621-2000 Facsimile: (312) 641-5504 Email: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com rprince@barnowlaw.com nblue@barnowlaw.com TRANSUNION LLC: Smalls Sues Over Failure to Protect Customers' Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- ADRIENNE SMALLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSUNION LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10587 (N.D. Ill., September 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, 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 on or about 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. TransUnion LLC is a consumer credit reporting agency, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. Patrick D. Donathen, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Email: gary@lcllp.com nickc@lcllp.com patrick@lcllp.com - and - Christopher L. Cornelius, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 750-1265 Email: chris@lcllp.com TRIPLE CANOPY: Bid for More Time to File Class Cert Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY WILLIAMS, and DEIRDRE WILSON, v. TRIPLE CANOPY, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01633-RBW (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Reggie Walton entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion to enlarge time for filing motion for class certification. Specifically, the plaintiffs' motion is denied without prejudice because they fail to demonstrate that they have complied with Local Civil Rule 7(m). Accordingly, the Court denies the plaintiffs' motion but will permit them to refile the motion with the requisite certification as required by this Court's Local Rules. The Court further entered an order that the deadline for filing a motion for class certification be extended to Sept. 5, 2025. Triple is an American private military and security company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SLidLh at no extra charge.[CC] UNDERCLUB INC: Automatically Renews Subscription, Garcia Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- SILVIA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNDERCLUB, INC. d/b/a WWW.UNDERCLUB.COM, Defendant, Case No. 25STCV25946 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., September 3, 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://www.underclub.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. Underclub, 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 UNICOIN INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of investors in Unicoin Rights Certificates issued by Unicoin, Inc. f/k/a TransparentBusiness, Inc. resulting from allegations that Unicoin may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Unicoin Rights Certificates you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=44368 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On May 27, 2025, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") published a litigation release on the SEC's website under the title "Unicoin, Top Executives Charged in Offering Fraud That Raised More than $100 Million from Thousands of Investors." The announcement stated that on May 20, 2025, the SEC had charged "Unicoin, Inc. and four of its top executives [. . .] for false and misleading statements in an offering of certificates that purportedly conveyed rights to receive crypto assets called Unicoin tokens and an offering of Unicoin, Inc.'s common stock." WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] VGW LTD: King Seeks to Recover Losses from Illegal Online Gambling ------------------------------------------------------------------ SHARON KING, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VGW, LTD; VGW HOLDINGS, US; VGW US, INC.; VGW HOLDINGS, LTD; VGW CANADA, INC.; VGW GP, LTD; VGW MALTA, LTD; VGW GAMES, LTD and VGW LUCKYLAND, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-15114 (D.N.J., August 29, 2025) is a state-wide class action seeking recovery of illegal gambling losses by New Jersey residents, including Plaintiff, who played VGW's illegal online gambling games. According to the complaint, VGW's games operate with two forms of virtual coins. The first are called gold coins. Gold coins when won cannot be redeemed for real-world currency. However, when users play with gold coins and win more gold coins, the gold coins won can be used to extend their playing time without having to purchase more coins, and thus they obtain more amusement, a valuable consideration under New Jersey gambling law. The other virtual coins used by VGW's websites are called Sweeps Coins. VGW maintains that Sweeps Coins cannot be purchased. However, when individuals purchase packages of gold coins, they are "given" a set number of Sweeps Coins. Sweeps Coins can be redeemed for real-world currency. Thus, when customers play with them, they are gambling real money, whether the VGW describes it this way or not. The Plaintiff seeks, on her own behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated New Jersey residents, (1) a declaratory judgment that VGW's games violate federal law, and that VGW's online terms of service set out the terms and conditions under which the illegal gambling is conducted are therefore unenforceable in a federal court; (2) a declaratory judgment that the online terms of service and the arbitration provision contained in the terms of service are each void as violative of New Jersey law; (3) a determination that provisions in the VGW Terms of Service that prevent customers from effectively vindicating statutory rights are void and unenforceable; (4) recovery under the New Jersey gambling loss recovery act; and (5) recovery under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. VGW is a game developer that has created games that simulate slot machines and other gambling games, including Chumba Casino and Luckyland, which it makes available to the public at www.chumbacasino.com and www.luckylandslots.com. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Conlon, Esq. Jason T. Brown, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Pl. 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-000 E-mail: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com jtb@jtblawgroup.com - and - Dargan M. Ware, Esq. John E. Norris, Esq. DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP 2154 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 930-9900 Facsimile: (205) 930-9989 E-mail: dware@davisnorris.com jnorris@davisnorris.com WEXFORD HEALTH: Appeals Class Certification Order to 4th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Lauren Spurlock, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00476, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant for failing to provide adequate medical care in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. On Mar. 24, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Robert C. Chambers granted on July 24, 2025. The Court finds that a class action is superior to other methods to adjudicate this controversy. On Aug. 7, 2025, the Defendant filed a petition for permissive appeal under Rule 23(f). The appellate case is entitled Lauren Spurlock v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., Case No. 25-2038, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on September 4, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees LAUREN SPURLOCK, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: David Harley Carriger, Esq. Louis Dante DiTrapano, Esq. CALWELL LUCE DITRAPANO, PLLC 500 Randolph Street Charleston, WV 25302 Telephone: (304) 343-4323 - and - William J. Forbes, Esq. Jennifer N. Taylor, Esq. FORBES LAW OFFICES, PLLC 1118 Kanawha Boulevard East Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 343-4050 - and - Glenn Edward Chappell, Esq. Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Defendant-Appellant WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC. is represented by: Michael James Bentley, Esq. Erin Saltaformaggio, Esq. Preston Garner Vance, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS 188 East Capitol Street Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 592-9935 (601) 592-9946 - and - Harrison Michael Cyrus, Esq. Jordan K. Herrick, Esq. BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC 500 Virginia Street East Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-4222 YIELD ENGINEERING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Navarro Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- ALICE NAVARRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YIELD ENGINEERING SYSTEMS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25CV136341 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., Aug. 8, 2025) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Navarro was employed by the Defendants as an engineer. Yield Engineering Systems, Inc. provides industrial machinery. The Company offers high-tech process equipment for semiconductor, life science, display, and other emerging markets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented: Miriam Schimmel, Esq. Joana Fang, Esq. Jared C. Osobrne, Esq. Kyle W. Wilson, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 622-4278 Facsimile: (855) 786-6356 Email: mschimmel@blackstonepc.com jfang@blackstonepc.com josborne@blackstonepc.com kwilson@blackstonepc.com ZALE DELAWARE: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set Nov. 17 ------------------------------------------------------------ Top class Actions reports that Zales agreed to pay $7.54 million to resolve claims it violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending unsolicited telemarketing text messages. The Zales settlement benefits individuals who did not provide their phone number to Zale Delaware Inc. (Zales) but received more than one text message within a 12-month period promoting Zales goods or services, where the person's residential or cellular phone number had been registered with the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 30 days before receiving at least two text messages within the 12-month period. The plaintiff in the class action lawsuit claims Zales sent unsolicited telemarketing text messages to consumers whose numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry. The plaintiff says Zales violated the TCPA with these messages. Zales is a jewelry store with locations across the country. The company sells engagement rings, wedding bands, necklaces, earrings, watches and other jewelry. Zales has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $7.54 million settlement to resolve the Zales text class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Zales settlement, class members can receive a cash payment. Exact payment amounts will vary depending on the number of claims filed with the settlement. Each class member is eligible to receive up to $100 from the settlement fund. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Oct. 27, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Zales settlement is scheduled for Nov. 17, 2025. To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by Oct. 27, 2025. Who's Eligible The settlement benefits individuals who did not provide their phone number to Zale Delaware but who received more than one text message within a 12-month period promoting Zales goods or services and whose residential or cellular telephone number was registered with the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 30 days before receiving at least two text messages within a 12-month period. Potential Award Up to $100 Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 10/27/2025 Case Name Miller v. Zale Delaware Inc., Case No. 25-CA-004088, in the Circuit Court For Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, Florida Final Hearing 11/17/2025 Settlement Website ZaleTCPASettlement.com Claims Administrator Miller v. Zale Delaware Inc. P.O. Box 301132 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1132 admin@zaleTCPAsettlement.com (888) 808-1240 Class Counsel Avi Kaufman KAUFMAN P.A. Anthony Paronich PARONICH LAW P.C. Defense Counsel VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP [GN] ********* 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 ***