251001.mbx

251001.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, October 1, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 196 Headlines 2791 BROADWAY: Alexandria Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website 3M COMPANY: Abbott Suit Removed to D. New Jersey 3M COMPANY: Aceves Suit Removed to D. New Jersey 3M COMPANY: Archuleta Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Arnett Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Bolton Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Brantley Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Caton Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Kling Suit Removed to D. New Jersey 6TH MERIDIAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hedman Alleges 81 STREET CHICKEN: Valencia Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website A2 MILK: Misrepresents Vit. D Content in Milk Products, Theus Says AARP: Class Settlement in Markels Suit Gets Initial Nod ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Case Management Conference Vacated ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Legrand Files Renewed Class Certification Bid ACADIA LAPLACE: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Hamm Suit to 5th Cir. ADAM'S HOME: Bravo Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL ADIENT US: Stevens Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Machinists AKERO THERAPEUTICS: Klobus Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit ALASKA AIRLINES: Estrada Suit Removed to N.D. California ALCOA USA: Appeals Court Order in Butch Insurance Suit to 7th Cir. ALLIANZ LIFE: Rosenberg Balks at Personal Info Exposure ALPINE FUNDING: Class Cert Bid Deadline in Bachhuber Suit Stayed AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Seeks Reconsideration of August 28 Order AMERICAN ECONOMY: Glasner Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal AMICA MUTUAL: Defeats "Jollis" Suit on Purchasing Fees AMITY STREET INC: Valencia Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ANINE BING CORPORATION: Castro Sues Over Discriminative Website APPLE INC: Norman Suit Transferred to N.D. California ARLINGTON SPORTSERVICE: Lemons Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages ASCENSION HEALTH: Woods Seeks Nursing Assistant' Proper OT Wages ASCENSION HEALTH: Woods Seeks Straight Time & OT Under FLSA ASHLYNN MARKETING: Seeks Dismissal of M.G. Class Action ASTOR CHOCOLATE: Jackson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website AUTOZONE INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Shapllo Extended to Dec. 28 BAE'S COMPANY: Victor Sues Over Unlawful Discrimination BENWORTH CAPITAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Arreola Says BENWORTH CAPITAL: Roberts Files Suit in S.D. Florida BETTER HOMES: Owen-Brooks Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey BIOGEN INC: Wins Bid to Seal Part of Class Cert Opposition BLISSY LLC: Faces Chang Class Suit Over Fake Sales & Discounts BLOCKFI INC: $13.25MM Class Settlement to be Heard on December 11 BLUE STAR: Faces Lichte Suit Over Data Privacy Violations BLUEBONNET NUTRITION: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind BOFI HOLDING: Court OKs Bid to Junk "Calcaterra" Shareholder Suit BORA BORA AMERICA: Valencia Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BOW TIE CINEMAS: Arbitration Denied, VPPA Claim Junked in "Taino" BOYNE USA: Filing for Class Certification in Hornbeck Due Oct. 15 BSCORP 1 INC: Brownfield Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation BUFFALO, NY: Appeals Black Love Suit Class Cert. Order to 2nd Cir. CALIFORNIA: Class Cert Bid Filing in Brown Due Feb. 11, 2027 CALIFORNIA: Class Cert Bid Filing in Milton Due Feb. 11, 2027 CAPITAL ONE: Parties Seek Continuance of Class Cert Briefing Date CCI FINANCIAL: Castro Files Suit in D. Colorado CCI FINANCIAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Oliveira Alleges CHI RESTAURANT & BAR: Valencia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CHOCOLATE IS ART: Cole Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website CIERANT CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Almaz Suit Alleges CIRCADIAN FUNDING: Pretrial Management Order Entered in CMT CIRCLE GRAPHICS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Evans Alleges CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Loomis Appeals Class Cert. Order to 2nd Circuit CLEO AI: Appeals Denied Dismissal Bid in Moss Suit to 9th Circuit CLINT MILLER: Iasella Seeks to Certify Class Action COCA-COLA CO: Court Extends Class Cert Deadlines COMMISSIONER CREWS: Court Denies Prisoner's HRT Injunction Bid CONAGRA BRANDS: King Sues Over False "No Artificial Flavor" Labels CORNWELL QUALITY: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Witte Says CORNWELL QUALITY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Davis Says CORNWELL QUALITY: Shimp Balks at Inadequate Data Security Measures COSTCO WHOLESALE: Scoggan Suit Removed to C.D. California CREDIT SUISSE: Court Dismisses State Claim in "Gromicko" CRITICAL RESPONSE: Espinoza Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages D8D LLC: Blom Sues Over Failure to Provide Consumer Report DAESANG HOLDINGS: Tran Sues Over Kimchi's Naturally Fermented Claim DANIELLE OUTLAW: Flacco Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification DENTSPLY SIRONA: Court Approves Class Settlement in Securities Suit DENVER SHERIFFS: Filing for Class Cert Notice Plan Due Oct. 30 DHS FRACO: Toala Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Welders DIGIMARC CORP: Filing of Amended Complaint in Ullom Due Nov. 26 DIRECT 2 U INSURANCE: Salazar Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California DISCOVERY XT EMPLOYER: Campillo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DISNEY WORLDWIDE: Faces Grabow Class Suit Over Invasion of Privacy DOREL HOME FURNISHINGS: Lam Sues Over Defective Kitchen Steppers DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE: Custer Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification DPL TRADING INC: Laura Files Suit in C.D. California DRESSTALKS LTD: Bowman Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website EBENEZER INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hamati Alleges ECHOSTAR CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Pyne Alleges ELI LILLY AND COMPANY: Evans Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ELLIOTT'S TENNESSEE: Cole Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website ELV ENERGY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brown Alleges EVERON LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Vitangcol Alleges FARMERS GROUP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Ozburn Alleges FIVE STARR: Terrell Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Breach of Contract FLUID MARKET INC: Urban Interests Suit Transferred to D. Delaware FLUOR CORP: Maglione Sues Over Drop in Share Price FOSTER FARMS: Haff Poultry Sues Over Anticompetitive Conduct FRESH GREEN: Vick Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri FULLBEAUTY BRANDS: Perdomo Suit Removed to W.D. Washington GATEWAY CHURCH: Loses Motion to Dismiss "Leach" Donor Class Case GENESIS BILLING: Micire Sues Over Clients' Leaked Personal Info GHOST MANAGEMENT: Holistic Holdings Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GIORGIO ARMANI: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Certification GLENDALE APARTMENT: Wins Dismissal of "Jones" Tenant Lawsuit GLOBAL PLASMA: Air Purifier Purchaser Class Wins Certification HD SUPPLY MANAGEMENT: Delgado Suit Removed to E.D. California HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Williamson Sues Over Compromised Personal Info HECLA MINING: Faces Williams Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Idaho HILTON RESORTS: Stay Ordered in "Galvez" for Mediation ILLINOIS: Casey Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ILLINOIS: Kucinsky Bid for Recruitment of Counsel OK'D JOHN HANCOCK: Court Lifts Stay of Linhart Suit JOSEPHINE COUNTY, OR: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 11 JSN PAINTING: Dotel Sues to Recover Minimum, Overtime Wages KATAGIRI & CO: Alexandria Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website KNOX COUNTY, IL: Bid for Leave to File Certain Exhibit OK'd KRISTI NOEM: Plaintiff Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification LA VIE BOBO: Alexandria Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website LABORNOW INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garmendia Alleges LANDS' END INC: Lopez Suit Removed to W.D. Wisconsin LANDS' END INC: Meadows Suit Removed to W.D. Washington LANDS' END INC: Pierson Suit Removed to W.D. Wisconsin LANDS' END INC: Pukala Suit Removed to W.D. Wisconsin LANDS' END INC: Rhone Suit Removed to W.D. Wisconsin LANDS' END INC: Rychlik Suit Removed to W.D. Wisconsin LAST BRAND: Lofton Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Breach of Contract LAST MILE: Colon Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA, PMWA LATINO FARM: Cruz's Bid to Remand Case Tossed LEMONADE INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due June 26, 2026 LEOPOLD & ASSOCIATES: Must Pay $464K in Fees After FDCPA Settlement LIBERTY MUTUAL: Fassina Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Oct. 27 LOS ANGELES, CA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Pimentel Due Oct. 22 LUCAS COUNTY: Upperco Seeks More Time to Filer Class Cert Bid MAISON SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Securities Suits MARION COUNTY, OR: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Sawyer Due Dec. 11 MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Deadlines META PLATFORMS: Bid to Remove Incorrectly Filed Docs OK'd META PLATFORMS: Plaintiff Seeks to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal META PLATFORMS: Plaintiff Seeks to File Docs Under Seal MID COAST: Wells Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Registered Nurses MIDLAND FUNDING: Court Dismisses Filgueiras Class Complaint MILLENNIUM FUNDING: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 10, 2026 MISSISSIPPI: Appeals Preliminary Injunction Order in Jackson Suit MONGODB INC: Faces Consumer Suit in California Court MOSS POINT, MS: Removes Overby Suit to S.D. Miss. MOST LOVED: Underpays Sales Representatives, Lopez Suit Alleges MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 11 MUNCH ADDICT: Licea Sues Over Improper Business Practices MY TECHNOLOGY: Faces Hurst Class Suit Over Illegal Online Casino MY. GAMES: Johann Files Suit in S.D. California NAPCO SECURITY: Faces Zornberg Securities Suit in EDNY NATERA INC: Ram Suit Removed to N.D. California NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Palazzo Appeals Suit's Summary Judgment Order NAVY FEDERAL: Stephenson Seeks to Clarify Deadline Inconsistency NBC HOMES LLC: Knoche Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA: Golden Appeals VPPA Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. NDN COLLECTIVE: Retsel Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 8th Cir. NEW YORK JEWELERS: Hampton Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website NEW YORK, NY: Faces Ahmed Class Action Suit Over Unlawful Arrest NEW YORK, NY: Seeks Extension of Fact Discovery Completion NEW YORK, NY: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid NEW YORK: Dunn Suit Seeks Class Certification NEW YORK: R.M. Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid NEWELL BRANDS: Ortiz Suit Removed to C.D. California NIKOLA CORP: Mersho Appeals Court Order in Securities Class Suit NORTHEAST ILLINOIS: Fails to Maintain Train Platform, Bolden Says NUTS ON CLARK: Bahena Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website NVIDIA CORP: $2.5MM Class Settlement in Tobias Gets Initial Nod NVIDIA CORP: Supreme Court Tosses Writ of Certiorari OMEGAPRO FOREX: UIC Bid for Default Judgment Tossed PASENTI CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carlos Alleges PERDUE FARMS: Bid for Class Certification Closed in Jien Suit PERDUE FARMS: Class Cert Reply Briefs in Jien Extended to Oct. 13 PHARMACARE US: Sunderland Bid for Class Cert Partly OK'd PHH MORTGAGE: Bids for Summary Judgment & Class Cert Due Nov. 12 PLEX INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Ramirez Alleges POLLY KAISER: Plaintiffs Win Bid for TRO to Preserve Status Quo PORT WASHINGTON: Court Orders Discovery in "Khan" Wage & Hour Suit PORTMEIRION GROUP: Cole Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website PREMERA BLUE: Appeals Summary Judgment Order in Suit to 9th Cir. PREMIUM MERCHANT: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Feb. 6, 2026 PRESTIGE INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs Seek Conditional Cert of Action PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN: Kostelny Suit Removed to M.D. Florida PROSPER FUNDING LLC: Park Files Suit in N.D. California PROTECTIVE ASSET: Vaccaro Suit Removed to C.D. California PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Matthews Seeks to Continue Class Cert Filing R.R. DONNELLEY: Conditional Class Cert. Filing Due Feb. 25, 2026 R1 RCM: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due March 24, 2026 REEF LIFESTYLE: Dalton Seeks Equal Web Access for Blind Users RICE DRILLING: Clover Case Stayed Pending Resolution of Kemp Matter ROHRMAN MIDWEST MOTORS: Rabbitt Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois ROKU INC: E.A.R.R. Suit Removed to C.D. California SALESFORCE INC: Faces Morton Suit Over Unauthorized Access of Info SAMUEL ALLAN: Schlich Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates SEAWORLD PARKS: Class Settlement in Coppel Gets Final Nod SECURITAS SECURITY: Greco Suit Removed to W.D. Washington SEQUOIA BENEFITS: Settlement in Data Breach Suit Gets Initial Nod SHOWA HOSPITALITY: Herrera Sues Over Disability Discrimination SHREE RAM K. INC: Foster Sues Over Accommodation Barriers SIGNANT HEALTH: Seeks Dismissal of Several Claims in Morgan Suit SISKIYOU COUNTY, CA: Class Cert Bid Filing Changed to Feb. 10, 2026 SKECHERS USA INC: Liss Suit Removed to W.D. Washington SNAP INC: Black Suit Stayed Pending Settlement Documentation SOUTH BEACH OCEAN: Lopez Sues Over Unlawful Barriers SPARC GROUP RETAIL: Marquez Sues Over Disability Discrimination STAKE CENTER: Court Modifies Class Definition in Loonsfoot Suit STEPHEN JAMES: Parties Seek Extension to File Class Cert Opposition TACOS EL POBLANITO: Carcamo Sues Over Unpaid Compensations TAPESTRY INC: Merrell ADA Suit Transferred to C.D. California TAPESTRY INC: Merrell Case Transferred to C.D. California TARTER GATE: Partial Bid to Dismiss Spears Class Suit Tossed TCP-ASC ACHI SERIES: Kalampoukas Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. TD BANK: Barbieri Suit Removed to S.D. Florida TEKSYSTEMS INC: Lindow Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages THIGH SOCIETY: Faces Davis Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website THREE BIRD: Bowman Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website TRANSLATIONS.COM INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Due August 6, 2026 TRANSUNION LLC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Alexander Says TRANSUNION LLC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Judka Alleges TRANSUNION LLC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Bonilla Says TTEC SERVICES: Alvarez Seeks Leave to File First Amended Complaint TUMBLE LIVING: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Ford Alleges UBS GROUP: Gromick Action Consolidated with Diabat Suit UIPATH INC: Class Cert Deadlines in Severt Suit Vacated UNION HOME: Fails to Properly Secure Personal Info, Brown Says UNITED NATURAL FOODS: Verley Suit Removed to W.D. Washington UNITED STATES: Appeals Attorney Fees & Costs Order in J.O.P. Suit UNITED STATES: Chornooka Balks at Adjustment of Immigration Status US CUSTOMS: Mora Seeks OK of Renewed Class Certification Bid USA TEES COM INC: Padilla Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York V.F. CORP: Brenton Sues Over Alleged Drop in Share Price VICTORIA'S SECRET: Marquez Sues Over Disability Discrimination VINEYARD VINES: Carter Suit Removed to D. Maryland VOX MEDIA: Maldonado Sues Over Data Privacy Violations WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Roberts Files Suit in D. Colorado WASHINGTON GASTROENTEROLOGY: Healy Sues Over Data Breach WILINE NETWORKS: Loses Bid to Dismiss WCMC Suit WOMEN'S CARE LLC: Bowen Files Suit in M.D. Florida YOLI LLC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Sheri Suit Due Feb. 2, 2026 ********* 2791 BROADWAY: Alexandria Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Erika Alexandria, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. 2791 BROADWAY RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-07742 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.fumorestaurant.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.fumorestaurant.com (its "Website"), offering features which should allow all consumers to access the services that Defendant offers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com 3M COMPANY: Abbott Suit Removed to D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Gary Abbott, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. MRS-L-912-25 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Morris County, to the United States District Court for District of New Jersey on Sept. 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-15771. The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and/or selling aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF"), thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS"), were contained in Defendants' AFFF, that Plaintiffs regularly used, and were thereby exposed to these substances in training and to extinguish fires during Plaintiffs' careers as members of the military and/or as civilian firefighters. Plaintiffs also allege that they were exposed to these substances through ingestion of drinking water, and that these same substances caused injury to Plaintiffs.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael C. Zogby, Esq. Chanda A. Miller, Esq. BARNES & THORNBURG LLP 67 E. Park Place, Suite 1000 Morristown, NJ 07960 Phone: (973) 775-6101 Email: Michael.Zogby@btlaw.com Chanda.Miller@btlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Aceves Suit Removed to D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Alejandro Aceves, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. MRS-L-903-25 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Morris County, to the United States District Court for District of New Jersey on Sept. 19, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-15828. The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and/or selling aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF"), thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs. In relevant part, Plaintiffs allege that 3M and certain other Defendants sold AFFF containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS"). Moreover, each Plaintiff alleges that he "regularly used, and was thereby exposed to, AFFF containing PFAS in training and to extinguish fires during Plaintiff's career as a member of the military and/or as a civilian firefighter" and suffered injury "as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael C. Zogby, Esq. Chanda A. Miller, Esq. BARNES & THORNBURG LLP 67 E. Park Place, Suite 1000 Morristown, NJ 07960 Phone: (973) 775-6101 Email: Michael.Zogby@btlaw.com Chanda.Miller@btlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Archuleta Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Chad Archuleta, et al, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01359 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Sept. 9, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-12395-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: R. Bryant McCulley, Esq. ASHCRAFT AND GEREL 701 East Bay Street, Suite 411 Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (843) 699-8280 Email: bmcculley@ashcraftlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Arnett Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Debra Rae Arnett, et al, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01308 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Sept. 9, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-12386-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. Yahn Eric Olson, esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9206 Email: gary@elglaw.com GregC@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com yolson@elglaw.com 3M COMPANY: Bolton Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Gilbert Bolton, et al, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01335 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Sept. 9, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-12391-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. Yahn Eric Olson, esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9206 Email: gary@elglaw.com GregC@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com yolson@elglaw.com 3M COMPANY: Brantley Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Michael Brantley, et al, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01337 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Sept. 9, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-12392-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. Yahn Eric Olson, esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9206 Email: gary@elglaw.com GregC@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com yolson@elglaw.com 3M COMPANY: Caton Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Mark Lee Caton, et al, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01313 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Sept. 9, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-12389-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. Yahn Eric Olson, esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9206 Email: gary@elglaw.com GregC@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com yolson@elglaw.com 3M COMPANY: Kling Suit Removed to D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Cynthia Kling, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. MRS-L-903-25 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Morris County, to the United States District Court for District of New Jersey on Sept. 19, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-15831. The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and/or selling aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF"), thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs. In relevant part, Plaintiffs allege that 3M and certain other Defendants sold AFFF containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS"). Moreover, each Plaintiff alleges that he "regularly used, and was thereby exposed to, AFFF containing PFAS in training and to extinguish fires during Plaintiff's career as a member of the military and/or as a civilian firefighter" and suffered injury "as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael C. Zogby, Esq. Chanda A. Miller, Esq. BARNES & THORNBURG LLP 67 E. Park Place, Suite 1000 Morristown, NJ 07960 Phone: (973) 775-6101 Email: Michael.Zogby@btlaw.com Chanda.Miller@btlaw.com 6TH MERIDIAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hedman Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- DAVID HEDMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. 6TH MERIDIAN SPECIALTIES LLC d/b/a PHOENIX MINING, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01799 (S.D. Ill., Sept. 17, 2025) Plaintiff Hedman was employed by the Defendant as a buggy operator. 6th Meridian Specialties LLC provides specialized services in construction and mining projects. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C 77 W. Washington St., Ste 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 Facsimile: (312) 419-1025 Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com 81 STREET CHICKEN: Valencia Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Justin Valencia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. 81 STREET CHICKEN CORP., Case No. 1:25-cv-07758 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.chirpingchicken.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.chirpingchicken.com (its "Website"), offering features which should allow all consumers to access the services that Defendant offers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com A2 MILK: Misrepresents Vit. D Content in Milk Products, Theus Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ ALEXIS GATES and CHAKA THEUS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. THE A2 MILK COMPANY, Case No. 3:25-cv-07820-LJC (N.D. Cal., Sept. 12, 2025) is a class action lawsuit arising from the Defendant's manufacturing, distribution, and sale of its A2 Milk Products. Vitamin D is an instrumental nutrient in supporting human health. Among other benefits, vitamin D supports bone health, muscle function, and immune health. Additionally, because vitamin D helps the body absorb calcium, and milk is a calcium-rich food, many manufacturers fortify their milk products with vitamin D to increase nutritional benefits. 3. Defendant is one such milk manufacturer. The Defendant claims to sell milk products that purport to offer consumers 2.5 micrograms (mcg) of vitamin D per 240 mL serving (one cup, a Serving). However, independent testing conducted by an ISO/IEC 17025:2017 accredited and FDA recognized laboratory found that, contrary to Defendant's 2.5 mcg of vitamin D per Serving representation, the Products contain only 0.648 mcg of vitamin D per Serving; approximately 74% less vitamin D than is represented on the Products' label, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring claims on behalf of themselves and proposed classes for violations of (i) California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code section 1750, et seq.; (ii) California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; (iii) California's False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17500, et seq.; (iv) Breach of Express Warranty; and (v) Unjust Enrichment. Plaintiff Alexis Gates is a California citizen residing in Oakland, California. Plaintiff consistently purchased Defendant's A2 59 fluid ounce Whole Milk from various brick and mortar stores in Fremont and San Leandro, California including Safeway and Target. Plaintiff Gates purchased the Product as recently as August 2025. The a2 Milk Company Limited is a New Zealand company that commercializes intellectual property relating to A1 protein-free milk that is sold under the a2 and a2 Milk brands, as well as the milk and related products such as infant formula.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Daniel S. Guerra, Esq. Ines Diaz Villafana, Esq. Joshua B. Glatt, Esq. Joshua R. Wilner, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com dguerra@bursor.com idiaz@bursor.com jglatt@bursor.com jwilner@bursor.com AARP: Class Settlement in Markels Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAN MARKELS, ET AL., V. AARP, Case No. 4:22-cv-05499-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order granting preliminary approval of settlement and setting deadlines for notice, objection, exclusion, and final fairness hearing. On Sept. 9, 2025, the Court held a hearing on the unopposed motion of the plaintiffs for conditional certification of a settlement class in this action; preliminary approval of the parties' proposed settlement; direction of notice to the class; and setting a date for the hearing on final approval of the settlement. Simon Grille appeared for plaintiffs and Matthew Brown appeared for defendant. The Settlement Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A, defines the class as: "all persons in the United States who, between Sept. 27, 2020, and the date of Preliminary Approval, requested or obtained video content on AARP.org while in the United States and at a time the person had a Facebook account and was either an AARP member or a registered user of AARP.org." Under the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff's counsel agreed to seek up to 30% of the fund in attorneys' fees and no more than $270,000 for expense reimbursement. The common settlement fund also includes a provision for up to $10,000 to be paid to class representatives as an incentive award. The Court conditionally certifies the class and provisionally appoints Adam E. Polk, Simon S. Grille, Reid Gaa, and Anthony Rogari of Girard Sharp LLP as Class Counsel and plaintiffs Jan Markels, William Martin, and Lynn Seda as class representatives. The Court will conduct a Fairness and Final Approval Hearing on Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. The Plaintiffs filed the operative putative class action complaint on July 19, 2024 against the defendant AARP "alleging that AARP disclosed to [non-defendant interested party] Meta the specific video materials its subscribers requested or obtained from its website without first obtaining their consent in the form required under the [Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA")." A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BrggYZ at no extra charge.[CC] ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Case Management Conference Vacated ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONDALISA LEGRAND, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Case No. 3:22-cv-05815-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thomas Hixson entered an order vacating case management conference and striking renewed motion for class certification and motion to seal. On June 9, 2023, the Court issued a case management order setting a May 9, 2024, deadline to move for class certification. That date was subsequently extended to January 23, 2025. The Plaintiff moved for class certification on January 23, and the Court denied her motion on Aug. 4, 2025. No further case management deadlines have been set, and the matter is currently scheduled for a case management conference on September 18. However, Plaintiff has now filed a renewed motion for class certification. As the deadline to move for class certification has passed and Plaintiff did not seek leave to file a renewed motion, the Court strikes the renewed motion and the related motion to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed. The Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer by Sept. 25, 2025, to determine if they can agree to permit the Plaintiff to file a renewed motion. Abbott is an American multinational medical devices and health care company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nvHQPf at no extra charge.[CC] ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Legrand Files Renewed Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONDALISA LEGRAND on behalf of herself, those similarly situated and the general public, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Case No. 3:22-cv-05815-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Oct. 30, 2025, will move the Court for an order amending the Aug. 12, 2025 certification order and granting the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification. The Plaintiff's damages models satisfy Comcast and the Class should be certified. In its Class Certification Order, the Court found all prerequisites for certification under Rule 23 were met except one aspect of manageability under Rule 23(b)(3). The Plaintiff has now addressed the Court's concerns about classwide damages through additional evidence, including the supplemental declaration of Steven Gaskin, and additional explanation of her theory of the case, and consistent with Rule 23, renews her request for class certification. The Plaintiff alleges Abbott deceptively advertises Ensure as healthy and nutritious. Abbott manufactures, markets, and distributes several different "nutrition" shakes and drinks under its Ensure brand. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=F2EibV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. Melanie R. Monroe, Esq. Trevor M. Flynn, Esq. Allison Ferraro, Esq. FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC 2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 215-1741 E-mail: jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com mmonroe@fmfpc.com tflynn@fmfpc.com aferraro@fmfpc.com - and - Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Paula Brown, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1100 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com pbrown@bholaw.com ACADIA LAPLACE: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Hamm Suit to 5th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ ACADIA LAPLACE HOLDINGS, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Amy Hamm, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Acadia LaPlace Holdings, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01515, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The Plaintiffs filed this complaint against the Defendants for alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Louisiana state law by failing to properly compensate their employees for work performed. On Jan. 10, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Susie Morgan granted on Sept. 2, 2025. The Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class action to pursue causes of action for unjust enrichment and conversion under Louisiana law is granted. The class is defined as follows: All current and former hourly, non-exempt Mental Health Technicians ("MHTs"), Behavioral Health Associates ("BHAs"), nurses, non-exempt therapists, and intake coordinators employed by any Defendants at the River Place Behavioral Health Hospital at any time until the date of the Court's order granting certification. It is further ordered that this trial be bifurcated and that the issues of liability and damages will be tried separately and that the firm of Schneider Wallace Cottrell Kim LLP is named class counsel. It is further ordered, to fulfill the requirements of Rule 23(c)(2)(b), that the parties meet and jointly draft and submit to the Court a proposed notice of class certification no later than September 15, 2025. The appellate case is entitled Hamm v. Ochsner-Acadia, Case No. 25-90024, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on September 17, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents AMY HAMM, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Daniel Bernard Centner, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE 935 Gravier Street New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: (504) 605-1542 - and - Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL BRAYTON KONECKY, LLP 180 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 - and - Joseph C. Peiffer, Esq. PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE 201 Saint Charles Avenue New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 586-5259 Defendants-Petitioners ACADIA LAPLACE HOLDINGS, LLC, et al. are represented by: Matthew Arthur Caplan, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP 1180 W. Peachtree Street, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 817-8434 - and - Philip Joseph Giorlando, Esq. BREAZEALE, SACHSE & WILSON, LLP 909 Poydras Street New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: (504) 680-5244 ADAM'S HOME: Bravo Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL ------------------------------------------------------------ JAVIER BRAVO and ALEXANDER FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ADAM'S HOME FURNITURE INC. (D/B/A ADAM'S HOME FURNITURE), ADAM FURNITURE 532 INC. (D/B/A NUMBER 1 FURNITURE), ADAM'S FURNITURE 757 INC. (D/B/A NUMBER 1 FURNITURE), AMERICAN HUB FURNITURE INC. (D/B/A AMERICAN HUB FURNITURE), MENA'S FURNITURE INC. (D/B/A NUMBER 1 FURNITURE), JOHN DOE INC. (D/B/A ADAM'S HOME FURNITURE), MENA AWAD, AND MOHAMMED DOE, Case No. 1:25-cv-07565 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 11, 2025) seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law ((NYLL). According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were required to spend a considerable part of their work day performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to Carrying furniture from the warehouse or the stores to the van and placing it in the van, taking out furniture from the van and carrying it five or six floors upstairs, dismantling and assembling furniture, cleaning up after delivering the furniture and carrying boxes and other delivery items back with them (the non-tipped duties). The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendants as Furniture delivery workers and furniture assemblers. The Defendants own, operate, or control six furniture stores in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 ADIENT US: Stevens Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Machinists ------------------------------------------------------------ SEAN STEVENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADIENT US LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01220 (W.D. Tenn., September 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Stevens has been employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid machinist. Adient US LLC, is an automotive seat manufacturer, with its principal address in Plymouth, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com AKERO THERAPEUTICS: Klobus Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- DORA KLOBUS, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Dora Klobus, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Akero Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-02534-YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendants under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), and the Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On May 26, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on June 16, 2025. On Aug. 15, 2025, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The appellate case is entitled Klobus, et al. v. Akero Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-5799, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on September 15, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on September 22, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on September 26, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on October 27, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on December 5, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on January 5, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants DORA KLOBUS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Danielle Suzanne Myers, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 - and - Michael J. Klein, Esq. ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP 450 Seventh Avenue, 38th Floor New York, NY 10123 - and - Patrice L. Bishop, Esq. ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP Bank of America Building 9440 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 - and - Shawn Anthony Williams, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP One Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Defendants-Appellees AKERO THERAPEUTICS, INC., et al. are represented by: Jamie Wine, Esq. Ben Harris, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 - and - Daniel R. Gherardi, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP 140 Scott Drive Menlo Park, CA 94025 - and - Melanie Blunschi, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 ALASKA AIRLINES: Estrada Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Daniel Estrada, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALASKA AIRLINES, INC. AND DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV21699 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Sept. 23, 2025, and assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-08091. On February 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). The Plaintiff's FAC asserts two claims for violation of California Labor Code section 233; and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq. The FAC also seeks civil penalties under California's Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ryan McCoy, Esq. Taylor D. Horn, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 Email: rmccoy@seyfarth.com thorn@seyfarth.com ALCOA USA: Appeals Court Order in Butch Insurance Suit to 7th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ ALCOA USA CORP., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Edmond M. Butch, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Alcoa USA Corp., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00258-RLY-CSW, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Defendants following the termination of their life insurance coverage. Alcoa announced the termination of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated retirees' life insurance coverage, to be effective January 1, 2020 despite Unions and Alcoa having negotiated that retirees are entitled to company-paid life insurance. The Plaintiffs contest that the retiree life insurance provided by the collective bargaining agreements cannot be unilaterally terminated or modified by the Defendants. In September 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification through an Order entered by Judge Richard Young. The Defendants filed an appeal to the Sept. 22 Order. The appellate case is captioned as Edmond Butch, et al. v. Alcoa USA Corp., et al., Case No. 25-2635, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on September 17, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees EDMOND M. BUTCH, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Joel R. Hurt, Esq. FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC LLC 429 Fourth Avenue Law & Finance Building Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-8400 Defendants-Appellants ALCOA USA CORP., et al., are represented by: Thomas Birsic, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 210 Sixth Avenue K&L Gates Center Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 355-6500 ALLIANZ LIFE: Rosenberg Balks at Personal Info Exposure ------------------------------------------------------- PAUL ROSENBERG, M.D., individually and on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-03622 (D. Minn., September 11, 2025) is a class action brought by Dr. Paul Rosenberg on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated whose sensitive personal information was exposed in a massive July 2025 data breach involving Defendant. On or about July 16, 2025, cyber-criminals exploited elementary security weaknesses in an Allianz cloud-based customer-relationship-management platform and exfiltrated personally identifiable information and protected health information relating to an estimated 1.4 million Americans. The intrusion went undetected until the following day and was not publicly disclosed until July 26, 2025. According to the complaint, Class members now face a lifetime risk of identity theft, financial fraud, and other misuse of their data, and many have already spent considerable time and money monitoring credit reports, securing accounts, and responding to suspicious activity. Had Allianz Life followed widely accepted cybersecurity practices -- such as segregating sensitive data, encrypting it at rest and in transit, enforcing multi-factor authentication, timely patching software, limiting employee access under the principle of least privilege, and conducting routine security training and monitoring -- the data breach would have been easily preventable, says the suit. Plaintiff Rosenberg held an Allianz Life insurance policy for over 10 years. In order to hold an insurance policy with Allianz Life, Allianz Life required that Plaintiff Rosenberg provide with his name, date of birth, home address, Social Security number, and email address. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America operates as an insurance company. The Company provides life, health, and disability insurance services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 328 Barry Avenue S., Suite 200 Wayzata, MN 55391 Telephone: (612) 389-0600 E-mail: mweiner@pwfirm.com - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. Julia Veeser, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com akeller@dicellolevitt.com jveeser@dicellolevitt.com - and - Corban Rhodes, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 485 Lexington Avenue, Tenth Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 933-1000 E-mail: crhodes@dicellolevitt.com ALPINE FUNDING: Class Cert Bid Deadline in Bachhuber Suit Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bachhuber, Kevin v. Alpine Funding Partners, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00907 (W.D. Wisc., Filed Dec. 23, 2024), the Hon. Judge William M. Conley entered an order staying the deadline to file motions on class certification. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Alpine specializes in providing small business funding and loan alternatives to support business growth.[CC] AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Seeks Reconsideration of August 28 Order ------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Defendant will move the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 and Local Civil Rule 6.3, for an Order granting reconsideration of its Aug. 28, 2025 Order granting the Plaintiff Caonaissa Won's Motion to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3). Pursuant to Your Honor's Individual Practices, the parties have agreed that Plaintiff, Caonaissa Won, shall file her response to Amazon's motion no later than Oct. 6, 2025. Amazon shall file its reply brief by Oct. 13, 2025. Amazon.com provides e-commerce services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Sept 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=F2EibV at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Jason C. Schwartz, Esq. Lauren M. Blas, Esq. Brian A. Richman, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 955-8500 E-mail: jschwartz@gibsondunn.com lblas@gibsondunn.com brichman@gibsondunn.com AMERICAN ECONOMY: Glasner Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting assented to motion for leave to file documents under seal to the reply in support of their opposed motion for class certification, appointment of class representatives and appointment of class counsel. The following are the proposed sealed documents: Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion for Class Certification, Appointment of Class Representatives and Appointment of Class Counsel; Declaration of T. Joseph Snodgrass in Support of Plaintiffs' Reply To Their Opposed Motion for Class Certification, Appointment of Class Representatives and Appointment of Class Counsel; and Exhibit J - excerpts of the transcript from the deposition of Toby Johnson, taken in Cortinas v. Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Co. on January 9, 2025. Plaintiffs request that the filings remain under seal until the Court orders otherwise. American operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xd8Dai 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 AMICA MUTUAL: Defeats "Jollis" Suit on Purchasing Fees ------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Roger Jollis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Amica Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-13328 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Susan K. DeClercq of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss and dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint. In September 2024, Plaintiff Roger Jollis brought a class action complaint against Defendant Amica Mutual Insurance Company in Oakland County Circuit Court. Amica then removed the matter to federal court. The complaint alleges that Amica breached its insurance contract with Jollis and similarly situated insureds by issuing actual cash value payments following the loss of a vehicle that did not include purchasing fees, including license and tag fees. Soon after removing the case to federal court, Amica moved to dismiss Jollis's complaint under Civil Rule 12(b)(6). Amica argues that Sixth Circuit precedent precludes any reasonable factfinder from concluding that Amica was contractually obligated to include purchasing fees in its payments to insureds. In February 2019, Jollis was involved in an accident while driving his 2011 Jeep that he insured under a policy issued by Amica. He filed a property damage claim with Amica. Amica then determined that the Jeep was a total loss with a Base Vehicle Value of $18,452 and an Adjusted Vehicle Value of $19,492. After adding sales tax to the adjusted vehicle value, Amica paid Jollis $20,661.52 for his claim. Jollis did not dispute this valuation, but he did dispute the sufficiency of that payment and ultimately sued Amica for breaching its insurance contract. According to Jollis's complaint, Amica failed and refused to pay all of the purchasing fees applicable to the total loss claim. That failure and refusal, Jollis alleges, was pursuant to Amica's standard and widespread practice of failing and/or refusing to pay purchasing fees to its first-party total loss insureds in Michigan. Jollis's insurance contract with Amica provides that, following a loss, Amica will pay for direct and accidental loss to the covered auto. The policy further provides that Amica's limit of liability for loss will be the lesser of the: 1. Actual cash value of the stolen or damaged property; or 2. Amount necessary to repair or replace the property with other property of like kind and quality. An adjustment for depreciation and physical condition will be made in determining actual cash value in the event of a total loss. If a repair or replacement results in better than like kind or quality, Amica will not pay for the amount of the betterment. Both parties agree that the policy does not expressly define the term actual cash value. The parties' dispute ultimately turns on whether the contractual language regarding actual cash value can reasonably be read to include all purchasing fees. Put differently, the question before this Court is whether actual cash value, as used in the insurance policy here, unambiguously excludes purchasing fees. This Court agrees with Amica that the contract cannot read actual cash value to include purchasing fees. Thus, the complaint will be dismissed. In support of its position, Amica points to the Sixth Circuit's decision in Wilkerson v. American Family Insurance Co., 997 F.3d 666 (6th Cir. 2021). There, the Sixth Circuit grappled with the meaning of actual cash value in a car insurance policy that was, in all relevant respects, identical to the one at issue here. Like Jollis, the plaintiff in Wilkerson argued that actual cash value included purchasing fees, i.e., sales taxes and fees that a party typically must incur when buying a replacement car. Applying Ohio law, the Sixth Circuit concluded that actual cash value unambiguously excluded purchasing fees. The Sixth Circuit employed standard principles to interpret the insurance contract under Ohio law, starting with the plain meaning of actual cash value because it was not a defined term in the insurance policy. The Sixth Circuit noted that the term value ordinarily has a plain meaning of worth that would exclude the disputed purchasing fees. The Sixth Circuit observed that the term actual cash value had indeed become a legal term of art that carried two meanings: one tracked the definition of value noted above, and the other meant replacement cost minus normal depreciation. Therefore, the Sixth Circuit had to make a choice between these dueling definitions. Without a default rule from the Ohio legislature or courts, the Sixth Circuit turned next to a consideration of the contract as a whole. The Sixth Circuit observed that reading actual cash value to mean replacement cost less depreciation would result in a redundancy, effectively nullifying part of the contract. The Sixth Circuit looked to the Limits of Liability section of the policy, noting that the second clause would be meaningless if the first clause meant replacement cost minus depreciation. Jollis provides a three-part response to Amica's argument. First, Jollis contends that Wilkerson is not binding on this Court because it was wrongly decided. Second, Jollis contends that, even if this Court takes actual cash value to mean market value, as in Wilkerson, this Court should interpret market value to mean replacement cost less depreciation. Third, Jollis argues that Michigan's definition of actual cash value should fill the void left by Amica's failure to define the term. Jollis's first and second arguments are nonstarters. The principle of vertical stare decisis means that it is not this Court's place to determine whether a higher court's ruling was rightly or wrongly reached. The second argument is squarely precluded by the Sixth Circuit's decision in Wilkerson where the circuit reasoned that market value as determined through standard contract interpretation is inconsistent with replacement cost less depreciation. Turning to Jollis's third argument, it does not actually appear that Michigan law provides a singular default rule that defines actual cash value as replacement cost less depreciation. Michigan law does not provide a singular default rule that defines actual cash value as replacement cost less depreciation. Without a singular default definition provided by state law, this Court finds itself in the same circumstances that the Sixth Circuit faced when deciding Wilkerson. Therefore, this Court will follow the reasoning applied in that decision. Michigan law directs courts to determine and enforce the parties' intent by reading the agreement as a whole and applying the plain language used by the parties to reach their agreement. If actual cash value is read to mean replacement cost less depreciation, then two inconsistencies would result here. First, as in Wilkerson, replacement cost less depreciation would nullify the second part of the Limit of Liability section. And second, the insurance policy at issue here provides for an adjustment for depreciation. The Sixth Circuit reasoned that those two inconsistencies ruled out the possibility that identical policy language could mean replacement cost minus normal depreciation. Therefore, because the contract here is identical in all relevant respects to the contract at issue in Wilkerson, the Sixth Circuit's reasoning yields the same result in this case: actual cash value as used in the Amica insurance policy unambiguously means market value. The Sixth Circuit held that market value excluded purchasing fees in this context. Thus, actual cash value as used in the contract at issue here unambiguously excludes the disputed license and tag fees. As a matter of law, Amica did not breach its contract with Jollis by limiting its payment in the manner that Jollis alleges. Accordingly, the Court ordered that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted. Further, it ordered that Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hNwwne from PacerMonitor.com AMITY STREET INC: Valencia Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Justin Valencia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AMITY STREET, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-07772 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.amityhallnyc.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.amityhallnyc.com (its "Website"), offering features which should allow all consumers to access the services that Defendant offers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com ANINE BING CORPORATION: Castro Sues Over Discriminative Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Arantza Castro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ANINE BING CORPORATION, a Foreign Profit Corporation D/B/A ANINE BING, Case No. 1:25-cv-24330-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 22, 2025), is brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), as a result of the Defendant's discriminative website. The Defendant was and still is an organization owning and operating the website located at https://www.aninebing.com/. Since the website is open through the internet to the public as an extension of the retail stores, by this nexus the website is an intangible service, privilege and advantage of Defendant's brick and mortar locations, the Defendant has subjected itself and the associated website it created and maintains to the requirements of the ADA. The website also services Defendant's physical stores by providing information on its brand and other information that Defendant is interested in communicating to its customers about its physical locations. Although the Website appeared to have an "accessibility" statement displayed and an "accessibility" widget/plugin added, the "accessibility" statement and widget/plugin, when tested, still could not be effectively accessed by, and continued to be a barrier to, blind and visually disabled persons, including Plaintiff as a completely blind person. Plaintiff, although she attempted to access the statement, thus, was unable to receive any meaningful or prompt assistance through the "accessibility" statement and the widget/plugin to enable her to quickly, fully, and effectively navigate the Website, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses the computer regularly, but due to her visual disability, Plaintiff cannot use her computer without the assistance of appropriate and available auxiliary aids, screen reader software, and other technology and assistance. ANINE BING is a company that sells women clothing, shoes, bags, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Diego German Mendez, Esq. MENDEZ LAW OFFICES, PLLC P.O. BOX 228630 Miami, FL 33172 Phone: 305.264.9090 Facsimile: 1-305.809.8474 Email: info@mendezlawoffices.com - and - Richard J. Adams, Esq. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 6500 Cowpen Road, Suite 101 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Phone: 786-290-1963 Facsimile: 305-824-3868 Email: radamslaw7@gmail.com APPLE INC: Norman Suit Transferred to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Lauren Norman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-08203 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 California on Sept. 19, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-07985-SK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Apple Inc. -- https://www.apple.com/ -- is an American multinational corporation and technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California, in Silicon Valley.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Valter Malkhasyan, Esq. Erik Pogosyan, Esq. MALK POGO LAW GROUP, LLP 1241 S. Glendale Ave., Suite 204 Glendale, CA 91205 Phone: (818) 351-6611 Email: valter@malkpogolaw.com erik@malkpogolaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Megan Louise Rodger, Esq. Emily Johnson Henn, Esq. Kathryn E. Cahoy, Esq. Covington and Burling LLP 3000 El Camino Real 5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94306 Phone: (650) 632-4700 Fax: (650) 632-4800 Email: mrodgers@cov.com ehenn@cov.com kcahoy@cov.com ARLINGTON SPORTSERVICE: Lemons Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- April Lemons, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ARLINGTON SPORTSERVICE, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-01034-P (N.D. Tex., Sept. 23, 2025), is brought pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the federal Portal-to-Portal Pay Act (collectively "FLSA"), seeking all damages available pursuant to the FLSA, including unpaid minimum wages, unlawfully kept tips, liquidated damages, reasonable legal fees, costs, and post-judgment interest. The Defendant pays Plaintiff $7.25 per hour. In addition to hourly pay, Plaintiff is a tipped employee. The Defendant had practices, policies, and/or procedures which violated the FLSA's tip payment provision by improperly keeping tips earned by Plaintiff to: share with supervisors, share with non-customarily tipped employees, such as runners and stockers, and pay for business-related expenses, such as ice and deliveries. The Defendant had practices, policies, and/or procedures which violated the FLSA's minimum wage provision by making her pay for: Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission ("TABC") certification and/or licensing, and replacement uniforms. The Defendant employed, and continues to employ, numerous other hourly paid and tipped employees who were subject to the same practices, policies, and procedures experienced by Plaintiff which violated the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is employed by Defendant as a bartender at Globe Life Field. The Defendant is a foreign for-profit corporation incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. VAUGHT FIRM, LLC 1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (972) 707-7816 Facsimile: (972) 920-3933 Email: avaught@txlaborlaw.com ASCENSION HEALTH: Woods Seeks Nursing Assistant' Proper OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kanasha Woods, on behalf of Herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Ascension Health, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01394 (E.D. Wis., September 11, 2025) is an individual and collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and an individual and class action under Wisconsin law by Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and other current and former hourly non-exempt employees to seek redress for Ascension Health's failure to pay them straight time and overtime wages required by law. According to the complaint, for the week of May 10 to 16, 2025, Plaintiff received 6.07 hours of overtime pay, for which she received her base rate, a night shift differential, and overtime pay equal to 1/2 of her weekly regular rate of pay. The Plaintiff would have received more overtime pay for the 6.07 overtime hours that she was credited as having worked during the week of May 10 to 16, 2025, had Ascension Health computed her overtime pay as one and a half times the weekly regular rate of pay for each overtime hour she worked, says the suit. Named Plaintiff was employed by Ascension Health as Certified Nursing Assistant working at Ascension Living St. Francis Place. Ascension Health is a Missouri corporation that operates hospitals and other healthcare facilities in numerous states, including throughout Southeastern Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yingtao Ho, Esq. THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C. 310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW Milwaukee, WI 53203 Telephone: (414) 271-4500 Facsimile: (414) 271-6308 E-mail: yh@previant.com ASCENSION HEALTH: Woods Seeks Straight Time & OT Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- Kanasha Woods On behalf of Herself and all others similarly situated v. Ascension Health, Case No. 2:25-cv-01394 (E.D. Wisc., Sept. 11, 2025) alleges that Ascension failed to pay straight time and overtime wages to current and former hourly non-exempt employees of Ascension Health under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff would have received more overtime pay for the 6.07 overtime hours that she was credited as having worked during the week of May 10 to 16, 2025, had Ascension computed her overtime pay as 1.5 times the weekly regular rate of pay for each overtime hour she worked. The Plaintiff was employed by Ascension as Certified Nursing Assistant working at Ascension Living St. Francis Place. Ascension operates hospitals and other healthcare facilities in numerous states, including throughout Southeastern Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yingtao Ho, Esq. The Previant Law Firm S.C. 310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW Milwaukee, WI 53203 Telephone: (414) 271-4500 Facsimile: (414) 271-6308 E-mail: vh@previant.com ASHLYNN MARKETING: Seeks Dismissal of M.G. Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as M.G. and J.H., individually on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ASHLYNN MARKETING GROUP, INC., doing business as SE7EN, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-06491-RGK-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Defendant, on Oct. 13, 2025, will move the court for an order to dismiss with prejudice, the claims asserted against it in the Plaintiffs class action complaint. The entire premise of Plaintiffs' complaint is based on a false claim that the Defendant failed to disclose that its 7-Hydroxymitragynine ("7-OH") products are potentially addictive. At the same time, the Plaintiffs admit that the packaging for Defendants' 7-OH tablet products contains the following warning: "Regular use of alkaloids may lead to dependence and addiction for some users." The Complaint conveniently omits the packaging for Defendant's 7-OH extract products, which also includes the same warning included on the tablet products. The warning has been included on all iterations of the Defendant's products since inception. Despite the warning contained on the Defendant's 7-OH products, the Plaintiffs allege causes of action against the Defendant under California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), False Advertising Law ("FAL"), Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), and common law causes of action for breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment and fraud by omission, premised entirely on a failure to warn theory. Ashlynn specializes in the marketing and distribution of tobacco products. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Sept 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lIgAst at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Andrew P. Young, Esq. Rachel A. McMains, Esq. SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. 3611 Valley Centre Drive, Suite 500 San Diego, CA 92130-3324 Telephone: (858) 434-5020 Facsimile: (858) 434-5006 E-mail: apyoung@swlaw.com rmcmains@swlaw.com ASTOR CHOCOLATE: Jackson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- SYLINIA JACKSON, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. ASTOR CHOCOLATE CORP., Case No. 1:25-cv-07554 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 11, 2025) alleges that Defendant failed to de-sign, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://astorchocolate.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services -- all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals -- thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant operates the Astor Chocolate online retail store, as well as the Astor Chocolate interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal AUTOZONE INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Shapllo Extended to Dec. 28 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAPLLO v. AUTOZONE, INC., Case No. 9:25-cv-80770 (S.D. Fla., Filed June 18, 2025), the Hon. Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks entered an order expediting briefing re motion for extension of time. The Plaintiff moves to extend the deadline for filing a motion for class certification from September 18, 2025, to December 28, 2025. The certificate of conferral reflects that the requested relief is opposed. Given the posture of this case, expedited briefing is required. Accordingly, Defendant shall file its Response on or by September 12, 2025, and therein, the Defendant shall fully set forth the basis for its opposition. The nature of suit states Statutory Actions. AutoZone is a retailer and distributor of aftermarket automotive parts and accessories.[CC] BAE'S COMPANY: Victor Sues Over Unlawful Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------- Zephyrin Victor, and all others similarly situated v. Brgr Stop Concepts, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Case No. 0:25-cv-61896-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 23, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with websites. However, Defendant's Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. Accordingly, Defendant's Website was incompatible with Plaintiff's screen reading software and keyboard. The fact that Plaintiff could not communicate with or within the Website left Plaintiff feeling excluded, frustrated, and humiliated, and gave Plaintiff a sense of isolation and segregation, as Plaintiff is unable to participate in the same online experience, with the same access to the sales, services, discounts, as provided at the Website and in the physical cafes as the non-visually disabled public, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times, has been blind and visually disabled. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls 2 U.S. based restaurants specializing in gourmet burgers, sandwiches, and comfort foods, offering signature menu items and milkshakes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aleksandra Kravets, Esq. ALEKSANDRA KRAVETS, ESQ. P.A. 865 SW 113 Lane Pembroke Pines, FL 33025 Phone: 347-268-9533 Email: ak@akesqpa.com BENWORTH CAPITAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Arreola Says ------------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA ARREOLA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. BENWORTH CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-24320 (S.D. Fla., Sept. 19, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated victims as a result of a recent cyberattack and data breach involving personally identifiable information suffered by Benworth. On May 18, 2025, an unknown and unauthorized criminal actor gained access to the Defendant's network and exfiltrated, at a minimum, names, addresses, taxpayer identification numbers (which may take the form of an employer identification number or a Social Security number), phone numbers, and financial or loan account numbers, as well as maturity dates, closing dates, and loan amounts which relate to loans (PII). The Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect victims' PII, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to address the Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' PII that Defendant collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access by an unknown third party. Benworth provides hard money loans for residential, commercial, and construction properties in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com BENWORTH CAPITAL: Roberts Files Suit in S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Benworth Capital Partners LLC. The case is styled as Brian Roberts, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Benworth Capital Partners LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-24298-JEM (S.D. Fla., Sept. 19, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Benworth Capital -- https://benworthcapital.com/ -- is a top provider of hard money loans for residential, commercial, and construction properties in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Rachel N. Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Ste. 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 610-5223 Email: rachel@dapeer.com BETTER HOMES: Owen-Brooks Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate, LLC. The case is styled as Susan Juanita Owen-Brooks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate, LLC, Native American Group, LLC doing business as: Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate Native American Group, Case No. 2:25-cv-15801 (D.N.J., Sept. 18, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate LLC -- https://www.bhgre.com/ -- is an international real estate company which began operations in July 2008.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kayla Nicole Kershen, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (989) 574-5262 Email: kkershen@shamisgentile.com BIOGEN INC: Wins Bid to Seal Part of Class Cert Opposition ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shash, et al., v. Biogen Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-10479 (D. Mass., Filed March 19, 2021), the Hon. Judge Indira Talwani entered an order allowing motion to seal portions of the Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Biogen is an American multinational biotechnology company. The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act.[CC] BLISSY LLC: Faces Chang Class Suit Over Fake Sales & Discounts -------------------------------------------------------------- LAUREN CHANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BLISSY LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-02132 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 19, 2025) contends that the Defendant creates the false impression that its Products' regular prices are higher than they truly are. Accordingly, on its website, the Defendant advertises steep discounts on its Products. These discounts always offer "up to X%" off the listed regular prices that Defendant advertises. Even though in truth these discounts run in perpetuity, the Defendant claims they are limited time. The Defendant changes the names of its various promotions but the discounts offered are consistently available, says the suit. The Defendant represents that these discounts will only be available for a limited time, but in reality, they continue indefinitely, asserts the suit. Blissy manufactures, markets, and sells Blissy-branded products, including online through the Blissy website, www.blissy.com. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Simon Franzini, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: simon@dovel.com BLOCKFI INC: $13.25MM Class Settlement to be Heard on December 11 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Kroll Settlement Administration regarding In re BlockFi Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:23-cv-01165-CCC-LDW pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. TO: ALL PERSONS WHO INVESTED, DEPOSITED, OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED ASSETS IN BLOCKFI INTEREST-BEARING ACCOUNTS BETWEEN JANUARY 1, 2019, AND NOVEMBER 28, 2022, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE (THE "SETTLEMENT CLASS"). YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey that a hearing will be held on December 11, 2025 at 11:00 a.m. ET before the Honorable Claire C. Cecchi, U.S.D.J., United States District Judge of the District of New Jersey, Martin Luther King Building & U.S. Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Courtroom 5B, Newark, NJ 07101, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum of $13,250,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees (inclusive of reimbursement of expenses and a compensatory award to Lead Plaintiffs) should be approved; and (4) whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated February 3, 2025 (the "Settlement Stipulation"). If you invested, deposited, or otherwise acquired assets in BlockFi Interest-Bearing Accounts between January 1, 2019 to November 28, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), your rights may be affected by this Settlement, including the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your interest in BlockFi Interest-Bearing Accounts. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), you may obtain a copy by visiting www.BlockFiSecuritiesSettlement.com or by contacting the Claims Administrator toll-free at (833) 876-2075. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you do not need to take any action in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action. If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so that it is received no later than November 20, 2025, in the manner and form explained in the Notice. All members of the Settlement Class who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the Settlement Stipulation. Note, however, that certain releases in favor of Defendants and other Releasees have previously occurred in connection with BlockFi's bankruptcy. Whether you remain in the Settlement Class or exclude yourself in this case will have no impact on any release of your claims against Defendants and other Releasees that may have already occurred in connection with BlockFi's bankruptcy if you did not exclude yourself from those releases. Participating in or excluding yourself from the settlement in this case also will neither increase nor decrease any recovery you may be entitled to receive in connection with BlockFi's bankruptcy. Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and award to Lead Plaintiff must be in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than November 20, 2025, to each of the following: Clerk of the Court Martin Luther King Building & U.S. Courthouse 50 Walnut Street, Room 4015 Newark, NJ 07101 973-645-3730 Lead Counsel Brian Calandra POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, Floor 20 New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 Email: bcalandra@pomlaw.com Lee Squitieri SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, New York 10007 Telephone: (212) 421-6492 lee@sfclasslaw.com Counsel For Defendants Dan Gold ALLEN OVERY SHEARMAN STERLING US LLP The Link at Uptown 2601 Olive St., 17th Floor Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: 214-271-5821 Dan.Gold@shearman.com If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may visit www.BlockFiSecuritiesSettlement.com or write to Lead Counsel at the above address or call Lead Counsel at the telephone numbers listed above. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Date: September 11, 2025 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BLUE STAR: Faces Lichte Suit Over Data Privacy Violations --------------------------------------------------------- JILL LICHTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE STAR SECURITY, LLC; SECURITY SERVICES HOLDINGS LLC d/b/a PROTOS SECURITY; and CHICAGO CUBS BASEBALL CLUB LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-11230 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 17, 2025) alleges violation of the Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in unlawful collection, retention, storage and use of Plaintiff and Class members' biometric identifiers and biometric information without obtaining informed written consent or providing consumers with data retention and destruction policies. The Defendants used advanced video management systems capable of facial recognition and capturing biometric data and other technologies without adequately informing impacted individuals that their biometric data was being collected and potentially disseminated. The Defendants' misconduct violated the Plaintiff's privacy, harming her emotionally and depriving her control over how her biometric data is collected and used for surveillance and other unknown purposes, says the suit. Blue Star Security, LLC is a fully licensed and insured security company in Chicago, dedicated to providing our clients with the highest standards in security. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com BLUEBONNET NUTRITION: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BLUEBONNET NUTRITION CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07703 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://bluebonnetnutrition.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Bluebonnet Nutrition Corporation manufactures nutritional supplements. The Company offers amino acids and protein powders, multivitamins and mineral formulas, children nutrition, vitamins, minerals, food supplements, and soy products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal BOFI HOLDING: Court OKs Bid to Junk "Calcaterra" Shareholder Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Andrew Calcaterra, an alleged stockholder of BofI Holding, Inc., on behalf of the Company, Plaintiff, v. Gregory Garrabrants, Paul J. Grinberg, Nicholas A. Mosich, James S. Argalas, James J. Court, Edward J. Ratinoff, Uzair Dada, Theodore C. Allrich, Eshel Bar-Adon, John C. Tolla, Derrick K. Walsh, and Andrew J. Micheletti, Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-2722-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal.), Judge Gonzalo Paul Curiel of the United States District Court for Southern District of California granted Defendants' motion to dismiss without leave to amend. The Court determined that Plaintiff failed to plead demand futility as to a majority of BofI's eleven-member Board of Directors as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1 and Delaware law. The Court stated: "Plaintiff has failed to plead demand futility as to a majority of the Board and therefore grants Defendants' motion to dismiss without leave to amend." BofI Holding, Inc. is the holding company of BofI Federal Bank, with shares traded on NASDAQ. The Company provides online consumer and business banking products. Plaintiff brought this shareholder derivative action as an alleged stockholder on behalf of BofI against seven current directors, two former directors, and several company officers. The Individual Defendants include seven current members of BofI's Board of Directors: Gregory Garrabrants (CEO and BofI director), Paul J. Grinberg, Nicholas A. Mosich, James S. Argalas, James J. Court, Edward J. Ratinoff, and Uzair Dada; a former member of the Board: Theodore C. Allrich; and four officers of BofI: Eshel Bar-Adon, John C. Tolla, Derrick K. Walsh, and Andrew J. Micheletti. Until February 2017, BofI's Board of Directors consisted of nine directors. Currently, the Board consists of eleven directors, including seven continuing Directors and four new Directors. Core Allegations According to the Third Amended Consolidated Complaint (TAC), Defendants caused BofI to make false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, prospects, and performance regarding the facts that: (1) the Company's internal controls were frequently disregarded; (2) BofI's borrowers included foreign nationals who should have been off-limits under federal anti-money laundering laws; (3) the Company had as many as 200 customer accounts without tax identification numbers despite telling the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency the contrary; (4) BofI's statements failed to follow generally accepted accounting principles; (5) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; (6) the Board had fired an internal auditor who raised the foregoing issues to senior management and to federal regulators in violation of anti-retaliation laws; and (7) as a result of all of those conditions, BofI's financial statements were materially false or misleading. Erhart Whistleblower Incident On October 13, 2015, Charles Matthew Erhart, a former BofI internal auditor who had raised compliance issues to senior management and federal regulators, filed a whistleblower action against BofI. The whistleblower complaint alleged widespread wrongdoing at BofI. On October 14, 2015, shares of BofI fell $42.87, or 30.2%, to close at $99.13. In response, BofI issued a press release and Form 8-K explaining that the Audit Committee and Board of Directors of BofI were fully informed of the events and stating that they conducted an internal investigation, which included an examination of forensic evidence, and found that Erhart's allegations were without merit. The jury in the Whistleblower Action entered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against BofI for the sum of $1,500,000. On October 4, 2023, an amended judgment was entered in the Whistleblower Action, awarding Erhart $1,500,000, post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, and costs of $2,405,559.20, and pre-judgment interest of $169,872.74 (totaling $4,075,431.94). Demand Futility Analysis The Court applied the Delaware Supreme Court's unified test from United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Zuckerberg, which requires courts to ask three questions on a director-by-director basis when evaluating allegations of demand futility: (i) whether the director received a material personal benefit from the alleged misconduct; (ii) whether the director faces a substantial likelihood of liability on any of the claims; and (iii) whether the director lacks independence from someone who received a material personal benefit or who would face a substantial likelihood of liability. The Court noted: If the answer to any of the questions is yes for at least half of the members of the demand board, then demand is excused as futile. Court's Analysis of Board Dismissal of Erhart Plaintiff argued that demand would be futile because the entire Board engaged in bad-faith conduct by firing Erhart in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and other laws protecting whistleblowers. The Court examined whether particularized allegations give rise to a reasonable inference that the Board fired Erhart and acted illegally. The Court found that while the Audit Committee had knowledge of Erhart's whistleblowing activities and ratified retaliation against him, there were insufficient particularized facts to demonstrate that the majority of the Board collectively decided to fire Erhart. The Court stated: "Even taking as true the allegation that the entire Board became aware of Erhart's complaint and whistleblowing activities on May 21, 2015, it is nonetheless unreasonable to infer, based on the particularized facts alleged, that the majority of the Board - much less the entire Board - collectively decided to fire Erhart." The Court determined that the only allegation attributed to the entire Board was that at some point between March 2015 and June 9, 2015, despite having been fully informed of Mr. Erhart's whistleblowing activity, and despite knowing that Dodd-Frank, Sarbanes-Oxley, and other laws prohibit retaliation against employees who report alleged wrongdoing, the Board authorized and approved the firing of Erhart, to be effective as of June 9, 2015." The Court concluded: "None of these allegations plausibly allege that the full Board fired Erhart. While Plaintiff alleges, on information and belief, that at some point between March 2015 and June 9, 2015 the Board unlawfully authorized or approved the firing of Erhart effective June 9, 2015, there are no facts which particularly support the allegation." False and Misleading Statements Analysis Plaintiff alternatively argued that demand is futile because all Director Defendants face a substantial likelihood of liability for causing BofI to disseminate false and misleading statements regarding BofI's internal controls and risk management. The Court noted that to demonstrate demand futility based on disclosure violations, shareholders must make a threshold showing, through the allegation of particularized facts, that their claims have some merit. The Court found that because BofI's Certificate of Incorporation contains an exculpatory provision that insulates Director Defendants from non-intentional breaches of their fiduciary duties, Plaintiff must have sufficiently pled particularized factual allegations supporting the inference that the disclosure violation was made in bad faith, knowingly or intentionally. The Court determined: "Plaintiff has not pointed to any evidence suggesting that Court, Dada, or Ratinoff would have known that there were false and misleading statements contained in any of Forms 10-K or 10-Q. Plaintiff summarily relies on the Erhart and Golub whistleblower complaints as demonstrating that the SEC statements were false. Such summary allegations are insufficient to identify the false or misleading statements or plausibly aver that Court, Dada or Ratinoff made any misstatement knowingly, intentionally, or in bad faith." Director Independence and Compensation Plaintiff further alleged that there is reason to doubt the Director Defendants' ability to impartially consider a demand because of their lack of independence and level of self-interest arising from their compensation packages and other job-related emoluments. The Court provided each Board member's compensation for fiscal year 2015: Garrabrants, $6,310,485; Argalas, $188,210; Court, $188,210; Dada, $85,061; Grinberg, $281,133; Mosich, $253,970; and Ratinoff, $188,210. The Court noted that in general, it is not enough, for demand futility purposes, to rely on the amount that a director is compensated as evidence of nonindependence. The Court found: "There is no obvious connection between the conduct that the shareholders challenge (i.e., Erhart's dismissal and the violations he uncovered) and the fact that the board members can take advantage of a company-wide policy regarding loan rates." Core Operations Doctrine Plaintiff also argued that all Board members can reasonably be charged with actual knowledge or reckless disregard of the unlawful activity alleged by Mr. Erhart because the wrongdoing concerned the Company's core (and only) business - consumer and business banking products and services. The Court rejected this argument, stating: "In derivative actions, courts have repeatedly held that a plaintiff must allege more than that Directors should have known or must have known about matters relating to the corporation's core business. The TAC fails to provide specific detailed allegations as to any misstatements in SEC reports or the retaliatory termination of Erhart. It relies on the Director Defendants' roles and the mere fact that they learned about Erhart's whistleblower claims sometime after his termination." Law of the Case Doctrine Defendants argued that the Ninth Circuit directly addressed the issue of demand futility when several Orders in this case were up on appeal, and that the law of the case doctrine should preclude plaintiff from relitigating demand futility. The Court rejected this argument, finding that the Ninth Circuit had no occasion or reason to review the pleading sufficiency of the First Amended Complaint because it was not properly included in the appellant's notice of appeal. The Court stated: The law of the case doctrine does not apply, and the Court does not consider the Ninth Circuit's brief sentence on the sufficiency of the pleading of the FAC and SAC to be authoritative. Final Ruling The Court determined that Plaintiff failed to meet the United Food demand futility test as to Directors Court, Ratinoff, and Dada and therefore cannot plead demand futility as to a majority of the current Board. In Conclusion, the Court stated: "Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff fails to meet the United Food's demand futility test as to Court, Ratinoff, and Dada and therefore cannot plead demand futility as to a majority of the current Board. Further, the Court does not see how Plaintiff, with another leave to amend, would be able to cure these defects. Plaintiff has had multiple opportunities to respond to the same concerns that have arisen in prior Orders but has been unable to address these concerns." A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oRHtn0 from PacerMonitor.com BORA BORA AMERICA: Valencia Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Justin Valencia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BORA BORA AMERICA CORP., Case No. 1:25-cv-07759 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.boraborasmoothiecafe.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.amityhallnyc.com (its "Website"), offering features which should allow all consumers to access the services that Defendant offers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com BOW TIE CINEMAS: Arbitration Denied, VPPA Claim Junked in "Taino" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Michael Taino, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bow Tie Cinemas, LLC, Defendant, 23-CV-5371 (VSB) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the class action complaint. The Court addressed two primary motions: the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, and the Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Bow Tie Cinemas, LLC, one of North America's oldest movie theater chains, owns and operates a website accessible at www.bowtiecinemas.com and www.btmcinemas.com where consumers can view trailers, scan for showtimes, and buy movie tickets. Bow Tie has a loyalty rewards program called the Criterion Club in which enrolled members earn reward points for box office and concession purchases. The Plaintiff enrolled in the Criterion Club on June 3, 2021. Before activating an account, a prospective member must agree to the Criterion Club Terms and Conditions. Paragraph nine of the Criterion Club Terms and Conditions includes the following clause: "You agree that any dispute, claim, or controversy arising out of the Terms and Conditions shall be determined by binding arbitration in the state of New York. An award of arbitration may be confirmed in a court of competent jurisdiction." Additionally, paragraph five of the Criterion Club Terms and Conditions states: Bow Tie Cinemas collects personally identifiable information, such as your name, email address, phone number, and physical address, and handles this information in accordance with its Privacy Policy. Our Privacy Policy is hereby incorporated by reference and can be found at www.bowtiecinemas.com/criterion-club/privacy-policy. Crucially, however, clicking the hyperlink as it existed in June 2021 would direct to a webpage that stated, "404 PAGE NOT FOUND," instead of the Criterion Club Privacy Policy. The bottom of the webpage containing the Criterion Club Terms and Conditions, as it existed in June 2021, contained two other hyperlinks related to privacy policies. The first hyperlink, at the bottom-center of the webpage, is labeled "Privacy Policy." The second hyperlink displayed, at the bottom-right of the webpage beneath the header "Criterion Club," is labeled "Privacy Policy - Criterion Club." On June 27, 2021, the Plaintiff accessed the Bow Tie Website and bought a movie ticket. At the time the Plaintiff purchased his movie ticket on the Bow Tie Website, he was also logged into his Facebook account on the same electronic device. The Plaintiff alleges that when he purchased his movie ticket, Bow Tie shared with Facebook the name of the movie for which Plaintiff purchased a ticket, along with Plaintiff's Facebook ID. The Plaintiff filed his class action complaint against Bow Tie on June 23, 2023. The Complaint alleges that the Defendant, as a video tape service provider, disclosed consumers' personally identifiable information to Facebook in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2710, et seq. The Court addressed whether the parties' dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement set forth in paragraph nine of the Criterion Club Terms and Conditions. The Defendant argued that the Plaintiff's claim is within the scope of the arbitration agreement because the Criterion Club Terms and Conditions incorporate by reference the Criterion Club Privacy Policy, which informed the Plaintiff of the possible use of third-party cookies and pixels on its website. The Court found that the Criterion Club Terms and Conditions do not incorporate by reference the Criterion Club Privacy Policy by the requisite New York standard of beyond all reasonable doubt. The Court noted that paragraph five is plainly sufficient to clearly communicate that the purpose of the reference is to incorporate some privacy policy, as it states, Our Privacy Policy is hereby incorporated by reference and can be found at http://www.bowtiecinemas.com/criterion-club/privacy-policy." However, the Court determined that the reference to "Our Privacy Policy" cannot be said to refer to the Criterion Club Privacy Policy beyond all reasonable doubt. Under New York law, "the doctrine of incorporation by reference requires that the paper to be incorporated into a written instrument by reference, must be so referred to and described in the instrument that the paper may be identified beyond all reasonable doubt." The Court emphasized several critical deficiencies. First, it is undisputed that the hyperlink was broken and invalid. Therefore, the Plaintiff could not use the hyperlink to access the Criterion Club Privacy Policy, which was purportedly incorporated by reference. Second, there were two privacy policy hyperlinks, both at the bottom of the relevant page. The text of the Terms and Conditions is also ambiguous since it merely references "Our Privacy Policy," and does not help differentiate between "Privacy Policy" and "Privacy Policy - Criterion Club." The Court stated: "A reference to potentially more than one document is not sufficient to meet the high standard of incorporation by reference." The Court concluded: "Given the facts that the referenced hyperlink was broken and that there were two alternative Privacy Policies, I cannot find that the Criterion Club Privacy Policy was referenced beyond all reasonable doubt." Because the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration hinges on the Criterion Club Privacy Policy being incorporated by reference to the Terms and Conditions, the Court denied the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. The Video Privacy Protection Act provides that a video tape service provider who knowingly discloses, to any person, personally identifiable information concerning any consumer of such provider shall be liable to the aggrieved person. To state a claim under the VPPA, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that (1) a video tape service provider (2) knowingly disclosed to any person (3) personally identifiable information concerning her use of the service. The Defendant moved to dismiss this action under the first and third elements of the VPPA. Because the Court found that the alleged disclosure does not constitute personally identifiable information under the VPPA, the Complaint was dismissed. The Court relied heavily on the Second Circuit's decision in Solomon v. Flipps Media, Inc., 136 F.4th 41 (2d Cir. 2025), which held that personally identifiable information encompasses information that would allow an ordinary person to identify a consumer's video-watching habits, but not information that only a sophisticated technology company could use to do so. The Second Circuit applied this "ordinary person" standard to hold that the plaintiff in Solomon failed to allege that the disputed disclosure constituted personally identifiable information under the VPPA because it was some 29 lines of computer code, which included a video title interspersed with many characters, numbers, and letters. The Court found that Solomon is directly on point and the findings in the case are fatal to the Plaintiff's VPPA cause of action. The Plaintiff's allegations are essentially identical to the allegations made by the plaintiff in Solomon - that the Defendant sent the Plaintiff's "Facebook ID and the name of the movie they were purchasing tickets for, in a single transmission, to Facebook." The Plaintiff's screenshot includes 12 lines of a long URL of numbers, symbols, and letters. Buried in that code is the phrase "Venom-Let-There-Be-Carnage-Trailer-and-Info&rl," which the Plaintiff highlights using red boxes as including the name of the movie for which the Plaintiff purchased tickets—Venom Let There Be Carnage. Judge Broderick found that it is implausible that an ordinary person would be able to interpret this code, without the Plaintiff's emphases with red boxes, with little or no extra effort, to identify that this was a movie ticket the Plaintiff purchased. The Court also found that it is not plausible that an ordinary person would see the nine-line code of the cookie transmitted - which includes the "c_user" phrase - to cross reference it with www.facebook.com in the URL section and "conclude that the phrase was a person's FID." The Court further noted that the Plaintiff's claims that someone could perform a Google search using the word 'Facebook' plus a given Facebook ID number to identify the user's Facebook profile is likewise insufficient to demonstrate that an ordinary person would know what to do with the c_user information to pinpoint an individual's identity. The Court stated: "In short, Solomon is fatal to Plaintiff's pixel-based claims under the VPPA." The Court cited Hughes v. National Football League, No. 24-2656, 2025 WL 1720295 (2d Cir. June 20, 2025), which stated that Solomon effectively shut the door for Pixel-based VPPA claims. Because the Plaintiff fails to support the allegation that the long list of complicated code constitutes personally identifiable information under the VPPA, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff requested leave to amend in his opposition to the motion to dismiss. However, the Plaintiff offered no details as to how amendment would cure the Complaint's deficiencies, nor did the Plaintiff provide a copy of his proposed amendment. The Court noted that courts have denied leave to amend where a plaintiff fails to indicate what amendments he intends to make to cure pleading deficiencies. The Court stated: "Plaintiff offers no explanation how any amendment would rescue his claims after Solomon, which effectively shut the door for Pixel-based VPPA claims." Accordingly, the Court denied the Plaintiff's request for leave to amend the Complaint. The Court denied the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's request to amend was denied and his claim was dismissed with prejudice. Appearances: Zachary M. Vaughan, Esq., at Berger Montague PC, in Washington, DC; Sophia M. Rios, Esq., at Berger Montague PC, in San Diego, California, and Sherrie R. Savett, Esq., Barbara A. Podell, Esq., and Lane L. Vines, Esq., at Berger Montague PC, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Counsel for Plaintiff. Christopher A. Rojao Edward Fanning, Jr. McCarter & English, LLP New York, New York Counsel for Defendant A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=R1Qekq from PacerMonitor.com BOYNE USA: Filing for Class Certification in Hornbeck Due Oct. 15 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA HORNBECK, et al., v. BOYNE USA, INC., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00682-HYJ-PJG (W.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Hala Y. Jarbou entered an amended case management order: Trial: June 22, 2026 Motions or Stipulations to Join Parties or Oct. 25, 2024 Amend Pleadings: Completion of Discovery: Feb. 26, 2025 Dispositive Motions: March 28, 2025 Motion for Class Certification: Oct. 15, 2025 Response: Nov. 17, 2025 Reply: Dec. 2, 2025 Final Pretrial Conference: June 1, 2026 Boyne owns and operates mountain resorts. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zesTrl at no extra charge.[CC] BSCORP 1 INC: Brownfield Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation --------------------------------------------------------------- Justin Brownfield, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. BSCORP 1, INC. d/b/a BIG'S SANITATION, EARTHWISE ENVIORNMENTAL SOLUTIONS LLC d/b/a BIG'S SANITATION, Case No. 2:25-cv-01424 (W.D. Pa., Sept. 18, 2025), is brought contending that Defendants have unlawfully failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation pursuant to the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"). During the course of their employment, Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs regularly worked more than forty (40) hours per week, but were not properly compensated for their work in that Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs were not paid an overtime premium at 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a workweek. In this regard, Plaintiff contends that Defendants paid Class Plaintiffs on a per route basis without any overtime compensation for overtime hours worked in violation of the FLSA and PWMA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendants who was employed in the positions of both Driver and Laborer/Thrower. BSCorp 1, Inc. d/b/a Big's Sanitation, is a business corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Groh, Esq. MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000 1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 267-273-1054 Fax: 215-525-0210 Email: mgroh@phillyemploymentlawyer.com BUFFALO, NY: Appeals Black Love Suit Class Cert. Order to 2nd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ CITY OF BUFFALO, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Black Love Resists in the Rust, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. City of Buffalo, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-719, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs claim that the City has unlawfully targeted Black and Latino motorists through the use of administrative traffic checkpoints (the "Checkpoints"). Even after the Checkpoints were discontinued, they assert City police officers, in accordance with an implicit quota system, continue to systematically target Black and Latino motorists for traffic enforcement, fines, and penalties. On May 29, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Christina Clair Reiss granted in part and denied in part on Apr. 22, 2025. The Court ruled that class certification is a superior means of adjudicating this case for the Checkpoint and Tinted Windows Classes. The Defendants filed an appeal of the Apr. 22 Order. The appellate case is captioned Black Love Resists in the Rust v. City of Buffalo, Case No. 25-2216, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on September 15, 2025. [BN] CALIFORNIA: Class Cert Bid Filing in Brown Due Feb. 11, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE BROWN, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-04741-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order setting the following case deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and Civil Local Rule 16-10. The parties will note that the same deadlines have been set in this case and in Milton v. CDCR, Case No. 23-cv-00582-JST. The Court has set identical deadlines because the cases propose identical classes: "All inmates housed at CTF Soledad that contracted Covid-19 from July 20, 2020, to March 15, 2021." The Court finds that the fact and class action expert deadlines proposed by Defendants are reasonable, but adds approximately 60 days to each to accommodate whatever extra work might be required by the need to litigate on behalf of or against two separate plaintiffs. The Court encourages the parties to discuss procedures for eliminating unnecessary duplication, including the filing of joint briefs, as the case progresses. Event Deadline Deadline to add parties or amend the pleadings: Nov. 14, 2025 Fact discovery cut-off: Jan. 8, 2027 Class certification motion and Plaintiffs' Feb. 11, 2027 expert disclosures due: Class certification opposition and Defendants' March 18, 2027 expert disclosures due: Expert discovery cut-off: April 15, 2027 Class certification reply due: May 6, 2027 Counsel may not modify these dates without leave of court. The parties shall comply with the Court’s standing orders, which are available https://cand.uscourts.gov/judges/tigar-jon-s-jst/. The Court sets a further case management conference on December 12, 2025 at 1:30 p.m. (because more than one conference will be set at that time, the conference may not begin precisely at 1:30 p.m.). The conference will proceed by video. The parties must file a joint case management conference statement by Dec. 5, 2025. CDCR manages the State of California's prison system with an emphasis on public safety, rehabilitation, community reintegration and restorative justice. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BANC8A at no extra charge.[CC] CALIFORNIA: Class Cert Bid Filing in Milton Due Feb. 11, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM MILTON, et al., v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION CTF- SOLEDAD, et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-00582-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered a Scheduling order as follows: The Court encourages the parties to discuss procedures for eliminating unnecessary duplication, including the filing of joint briefs, as the case progresses. Event Deadline Deadline to add parties or amend the pleadings: Nov. 14, 2025 Fact discovery cut-off: Jan. 8, 2027 Class certification motion and Plaintiffs' Feb. 11, 2027 expert disclosures due: Class certification opposition and Defendants' March 18, 2027 expert disclosures due: Expert discovery cut-off: April 15, 2027 Class certification reply due: May 6, 2027 A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tjw28W at no extra charge.[CC] CAPITAL ONE: Parties Seek Continuance of Class Cert Briefing Date ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AZLYNNE HOARD and CHIQUITA PLENTY, individually, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A., Case No. 3:24-cv-01133-JLS-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ass the Court to enter an order granting their motion for continuance of the briefing deadlines associated with the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Parties request a brief, one-week extension to those deadlines to complete expert depositions that are necessary for the Parties’ arguments at class certification. The Parties propose the following schedule: -- Capital One's opposition: Oct. 6, 2025 -- The Plaintiffs' reply: Oct. 27, 2025 Further, the brief continuance is unlikely to delay resolution of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification because the motion is scheduled for hearing on Jan. 13, 2026. A previous extension of time in this matter has been granted. No other deadlines will be affected by the request. Capital provides a range of financial products and services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5gGkAH at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Ali Mojibi, Esq. Andrew Soukup, Esq. Marianne Spencer, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles, CA 90067-4643 Telephone: (424) 332-4803 E-mail: amojibi@cov.com asoukup@cov.com mspencer@cov.com CCI FINANCIAL: Castro Files Suit in D. Colorado ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CCI Financial. The case is styled as Vicelia Castro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CCI Financial doing business as: CheckCityCashing.com Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00140-CMR (D. Utah, Sept. 19, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. CCI Financial doing business as: CheckCityCashing.com Inc. -- https://www.checkcity.com/ -- offer fast cash loans, payday loans, check cashing, tax services, money orders, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jake J. Lee, Esq. TRUE NORTH INJURY LAW 10808 S River Front Pkwy., Ste. 302 South Jordan, UT 84095 Phone: (801) 849-3664 Fax: (801) 435-7445 Email: jake@truenorthinjurylaw.com CCI FINANCIAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Oliveira Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- VINICIUS OLIVEIRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CCI FINANCIAL INC., d/b/a CheckCityCashing.com, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00810-HCN (D. Utah, Sept. 16, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information and that was impacted in a data breach. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. As a result of the Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. The Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, says the suit. CCI Financial, Inc., headquarters in Provo, Utah, is the operator of a financial group providing wealth management services, including financial planning and investment portfolio management, to its clients. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason R. Hull, Esq. Anikka T. Hoidal, Esq. MARSHALL OLSON & HULL, PC Ten Exchange Place, Suite 350 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 456-7655 Email: jhull@mohtrial.com ahoidal@mohtrial.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com CHI RESTAURANT & BAR: Valencia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chi Restaurant & Bar, Inc. The case is styled as Justin Valencia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Chi Restaurant & Bar, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-07762 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Chi -- https://chirestaurantnyc.com/ -- is a Chinese restaurant located in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com CHOCOLATE IS ART: Cole Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- HARON COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Chocolate Is Art, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-10954 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 11, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, Compartes.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Compartes.com provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the ADA. Yet, Compartes.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website, says the suit. Compartes.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Chocolate Is ArT.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law CIERANT CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Almaz Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY ALMAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CIERANT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01527 (D. Conn., Sept. 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant challenging its failure to properly secure and safeguard the Personally Identifiable Information1 ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI") (together, "Private Information") of Plaintiff and Class Members, which resulted in unauthorized third party access, viewing, and exfiltration of Plaintiff and the Class Members' Private Information from Defendant's systems on or about December 10, 2024 (the "Data Breach"). As a result of the Data Breach, which the Defendant failed to prevent, the Private Information of the Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members, were stolen, including their name, address, date of birth, treatment-related dates, a generic description of services received, provider name, medical record number, health plan beneficiary number, claims number, and plan member account number, alleges the suit. Cierant Corporation operates as a software company. The Company offers customized distributed marketing software, process design, and programming with cross-channel solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicola Yousif, Esq. SHIELD LAW, LLC 157 Belmont St. Brockton, MA 02301 Telephone: (508) 588-7300 Facsimile: (508) 588-7303 Email: nick@shieldlaw.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Ave., Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 CIRCADIAN FUNDING: Pretrial Management Order Entered in CMT ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONTACT CENTER TRUPERS, L.L.C. doing business as BOOST BPO, L.L.C., et al., v. CIRCADIAN FUNDING L.L.C. doing business as CIRCADIAN FUNDING, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-06545-JAV-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management: 1. If and when a discovery schedule is issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. 2. Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. 3. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. 4. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court proceeding (including a telephonic court conference), or to extend a deadline, must be made in writing and in compliance with section 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. 5. Counsel for the plaintiff must serve a copy of this Order on any defendant previously served with the summons and complaint, must serve this Order along with the summons and complaint on all defendants served hereafter, and must file proof of such service with the Court. Circadian is a financial services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rtwxs6 at no extra charge.[CC] CIRCLE GRAPHICS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Evans Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES EVANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v Circle Graphics, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-11014 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 12, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, Greatbigcanvas.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Circle provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the ADA. Accordingly, Greatbigcanvas.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website, says the suit. Greatbigcanvas.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Circle Graphic.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Loomis Appeals Class Cert. Order to 2nd Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- LOOMIS SAYLES TRUST COMPANY, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Loomis Sayles Trust Company, LLC, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-6706-LGS, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint is br-ought against the Defendant for its failure to achieve best execution in connection with trades it executed on March 18, 2022 that resulted in excess of $70 million in damages. On Oct. 21, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, appoint a class representative, and class counsel, which Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied on Sept. 2, 2025. Class certification is denied because the Plaintiff, the proposed class representative, does not satisfy the requirements of adequacy and typicality. The issue of class counsel is not addressed because the proposed class is not certified. The appellate case is captioned as Loomis Sayles Trust Company, LLC v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Case No. 25-2266, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on September 16, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant LOOMIS SAYLES TRUST COMPANY, LLC, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Kenneth Leonetti, Esq. FOLEY HOAG LLP 155 Seaport Boulevard Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 832-1000 Email: ksl@foleyhoag.com - and - James M. Gross, Esq. FOLEY HOAG LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 812-0400 Email: jgross@foleyhoag.com Defendant-Appellee CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC. is represented by: Michael A. Pashkin, Esq. CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP Two Manhattan West 375 Ninth Avenue New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 474-1760 Email: mpashkin@cravath.com CLEO AI: Appeals Denied Dismissal Bid in Moss Suit to 9th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- CLEO AI, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled Terrance Moss, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cleo AI, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00879-MLP, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of King, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Military Lending Act and the Truth in Lending Act. On June 16, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which Judge Michelle L. Peterson denied on Sept. 8, 2025. The Court concludes that Sgt. Moss adequately pleads facts establishing that Cleo's Subscription Fees are finance charges, rather than participation fees, because without the subscription Sgt. Moss could not obtain a Cash Advance. The appellate case is entitled Moss v. Cleo AI, Inc., Case No. 25-5856, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on September 17, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on September 22, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on September 29, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on October 29, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on December 8, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on January 7, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee TERRANCE MOSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Joshua Jacobson, Esq. JACOBSON PHILLIPS, PLLC 2277 Lee Road, Suite B Winter Park, FL 32789 - and - Jeffrey D. Boyd, Esq. NELSON BOYD, PLLC 601 Union Street, Suite 2600 Seattle, WA 98101 - and - Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. Edwin Lee Lowther, III, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR 72202 Defendant-Appellant CLEO AI, INC. is represented by: Allyson B. Baker, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS, LLP 2050 M. Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 - and - John S. Devlin, III, Esq. Erin Wilson, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR, LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2800 Seattle, WA 98101 CLINT MILLER: Iasella Seeks to Certify Class Action --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN IASELLA, for himself and for others similarly situated, v. CLINT MILLER, Case No. 3:25-cv-00032-HRH (D. Alaska), the Hon. Judge H. Russel Holland entered an order certifying case as a class action. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ehe0W3 at no extra charge.[CC] COCA-COLA CO: Court Extends Class Cert Deadlines ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jordan v. The Coca-Cola Company, Case No. 4:23-cv-00028 (E.D. Mo, Filed Jan. 9, 2023), the Hon. Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk entered an order granting unopposed motion for extension of: -- Expert Discovery and Class Certification Deadlines by Plaintiffs Sandra Fox, Leslie Fraraccio, Courtney Fuller, Kevin Jordan. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Coca-Cola manufactures, sells and markets soft drinks including Coca-Cola, other non-alcoholic beverage concentrates and syrups, and alcoholic beverages.[CC] COMMISSIONER CREWS: Court Denies Prisoner's HRT Injunction Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Maddilyn Marcum, Plaintiff, v. Commissioner Cookie Crews, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:25-cv-00238-GFVT (E.D. Ky.), Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction challenging Kentucky's hormone replacement therapy ban for inmates. The court denied the Plaintiff's request to block enforcement of Kentucky Revised Statute Section 197.280, which prohibits public funds from being used for hormone replacement therapy for inmates. Judge Van Tatenhove ruled that the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits at this preliminary stage, finding the burden to necessitate judicial intervention in an area typically reserved for the legislature is high. The court stated: Apart from disagreeing with the statute, the Plaintiff has not shown at this preliminary stage a constitutional violation that warrants enjoining the enforcement Kentucky Revised Statute Section 197.280. Consequently, and for the reasons stated below, the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction is denied. Plaintiff Maddilyn Marcum was diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria and placed on hormone replacement therapy five years prior to incarceration. The court noted disagreement between the parties over this fact, as no formal diagnosis letter has been entered into the record, nor do the declarations of the ARH providers unequivocally state that Plaintiff has been diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria by a certified mental health professional. Prior to sentencing, Marcum was held in a county facility where hormone replacement therapy was not administered. Once in the Department of Corrections custody following sentencing, Marcum was again refused hormone replacement therapy under the department's "freeze frame" policy. Under the freeze frame policy, a prisoner is entitled to receive hormone replacement therapy only if they were receiving it when they entered Department of Corrections custody. In 2016, the Department of Corrections reversed course and found that Marcum did qualify for hormone replacement therapy. Marcum received treatment from 2016-2025. The Kentucky Statute In 2025, the Kentucky Legislature passed the Public Funds Ban under Kentucky Revised Statute Section 197.280. Under the Public Funds Ban, public funds shall not be directly or indirectly used, granted, paid, or distributed for the purpose of providing a cosmetic service or elective procedure to an inmate in a correctional facility. The statute defines cosmetic service or elective procedure as any procedure, treatment, or surgery to enhance or alter the appearance of any area of the head, neck, and body, including: 1. Prescribing or administering cross-sex hormones in amounts greater than would normally be produced endogenously in a healthy person of the same age and sex; and 2. Performing any gender reassignment surgery to alter or remove physical or anatomical characteristics or features that are typical for a person's sex in order to instill or create physiological or anatomical characteristics that resemble a different sex. The statute also affords medical professionals some discretion in determining how best to taper treatment in a manner that minimizes disruption to the inmate. Constitutional Challenge Analysis The court analyzed both facial and as-applied constitutional challenges under the Eighth Amendment. For the facial challenge, the court explained that a facial challenge to a legislative act is the most difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the act would be valid. The court found that the Plaintiff's point regarding individuals with Gender Dysphoria for whom hormone replacement therapy is not medically indicated was well-taken, but this argument was predicated on a finding that all inmates who are prescribed hormone replacement therapy medically require it - a finding which the record presently cannot support. The Plaintiff attempted to establish that HRT was medically necessary, but the primary showing was that the record is insufficiently developed for the Court to make that determination. The burden is on the Plaintiff to show a medical necessity and, as detailed below, Marcum simply has not. Because the court found that the statute is applied constitutionally to the Plaintiff, it logically follows that there exist constitutional applications, such that a facial challenge cannot succeed. For the as-applied challenge, the court examined the objective and subjective components of an Eighth Amendment claim. The objective component requires a plaintiff to prove that the alleged deprivation of medical care was serious enough to violate the Eighth Amendment. The court noted that some circuits have classified Gender Dysphoria as a serious medical need, but many circuits, including the Sixth Circuit, have not provided guidance. The closest the Sixth Circuit has come to addressing this issue is Murray v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, where they recognized transsexualism as a medical disorder and noted that transsexuals often have a serious medical need for some sort of treatment. Glaringly missing from the record is any indication that the Plaintiff was formally diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria. The court found that the Plaintiff's Declaration, coupled with the Declarations of Dr. Uy and APRN Ferguson, are used as the primary support of the formal diagnosis, but the Plaintiff is resting on inference, rather than proof. Thus, apart from there being no binding case law finding Gender Dysphoria to be a serious medical need, the Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient proof of a formal diagnosis with Gender Dysphoria, such that there cannot be a serious medical need. The court examined competing medical expert opinions. The Plaintiff presented Dr. Dan H. Karasic, a Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at the University of California, who concluded that Kentucky Revised Statute Section 197.280 is contrary to widely accepted evidence-based medical protocols for the treatment of gender dysphoria and puts these individuals at risk of significant harm. The Commonwealth presented Dr. Michael Laidlaw, a board-certified endocrinologist, who concluded there exists insufficient evidence of benefit of gender affirming treatment, but serious concerns for risk of harm, and that Kentucky's Revised Statute Section 197.280 is based on sound medical principles for the protection of human persons. The court found both expert opinions credible but noted that cases involving dueling medical experts will typically not support an Eighth Amendment claim. The court stated: "There is no intentional or wanton deprivation of care if a genuine debate exists within the medical community about the necessity or efficacy of that care." Deliberate Indifference Standard Applying the deliberate indifference standard to the Department of Corrections, the court found no evidence at this juncture that the entity was deliberately indifferent toward the Plaintiff. The court noted that both parties acknowledge that Gender Dysphoria requires treatment and that there are other treatments available to treat Gender Dysphoria. According to Marcum's medical records, Marcum has received mental health services aimed at alleviating the distress associated with Gender Dysphoria. The court found that the Plaintiff has not met the burden of showing the alleged injury is certain and immediate. The court noted that the Plaintiff compares the past symptoms when taken off hormone replacement therapy in 2014 to the likely symptoms that will be experienced if taken off hormone replacement therapy again, but the record does not verify that the Plaintiff suffered any of these symptoms. The circumstances in the first instance are easily distinguishable from the present - the Plaintiff was abruptly taken off hormone replacement therapy and newly incarcerated, which is an undoubtedly stressful and unique experience. There is no indication one way or the other of the effect that tapering hormone replacement therapy will have on the Plaintiff's symptoms. Public Interest and Harm to Others The court addressed the harm to others and public interest factors jointly. The Defendants argued that the General Assembly - the people's representatives - clearly believed that these statutory provisions were in the public interest because they serve both the financial interest and the health interest of the people, and absent a constitutional violation these types of decisions are well within the General Assembly's authority. The court agreed, noting that prisons are uniquely positioned because they implicate important issues of comity and federalism. The court stated that judicial deference is accorded because the operation of correctional facilities is peculiarly the providence of the Legislative and Executive Branches of government, not the Judicial. The court noted that the Prison Litigation Reform Act imposes certain hurdles on prisoners seeking to challenge prison conditions. If the court grants injunctive relief, the relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary, and be the least intrusive means necessary. The very existence of the Prison Litigation Reform Act provides further proof of the public's strong interest in curtailing judicial overreach and ensuring respect for prison management. The court concluded that while a preliminary injunction does not require a fully developed record, it does require a clear showing of entitlement to relief before the court can take the extraordinary step of enjoining a duly enacted state statute. The Plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of the claims due to an underdeveloped record. Hence, the request for a preliminary injunction was denied. The court clarified this is a preliminary decision not one that is final. A final decision in this matter will have the benefit of a fully developed factual record. The Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Class Certification and Defendant ARH has filed a Motion to Dismiss. Because no injunctive relief was granted, the court did not address these motions, which remain pending before the court and will be addressed in subsequent opinions. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1Tq04d from PacerMonitor.com CONAGRA BRANDS: King Sues Over False "No Artificial Flavor" Labels ------------------------------------------------------------------ SEQUOIA KING, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONAGRA BRANDS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05123-CBA-RML (E.D.N.Y., September 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the New York General Business Law and breach of express warranty. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Orville Redenbacher products. According to the complaint, the Defendant represents the products as "No Artificial Preservatives, Flavors or Dyes." However, this representation is false and/or misleading because the products contain tocopherols, well-known artificial preservatives commonly used in food products. Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased the products or would have paid less for them. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful acts and practices, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages. Conagra Brands, Inc. is a consumer packaged goods food company, with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julian C. Diamond, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: jdiamond@bursor.com CORNWELL QUALITY: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Witte Says -------------------------------------------------------------- DONOVAN WITTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CORNWELL QUALITY TOOLS, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01924 (N.D. Ohio, September 11, 2025) is a class action against Cornwell for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former customers' personally identifiable information and protected health information. According to the complaint, despite Cornwell's duty to safeguard the private information of its current and previous customers, Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was compromised in a data breach when, on December 12, 2024, the Defendant learned that an unknown actor gained access to its network and potentially acquired certain files. Despite learning about the breach in December of 2024, Cornwell waited until September 4, 2025 to begin notifying impacted individuals of the unauthorized access. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to implement and follow basic security procedures, Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information is now exposed to cybercriminals. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleges claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment arising from the data breach. Cornwell Quality Tools is a company that manufactures and distributes professional tools through a network of dealers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Ave, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Stephen E. Connolly, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 609-6910 Facsimile: (267) 344-0990 E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com steve@lcllp.com CORNWELL QUALITY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Davis Says ----------------------------------------------------------- JAMES DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE CORNWELL QUALITY TOOLS COMPANY, Case No. 1:25-cv-01935-CEF (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 12, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information and that was impacted in a cyber incident. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. On Dec. 20, 2024, Defendant became aware of unusual activity within its computer network. In response, the Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. The Defendant's investigation determined that an unauthorized third-party gained access and acquired files from its IT Network on or around Dec. 12, 2025. On Sept. 4, 2025 -- nearly nine months after Defendant was made aware of the Data Breach -- the Defendant issued a public disclosure about the Data Breach and began sending notice letters to impacted individuals. The Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. The Defendant is a mobile tool producer that manufactures and sells its tools across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terence R. Coates, Esq. Dylan J. Gould, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com dgould@msdlegal.com - and - Gary M. Klinger MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com CORNWELL QUALITY: Shimp Balks at Inadequate Data Security Measures ------------------------------------------------------------------ JACOB SHIMP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CORNWELL QUALITY TOOLS COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01922-CEF (N.D. Ohio, September 11, 2025) arises out of 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 individuals whose information was provided to Defendant to receive its services. On or around December 20, 2024, the Defendant became aware of unusual activity within its computer network. The Defendant later discovered that an unknown actor gained access to its network and potentially acquired certain files on or around December 12, 2024. 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, it did not take sufficient steps to ensure that its systems were secure. The Defendant knew or should have known about the risk to the data it stored and processed, and the critical importance of adequate security measures in the face of increasing threats. The Plaintiff and Class Members have been harmed because they are at immediate risk of having their personal information used against them. 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. He also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. The Cornwell Quality Tools Company is an American privately held company manufacturing tools for the automotive and aviation industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Flick, Esq. Marc E. Dann, Esq. DANNLAW 15000 Madison Avenue Lakewood, OH 44107 Telephone: (216) 373-0539 Facsimile: (216) 373-0536 - 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 COSTCO WHOLESALE: Scoggan Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ernest Scoggan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Case No. 25STCV24362 was removed from the Superior Court of the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Sept. 19, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-08965. The Plaintiff asserts claims for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); violation of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"); violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"); breach of contract; and unjust enrichment.[BN] The Defendants are repress ented by: Kathleen M. O'Sullivan, Esq. Mallory A. Gitt, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 4200 Seattle, WA 98101-3804 Phone: (206) 359-8000 Email: KOSullivan@perkinscoie.com MGitt@perkinscoie.com - and - Gillian C. Kuhlmann, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1888 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-1721 Phone: (310) 788-3216 Email: GKuhlmann@perkinscoie.com CREDIT SUISSE: Court Dismisses State Claim in "Gromicko" -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned In re Credit Suisse Securities Fraud Class Actions, Case 1:25-cv-00934-CM (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Colleen McMahon of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered, "this action (Gromicko v. UBS Group AG No. 1:25-cv-934-CM (S.D.N.Y.)) shall be consolidated with the related class action -- Diabat v. Credit Suisse Group AG, No. 23-cv-5874 (S.D.N.Y.) -- for all pre-trial purposes; and (2) Plaintiff's State Claim under Colorado law is hereby dismissed." The Court states, "On February 7, 2025, the Court ordered the parties to show cause (1) why this Action -- Gromicko v. UBS Group AG No. 1:25-cv-934-CM (S.D.N.Y.) -- should not be consolidated with the pending lawsuit Diabat v. Credit Suisse Group AG 23-cv-5874 (S.D.N.Y.) (the Diabat Class Action) and (2) why… Plaintiff's state securities law claim under Colorado Securities Act should not be dismissed as precluded under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA)." According to the Court, “For the reasons stated below, the Court orders (i) this Action to be consolidated with the related Diabat Class Action for pre-trial purposes and (ii) Plaintiff's State Claim to be dismissed.” The Court further states: The Court will determine whether consolidation of these two actions for trial is warranted after the close of discovery and the resolution of any motions for summary judgment. The Cour found that Under federal Rules of Civil Procedure 42(a) a court may sua sponte consolidate actions that involve a common question of law or fact, and both actions bring claims against Credit Suisse under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934. The Court states, Both complaints allege a pattern of materially false and misleading statements regarding Credit Suisse’s asset outflows and its internal controls. The complaints cite identical statements made on December 2, 2022 by then-Chairman of Credit Suisse Axel Lehmann, who allegedly stated that significant asset outflows had stopped. Plaintiff concedes that there are common questions of law and fact between the two actions. The Court affirms, "therefore, the gravamen of both complaints, and the principal issues of law and fact in each with respect to their shared Section 10(b) claim, are identical." The fact that all defendants are not the same in both actions is of no moment. In sum, based on the significant factual overlap contained in the two complaints, consolidation is particularly appropriate. The Court found that the consolidation for pretrial purposes avoids needless duplication of time, effort, and expense on the part of the parties and the court. It does not merge the suits into a single cause or change the rights of the parties, or make those who are parties in one suit parties in another. Consolidation under Rule 42(a) is not a joinder of claims and will neither affect Plaintiff's right to choose its own counsel nor will it impair its ability to pursue its individual procedural and substantive rights, including its right to move for summary judgment after discovery concludes.” Plaintiff argues that consolidation would be prejudicial and might delay his ability to litigate claims due to the uncertainty of class certification. The Court resolves, But on July 7, 2025 the Court certified the class in the Diabat Class Action, thereby eliminating Plaintiff's concern about delays arising from uncertainty over class certification. Plaintiff “identifies no other source of potential prejudice that would result from consolidation. Because considerations of judicial economy favor consolidation, and there is little risk of prejudice, the Court orders this Action, Gromicko v. UBS Group AG, No. 1:25-cv-934-CM (S.D.N.Y.) to be consolidated with the Diabat Class Action Diabat v. Credit Suisse Group AG. The Order states: The actions are consolidated under the caption In re: Credit Suisse Securities Fraud Class Actions, No. 1:23-cv-5874. Any decision on a trial consolidation shall await the conclusion of pretrial proceedings. Concerning the Colorado State Claim, the Court relies on SLUSA, noting that "SLUSA’s preemption provision provides: no covered class action based upon the statutory or common law of any State or subdivision thereof may be maintained in any State or Federal court by any private party alleging… a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security." The Court considers, “A claim is preempted if (i) the action is a covered class action, (ii) the claim is based on state law, (iii) the action involves a covered security, and (iv) the claim alleges a misrepresentation or omission of material fact in connection with the purchase or sale of the security. The Court concludes, "This Action is a covered class action under SLUSA, so Plaintiff's State Claim is preempted and subject to dismissal.” SLUSA defines a covered class action as any group of lawsuits filed in or pending in the same court and involving common questions of law or fact, in which damages are sought on behalf of more than 50 persons; and the lawsuits are joined, consolidated, or otherwise proceed as a single action for any purpose." The judgment explains, "Based on my decision to consolidate the two actions for pre-trial purposes this Action and the Diabat Class Action will proceed as a single action for any purpose.” The Court acknowledges Plaintiff's disagreement, stating, “He argues that this action still does not constitute a covered class action under the group of lawsuits rubric because, when he responded to the Court's Order to Show Cause, the actions had yet to be consolidated. Well, as of the date of the entry of this order, they have been formally consolidated." As the Court affirms, "Interpreting SLUSA’s core provision… as not extending to lawsuits that were simultaneously being ordered joined or consolidated would read out of the statute the language providing that state law claims in lawsuits that otherwise proceed as a single action for any purpose are subject to SLUSA dismissal." "SLUSA’s language is clear: if two actions alleging fraud and misrepresentation in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security proceed together for any purpose, state law claims relating to the misrepresentation are not cognizable and must be dismissed." The Order holds, "Pre-trial proceedings are a purpose within the meaning of the statute. Consolidation for purposes of pretrial proceedings… falls within this provision’s reach. Logic dictates that they can occur simultaneously. Indeed, consolidation here compels dismissal." The Court points to key case law, noting, "Judge Kaplan agreed with the magistrate's finding in that case that the group of lawsuits had proceeded as a single action for any purpose based upon the fact that they had been consolidated for pre-trial purposes. The court held that consolidation for discovery satisfies the "any purpose" language and that the action was a covered class action under SLUSA." According to the Court, "whether Plaintiff has sought to coordinate with another class action is immaterial. Courts have overwhelmingly held that SLUSA preemption applies regardless of whether a plaintiff intended to benefit from coordination. Under SLUSA, even limited consolidation for pre-trial purposes renders this a covered class action." Based on the plain language of SLUSA’s preemption provisions, and the consolidation order, the Court affirms, “this Action is a covered class action because it is part of a group of lawsuits that proceed as a single action for pre-trial purposes. Moreover, both actions are pending in this same court, involve common questions of law or fact, and collectively seek damages on behalf of more than 50 people. Congress clearly intended SLUSA to preempt actions such as this. Plaintiff's State Claim is dismissed as preempted by SLUSA The Court ordered that: (1) this action shall be consolidated with the related class action-Diabat v. Credit Suisse Group AG, No. 23-cv-5874 (S.D.N.Y.)- for all pre-trial purposes and (2) Plaintiff's State Claim under Colorado law is hereby dismissed." A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3IKxx0 from PacerMonitor.com CRITICAL RESPONSE: Espinoza Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik Espinoza, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CRITICAL RESPONSE STRATEGIES, LLC. A Florida Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-24279-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 18, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendant failure to pay overtime wages. Specifically, the Plaintiff and other current and former similarly situated employees ("class members") were scheduled to work over 40 hours per workweek, but Defendant systematically failed to pay Plaintiff and the class members their full overtime wages for all overtime hours worked in violation of the FLSA. Despite knowing that Plaintiff and class members were scheduled to work 12 hours per day, 7 days per week, totaling 84 hours per week, Defendant systematically failed to pay employees for their actual scheduled hours worked, implementing policies designed to artificially reduce labor costs by under-recording actual hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired as a non-exempt, hourly paid "CO Assistant" for Defendant in Florida at the Detention Center. The Defendant operates security services at a Florida state-managed immigration detention facility colloquially known as "Alligator Alcatraz."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah E. Storch, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 7951 SW 6th Street, Suite 316 Plantation, FL 33324 Phone: (866) 344-9243 Facsimile: (954) 337-2771 Email: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com D8D LLC: Blom Sues Over Failure to Provide Consumer Report ---------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Blom, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. D8D LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01446-BBC (E.D. Wis., Sept. 18, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") as a result of the Defendant obtaining information concerning the Plaintiff from a consumer reporting agency named Sterling, without first providing a copy of the Consumer Report to the Plaintiff. The information obtained concerning the Plaintiff was a Consumer Report. The Defendant relied on information in Consumer Reports to make decisions regarding the Plaintiff, and on information and belief, the Defendant relies on similar information from Consumer Reports to make decisions regarding other prospective or current employees, including, in whole or in part, as a basis for adverse employment action; such as a refusal to hire and/or termination. The Defendant took an adverse action based in whole or in part on the Consumer Report and failed to provide the Plaintiff the report prior to the adverse action. In taking the adverse action, without first providing a copy of the Consumer Report, the Defendant violated the FCRA. The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and all other relief available pursuant to the FCRA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff applied online for employment with Defendant to work at their Green Bay, Wisconsin location in October of 2024. The Defendant is a domestic company doing business in Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jayson A. Watkins, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: 929-274-2944 Email: jwatkins@sirillp.com DAESANG HOLDINGS: Tran Sues Over Kimchi's Naturally Fermented Claim ------------------------------------------------------------------- KIM TRAN and LIDIA WU, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DAESANG HOLDINGS CALIFORNIA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-08745 (C.D. Cal., September 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and the New York General Business Law. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its kimchi products under the Jongga brand. According to the complaint, the Defendant advertised its kimchi as "Naturally Fermented." In reality, the Defendant's product is not naturally fermented because it contains sorbitol, a highly processed, added ingredient that is buried in the ingredients list on the back labels of the products. Had the Plaintiffs known the truth, they would not have purchased the product or would have paid significantly less. Daesang Holdings California, Inc. is a subsidiary of South Korea-based Daesang Corporation, headquartered in California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Caleb Marker, Esq. Ryan J. Ellersick, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 6420 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1080 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (877) 500-8780 Email: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com ryan.ellersick@zimmreed.com - and - Raphael Janove, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 500 7th Ave., 8th Fl. New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (646) 347-3940 Email: raphael@janove.law DANIELLE OUTLAW: Flacco Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER FLACCO and WINTON SINGLETARY, v. DANIELLE OUTLAW, CHARLES RAMSEY, RICHARD ROSS, JR., JOHN STANFORD, JR., KEVIN BETHEL, MICHAEL ZACCAGNI, PEDRO RODRIGUEZ, ALBERT D'ATTILIO, and CANDI JONES, in their individual capacities, and THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Case No. 2:24-cv-04374-MAK (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1) finding the Plaintiffs have satisfied all prerequisites in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) to maintain their claims on a class action basis; 2) approving the Plaintiffs' proposed Class definition; 3) approving the Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives and Stephan Zouras LLC and Goldshaw Greenblatt Pierce as Class Counsel; and 4) approving the Plaintiffs' proposed Class Notice and requiring the Defendants to provide the Class members' names, current or last known mailing and e-mail addresses, current or last known telephone number, and the last four digits of their Social Security numbers within ten days of the Court's class certification Order. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AgzjrU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David J. Cohen, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Catherine Mitchell Duffy, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS LLC 604 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 873-4836 E-mail: dcohen@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com cmitchell@stephanzouras.com - and - Patricia V. Pierce, Esq. GOLDSHAW GREENBLATT PIERCE Two Penn Center, Suite 1230 1500 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 978-9090 E-mail: ppierce@ggplawfirm.com DENTSPLY SIRONA: Court Approves Class Settlement in Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Dentsply Sirona, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:18-cv-07253-NG-PK (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gershon entered an order as follows: 1. The Court certifies a settlement class consisting of: "all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Dentsply Intl. or Dentsply Sirona from Dec. 8, 2015 to Aug. 6, 2018, inclusive, and who were damaged Thereby." Excluded from the settlement class are the Defendants and their families, and directors and officers of Dentsply Sirona and their families and affiliates. Also excluded from the settlement class are persons who would be members of the settlement class based solely on their acquisition of Dentsply Sirona common stock in exchange for shares of Sirona in connection with the Merger and, for the avoidance of doubt, those who would be members of the settlement class based solely on their acquisition of Dentsply Sirona common stock in the Merger in exchange of Dentsply Intl. common stock that they purchased or acquired prior to Dec. 8, 2015. Also excluded from the settlement class are the people listed on Exhibit 1 hereto who are excluded from the settlement class pursuant to request. Dentsply is an American dental equipment manufacturer and dental consumables producer. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iU9zSi at no extra charge.[CC] DENVER SHERIFFS: Filing for Class Cert Notice Plan Due Oct. 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Johnson v. Denver Sheriffs Department, Case No. 1:20-cv-01795 (D. Colo., Filed June 17, 2020), the Hon. Judge John L. Kane entered an order that the deadline for filing both Plaintiffs' Motion to Approve Proposed Class Certification Notice Plan and Plaintiffs' Motion to Shift Notice Costs is set for Oct. 30, 2025. The Defendant's Responses, if any, shall be filed on or before Wednesday, Nov. 12, 2025. The Plaintiffs' Replies, if any, shall be filed on or before Monday, Nov. 24, 2025. The nature of suit states Prisoner Civil Rights. The Defendant is a criminal justice agency based in Denver, Colorado.[CC] DHS FRACO: Toala Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Welders ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE RICARDO TOALA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DHS FRACO LLC and DANIEL CHIRILA, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-05165 (E.D.N.Y., September 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide accurate wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a welder from in or about September 2022 until in or about September 2024. DHS Fraco LLC is a commercial garage operator based in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 Email: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com DIGIMARC CORP: Filing of Amended Complaint in Ullom Due Nov. 26 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ullom v. Digimarc Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00779 (D. Or., Filed May 8, 2025), the Hon. Judge Jolie A. Russo entered an order adopting the deadlines set forth in the Parties' Joint Status Report as follows: -- Amended Complaint due Nov. 26, 2025 -- Answers or other responsive pleadings to amended complaint due by Feb. 9, 2026. -- Response to any motion to dismiss, if filed, due by April 27, 2026. -- Reply to response to any motion to dismiss, if filed, due by May 27, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act. Digimarc is a provider of enterprise software and services.[CC] DIRECT 2 U INSURANCE: Salazar Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Direct 2 U Insurance Services Inc. The case is styled as Martha Salazar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Akuranvyka USA, Inc. doing business as: Curry Up Now, Case No. 5:25-cv-02497-MWC-MAA (C.D. Cal., Sept. 8, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Direct 2 U Insurance Services Inc. -- http://direct2uinsurance.com/ -- is a California-based insurance agency committed to provide affordable and reliable insurance coverage.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Jason Cole, Esq. KJC LAW GROUP APC 9701 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1000 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (310) 861-7797 Email: kevin@kjclawgroup.com DISCOVERY XT EMPLOYER: Campillo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Discovery XT Employer LLC, et al. The case is styled as Andres U. Fernandez Campillo, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Discovery XT Employer LLC a/k/a Westwood Village; Oasis Outsourcing III LLC, Case No. 25STCV27780 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 19, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Westwood Village -- https://thewestwoodvillage.com/ -- embodies the essence of Los Angeles, uniting businesses, residents, and visitors to celebrate its unique character and dynamic offerings.[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 DISNEY WORLDWIDE: Faces Grabow Class Suit Over Invasion of Privacy ------------------------------------------------------------------ HEATHER GRABOW, on behalf of her minor child, M.G., and all others similarly situated, v. DISNEY WORLDWIDE SERVICES, INC., a corporation, and DISNEY ENTERTAINMENT OPERATIONS, LLC, a limited liability company, Case No. 2:25-cv-08674 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 12, 2025) alleges that despite creating and uploading animated videos, cartoons, movie clips, and other content clearly directed at children under 13, Disney has, since 2020, failed to designate its videos as "made for kids" on YouTube's platform, thereby enabling the collection of personal information from children, including both persistent identifiers such as cookies and device IDs and sensitive data like identity and location information (the Private Children's Data), without providing notice to parents or obtaining verifiable parental consent. According to the complaint, Disney enables YouTube's algorithm to deliver targeted advertising to children watching Disney's content, generating substantial advertising revenue for Disney and its affiliates. The Plaintiff's Child and Class Members viewed Disney's YouTube channels, and as a result had their data improperly tracked and collected. Moreover, Disney's failure to properly designate its videos (and the resulting tracking of its Website users) violated numerous state and federal laws, including the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA), enacted to protect children, like Plaintiff's Child, from being surveilled while using the Internet, asserts the suit. As a result of Disney's conduct, Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Child, and Class Members have suffered numerous injuries, including: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) lack of trust in communicating with online service providers; (iii) emotional distress and heightened concerns related to the release of their data (or children's data) to third parties; (iv) loss of benefit of the bargain; (v) diminution of value of the Private Children's Data; and (vi) statutory damages. The Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of Plaintiff's Child, and a class of similarly situated persons, to remedy these harms and asserts claims for Invasion of Privacy, Negligence, and Unjust Enrichment against the Defendants. Disney is a globally recognized media conglomerate that produces and distributes highly popular child-directed content, including through its official channels on YouTube, a video-sharing platform owned by Google, LLC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William J. Edelman, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W. Monroe Stree, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: wedelman@milberg.com - and - Tyler J. Bean Sonjay C. Singh* SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com ssingh@sirillp.com DOREL HOME FURNISHINGS: Lam Sues Over Defective Kitchen Steppers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Lam, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DOREL HOME FURNISHINGS, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-01416 (E.D. Mo., Sept. 19, 2025), is brought to remedy various violations of law in connection with Defendant's manufacturing, marketing, advertising, selling and warranting of the Defendant's "Cosco Kitchen Steppers." Specifically, these Recalled Kitchen Steppers have a dangerous defect that involves the bar handle used for consumer stability and balance. The safety bar can detach and even break off during use by the consumer. This is due to a weak connection to the main frame of the unit. So far, there have been 34 reported instances of this bar breaking or disconnecting during use, causing head injuries ("the Defect"). Around August 2025, Dorel recalled about 302,000 of the referenced Recalled Kitchen Steppers The 302,000 Kitchen Steppers sold for between $56.00 and $70.00, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased a "Cosco Kitchen Stepper" from Amazon for $56 on August 24, 2024. The Defendant designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, services, repairs, and sells Kitchen Steppers, including the Recalled Kitchen Steppers, nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Rosemergy, Esq. CAREY, DANIS & LOWE 8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105 Direct: 314-678-1064 Phone: 314-725-7700 Fax: 314-721-0905 Email: jrosemergy@careydanis.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: 803-222-2222 Fax: 843-494-5536 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE: Custer Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GEORGE CUSTER, v. DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00306-CCE-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- Certifying a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), -- Appointing the Plaintiff as the representative of the class, and -- Appointing the Plaintiff's counsel as counsel for the class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). The Plaintiff seeks certification of the following class: "All persons (1) with a residential mortgage loan securing a property in North Carolina, (2) serviced or subserviced by DMI, (3) and who paid a pay-to-pay fee to DMI when making a payment on their mortgage by telephone or an Interactive Voice Response system during the applicable statutes of limitations through the date a class is certified." Dovenmuehle provides mortgage servicing for commercial banks, credit unions, mortgage bankers and housing finance agencies. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aXw6kE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katherine Aizpuru, Esq. Robin Bleiweis, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 E-mail: kaizpuru@tzlegal.com rbleiweis@tzlegal.com - and - Benjamin M. Sheridan, Esq. Jed R. Nolan, Esq. KLEIN & SHERIDAN, LC PC 2500 Regency Parkway Cary, NC 27518 Telephone: (919) 899-9533 E-mail: ben@kleinsheridan.com jed@kleinsheridan.com - and - John W. Barrett, Esq. Bart D. Cohen, Esq. James L. Kauffman BAILEY GLASSER LLP 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 274-9420 E-mail: bcohen@baileyglasser.com jkauffman@baileyglasser.com jbarrett@baileyglasser.com DPL TRADING INC: Laura Files Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DPL Trading, Inc. The case is styled as Willis-Albrigo Laura, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DPL Trading, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-08968 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 19, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. DPL Trading is a business consultancy that specializes in providing high-quality products and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC 140 Broadway, FL 46 New York, CA 10005 Phone: (212) 884-4230 Email: adrian@gr-firm.com DRESSTALKS LTD: Bowman Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Tanisia Bowman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Dresstalks, Ltd., Case No. 1:25-cv-11292 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 18, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through https://silksilky.com (hereinafter "Silksilky.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Silksilky.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Dresstalks provides to the public a website known as Silksilky.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a variety of silk products including dresses, tank tops, skirts, underwear, pajamas, nightgowns, robes, bedding, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 Email: chan@ealg.law EBENEZER INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hamati Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- JORDAN HAMATI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EBENEZER INDUSTRIES INC. dba LIBERTY MARKET; JOE JOHNSTON; CINDY JOHNSTON; DAVID TRAINA; and KIERSTEN TRAINA, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03432-JJT (D. Ariz., Sept. 17, 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 Hamati was employed by the Defendants as a server. Ebenezer Industries Inc. dba Liberty Market operates as a restaurant and bar located in Gilbert, Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ty D. Frankel, Esq. FRANKEL SYVERSON PLLC 2375 E. Camelback Road, Suite 600 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 598-4000 Email: ty@frankelsyverson.com - and - Patricia N. Syverson, Esq. FRANKEL SYVERSON PLLC 9655 Granite Ridge Drive, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92123 Telephone: (602) 598-4000 Email: patti@frankelsyverson.com ECHOSTAR CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Pyne Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ JASON PYNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ECHOSTAR CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-15693-EP-MAH (D.N.J., Sept. 16, 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 Pyne was employed by the Defendant as an account executive. EchoStar Corporation is an American telecommunications company, specializing in satellite communication, wireless telecommunications, and internet services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Diego O. Barros, Esq. Robert Kansao, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Ave., Suite 2100 New York, New York 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Email: diego@employeejustice.com robert@employeejustice.com ELI LILLY AND COMPANY: Evans Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dante Evans, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, Case No. 1:25-cv-07768 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. On multiple occasions in July and August 2025, the Plaintiff attempted to access Defendant's public-facing websites, www.lilly.com and LillyDirect, to research medications, affordability programs, and condition specific resources for diabetes and sleep apnea. Despite Lilly's public commitment to "making medicine accessible for all," the Plaintiff was repeatedly denied meaningful access due to widespread accessibility barriers. The Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, the Defendant violates the ADA. Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content while using his computer. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY is a multinational pharmaceutical corporation headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Schonfeld, Esq. 825 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 Phone: (212) 227-5700 Fax: (212) 656-1889 Email: Rschonfeld@employeejustice.com ELLIOTT'S TENNESSEE: Cole Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- MORGAN COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Elliott's Tennessee Boot Company, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-11020 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 12, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, Elliottsboots.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Elliottsboots.com provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the ADA. Yet, Elliottsboots.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website, says the suit. Elliottsboots.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Elliott's Tennessee Boot Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law ELV ENERGY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brown Alleges ---------------------------------------------------- NATHAN BROWN; ALLEN LEDER; JADEN LEDER; and TYLER FITE, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ELV ENERGY SERVICES, INC.; and CHRISTOPHER VANI, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01042-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Sept. 12, 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. The Plaintiff were employed by the Defendants as dispatchers and field leads. ELV Energy Services, Inc. operate as an industrial cleaning company that provides various pressure washing, vacuuming, hydro-evacuation, and related cleaning services for oilfield equipment. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter Contreras, Esq. CONTRERAS LAW, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd. Suite 126 Columbus, Ohio 43220 Telephone: (614) 787-4878 Facsimile: (614) 957-7515 Email: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com EVERON LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Vitangcol Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- REYNALDO VITANGCOL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EVERON, LLC; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV27145 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 16, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Vitangcol was employed by the Defendants as a service technician. Everon, LLC provides fire,life safety, and security systems. The Company offers fire alarm, detection device, sprinkler systems, and life safety solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM, APC 217 South Kenwood Street Glendale, CA 91205 Telephone: (213) 761-5484 Facsimile: (818) 561-3938 Email: nazo@koullaw.com - and - Sahag Majarian, Esq. Garen Majarian, Esq. MAJARIAN LAW GROUP, APC 18250 Ventura Blvd. Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 Email: sahagii@aol.com garen@majarianlawgroup.com FARMERS GROUP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Ozburn Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- ARLENE OZBURN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FARMERS GROUP, INC.; FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-08728 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 15, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons whose sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") was impacted in a data breach that Defendants recently disclosed to Plaintiff and Class Members on or about August 22, 2025. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized intrusions; failing to disclose that it did not have adequately robust computer systems and security practices to safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII; failing to take standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach; and failing to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with prompt and timely notice of the Data Breach. The Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, intrusion of their health privacy, and similar forms of criminal mischief, risk which may last for the rest of their lives. Consequently, the Plaintiff and Class Members must devote substantially more time, money, and energy to protect themselves, to the extent possible, from these crimes, says the Plaintiff. Farmers Group, Inc. is an insurance management and holding company, managing auto, home, property, casualty, commercial, and life insurance. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: (Eddie) Jae K. Kim, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 117 E Colorado Blvd, Ste 600 Pasadena, CA 91105-3712 Telephone: (213) 723-0707 Facsimile: (858) 313-1850 Email: ekim@lcllp.com FIVE STARR: Terrell Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Breach of Contract ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXIS TERRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIVE STARR HEALTHCARE STAFFING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-04371 (S.D. Tex., September 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for unpaid overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and quantum meruit. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as director of its Business Development from August 1, 2023 until May 12, 2025. Five Starr Healthcare Staffing, LLC is an employment agency in Houston, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew L. Mintz, Esq. ANDREW L. MINTZ, PLLC 2100 West Loop South, Suite 1125 Houston, TX 77027 Telephone: (713) 859-3828 Facsimile: (832) 626-0389 Email: andrew@almintzlawfirm.com FLUID MARKET INC: Urban Interests Suit Transferred to D. Delaware ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Urban Interests LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fluid Market Inc., Fluid Fleet Services LLC, James Eberhard, Jenifer Snyder, Thomas Scott Avila, HHK Group, LLC, HHK Vehicles, Inc., Paladin Management Group, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-02811 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on Sept. 18, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01165-UNA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. Fluid Market Inc. designs and develops software solutions.[BN] FLUOR CORP: Maglione Sues Over Drop in Share Price -------------------------------------------------- SABATINO MAGLIONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLUOR CORPORATION; DAVID E. CONSTABLE; JAMES R. BREUER; JOHN C. REGAN; and JOSEPH L. BRENNAN, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-02496-N (N.D. Tex., Sept. 15, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Fluor securities between February 18, 2025 and July 31, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Fluor's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) costs associated with the Gordie Howe, I-635/LBJ, and I-35 projects were growing because of, inter alia, subcontractor design errors, price increases, and scheduling delays; (ii) the foregoing, as well as customer reduction in capital spending and client hesitation around economic uncertainty, was having, or was likely to have, a significant negative impact on the Company's business and financial results; (iii) accordingly, Fluor's financial guidance for FY 2025 was unreliable and/or unrealistic, the effectiveness of the Company's risk mitigation strategy was overstated, and the impact of economic uncertainty on the Company's business and financial results was understated; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Fluor's stock price fell $15.35 per share, or 27.04%, to close at $41.42 per share on August 1, 2025. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Fluor Corporation provides engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC), fabrication and modularization, and project management services worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Willie C. Briscoe, Esq. THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC 5473 Blair Rd., Suite 200 Dallas, TX 75231 Telephone: (972) 521-6868 Facsimile: (281) 254-7789 Email: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Corey D. Holzer, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC 211 Perimeter Center Parkway Suite 1010 Atlanta, GA 30346 Telephone: (770) 392-0090 Facsimile: (770) 392-0029 Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com FOSTER FARMS: Haff Poultry Sues Over Anticompetitive Conduct ------------------------------------------------------------ Haff Poultry, Inc., Nancy Butler, James Michael Mercer, Jonathan Walters, Marc Mcentire, Karen Mcentire, and all others similarly situated v. FOSTER FARMS LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-07996-SK (N.D. Cal., Sept. 19, 2025), is brought as an antitrust and unfair competition action seeking treble damages under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 202 of the Packers and Stockyards Act, demanding a trial by jury of all issues so triable, concerning the Integrators' anticompetitive, collusive, predatory, unfair, and bad faith conduct in the domestic market for Broiler growing services (also referred to herein as "Broiler Grow-Out Services"). This case involves agreements by the Defendant and its Co-Conspirators (defined more fully, infra, and together with the Defendant, the "Cartel") to reduce competition for Broiler Grow-Out Services by agreeing to limit or eliminate efforts to solicit, recruit, or hire one another's Growers, with the purpose and effect of fixing, maintaining, and/or stabilizing Grower compensation below competitive levels (the "No-Poach Agreement"). By agreeing not to compete for the services of one another's Growers, the Cartel members attempted to insulate themselves from normal competitive pressures. The No-Poach Agreement inoculated the Cartel against competition for Grower pay and "wars" for Grower labor, which would have a market wide ripple effect on Grower compensation because of standardization in Grower contracts and pay rates (for example, Grower pay was not individually negotiated but offered on a take it or leave it basis to all similarly situated Growers). The No-Poach Agreement was designed to keep Growers, as author Christopher Leonard noted in The Meat Racket: The Secret Takeover of America's Food Business, "in a state of indebted servitude, living like modern-day sharecroppers on the ragged edge of bankruptcy," says the complaint. The Plaintiff Haff Poultry, Inc. began providing Broiler Grow-Out Services for Hudson, a major poultry producer, in Oklahoma in 1996. Foster Farms, LLC is a poultry processor founded in 1939 and headquartered in Livingston, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua P. Davis, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 689-9292 Email: jdavis@bergermontague.com - and - Daniel J. Walker, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 559-9745 Email: dwalker@bergermontague.com - and - Eric L. Cramer, Esq. Patrick F. Madden, Esq. Michaela L. Wallin, Esq. Sarah R. Zimmerman, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 875-3000 Email: ecramer@bergermontague.com pmadden@bergermontague.com mwallin@bergermontague.com szimmerman@bergermontague.com FRESH GREEN: Vick Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri ----------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Christopher Vick, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FRESH GREEN, LLC, et al., and JOHN DOE DISPENSARIES 1-215, Case No. 2516-CV18924 was removed from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, to the United States District Court for Western District of Missouri on Sept. 19, 2025, and assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00739-DGK. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of "thousands of consumers across Missouri who purchased adult-use marijuana from Missouri-licensed dispensaries and were charged a 3% county-wide sales tax on those purchases" from December 2022 to the present.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Eric M. Walter, Esq. Paul L. Brusati, Esq. Nicholas D. Slovikoski, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1500 Kansas City, MO 64108-2617 Phone: 816.221.3420 Facsimile: 816.221.0786 Email: ewalter@atllp.com pbrusati@atllp.com nslovikoski@Atllp.com FULLBEAUTY BRANDS: Perdomo Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Vanessa Perdomo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FULLBEAUTY BRANDS OPERATIONS, LLC, Case No. 25-2-10928-9 was removed from the Superior Court for Pierce County, in and for the County of King, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Sept. 19, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-05844. The Plaintiff alleges that "Defendant is constantly sending commercial emails to recipients on the website's mailing list, typically multiple times per week" and that "Plaintiff and Class members received such emails from Defendant." The Plaintiff further alleges that "Defendant sent at least thousands of emails to Washington recipients." The Plaintiff also alleges that the putative class consists of "thousands of Class members."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cody Hoesly, Esq. BARG SINGER HOESLY PC 121 SW Morrison St., Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204 Phone: 503-241-3311 Email: choesly@bargsinger.com - and - Alexander E. Wolf, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 South Beverly Drive, PH Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: 872-365-7060 Email: awolf@milberg.com - and - William J. Edelman, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Phone: 771-474-1121 Email: wedelman@milberg.com - and - Tyler E. Ewigleben, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Phone: 501-255-8569 Email: tyler@jefirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Lauren B. Rainwater, Esq. Rachel Herd, Esq. Caleah N. Whitten, Esq. Ardie Ermac, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Phone: 206-622-3150 Email: laurenrainwater@dwt.com rachelherd@dwt.com caleahwhitten@dwt.com ardieermac@dwt.com GATEWAY CHURCH: Loses Motion to Dismiss "Leach" Donor Class Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Katherine Leach, Garry K. Leach, Mark Browder, Terri Browder, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Gateway Church, Robert Morris, Thomas M. Lane, Kevin L. Grove, Steve Dulin, Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:24-cv-00885, Judge Amos L. Mazzant of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas denied Defendant Gateway Church's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim and Defendant Robert Morris's Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiffs are former Gateway Church members and tithers who brought this class action lawsuit against Gateway Church and Robert Morris. The Plaintiffs asserted claims against the Defendants for fraud, misrepresentation, and breach of contract arising out of their alleged misappropriation of tithe funds. Specifically, the Plaintiffs alleged the Defendants induced them to donate money to Gateway by falsely representing 15% percent of all donations would be distributed to global missions and Jewish ministry partners. The Plaintiffs further alleged the Defendants guaranteed them a refund of their donated funds if they were dissatisfied with Gateway's use of such funds. The Plaintiffs' efforts to seek transparency and substantiation for Gateway's use of their donations or to otherwise recover any allegedly misappropriated tithe funds have not been successful. The Defendants denied the Plaintiffs' allegations. Gateway is one of the largest nondenominational churches in the United States with current and past membership exceeding 100,000 members. Morris, a Texas resident, was Gateway's founder and served as Gateway's Senior Pastor until June 2024. Gateway was organized under Title 2, Chapter 2 of the Texas Business Organizations Code as a Texas nonprofit religious organization. In addition to their Online Campus, Gateway has various physical campuses, nine of which are in Texas and one in Wyoming. Gateway's tithing members have supported Gateway since its founding, and Gateway uses a platform, PushPay, to process its tithing members' donations. Through PushPay, donors or tithers self-report their residency information, which Gateway gathers and retains pursuant to tax reporting requirements. Based on records kept since 2019, Gateway receives donations from over 20,000 donors per year. From 2019 to 2024, on average, about 90 percent of the individuals who donated to Gateway in one calendar year self-reported as Texas residents. Because Gateway's membership exceeds 100,000 members since its founding, the Plaintiffs alleged the proposed class will consist of tens of thousands of persons, including members that do not reside in Texas. The Plaintiffs initially defined the proposed class as follows: (a) All persons who donated money to Gateway Church in reliance upon the 15 percent promise for the funds to go to Global Mission work, and (b) All persons who want their money back pursuant to the guarantee of Gateway and Robert Morris. The Defendants urged the Court to dismiss the Plaintiffs' class action lawsuit for the following reasons: (1) the Plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of jurisdiction; (2) the Plaintiffs' fraud allegations should be dismissed because they fail the exacting pleading standards under Rule 9(b) and fail to state a viable claim under Rule 12(b)(6); and (3) the Plaintiffs' breach of contract and conspiracy to breach contract allegations fail to state a viable claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Regarding the home state exception doctrine, the Defendants requested the Court abstain from exercising its Class Action and Fairness Act jurisdiction based on the home state exception. The Court noted that CAFA grants federal courts original jurisdiction to hear interstate class actions where: (1) The proposed class contains more than 100 members; (2) Minimal diversity exists between the parties; (3) The amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000; and (4) The primary defendants are not states, state officials, or other governmental entities. The Defendants did not contest the Plaintiffs have met these preliminary elements. The Court observed that under the home state exception, the court must abstain if two-thirds or more of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate, and the primary defendants, are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed. The Defendants, as the parties objecting to the Court's jurisdiction, had the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the elements of this exception. Because the parties agreed the Defendants were citizens of Texas, the only element at issue was whether it is more likely than not two-thirds or more of the members of the proposed class are citizens of Texas. The Court found the Defendants failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that at least two-thirds of the proposed class members are Texas citizens. First, the Declaration suggested that in one given calendar year, about 90 percent of all donors self-reported as being Texas residents. However, the information referenced in the Declaration failed to show how many of those donating members represented in one year are unique members that did not self-report the same residency information the next year. Second, the Plaintiffs' alleged injury is not unique to only Texas donors. The definitions provided to the Court did not isolate the potential class members to Texans. Third, citizenship, for purposes of proving an exception to CAFA, must be analyzed as of the date the complaint or amended complaint was filed. Just because a donor self-reported as a Texas resident in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, or 2023, does not mean they were still a Texas resident when the Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint. Accordingly, because the Defendants failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that more than two-thirds of the proposed class are Texas citizens, the Court is not required to abstain from exercising its subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claims as to the Defendants. Regarding the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, the Defendants argued the Plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed because they will require the Court to impermissibly entangle itself in questions of religious doctrine and internal church administration. The Court noted that under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, courts are prohibited by the First Amendment from involving themselves in ecclesiastical matters, such as disputes concerning theological controversy, church discipline, ecclesiastical government, or the conformity of the members of the church to the standard of morals required. The Court observed that the First Amendment does not categorically insulate religious relationships from judicial scrutiny, for to do so would necessarily extend constitutional protection to the secular components of these relationships. Courts may decide disputes that implicate religious interests as long as they can do so based on neutral principles of secular law without undue entanglement in issues of religious doctrine. The issue before the Court was whether it appears that the resolution of the Plaintiffs' claims will require the Court to address purely ecclesiastical questions. The Court found that at this stage, many of the relevant facts have not been developed, and it cannot yet be determined whether the Plaintiffs' claims will require the Court to address purely ecclesiastical questions. The Defendants had not established the disputed financial expenditures from the Plaintiffs' tithes were approved by a committee or governing body based on Gateway's religious doctrine. The Defendants had not alleged where the donations the Plaintiffs now contest went to at all. The Defendants had not pointed to any church policy outlining that its contested expenditures were justified by Gateway's religious teachings. The Parties had not alleged they have differing definitions of Jewish ministry partners or any other term at issue in the Plaintiffs' claims that the Court would have to resolve. The Court noted that at this point, the Plaintiffs' claims seemingly address the Defendants' non-religious conduct: acts of concealment; discrepancies in the reconciliation of donated funds balances; unaccounted for donations; financial irregularities; and lack of transparency or substantiations for Gateway's use of the Plaintiffs' donations. Merely because the Defendants identified the Plaintiffs' tithing as an inherently religious act does not prevent the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claims. The Court acknowledged the act of tithing is a religious act, but the Plaintiffs did not dispute their tithing; rather, they alleged their tithes were fraudulently allocated and the Defendants misrepresented critical facts to them before tithing. Whether the Defendants made an improper or proper financial expenditure is not a strictly and purely ecclesiastical question. According to the Court "Because the Plaintiffs' Complaint asked the Court to apply neutral principles of Texas law to a case that, on the face of the Complaint, involves a civil rather than religious dispute, at this time, the Court is not barred by the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine from exercising its subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claims as to the Defendants." Accordingly, the Defendants' 12(b)(1) Motion is denied without prejudice with respect to the Defendants' arguments and may be refiled once the record is better developed. Regarding the 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, the Defendants argued all of the Plaintiffs' claims fail to meet the applicable pleading standards and are barred by the relevant statute of limitations. After reviewing the Plaintiffs' Complaint and the arguments presented in the briefs, the Court found the Plaintiffs have stated plausible claims for relief under Rule 12(b)(6). Further, the Plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to establish their fraud and breach of contract claims began to accrue at their discovery in 2024, when the Plaintiffs experienced the lack of transparency or substantiation for Gateway's use of their tithes. Accordingly, dismissal is unwarranted, and the Defendants' 12(b)(6) Motions should therefore be denied. The Plaintiffs requested the Court permit them to replead to add additional causes of action and new parties. The Court granted the Plaintiffs' request to replead and stated they must do so within fourteen days from the date of this Order. Because the Court stayed all deadlines after the Defendants' Motions were filed, the Court requested the parties confer and submit a jointly proposed amended scheduling order to the Court within 30 days from the date of this Order. Therefore, the Court ordered that Defendant Gateway Church's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim and Brief in Support and Defendant Robert Morris's Motion to Dismiss and Supporting Memorandum Brief are hereby denied. The Court further ordered that the Plaintiffs be granted leave to file a further amended complaint no later than 14 days from the date of this Order. The Court further ordered that the parties submit a jointly proposed amended scheduling order to the Court within 30 days from the date of this Order. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ITSaCG from PacerMonitor.com GENESIS BILLING: Micire Sues Over Clients' Leaked Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- MARY ANN MICIRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENESIS BILLING SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00583-M (E.D.N.C., September 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, negligence per se, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach around May 20, 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. Genesis Billing Services, Inc. is a medical billing service provider, with its principal place of business in Raleigh, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah A. Knox, Esq. HUNTER & EVERAGE, PLLC Post Office Box 25555 Charlotte, NC 28229 Telephone: (704) 377-9157 Facsimile: (704) 377-9160 Email: sak@hunter-everage.com - and - Sean Short, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 Email: sean@sanfordlawfirm.com GHOST MANAGEMENT: Holistic Holdings Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ghost Management Group LLC, et al. The case is styled as Holistic Holdings Inc. dba Cannaquik Deliveries, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ghost Management Group LLC d/b/a Weedmaps, WM Technology Inc., Case No. 25STCV27798 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 19, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Commercial/Business Tort (not fraud/ breach of contract) (General Jurisdiction)." Ghost Management Group, LLC is a technology company based in Irvine, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. PARK APC 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste 800 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2440 Phone: 310-627-2964 Fax: 310-362-8279 Email: james@park-lawyers.com GIORGIO ARMANI: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACQUELINE AHUMADA, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), v. GIORGIO ARMANI CORPORATION, New York corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-01175-RSH-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: -- Extending the Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class certification until Nov. 3, 2025, and -- Setting the Defendant's deadline to file an opposition for Jan. 23, 2026, and the Plaintiff's deadline to file a reply for March 2, 2026. Giorgio designs, manufactures, distributes and retails fashion and lifestyle products including apparel, accessories, eyewear, watches, jewelry, and home interiors. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9fGke1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roxanna Tabatabaeepour, Esq. Ryan Tish, Esq. Alexander Wallin, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Roxanna.Taba@capstonelawyers.com Ryan.Tish@capstonelawyers.com Alexander.Wallin@capstonelawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: Nicky Jatana, Esq. Paul J. Cohen, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 GLENDALE APARTMENT: Wins Dismissal of "Jones" Tenant Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Tyrone Jones v. Glendale Apartment Properties LLC, Civil Action No. DKC 24-3731 (D. Md.), Judge Deborah K. Chasanow of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted Defendant's motion to dismiss the putative class action complaint without prejudice for lack of Article III standing and provided Plaintiff an opportunity to file a motion for leave to amend. This was a putative class action brought by Plaintiff pursuant to the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act against Defendant. Plaintiff, a tenant of an apartment Defendant allegedly manages, contended that Defendant collected rent without a collection agency license. The court dismissed all claims after finding Plaintiff failed to establish standing. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff rented from Glendale Management Company from January 19, 2024, through the present, with Glendale Management Company acting as the management agent. He signed a standard form lease provided to him and made his rent payments to the Glendale Management Company collecting for the owner. Plaintiff alleged that as a proximate result of Glendale's illegal collection activities, Plaintiff and Class members suffered actual damages including but not limited to paying fees wrongfully charged. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant does business as a collection agency under Section 7-401(a) of the Maryland Code because Defendant threatens to sue, sues, and obtains judgments against or otherwise collects rent from tenants on behalf of another. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant has never obtained a license to collect debts, but has collected debts in Maryland for many years. Additionally, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant knew or acted with reckless disregard that it was required to have a license to act as a collection agency in the State of Maryland and it failed to obtain a license before seeking monies from Class Members. On November 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Defendant in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution, and monetary damages. The proposed class consists of all residential tenants with an address in the State of Maryland that Glendale Management Company sought to collect from in the three years preceding the filing of the Complaint. On December 23, 2024, Defendant removed the case to federal court. On January 27, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. STANDING ANALYSIS The court found that Article III standing is a threshold, jurisdictional requirement. To establish standing, a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing: (1) an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; (2) a sufficient causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. A plaintiff must demonstrate standing for each individual claim for relief. Plaintiff set forth various claims. In Count One, he sought declaratory, injunctive, and ancillary relief regarding unenforceable judgments. In Count Two, Plaintiff pursued unjust enrichment, seeking disgorgement. In Count Three, Plaintiff demanded damages under the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act and Maryland Consumer Protection Act. In Count Four, Plaintiff requested declaratory and injunctive relief regarding alleged illegal lease provisions. In Count Five, Plaintiff asked for attorney's fees. All failed for lack of standing. INJURY IN FACT The court found that in Counts Two and Three, Plaintiff failed to establish an injury in fact because he did not allege sufficient factual content to support his bare assertions of injury. The court noted that a plaintiff cannot automatically satisfy the injury in fact requirement whenever there is a statutory violation. A mere statutory violation is not a concrete harm. When describing his injury, Plaintiff stated only that as a proximate result of Glendale's illegal collection activities, Jones suffered actual damages including but not limited to paying fees wrongfully charged. The court explained that nothing prevents a landlord from asking tenants to make voluntary payments during an unlicensed period, but if the tenants refuse to pay, the landlord cannot use the Maryland courts to force the payments to be made. Here, Plaintiff did not allege a particular instance in which he refused to pay Defendant and Defendant then attempted to force the payment through the Maryland court system. Without any factual content to support the bare assertion that Defendant collected from him, Plaintiff did not provide the court with enough information to discern a plausible, concrete injury. Regarding late fees, Plaintiff did not plead an injury at all. Plaintiff's allegation that Defendant collected improper late fees was far too conclusory. Plaintiff did not allege a particular instance in which Defendant charged him a late fee, nor did he allege how many days after rent was due that Defendant charged him a late fee. Thus, Plaintiff did not provide enough information to discern whether Plaintiff ever paid or was charged a late fee before 15 days after rent was due. In Count One, Plaintiff did not plead an injury because he failed to identify a single judgment that Defendant has obtained against him. Finally, Plaintiff did not establish in Counts One and Four that Defendant will imminently enforce the allegedly illegal lease provisions. The court noted that allegations of possible future injury are insufficient. CAUSATION The court found that Plaintiff attempted to allege causation by asserting that his damages are a proximate result of Glendale's illegal collection activities, but his complaint did not otherwise support that assertion. Here, causation was weak because Plaintiff did not allege facts tracing his injury to any particular lawsuit Defendant filed against him. Accordingly, there were not enough facts on the face of the complaint to establish causation due to Defendant's activity as an allegedly unlicensed collection agency. REDRESSABILITY In Counts Two and Three, Plaintiff met the redressability requirement by requesting a money judgment. Assuming these claims are meritorious, a money judgment would satisfy the redressability requirement. However, in Counts One and Two, Plaintiff failed the redressability requirement on his request for disgorgement. The court noted that the Maryland Supreme Court has held that the disgorgement remedy is unavailable to private plaintiffs for violations of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act because the statute's structure reserves that remedy to the Attorney General. The court found that the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act likely bars a private disgorgement remedy as well. The court also found that declaratory and injunctive relief is unavailable to private plaintiffs under the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. DISMISSAL AND OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND Because Plaintiff had not established at least two of the three elements of Article III standing on any of his claims for relief, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear all of them. Consequently, the court dismissed all counts without prejudice. Although Plaintiff had not made a proper motion to amend his complaint, the court permitted Plaintiff an opportunity to file a motion for leave to amend. The court found that until Plaintiff has supplied concrete facts, the court cannot determine whether amendment necessarily would be futile. Plaintiff was provided 21 days to file a motion for leave to amend his complaint. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NtqRbm from PacerMonitor.com GLOBAL PLASMA: Air Purifier Purchaser Class Wins Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEITH FISHLOCK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GLOBAL PLASMA SOLUTIONS INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00522-SB (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge Stephanos Bibas entered a decision on Sept. 23, 2025 certifying a statewide class of Delaware retail air purifier purchasers because that state's consumer fraud statute does not require the Plaintiff to show reliance. Judge Bibas says that the case is the second in a pair of cases about allegedly defective air purifiers. In the Garner case -- Garner v. Global Plasma Sols., Inc., Case No. 21-cv-00665 (D. Del. Sept. 27, 2024) -- he granted partial summary judgment to Global Plasma and denied the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class. Though the Fishlock case rests on the same general theory, it involves a different Plaintiff and different legal claims. Because of the legal and factual overlap between the cases, he grants partial summary judgment to Global Plasma for the same reasons that he did in Garner, Judge Bibas adds. During the pandemic, Global Plasma pivoted to targeting pathogens, a new market for it. The Covid-centric marketing worked. But the product led to two lawsuits by the same law firm. Accordingly, Mr. Fishlock saw one of Global Plasma's ads and bought an air purifier from it. The ad allegedly promised to clean the air of Covid. That, Fishlock says, was a lie. He alleges three general theories of harm that: (1) the air purifiers do not clean the air of Covid, as promised; (2) they are not superior to competitors' products, as promised; and (3) they were not independently tested, as promised. Global Plasma sells air purifiers that use ionization technology. Ionization is a process that increases the size of particles, making them "large enough to either fall out of the air or be filtered better."[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, , Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 North Market St., 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-0300 Facsimile: (302) 777-0301 E-mail: mfarnan@farnanlaw.com bfarnan@farnanlaw.com - and - Dennis C. Reich, Esq. REICH & BINSTOCK LLP, www.reichandbinstock.com 4265 San Felipe, Suite 1000 Houston, TX 77027 Telephone: (713) 622-7271 Facsimile: (713) 623-8724 E-mail: dreich@reichandbinstock.com The Defendant is represented by: Adam Wyatt Poff, Esq. Colin Aaron Keith, Esq. Samantha G. Wilson, Esq. YOUNG, CONAWAY, STARGATT & TAYLOR LLP Rodney Square, 1000 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 571-6600 Facsimile: (302) 571-125 E-mail: swilson@ycst.com ckeith@ycst.com apoff@ycst.com - and - Robert A. Muckenfuss, Esq. Elizabeth Zwickert Timmermans, Esq. Kelly A. Warlich, Esq. Hannah K. Caison, Esq. Addison E. Fontein, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 201 N Tryon St No. 3000 Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (704) 343 2052 Facsimile: (704) 444 8707 E-mail: rmuckenfuss@mcguirewoods.com eztimmermans@mcguirewoods.com. kwarlich@mcguirewoods.com hcaison@mcguirewoods.com afontein@mcguirewoods.com HD SUPPLY MANAGEMENT: Delgado Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Simon Delgado, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. HD SUPPLY MANAGEMENT, LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. CV2025-1476 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Yolo, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on Sept. 19, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02709-CKD. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges eight causes of action against Defendant: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure To Pay Minimum Wages; Failure To Provide Meal Periods; Failure To Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Pay Accrued Sick Pay Wages; Failure To Provide Accurate Wage Statements; Failure To Pay All Wages Upon Termination; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Todd B. Scherwin, Esq. Landon R. Schwob, Esq. Danielle S. Zobel, Esq. Kyle J. Ignatius, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213) 330-4500 Facsimile: (213) 330-4501 Email: tscherwin@fisherphillips.com lschwob@fisherphillips.com dzobel@fisherphillips.com kignatius@fisherphillips.com HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Williamson Sues Over Compromised Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- STANLEY WILLIAMSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTHCARE SERVICES GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-05230 (E.D. Pa., September 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the sensitive personal and health information of approximately 624,496 individuals that was compromised in a massive and preventable data breach that Defendant detected on or about October 7, 2024. According to the complaint, the data breach involved an unauthorized third-party gaining access to Defendant's network between September 27, 2024, and October 3, 2024, and exfiltrating files containing the private information of Plaintiff and Class Members. As a direct result of Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information is now in the hands of cybercriminals, placing them at a significant, imminent, and ongoing risk of identity theft, medical identity theft, financial fraud, and other forms of criminal misuse for years to come. On behalf of himself and the Class, the Plaintiff seeks an award of damages, including actual, statutory, and punitive damages; restitution and disgorgement of profits; and comprehensive injunctive relief, including an order requiring Defendant to improve its data security, submit to third-party audits, and provide lifetime credit monitoring and identity theft protection to all affected individuals. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant from November 8, 2017 to March 2022. As a condition of his employment, the Plaintiff was required to provide Defendant with his sensitive private information. Healthcare Services Group, Inc. is a Pennsylvania-based national provider of housekeeping, dining, and nutritional services to the healthcare industry, including nursing homes, retirement complexes, rehabilitation centers, and hospitals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary Arbitman, Esq. George Donnelly, Esq. FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER TANNER WEINSTOCK & DODIG, LLP 1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 567-8300 Facsimile: (215) 567-8333 E-mail: zarbitman@feldmanshepherd.com gdonnelly@feldmanshepherd.com HECLA MINING: Faces Williams Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Idaho ----------------------------------------------------------- LEVI WILLIAMS and SAMUEL WAGNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HECLA MINING COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00535-REP (D. Idaho, September 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Alaska Wage and Hour Act. Plaintiffs Williams and Wagner were employed by the Defendant as underground miners in its Greens Creek mine from approximately October 2012 through April 2025 and in its Lucky Friday mine since approximately May 2021, respectively. Hecla Mining Company is a mining company headquartered in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Erika Birch, Esq. BIRCH HALLAM HARSTAD & JOHNSON, LLC 1516 West Hays Street Boise, ID 83072 Telephone: (208) 336-1788 Facsimile: (208) 287-3708 Email: erika@idahojobjustice.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com HILTON RESORTS: Stay Ordered in "Galvez" for Mediation ------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Julie Galvez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hilton Resorts Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02147-CDS-BNW, Judge Cam Ferenbach of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted a joint stipulation to stay proceedings. Upon careful examination, the Court ordered a stay of all proceedings in the matter for 85 days, up to and including December 10, 2025, to allow the parties to participate in a private mediation. The stipulation to stay included all current deadlines, such as Defendant's deadline to respond to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and filing a Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. According to the Court, "the stay promotes judicial economy, avoids unnecessary litigation costs, and conserves judicial resources. The parties scheduled a mediation for December 10, 2025, to explore potential resolution of claims in this putative class action." Therefore, the Court recognized the parties' aligned interests in seeking to resolve the matter without unnecessary litigation,and found that neither Plaintiff nor Defendant would be prejudiced by the stay. The parties agreed to file a joint status report within 14 days after the stay expiration, updating the Court of the mediation's outcome and proposing further case proceedings if needed. The Court emphasized that the stipulation was made in good faith to potentially resolve the matter and was not intended to cause undue delay. The stay was granted as requested, making this the third stay request in this case. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=m6yjF6 from PacerMonitor.com ILLINOIS: Casey Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARRELL CASEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LATOYA HUGHES, in her individual capacity and official capacity as the Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections, Case No. 3:25-cv-01537-SPM (S.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the motion for class certification and appointing the undersigned attorneys as class counsel. The Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) certifying the case as a class action against Defendant Latoya Hughes on behalf of all individuals currently or in the future detained in the Illinois Department of Corrections who are required to register on the Murder and Violent Offender Against Youth Registry who have completed their sentences of incarceration and are entitled to release from prison on to Mandatory Supervised Release ("MSR") but remain imprisoned because they are unable to secure an approved host site at which to live while on MSR. The Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of the Illinois Department of Corrections' policy of refusing to release individuals from prison on to MSR unless they can obtain a residence that meets department approval. Illinois Department of Corrections is the code department of the Illinois state government that operates the adult state prison system. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CZDD7Y at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adele D. Nicholas, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ADELE D. NICHOLAS 5707 W. Goodman Street Chicago, IL 60630 Telephone: (847) 361-3869 E-mail: adele@civilrightschicago.com - and - Mark G. Weinberg, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK G. WEINBERG 3612 N. Tripp Avenue Chicago, IL 60641 Telephone: (773) 283-3913 E-mail: mweinberg@sbcglobal.net ILLINOIS: Kucinsky Bid for Recruitment of Counsel OK'D ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES KUCINSKY, v. IDOC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00342-RJD (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Daly entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for recruitment of counsel and notice of change of address and motion to supplement complaint and supplemental motion for recruitment of counsel. The Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to complete discovery and the Defendant's motion for extension of time to file dispositive motions are granted in part. The following motions are denied without prejudice: -- The Plaintiff's motion to supplement complaint, motion for leave to file supplemental relief and claims, motion for copies and notice of change of address, second motion to certify class, second motion to appoint counsel, motion to strike complaint, motion to withdraw 3rd amended complaint, motion for leave to file fourth amended supplemental complaint, supplemental motion for leave to file 4th amended supplemental complaint, and motion to compel. IDOC is the code department of the Illinois state government that operates the adult state prison system. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aZm5Gk at no extra charge.[CC] JOHN HANCOCK: Court Lifts Stay of Linhart Suit ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA LINHART, v. JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY USA, Case No. 2:20-cv-02117-TJH-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. entered an order granting John Hancock's motion to lift the stay. The Court further entered an order that: -- John Hancock's motion for summary judgment be denied with leave to renew. -- Barbara Linhart's motion for class certification is denied. -- John Hancock's motion to exclude the amended expert report is denied as moot. Barbara argued that this case should remain stayed because the California Supreme Court has a related pending certified question from Pitt v. Metro Tower Life Ins. Co., 129 F.4th 583 (9th Cir. 2025). However, that certified question is not relevant to this case. That certified question is whether Cal. Ins. Code sections 10113.71 and 10113.72 apply to life insurance policies originally issued, or delivered, in another state but maintained by a policy owner in California. Regardless, on July 11, 2025, the parties in Pitt reached a settlement before the certified question was answered. Accordingly, the Court will lift the stay in this case. Because Barbara's opposition to John Hancock's motion for summary judgment, and John Hancock's reply, were both filed before the issuance of the Small II opinion, neither addressed Small II. To allow both parties, here, an opportunity to fully address Small II, the Court will deny John Hancock's motion for summary judgment with leave to renew. On March 4, 2020, the Plaintiff Silvana Krotez filed this putative class action, alleging that John Hancock terminated life insurance policies for failure to pay premiums without having previously provided notice to insureds of their right to designate a third-party to, also, receive a notice of termination for failure to pay premiums, as required by Cal. Ins. Code section 10113.72(b). On July 28, 2023, John Hancock moved for summary judgment, and Barbara moved to certify a class, defined as: "All beneficiaries upon a death of the insured of John Hancock's individual life insurance policies issued or delivered in California that John Hancock lapsed or terminated for non-payment of premiums in or after 2013 without first notifying the insured of the right to designate a third party to receive notices, as mandated by Cal. Ins. Code section 10113.72." John is a multinational life insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gK08Fg at no extra charge.[CC] JOSEPHINE COUNTY, OR: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 11 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gabbert, et al., v. Josephine County, Case No. 1:23-cv-01434 (D. Or., Filed Oct. 3, 2023), ), the Hon. Judge Karin J. Immergut entered an order as follows: -- The deadline to file motions to compel fact discovery is now October 20, 2025. -- The deadline to amend pleadings or join parties is November 10, 2025. -- Fact discovery is to be completed by November 10, 2025. -- Initial expert disclosures are due by December 11, 2025. -- Rebuttal expert disclosures are due by January 12, 2026. -- The deadline to file a class certification motion is December 11, 2025. -- The deadline to respond is January 12, 2026. -- Any reply in support of the class certification motion is due February 10, 2026. -- The last date to file any motion to compel expert discovery is January 19, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act involving Constitutionality of State Statutes. Josephine County was established in 1856 and named for Virginia Josephine Rollins, the first American woman to settle there.[CC] JSN PAINTING: Dotel Sues to Recover Minimum, Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Joher Sanchez Dotel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JSN PAINTING LLC and JOHN FASANO and JANINE FASANO, as individuals, Case No. 1:25-cv-05238 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2025), is brought against the Defendants to recover minimum wage and overtime wage and damages for egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of Plaintiff's employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Although, the Plaintiff regularly worked 75 to 83 hours per week, from in or around September 2019 until in or around December 2020; and approximately 69 hours per week, from in or around January 2021 until in or around September 2024, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at a wage rate of time -and- a half for his hours regularly worked over 40 hours in a work week, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by JSN PAINTING LLC as a painter while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants, from May 2019 until September 2024. JSN PAINTING LLC, is a New York domestic limited liability company, organized under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: 718-263-9591 Fax: 718-263-9598 KATAGIRI & CO: Alexandria Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Erika Alexandria, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. KATAGIRI & CO., INCORPORATED, Case No. 1:25-cv-07737 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.katagiri.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.katagiri.com (its "Website"), offering features which should allow all consumers to access the services that Defendant offers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com KNOX COUNTY, IL: Bid for Leave to File Certain Exhibit OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.B.H. v. Knox County, et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-04096 (C.D. Ill., Filed May 27, 2024), the Hon. Judge Colleen R. Lawless entered an order granting the Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Exhibit 101 requesting leave to file a current version of the MDH Policy Manual as Exhibit 11 to their Response to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Motion for Class Certification. The Clerk is directed to file the Amended Expert Report of David W. Roush, PhD as Exhibit 10 to the Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Motion for Class Certification. The nature of Suit states Prisoner Civil Rights.[CC] KRISTI NOEM: Plaintiff Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as H.C.R., et al., v. Kristi Noem, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00747-SPC-DNF (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting class certification to allow the provision of relief for the class. The action falls squarely within the category of cases contemplated by Rule 23(b)(2). The Defendants' challenged practices and policies with respect to attorney access are not tailored to individuals, but apply to the whole population of detained people held at the facility. They apply to all class members simply by virtue of their status as persons held at Alligator Alcatraz, without regard to the individual circumstances of their underlying immigration cases or any other differences among them. For the same reason, all class members seek the same declaratory and injunctive relief. Certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) is therefore also appropriate. The Federal Defendants, and Florida Defendants have unduly restricted confidential attorney-client communication between people detained at the facility and their counsel, which violates Detained Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights to retain and communicate with legal counsel. The Plaintiffs seek certification of a class that consists of: "All persons who are currently, or in the future, held at the Alligator Alcatraz detention facility." The proposed class meets the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2). The Defendants are holding at least 120 people at the facility, and plan to transfer even more into the facility in the future (a number of class members that makes joinder impracticable). The facility has a reported capacity of 3,000 people, with room to expand the capacity to 5,000 beds. The proposed class is fluid, as the government frequently transfers people to and from the facility, making joinder of all members not only impracticable, but impossible. Kristi Noem is an American politician serving since 2025 as the 8th United States secretary of homeland security. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tGa3Hk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul R. Chavez, Esq. Christina LaRocca, Esq. AMERICANS FOR IMMIGRANT JUSTICE 2200 NW 72nd Ave Miami, FL 33152 Telephone: (786) 218-3381 E-mail: pchavez@aijustice.org clarocca@aijustice.org - and - Amy Godshall, Esq. Daniel Tilley, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA 4343 West Flagler Street, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 363-2714 E-mail: agodshall@aclufl.org dtilley@aclufl.org - and - Eunice H. Cho, Esq. Corene Kendrick, Esq. Kyle Virgien, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 915 15th St. N.W., 7th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 548-6616 E-mail: echo@aclu.org ckendrick@aclu.org kvirgien@aclu.org LA VIE BOBO: Alexandria Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Erika Alexandria, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. LA VIE BOBO, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-07737 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2025), is brought against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.marlolaz.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com LABORNOW INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garmendia Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- MARGARITA GARMENDIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LABORNOW, INC.; EINSTEIN AND NOAH CORP D/B/A EINSTEIN BROS. BAGELS; and DOES 1 THROUGH 50 INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV26968 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 15, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a staff. Labornow, Inc. is a staffing agency located in the greater Los Angeles and San Bernardino area that provides staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael H. Boyamian, Esq. Armand R. Kizirian, Esq. Christina Tajerian, Esq. BOYAMIAN LAW, INC. 550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500 Glendale, CA 91203-1922 Telephone: (818) 547-5300 Facsimile: (818) 547-5678 Email: michael@boyamianlaw.com armand@boyamianlaw.com christina@boyamianlaw.com LANDS' END INC: Lopez Suit Removed to W.D. Wisconsin ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Mariah Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lands' End, Inc., Case No. 2025CV000108 was removed from the Iowa County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin on Sept. 19, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00785 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. Lands' End -- https://www.landsend.com/ -- is a classic American lifestyle brand with a passion for quality, legendary service & real value.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Marisa Berlinger, Esq. 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2800 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 407-2226 Email: marisa.berlinger@morganlewis.com LANDS' END INC: Meadows Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Madison Meadows, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LANDS' END, INC., Case No. 25-2-10930-1 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, in and for the County of King, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Sept. 19, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-05841. The Complaint asserts claims against Lands' End for violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act, and for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, quasi-contract/unjust enrichment, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation. The Plaintiff's claims arise out of allegations that Lands' End employs deceptive discounting and/or advertising practices. The Plaintiff alleges that Lands' Ends' prices, discounting, and advertising are false and that, as a result, she was misled and harmed.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cody Hoesly, Esq. BARG SINGER HOESLY PC. 121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204 Phone: (503) 241-3311 Email: choesly@bargsinger.com - and - Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq. Martin Brenner DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (310) 656-7066 Email: jonas@dovel.com martin@dovel.com The Defendants are represented by: David Freeburg, Esq. Danielle Igbokwe, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6900 Seattle, WA 98104-7029 Phone: 206.839.4800 Email: David.Freeburg@us.dlapiper.com Danielle.Igbokwe@us.dlapiper.com - and - Benjamin Naftalis, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Phone: +1.212.906.1200 Fax: +1.212.751.4864 Email: benjamin.naftalis@lw.com - and - Alexander C. K. Wyman, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Phone: +1.213.485.1234 Fax: +1.213.891.8763 Email: alex.wyman@lw.com - and - Gary Feinerman, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: +1.312.876.7700 Fax: +1.312.993.9767 Email: gary.feinerman@lw.com LANDS' END INC: Pierson Suit Removed to W.D. Wisconsin ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Julia K. Pierson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LANDS' END, INC., Case No. 2025-CV-000103 was removed from the Circuit Court of Iowa County, Wisconsin, to the United States District Court for Western District of Wisconsin on Sept. 19, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02709-CKD. The Plaintiff brings claims against Lands' End for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty and invasion of privacy..[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Marisa L. Berlinger, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1301 Second Ave., Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-274-0074 Fax: 206-274-6401 Email: marisa.berlinger@morganlewis.com LANDS' END INC: Pukala Suit Removed to W.D. Wisconsin ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jessica Pukala, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. LANDS' END, INC., Case No. 2025-CV-000101 was removed from the Circuit Court of Iowa County, Wisconsin, to the United States District Court for Western District of Wisconsin on Sept. 19, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00787. The Plaintiff brings claims against Lands' End for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and declaratory and injunctive relief.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Marisa L. Berlinger, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1301 Second Ave., Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-274-0074 Fax: 206-274-6401 Email: marisa.berlinger@morganlewis.com LANDS' END INC: Rhone Suit Removed to W.D. Wisconsin ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Amanda Rhone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LANDS' END, INC., Case No. 2025-CV-000100 was removed from the Circuit Court of Iowa County, Wisconsin, to the United States District Court for Western District of Wisconsin on Sept. 19, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00788. The Plaintiff brings claims against Lands' End for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and declaratory and injunctive relief.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Marisa L. Berlinger, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1301 Second Ave., Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-274-0074 Fax: 206-274-6401 Email: marisa.berlinger@morganlewis.com LANDS' END INC: Rychlik Suit Removed to W.D. Wisconsin ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Nathaniel Rychlik, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. LANDS' END, INC., Case No. 2025-CV-000097 was removed from the Circuit Court of Iowa County, Wisconsin, to the United States District Court for Western District of Wisconsin on Sept. 19, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00789. The Plaintiff brings claims against Lands' End for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and declaratory and injunctive relief.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Marisa L. Berlinger, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1301 Second Ave., Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-274-0074 Fax: 206-274-6401 Email: marisa.berlinger@morganlewis.com LAST BRAND: Lofton Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Breach of Contract ---------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA LOFTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAST BRAND, INC. d/b/a QUINCE, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-07793 (N.D. Cal., September 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant remotely as a retention specialist from approximately October 2023 to April 2025. Last Brand, Inc., doing business as Quince, is a manufacturer-to-consumer retail company, headquartered in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, PC 1801 Century Park East, Suite 860 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com LAST MILE: Colon Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA, PMWA ----------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN COLON v. LAST MILE EXPRESS, LLC, (M.D. Pa., Sept. 12, 2025) is a class and collective action brought on behalf of Plaintiff and other "Misclassified Employees" who work or have worked for the Defendant and have been subjected to the unlawful practices. According to the complaint, the Defendants' systematically and willfully deprived Plaintiff and Misclassified Employees of overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act by misclassifying them as independent contractors and failing to pay the Plaintiff and Misclassified Employees mandated overtime wages at the rate of one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 hours each work week. As a result, the Plaintiff and Misclassified Employees were illegally under-compensated for their work. As a result of Defendant's improper and willful failure to pay Plaintiff and the Misclassified Employees in accordance with the requirements of the FLSA and the PMWA, Plaintiff and all Misclassified Employees have suffered damages. The Plaintiff and the members of The Classes bring this action for monetary damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and other equitable and ancillary relief, to seek redress for the Defendant's willful, unlawful, and improper conduct. The Defendant's main business operations include delivering packages via specific route of each of its drivers. The Defendant employs individuals as Delivery Drivers, who are and/or were subjected to Defendant's alleged unlawful pay practices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faith Pensinger, Esq. MARZZACCO NIVEN & ASSOCIATES 945 East Park Drive, Suite 103 Harrisburg, PA 17111 Telephone: (717) 231-1640 Facsimile: (717) 231-1650 LATINO FARM: Cruz's Bid to Remand Case Tossed --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICANDRO CRUZ, as an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LUIS ANTONIO GONZALEZ DBA LATINO FARM LABOR SERVICE, an induvial; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 1:23-cv-00037-KES-SKO (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order denying Cruz's motion to remand and his related request for jurisdictional discovery. Cruz's evidence fails to carry his burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that two-thirds or more of the employees are California citizens. Rather, it appears more likely than not that more than two-thirds of the members of the class are not California citizens. Thus, Cruz has failed to demonstrate that the home state exception applies. Cruz's motion to remand is therefore denied. Cruz does not provide any basis to discredit this sworn testimony, nor does he explain how discovery of the specific documents Gonzalez reviewed would be likely to change the factual conclusions concerning the employees' citizenship. The Plaintiff Nicandro Cruz, individually, and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, brings this putative class action complaint against defendant Luis Antonio Gonzalez dba Latino Farm Labor Service alleging various state wage and hour violations. Latino is a staffing agency. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kc9fmM at no extra charge.[CC] LEMONADE INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due June 26, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Murray v. Lemonade, Inc. (RE LEMONADE, INC. DATA DISCLOSURE LITIGATION) Case No. 1:25-cv-04106-JHR-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katharine Parker entered an initial case management conference order: -- The parties shall have until Dec. 31, 2025, to amend the pleadings and join parties. -- Merits discovery that overlaps with class certification discovery shall close May 29, 2026. -- Any motion to dismiss shall be filed by Dec. 23, 2025. Opposition by Jan. 27, 2026. Reply due Feb. 10, 2026. Any Rule 23 class certification motion is due June 26, 2026. Opposition by July 31, 2026. Reply due Aug. 14, 2026. -- A case management conference is scheduled for Jan. 5, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. Lemonade is an American insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k9AKcF at no extra charge.[CC] LEOPOLD & ASSOCIATES: Must Pay $464K in Fees After FDCPA Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Michael P. McDonough, Plaintiff, v. Leopold & Associates, PLLC, and Trinity Financial Services, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:21-CV-00375-CCW (W.D. Pa.), Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted in part Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs. The Court awarded Plaintiff $464,335.95 in attorneys' fees and $2,255.96 in costs after applying significant reductions to the requested amounts. Mr. McDonough alleged that Defendants violated various provisions of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq. when Leopold sent him a letter seeking to collect a time-barred debt that Mr. McDonough owed to Trinity. Mr. McDonough initially filed this case in 2020 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of himself and a putative class of similarly situated individuals. After a year of proceedings in the Southern District of New York, the case was transferred to this District in March 2021 and was assigned to the undersigned. Protracted litigation ensued. In October 2021, the Court resolved a number of discovery disputes related to Mr. McDonough's class action claims. Mr. McDonough thereafter filed a motion for class certification, seeking to certify pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure a class of consumers who had received collection letters from Leopold similar to the one he had received. The Court denied that motion. After conducting further discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on Mr. McDonough's individual claims. The Court granted-in-part Leopold and Trinity's motions, and dismissed Mr. McDonough's then-operative complaint without prejudice for lack of standing. However, the Court granted Mr. McDonough leave to file an amended complaint, which he timely did. On July 16, 2024, the Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part the parties' motions. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Counts 2, 3, 4, and 6 of the Second Amended Complaint, but denied summary judgment as to Counts 1, 5, and 7. The Court granted summary judgment in Mr. McDonough's favor on one of his theories in Count 1 - that Leopold's collection letter violated FDCPA Sections 1692e, 1692e(5), 1692e(10) because it attempted to collect payment on a mortgage when Trinity was not licensed as a mortgage servicer under the Pennsylvania Mortgage Licensing Act - but denied summary judgment on his other theories in Counts 1, 5, and 7. Trinity settled with Mr. McDonough less than two weeks before trial was scheduled to begin. Leopold followed suit and settled with Mr. McDonough one business day before trial was set to begin. Thereafter, Mr. McDonough filed the instant Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs, seeking payment from Leopold. Mr. McDonough's request for attorneys' fees and costs arises from 15 U.S.C. Section 1692k(a)(3). That statute entitles a successful plaintiff in an FDCPA case to the costs of the action, together with a reasonable attorney's fee as determined by the court. Such fees and costs are mandatory as a means of fulfilling Congress's intent in enacting the FDCPA. Mr. McDonough was represented in this case by Sanders Law Group. SLG submitted a lodestar of $736,933 in connection with the instant Motion. Additionally, SLG reported costs of $5,350.09 to litigate this case. Leopold objected to Mr. McDonough's request on several grounds. The Court found that the hourly rates requested by SLG are reasonable. SLG requested to be paid the following hourly rates: $650 for attorney Craig B. Sanders, $500 for attorney Jonathan M. Cader, and $330 for attorney Kara McCabe. The Court approved those rates after considering attorney declarations submitted by Mr. McDonough attesting to the reasonableness of SLG's requested rates. The Court addressed Leopold's objections to specific billing entries. Leopold argued that the Court should apply a minimum 50% reduction in light of what Leopold characterized as a consistent pattern over decades of SLG submitting inflated bills on applications and then having a court reduce the hours by 10-40%. The Court agreed with Mr. McDonough that an across-the-board reduction to SLG's billing entries is improper. The Court may only reduce a fee award when an opposing party lodges a sufficiently specific objection. Leopold objected to 41.1 hours of time billed by Mr. Sanders on Westlaw and Google research that Leopold argued should have been done by a junior associate or paralegal, not a senior partner seeking to charge $650 an hour for his time. The Court found that the remaining 37.5 hours of Mr. Sanders' challenged time entries reflect tasks that should have been performed by someone more junior rather than a senior partner charging $650 per hour. The Court reimbursed SLG for this time at a rate of $330 per hour, which is in line with Ms. McCabe's billing rate. SLG's lodestar was reduced by $14,340. Leopold argued that SLG's time spent litigating venue and class certification should be excluded because those efforts were ultimately unsuccessful. The Court found that the issues of venue and class certification are related to Mr. McDonough's litigation of the claims on which he was successful. Leopold objected to 216.7 hours SLG billed for what Leopold characterized as improper block billing. The Court did not construe the billing entries cited by Leopold as block billing. The Court will not exclude the time entries that Leopold characterized as block billed time. Leopold argued that SLG's time entries are replete with vague descriptions that justify a sharp reduction in allowed time. The Court reviewed those examples and did not find them vague when considered alongside the adjacent time entries, and therefore will not exclude them. Leopold objected to several time entries that it characterized as duplicative. The Court agreed with Mr. McDonough that meetings between attorneys to discuss a case's status and litigation strategy are not duplicative. They are a necessary and ordinary part of the practice of law. The Court agreed with Leopold regarding out of town travel. Under normal circumstances, a party that hires counsel from outside the forum of the litigation may not be compensated for travel time, travel costs, or the costs of local counsel. The Court excluded the 11 hours that Mr. Cader billed and the 4.2 hours that Mr. Sanders billed for travel time. SLG's lodestar was reduced by $8,230. After making all of the aforementioned reductions, and using the hourly rates that the Court determined to be reasonable market rates for the services provided, the Court calculated SLG's final lodestar to be $714,363. The Court considered whether to adjust it up or down based on a variety of factors. The most critical factor is the degree of success obtained. Leopold argued that the Court should exclude time Mr. McDonough spent litigating the issues of venue and class certification, as he was unsuccessful on both fronts. With regard to venue, the Court will not adjust the lodestar downwards. Leopold was the party that decided to litigate the issue of venue, not Mr. McDonough, and while Leopold was successful in transferring the case to this District, Mr. McDonough was ultimately successful in this case nonetheless. Mr. McDonough's failure to certify a class, however, does warrant a downward adjustment of the lodestar. From the outset of this case, Mr. McDonough sought to represent a class of similarly situated individuals. His failure to achieve class certification is a significant aspect of the case on which he was unsuccessful and is a proper basis to adjust SLG's lodestar downwards. The Court found that a 35% reduction of SLG's lodestar is warranted in light of Mr. McDonough's lack of success on his class claims. Applying this reduction to the previously calculated lodestar of $714,363, the Court will award SLG $464,335.95 in attorneys' fees. SLG sought an award of costs in the amount of $5,350.09. However, SLG sought $3,094.13 in travel/hotel costs for travel to Pittsburgh. Leopold correctly argued that those costs are non-compensable in this case. The Court deducted SLG's travel costs, and awarded SLG $2,255.96 in costs. For the foregoing reasons, Mr. McDonough's Motion for Costs and Attorneys' Fees was granted in part. Mr. McDonough was awarded $464,335.95 in attorneys' fees and $2,255.96 in costs. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CCpduu from PacerMonitor.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Fassina Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANICE FASSINA, STEVEN EDELEN, KENNETH BLACK, CRAIG DOBBS, and NANCY DOBBS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, LM INSURANCE CORPORATION, and LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-11466-DJC (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting them leave to file under seal documents in compliance with the parties' Agreed Confidentiality and Protective Order. The Plaintiffs accordingly move to file the Proposed Sealed Materials under seal because they summarize, discuss, and contain information that the Defendants have designated "Highly Confidential–Attorneys' Eyes Only" and/or "Confidential" under the governing Protective Order that was entered by this Court on October 4, 2024 If the Court grants the foregoing Motion, the Plaintiffs will comply with the method of submission that the Court instructs. The following are the proposed sealed documents: Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposed Motion for Class Certification, Appointment of Class Representatives and Appointment of Class Counsel; Declaration of T. Joseph Snodgrass in Support of Plaintiffs’ Reply To Their Opposed Motion for Class Certification, Appointment of Class Representatives and Appointment of Class Counsel; and Exhibit J - excerpts of the transcript from the deposition of Toby Johnson, taken in Cortinas v. Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Co. on January 9, 2025. The Plaintiffs request that the filings remain under seal until the Court orders otherwise. Liberty offers home, farm, mobile, seasonal property, renters, personal umbrella, business owners, commercial insurance, and more. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MfRCkJ 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 LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Oct. 27 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT HUBBLE, v. LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-11173-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Thomas L. Ludington entered an order granting stipulation to extend dates and deadlines: Expert Disclosures, Defendant Served By: Sept. 30, 2025 Class Certification Motion Filed By: Oct. 27, 2025 Class Certification Motion Response Filed By: Dec. 29, 2025 Class Certification Motion Reply Filed By: Jan. 20, 2026 Discovery Motions Filed By: Feb. 24, 2026 Discovery Cutoff: March 30, 2026 Motions Challenging Experts Filed By: May 28, 2026 This is not a final order and does not close this case. LoanDepot is a nonbank holding company which sells mortgage and non-mortgage lending products. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1GWVT0 at no extra charge.[CC] LOS ANGELES, CA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Pimentel Due Oct. 22 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jesus Pimentel et al., v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. 2:14-cv-01371-FMO-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiffs shall file a motion for class certification no later than Oct. 22, 2025, and noticed for hearing regularly under the Local Rules. Any untimely or non-conforming motion will be denied. The motion for class certification shall comply with the requirements set forth in the Court's Order Re: Motions for Class Certification issued contemporaneously with the filing of this Order. 2. The case will be tried as a bench trial, with no bifurcation. 3. The court will set dates and deadlines for trial, the pretrial conference, and the parties' pretrial filings after resolution of the motion for class certification. Los Angeles is a sprawling Southern California city and the center of the nation's film and television industry. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dVPqgO at no extra charge.[CC] LUCAS COUNTY: Upperco Seeks More Time to Filer Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER UPPERCO, et al., v. LUCAS COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, et al, Case No. 3:23-cv-01283-JRK (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadlines for class certification briefing as follow: The Plaintiffs' motion: Nov. 14, 2025 The Defendant's opposition: Dec. 15, 2025 The Plaintiffs' reply: Dec. 22, 2025 The requested extension will not affect other deadlines including the close of liability discovery, which is currently scheduled to end on Dec. 31, 2025. The Plaintiffs' counsel waited to file this motion with the hope that the remaining deposition dates would be finalized first, but as of now the best assessment is that Defendants' remaining 30(b)(6) designees will be scheduled by the end of October. Additionally, the Plaintiffs' counsel has identified discovery disputes about which the parties will need to meet and confer with the hope they can be resolved without the court's assistance following Defense counsel's return from vacation. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hE6HM5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Heidi R. Burakiewicz, Esq. BURAKIEWICZ & DEPRIEST, PLLC 1015 15th Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 856-7500 E-mail: hburakiewicz@bdlawdc.com - and - Nancy Grim, Esq. NANCY GRIM, LLC Kent, OH 44240-0002 Telephone: (330) 678-6595 Facsimile: (844) 270-7608 E-mail: nancy.grim@nancygrimlaw.net The Defendants are represented by: Dennis A. Lyle, Esq. Elaine B. Szuch, Esq. LUCAS COUNTY 711 Adams Street Toledo, OH 43604 Telephone: (419) 213-2001 Facsimile: (419) 213-2011 E-mail: dalyle@co.lucas.oh.us eszuch@co.lucas.oh.us - and - Katherine S. Decker, Esq. Joseph S. Simpson, Esq. Rebecca E. Shope, Esq. SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP 1000 Jackson Street Toledo, OH 43604 Telephone: (419) 241-9000 Facsimile: (419) 241-6894 E-mail: kdecker@shumaker.com jsimpson@shumaker.com rshope@shumaker.com MAISON SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Securities Suits ------------------------------------------------------ Maison Solutions Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the putative securities class action lawsuits pending in a New York state court and a California district court. "On January 2, 2024, the Company and our executive officers and directors, as well as Joseph Stone Capital LLC, and AC Sunshine Securities LLC, the underwriters in the Company's initial public offering were named in a class action complaint filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (Ilsan Kim v. Maison Solutions Inc., et. al, Index No. 150024/2024). As relief, the plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, compensatory damages. On or about April 17, 2024, the parties agreed to stay the action in favor of the Rick Green matter. "On January 4, 2024, the Defendants were named in a class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, as well as violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Rick Green and Evgenia Nikitina v. Maison Solutions Inc., et. al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00063). As relief, the plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, compensatory damages. "The Company and Defendants believe the allegations in both complaints are without merit and intend to defend each suit vigorously. It is reasonably possible that a loss may be incurred; however, the possible range of losses is not reasonably estimable given the pending status of the cases," the Company stated. MARION COUNTY, OR: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Sawyer Due Dec. 11 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sawyer, et al., v. Marion County, et al., Case No. (Court), the Hon. Judge Karin J. Immergut entered an order as follows: -- The deadline to file motions to compel fact discovery is now October 20, 2025. -- The deadline to amend pleadings or join parties is November 10, 2025. -- Fact discovery is to be completed by November 10, 2025. -- Initial expert disclosures are due by December 11, 2025. -- Rebuttal expert disclosures are due by January 12, 2026. -- The deadline to file a class certification motion is December 11, 2025. -- The deadline to respond is January 12, 2026. -- Any reply in support of the class certification motion is due February 10, 2026. -- The last date to file any motion to compel expert discovery is January 19, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act involving Constitutionality of State Statutes. Marion is in the heart of the Willamette Valley, with the Willamette River as its western boundary and the Cascade Range on the east.[CC] MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL MERRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-06664-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: (a) approving both the modifications and extensions to the discovery and class certification deadlines; and (b) modifying the case schedule accordingly. The parties are working cooperatively in discovery and stipulate to adjustments to the case schedule to account for expert discovery related to class certification issues and to avoid conflicts during the holidays. The parties have stipulated to the proposed deadlines below, subject to the Court’s approval, which seek a modest, approximately month-long extension of the class certification and discovery cutoff deadlines to avoid major deadlines in December and permit time for the parties’ expert discovery plan: Deadline Proposed date The Plaintiff's motion for class certification: Jan. 14, 2026 The Defendant's opposition to motion for class Feb. 18, 2026 Certification: The Plaintiff's reply to opposition to motion Mar. 18, 2026 for class certification: Hearing on motion for class certification: April 8, 2026 Discovery cutoff: May 21, 2026 Good cause supports the requested modification to the case schedule. Marriott owns over 30 hotel and timeshare brands. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4XXoup at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Chumahan B. Bowen, Esq. Jennifer M. Leinbach, Esq. Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq. Jesse S. Chen, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 660 S. Figueroa St., Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago.coelho@wilshirelawfirm.com chumahan.bowen@wilshirelawfirm.com jennifer.leinbach@wilshirelawfirm.com jesenia.martinez@wilshirelawfirm.com jesse.chen@wilshirelawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Alex Terepka, Esq. WATSTEIN TEREPKA LLP 515 South Flower Street, 19th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (404) 782-9821 E-mail: alex@wtlaw.com META PLATFORMS: Bid to Remove Incorrectly Filed Docs OK'd --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doe v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-03580-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to remove incorrectly filed documents. The documents filed at ECF No. 1152-31 (Exhibit 17 to the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class) and ECF No. 1153-23 (Exhibit 84 to the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class) contain information that was designated confidential by Meta and was not properly redacted. The Plaintiffs moved to seal the confidential portions of these documents at ECF No. 1154 and filed sealed, unredacted versions of both documents. The Plaintiffs have promptly notified this Court's Civil Case Docket Correction email address and the ECF Help Desk of this error. The Plaintiffs understand that the ECF Help Desk has temporarily restricted public access to ECF Nos. 1152-31 and 1153-23. The Plaintiffs will file corrected versions of these documents shortly, and move the Court to remove the incorrectly filed documents permanently. Meta is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CvnuDk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason 'Jay' Barnes, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC 112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 784-6400 Facsimile: (212) 213-5949 E-mail: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com - and - Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq. KIESEL LAW LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 854-4444 Facsimile: (310) 854-0812 E-mail: koncius@kiesel.law - and - Geoffrey Graber, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: ggraber@cohenmilstein.com - and - Beth E. Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com - and - Andre M. Mura, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: amm@classlawgroup.com META PLATFORMS: Plaintiff Seeks to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doe v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (RE META PIXEL HEALTHCARE LITIGATION), Case No. 3:22-cv-03580-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification filed under seal. Meta is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vLidIv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason 'Jay' Barnes, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC 112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 784-6400 Facsimile: (212) 213-5949 E-mail: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com - and - Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq. KIESEL LAW LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 854-4444 Facsimile: (310) 854-0812 E-mail: koncius@kiesel.law - and - Geoffrey Graber, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: ggraber@cohenmilstein.com - and - Beth E. Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com - and - Andre M. Mura, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: amm@classlawgroup.com META PLATFORMS: Plaintiff Seeks to File Docs Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doe v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (RE META PIXEL HEALTHCARE LITIGATION), Case No. 3:22-cv-03580-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for consideration of whether the Defendant's materials should be sealed, in connection with the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the accompanying documents. The Plaintiffs seek provisional sealing of the following documents that were designated as confidential by the Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc.: Document Portion(s) to Seal The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification Entire document Exhibit 1 to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Entire document Certification – Supplemental Expert Report of Richard Smith Exhibit 2 to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Entire document Certification – Expert Report of Dr. Atif Hashmi Exhibit 3 to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Entire document Certification – Expert Report of Dr. Zubair Shafiq Exhibit 4 to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Highlighted Certification – Expert Report of Glenn Cohen portion at Appendix B Meta is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ni2MCQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason 'Jay' Barnes, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC 112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 784-6400 Facsimile: (212) 213-5949 E-mail: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com - and - Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq. KIESEL LAW LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 854-4444 Facsimile: (310) 854-0812 E-mail: koncius@kiesel.law - and - Geoffrey Graber, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: ggraber@cohenmilstein.com - and - Beth E. Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com - and - Andre M. Mura, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: amm@classlawgroup.com MID COAST: Wells Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Registered Nurses ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHRIS WELLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MID COAST HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-04387 (S.D. Tex., September 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Wells worked for the Defendant as an Emergency Room Registered Nurse in Palacios Community Medical Center located in Edna, Texas. Mid Coast Health System is a rural hospital providing medical services across Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl A. Fitz, Esq. FITZ LAW PLLC 3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 766-4000 Email: carl@fitz.legal MIDLAND FUNDING: Court Dismisses Filgueiras Class Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Filgueiras, v. Midland Funding, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-03037-ES-JSA (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Esther Salas entered an order adopting Magistrate Judge Allen's unopposed report and recommendation in full as the opinion of this Court. The Court further entered an order that: -- The Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; -- The Defendants' request for sanctions is denied; and -- The Clerk of Court shall mark this matter closed. On Aug. 22, 2025, after the conclusion of briefing on the Order to Show Cause, Magistrate Judge Allen issued a report and recommendation, wherein Judge Allen recommended that the Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Magistrate Judge Allen also recommended that the Defendants' request for sanctions be denied. To date, no party has filed any objections to Magistrate Judge Allen's R&R. On May 26, 2016, the Plaintiff initiated this action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated against the Defendants alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act ("FDCPA"). On April 28, 2024, the Court denied the Plaintiff's motion for class certification without prejudice. Midland is a debt buyer and debt collection company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I7dk18 at no extra charge.[CC] MILLENNIUM FUNDING: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 10, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN BACHHUBER, v. MILLENNIUM FUNDING SOURCE, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00423-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Anita Marie Boor entered a preliminary pretrial conference order as follows: 1. Amendments to the pleadings: Nov. 3, 2025 2. Class Certification Deadlines: These are the deadlines for plaintiffs to seek certification of a Rule 23 class. March 10, 2026: Motions for class certification, proponent experts April 21, 2026: Opposition to class certification, respondent experts, Daubert motions on proponent experts May 12, 2026: Replies in support of class certification, response to Daubert motions on proponent experts, Daubert motions on respondent experts. 3. Disclosure of experts: Plaintiffs/Proponents: March 10, 2026 Defendants/Respondents: April 21, 2026 4. Discovery Cutoff: Dec. 16, 2026 5. Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures and all motions in limine: Jan. 6, 2027 Objections: Jan. 27, 2027 6. Trial: March 1, 2027, at 9:00 a.m. Millennium is an online bank network, specializing in assisting small businesses. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1frCrp at no extra charge.[CC] MISSISSIPPI: Appeals Preliminary Injunction Order in Jackson Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- LYNN FITCH, in her official capacity as Attorney General of Mississippi, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (TRO) in the lawsuit entitled Mississippi Association of Educators, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00417, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. This case is brought by students, parents, educators, and organizations that collectively represent the interests of those whose constitutional rights are violated by a law, known as House Bill (HB) 1193 of the 2025 legislative session. They seek declaratory relief and injunctive relief to prevent the enforcement of several provisions of HB 1193. On June 18, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction and TRO, which Judge Henry T. Wingate granted on Aug. 18, 2025. The Court finds HB 1193 at odds with the First Amendment (as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment) and the public interest of this State, and that its enforcement will cause irreparable injury to the named Plaintiffs and the Classes they represent. As such, class-wide and statewide, the Court hereby grants the challengers' request for, and so orders, a preliminary injunction, by which the Defendants are enjoined from enforcing select sections of HB 1193, pending the final resolution of this matter. The appellate case is entitled Jackson Fed of Tchr v. Fitch, Case No. 25-60496, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on September 17, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees JACKSON FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Mohammed Amir Badat, Esq. BADAT LEGAL, PLLC P.O. Box 15 Tougaloo, MS 39174 Telephone: (601) 462-9592 - and - Robert Bruce McDuff, Esq. 767 N. Congress Street Jackson, MS 39202 Telephone: (601) 259-8484 - and - Joshua Tom, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION P.O. Box 2242 Jackson, MS 39225 Telephone: (601) 354-3408 - and - Paloma Wu, Esq. MISSISSIPPI CENTER FOR JUSTICE 210 E. Capitol Street Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 352-2269 Defendants-Appellants LYNN FITCH, in her official capacity as Attorney General of Mississippi, et al. are represented by: Rex Morris Shannon, III, Esq. MISSISSIPPI ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE 550 High Street P.O. Box 220 Jackson, MS 39205 Telephone: (601) 359-3680 MONGODB INC: Faces Consumer Suit in California Court ---------------------------------------------------- MongoDB, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q the quarterly period ended July 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 28, 2025, that it is facing a putative class action lawsuit seeking unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and other unspecified relief. On July 9, 2024, case captioned "Baxter v. MongoDB, Inc., et al.," was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against MongoDB, CEO Dev Ittycheria, and CFO Michael Gordon. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, and alleges that defendants made material misstatements and/or omissions, including regarding MongoDB's sales strategy and its financial results. The complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired MongoDB common stock between August 31, 2023 and May 30, 2024. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 9, 2025. Plaintiffs filed an opposition brief on July 1, 2025, and defendants filed their reply brief on July 29, 2025. MongoDB, Inc. is a developer data platform company that enables developers to build and modernize applications rapidly and cost-effectively across a broad range of use cases. It also provides post-contract support, training and consulting services for its offerings. MOSS POINT, MS: Removes Overby Suit to S.D. Miss. ------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of MIKE AND SANDRA OVERBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CITY OF MOSS POINT; AND THE MOSS POINT CHIEF OF POLICE, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from County Court of Jackson County, Mississippi (Case No. CO-2025-21,397) to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi on Sept. 16, 2025. The clerk of court for the Southern District of Mississippi assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00281-LG-RPM. The case is assigned to Judge Louis Guirola and referred to Judge Robert P. Myers. Moss Point is a city in Jackson County, Mississippi, United States. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: John A. Banahan, Esq. Jillian S. Vice, Esq. BRYAN, NELSON, SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN, PLLC 1103 Jackson Avenue (39567) Post Office Drawer 1529 Pascagoula, MS 39568-1529 Telephone: (228)762-6631 Facsimile: (228)769-6392 Email: john@bnscb.com jillian@bnscb.com MOST LOVED: Underpays Sales Representatives, Lopez Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- THALIA LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOST LOVED, INC., OVIANCA, INC., LYDIA KOH, DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV26989 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., September 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California's Public Policy, California Labor Code, and California's Business and Professions Code including constructive discharge, failure to provide and/or allow meal period breaks, failure to allow rest breaks, failure to pay all wages due including minimum wage, failure to pay sick leave, waiting time penalties, failure to furnish accurate wage and hour statements, conversion, fraudulent concealment, quantum meruit/unjust enrichment, unfair business practices, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a sales representative and manager from in or about 2018 through on or about August 8, 2025. Most Loved, Inc. is a company that operates a retail/wholesale business in California. Ovianca, Inc. is a company that operates a retail/wholesale business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian I. Vogel. Esq. VOGEL LAW APC 572 E. Green Street. Suite 305 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 796-7470 Email: vogellawfirm@gmail.com MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 11 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lynch, et al., v. Multnomah County, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01502 (D. Or., Filed Oct. 12, 2023), the Hon. Judge Karin J. Immergut entered an order as follows: -- The deadline to file motions to compel fact discovery is now October 20, 2025. -- The deadline to amend pleadings or join parties is November 10, 2025. -- Fact discovery is to be completed by November 10, 2025. -- Initial expert disclosures are due by December 11, 2025. -- Rebuttal expert disclosures are due by January 12, 2026. -- The deadline to file a class certification motion is December 11, 2025. -- The deadline to respond is January 12, 2026. -- Any reply in support of the class certification motion is due February 10, 2026. -- The last date to file any motion to compel expert discovery is January 19, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act involving Constitutionality of State Statutes. Multnomah is one of the 36 counties in the U.S. state of Oregon.[CC] MUNCH ADDICT: Licea Sues Over Improper Business Practices --------------------------------------------------------- LUIS LICEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MUNCH ADDICT LLC d/b/a WWW.MUNCHADDICT.COM, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-08742 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 15, 2025) alleges violation of the California's Automatic Renewal Law. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to provide "clear and conspicuous" disclosures mandated by California law, and 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. The Plaintiff and Class members have suffered injury in fact and have lost money as a result of the Defendant's deceptive, unfair, and unlawful conduct. Munch Addict LLC d/b/a www.munchaddict.com offers popular snacks, chips, candy, cookies, and biscuits. [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 MY TECHNOLOGY: Faces Hurst Class Suit Over Illegal Online Casino ---------------------------------------------------------------- AMY HURST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MY TECHNOLOGY, INC., d/b/a MyPrize.US, Case No. 3:25-cv-00734 (M.D. Ala., Sept. 12, 2025) arises out of the Defendant's operation of an illegal online casino in violation of Alabama law. In My Prize, users can access and play thousands of popular casino games, including, inter alia, 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 Chance Games, are undoubtedly, games of chance. The Chance Games that are offered on the website are gambling, and are no different than if they were played in a Las Vegas casino. Their outcomes are determined primarily, if not exclusively, by randomization -- rendering them indistinguishable from the game found in traditional, brick-and-mortar casinos. According to the complaint, the trick is My Prize markets itself as a "social casino," which is simply a title to mislead regulators and consumers into believe 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, asserts the suit. 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. The Defendant owns and operates one of the most popular and profitable casino and sweepstakes gaming websites on the planet called MyPrize.US, available at https://www.myprize.us.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David L. Selby, II, Esq. Matthew J. Ford, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 3000 Riverchase Galleria, Suite 905 Birmingham, Alabama 35244 Telephone: (205) 988-9253 Facsimile: (205) 733-4896 E-mail: dselby@baileyglasser.com mford@baileyglasser.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Edwin E. Elliott, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: edwine@shamisgentile.com MY. GAMES: Johann Files Suit in S.D. California ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MY. GAMES B.V. The case is styled as James Johann, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MY. GAMES B.V., Case No. 3:25-cv-02447-BEN-JLB (S.D. Cal., Sept. 18, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. MY.GAMES -- https://my.games/ -- is a leading European gaming company based in Amsterdam, with over a billion registered users worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com NAPCO SECURITY: Faces Zornberg Securities Suit in EDNY ------------------------------------------------------ NAPCO Security Technologies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 25, 2025, that on August 29, 2023, a purported class action, brought on behalf of a putative class who acquired publicly traded NAPCO securities between November 7, 2022 and August 18, 2023, was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the company, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer. The action, captioned "Zornberg v. Napco Security Technologies, Inc. et al.," asserts securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with statements made in the Company’s quarterly reports and earnings releases during the period of November 7, 2022 through May 8, 2023. A lead plaintiff was appointed in November 2023 and an amended complaint was filed on February 16, 2024. The company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on April 26, 2024. On April 11, 2025, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The Section 11 and Section 12 claims brought against the individual defendants were dismissed; the remaining claims survived the motion to dismiss. On May 12, 2025, defendants filed Answers to the Amended Complaint. Napco Security Technologies, Inc. is a manufacturer and designer of high-tech electronic security devices, cellular communication services for intrusion and fire alarm systems as well as a leading provider of school safety solutions. NATERA INC: Ram Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Rajeev Ram, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. NATERA, INC.; BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.; BBSI STAFFING SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 25-CIV-06020 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Sept. 22, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-08060. In this Complaint, Plaintiff alleges nine class-wide causes of action against Defendants: Minimum Wages; Unpaid Overtime; Meal Break Violation; Rest Break Violation; Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; Wage Statement Violations; Untimely Final Wages; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses; in Violations of Cal. Labor Codes and Violations of Cal. Business & Professions Codes.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alden J. Parker, Esq. Elizabeth C. Lobaugh, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 621 Capitol Mall, Suite 2400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 210-0400 Facsimile: (916) 210-0401 Email: aparker@fisherphillips.com elobaugh@fisherphillips.com NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Palazzo Appeals Suit's Summary Judgment Order ------------------------------------------------------------------ CATHERINE PALAZZO, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting Defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC's motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Ricardo Salom, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00444-BJR, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The Plaintiffs filed this complaint against the Defendants for alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the broader, analog state laws of Washington and Maryland, by collecting "pay-to-pay" fees to borrowers who seek to obtain payoff statements for their loans. On Apr. 14, 2025, Defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC filed a motion for summary judgment, which Judge Barbara J. Rothstein granted on Aug. 22, 2025. Accordingly, the Court finds that it is legally permissible for Nationstar to charge a reasonable fee for the expedited delivery of a payoff statement upon request, such as the fees at issue in this case. The appellate case is entitled Palazzo, et al. v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, et al., Case No. 25-5887, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on September 18, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on September 23, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on October 28, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on November 28, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants CATHERINE PALAZZO, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Christina Latta Henry, Esq. DEVLIN LAW FIRM, LLC 6100 219th Street, SW Suite 480, PMB 398 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 - and - Phillip Robinson, Esq. CONSUMER LAW CENTER, LLC 1220 Blair Mill Road, Suite 1105 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Defendants-Appellees NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, et al. are represented by: Justin Donald Balser, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE, LLP 100 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1500 Irvine, CA 92618 - and - Thomas N. Abbott, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP 100 SW Main Street, Suite 1000 Portland, OR 97204 - and - Emily J. Harris, Esq. CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE LLP 1001 4th Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, WA 98154 - and - John Lynch, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE, LLP 222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 2000 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 - and - Allison Schoenthal, Esq. Robin Muir, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP 620 8th Avenue New York, NY 10018 - and - Brian W. Esler, Esq. Lane Conrad, Esq. Jesus Miguel Palomares, Esq. MILLER NASH, LLP 605 5th Avenue S., Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 NAVY FEDERAL: Stephenson Seeks to Clarify Deadline Inconsistency ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY STEPHENSON and BILLY SMITH II, individually, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 3:23-cv-01851-WQH-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order to clarify an inconsistency in one of the deadlines in the Court's order granting motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and provisional class certification. Specifically, the proposed Order submitted by the Plaintiffs with their preliminary approval motion and the Court's Order contained inconsistent deadlines "for Class Counsel to file any supplemental papers in support of Final Approval of the Settlement, including a response to any objections filed by Settlement Class Members, if any." The Plaintiffs ask that the Court issue an Amended Order adopting the deadline in Paragraph 22 of the Order, which is consistent with the Settlement Agreement terms and will allow sufficient time for the Plaintiffs to prepare the supplemental briefing, including with respect to the conclusion of the claims process and to address objections, if any. The Plaintiffs have submitted a proposed Amended Order with this Motion. The only change from the Order entered by the Court is to correct the deadline in the Deadlines Summary to 14 days before the Final Approval Hearing. Navy is the largest natural member (or retail) credit union in the United States, both in asset size and in membership. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lcUEb4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park E #1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: Scott@edelsberglaw.com Adam@edelsberglaw.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Sophia G. Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgold@kalielgold.com - and - Edwin E. Elliot, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: edwine@shamisgentile.com NBC HOMES LLC: Knoche Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NBC Homes, LLC. The case is styled as Norman Knoche, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NBC Homes, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00835 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 19, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. N.B.C. Properties, LLC was founded in 2008. The company's line of business includes the leasing of properties such as airport, and offices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA: Golden Appeals VPPA Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ SHERHONDA GOLDEN is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Sherhonda Golden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-9858, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendant over alleged violation of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) by disclosing its digital subscribers' identities and video media to Facebook without proper consent. On Jan. 27, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the class action complaint. On Feb. 17, 2023, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss on Mar. 10, 2023. On Sept. 7, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On Sept. 14, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss on Sept. 21, 2023. On Sept. 11, 2024, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's third amended complaint. The Court held that the third amended complaint does not state a claim that the Plaintiff was a "subscriber," and therefore a "consumer," under the VPPA. Accordingly, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the VPPA claim. On May 9, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss on June 5, 2025. On Sept. 3, 2025, Judge Engelmayer granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's fourth amended complaint with prejudice. Accordingly, the case is closed. The appellate case is captioned Golden v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC, Case No. 25-2226, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on September 16, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant SHERHONDA GOLDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Michael L. Murphy, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 NDN COLLECTIVE: Retsel Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 8th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- RETSEL CORPORATION, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Retsel Corporation, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NDN Collective, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-05070-KES, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. On Feb. 17, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Mar. 3, 2025. On July 1, 2025, Judge Lawrence L. Piersol granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' claims against the Defendants are dismissed without prejudice. The appellate case is entitled Retsel Corporation, et al. v. NDN Collective, et al., Case No. 25-2820, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on September 16, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants RETSEL CORPORATION, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Paul J. Andrews, Esq. ANDREWS LAW OFFICE 528 Kanasas City Street, Suite 5 Rapid City, SD 57701 Telephone: (605) 718-4001 - and - Andrew M. Green, Esq. John Mark Pierce, Esq. JOHN PIERCE LAW 3rd Floor, OMB 172 21550 Oxnard Street Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (516) 474-4278 (213) 400-0725 Defendants-Appellees NDN COLLECTIVE, et al. are represented by: Timothy W. Billion, Esq. Brendan V. Johnson, Esq. Thad Andrew Titze, Esq. ROBINS & KAPLAN 150 E. Fourth Place, Suite 704 Sioux Falls, SD 57104 Telephone: (605) 335-1300 NEW YORK JEWELERS: Hampton Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- PHYLLIS HAMPTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. New York Jewelers, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-10946 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 11, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, Nyjchicago.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Nyjchicago.com provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the ADA. Yet, Nyjchicago.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website, says the suit. The Defendant controls and operates Nyjchicago.com in the State of Illinois and throughout the United States. Nyjchicago.com is a commercial website that offers products and services for online sale. The online store allows the user to view jewelry and accessories, make purchases, and perform a variety of other functions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law NEW YORK, NY: Faces Ahmed Class Action Suit Over Unlawful Arrest ---------------------------------------------------------------- ZUHDI AHMED v. CITY OF NEW YORK, MAYOR ERIC ADAMS, DETECTIVE ADRIAN JOHNSON (Shield No. 2413), SGT DET MATTHEW I. FROMKIN (Shield No. 3071), FIRE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK (FDNY), CRAIG GUNDERSON, and JONATHAN LEDERER, Case No. 1:25-cv-07582 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 11, 2025) addresses the systemic failure of the New York City Police Department (NYPD) and the City of New York to protect the rights of Plaintiff, a Muslim, Arab man of Palestinian descent, and others similarly situated, to be free from religious, racial, ethnic, and political discrimination. According to the complaint, while this systemic failure can manifest in various ways, here it was manifested in the arrest and prosecution of Plaintiff without probable cause, and in the deliberate targeting of Plaintiff because of his Palestinian identity and participation in a peaceful protest. In particular, by ignoring objective exculpatory evidence, relying instead on fabricated accusations, and publicly parading Plaintiff in handcuffs before the press to inflame anti-Palestinian sentiment, the individually named NYPD defendants (NYPD Officers) unlawfully subjected Plaintiff to discriminatory treatment, humiliation, and the deprivation of his constitutional rights, including those guaranteed by the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the suit says. By deliberately disregarding the objective evidence that no assault or injury had occurred -- including surveillance footage, eyewitness testimony, and police body-cam footage documenting that the complaining witness's alleged 'injuries' were uncertain, possibly pre-existing, and unrelated to Plaintiff—Defendant NYPD Officers acted without probable cause to arrest, charge, or prosecute Plaintiff. These actions were not isolated mistakes but rather the foreseeable and natural result of policies, practices, and customs of the City of New York. Specifically, the City, through the NYPD and with the approval and acquiescence of policymakers including the Mayor, has maintained a pattern of targeting individuals of Palestinian descent and those engaged in pro-Palestinian advocacy through the misuse of facial recognition technology, reliance on unsubstantiated accusations, and the public "perp-walking" of suspects to inflame media coverage. These unconstitutional practices are coupled with the City's failure to train, supervise, or discipline officers who engage in discriminatory enforcement, as well as its tacit encouragement of retaliatory actions against individuals exercising their First Amendment rights of speech, assembly, and religion. By fostering, condoning, and ratifying such conduct, the City of New York and its policymakers caused and perpetuated the violations of Plaintiff's rights, subjecting him to unlawful arrest, malicious prosecution, defamation, reputational and economic harm, and severe emotional distress, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff is a 21 year old Muslim, Arab man of Palestinian descent, who is a United States citizen. The Defendant is a municipal entity within New York State that maintains, manages and operates NYPD as one of its municipal departments. The Mayor of the City of New York appoints the Commissioner of the NYPD.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karl J. Ashanti, Esq. MUSA-OBREGON LAW, P.C. 55-21 69th Street, 2nd Floor Maspeth, NY 11378 Telephone: (718) 803-1000 E-mail: K.ashanti@musa-obregon.com NEW YORK, NY: Seeks Extension of Fact Discovery Completion ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Z.Q. et al., v. New York City Department of Education et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-09866-JAV-RFT (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting a three-week extension for the completion of fact discovery from Sept. 15, 2025, to Oct. 6, 2025, and revisions to the schedule for expert discovery and class certification: The parties agreed to the following revised schedule, including for expert discovery and class certification: Event Deadline Fact discovery deadline Oct. 6, 2025 The Plaintiffs' expert report: Oct. 27, 2025 The Defendants' expert report: Dec. 5, 2025 Expert depositions to be completed: The Plaintiffs' class certification motion: Feb. 5, 2026 The Defendants' opposition to class Mar. 27, 2026 Certification: The Plaintiffs' reply ISO class Apr. 17, 2026 certification: New York City Department of Education manages the city's public school system. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Sept 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bgfnvl at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey S. Dantowitz, Esq. THE CITY OF NEW YORK LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-0876 E-mail: jdantowi@law.nyc.gov NEW YORK, NY: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lewis et al., v. The New York City Department of Correction et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-08428-LAK (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending their time to oppose the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification from Sept. 12, 2025 to Oct. 27, 2025. The Defendants make this request in light of multiple considerations. As an initial matter, the undersigned notes that Bryn Ritchie, the primary attorney defending this case, is currently in the process of transferring to another Division within the Law Department. Moreover, the undersigned's availability to prepare Defendants’ opposition to the class motion has been substantially impacted by preparing oppositions to multiple motions for preliminary injunctive relief brought over the last several weeks in unrelated matters against a separate City agency. This is the Defendants' second request for an extension of time to respond to the Plaintiffs' class certification motion. The first such request was granted by the Court on Aug. 1, 2025. The Defendant provides for the care and custody of people ordered to be held by the courts and awaiting trial or who are convicted and sentenced to one year or less of jail time. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Sept 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XPyegc at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Eric Teszler, Esq. THE CITY OF NEW YORK LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-1652 NEW YORK: Dunn Suit Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES DUNN, LACQUAN BERKLEY, LUIS GARCIA, DEJOUR NESMITH, GILBERT CARRION, TYRELL ESCOBAR, SAMUEL DENIS, JOSE CORNEJO and DEVIN HOYT; individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, COMMISSIONER DANIEL F. MARTUSCELLO III, in his official capacity, SUPERINTENDENT BENNIE THORPE, in his official capacity, NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF MENTAL HEALTH, COMMISSIONER ANN MARIE T. SULLIVAN, in her official capacity, RMHU UNIT CHIEF VINCENT LORUSSO, in his official capacity, Governor KATHY HOCHUL, in her official capacity, and THE STATE OF NEW YORK,Case No. 9:25-cv-01242-MAD-DJS (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel. The Department of Corrections and Community Supervision is responsible for the confinement and rehabilitation of approximately 52,000 inmates held at sixty-two correctional facilities throughout the State A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0P5mhG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Megan Drum, Esq. Molly Paris, Esq. Jessica Richwalder, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS NEW YORK 279 Troy Road, Ste 9 Rensselaer, NY 12144 Telephone: (518) 432-7861 - and - Andrew Stecker, Esq. Hallie Mitnick, Esq. Marina Jerry, Esq. Sara Jensen, Esq. PRISONERS LEGAL SERVICES 41 State Street, Ste M112 Albany, NY 12207 Telephone: (5180 438-8046 NEW YORK: R.M. Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as R.M. et al., v. New York State Office of Mental Health et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-06667-AKH (S.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time and setting a global schedule for the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint, the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, and the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The parties jointly propose that the deadline for the Defendants to file their motion be extended to Oct. 20, 2025 (45 days after service of the Complaint). The parties also propose that the Plaintiffs file their opposition to the motion on or before Dec. 4, 2025 (45 days after service of the motion), and that the Defendants file their reply on or before Dec. 18, 2025 (14 days after the opposition). On Aug. 12, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their Complaint. They assert claims related to psychiatric competency restoration services. The Plaintiffs are criminal defendants in New York City who have been accused of felony crimes and found not fit to stand trial due a psychiatric condition. New York State Office of Mental Health promotes the mental health and well-being of all New Yorkers. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LXsU6G at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elena Landriscina, Esq. Shona Hemmady, Esq. Philip Desgranges, Esq. THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY 49 Thomas Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 577-3398 - and - Alexis Karteron, Esq. WASHINGTON SQUARE LEGAL SERVICES CIVIL RIGHTS IN THE CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM CLINIC 245 Sullivan Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10012 Telephone: (212) 998-6430 - and - James P. Rouhandeh, Esq. James I. McClammy, Esq. Diane O. Lucas, Esq. Chui-Lai Cheung, Esq. Marie Killmond, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 450-4000 The Defendant is represented by: Caroline P. Wallitt, Esq. Haley Hawkins, Esq. Owen T. Conroy, Esq. OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL Telephone: (212) 416-6228 E-mail: Caroline.Wallitt@ag.ny.gov NEWELL BRANDS: Ortiz Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Juan Ortiz, as an individual and on behalf of all other similarly situated Class Members v. NEWELL BRANDS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; NEWELL BRANDS DISTRIBUTION LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; JOBANDTALENT HIRINGS LLC, a Georgia Limited Liability Company; LGS EMPLOYEE SOLUTIONS, LP, a Georgia Limited Partnership; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. CIVVS2502284 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Sept. 19, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-02483. On April 17, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint against LGL and other defendants which set forth the following eight causes of action: recovery of unpaid minimum wages and liquidated damages; recovery of unpaid overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; failure to provide rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof; failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; failure to timely pay all wages due upon separation of employment; failure to reimburse business expenses; and unfair competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Eric J. Gitig, Esq. 725 South Figueroa Street Suite 2800 JACKSON LEWIS P.C. Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Phone: 213 630-8219 Facsimile: 213 520-2400 Email: eric.gitig@jacksonlewis.com - and - Mayra Hernandez, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 3390 University Avenue, Suite 110 Riverside, CA 92501 Phone: 951 848-7940 Facsimile: 951 848-0009 Email: Mayra.hernandez@jacksonlewis.com NIKOLA CORP: Mersho Appeals Court Order in Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE MERSHO, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled In Re: Nikola Corporation, Case No. 25-10258, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs filed this complaint against the Defendant for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The appellate case is captioned In Re: Nikola Corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-01144-UNA, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, filed on September 15, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants GEORGE MERSHO, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Joseph Charles Barsalona, II, Esq. 824 North Market Street, Suite 820 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 592-6496 Email: jbarsalona@pashmanstein.com Defendant-Appellee NIKOLA CORPORATION is represented by: M. Blake Cleary, Esq. Brett Michael Haywood, Esq. Maria Kotsiras, Esq. Sarah R. Gladieux, Esq. Shannon Forshay, Esq. POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP 1313 N. Market Street, 6th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 984-6000 (302) 984-6109 (302) 984-6083 Email: bcleary@potteranderson.com bhaywood@potteranderson.com mkotsiras@potteranderson.com sgladieux@potteranderson.com sforshay@potteranderson.com NORTHEAST ILLINOIS: Fails to Maintain Train Platform, Bolden Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DUANE BOLDEN v. NORTHEAST ILLINOIS REGIONAL COMMUTER RAILROAD CORPORATION D/B/A METRA, AND AMTRAK, Case No. 1:25-cv-11004 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 11, 2025) is a class action suit brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, alleging that the Defendant failed to properly maintain the train platform such that it was wet and dangerous to Plaintiff and others similarly situated such that Plaintiff was caused to fall and be injured. On September 12, 2024, the Plaintiff was on the premises of 225 South Canal Street, a/k/a Chicago Union Station, in the City of Chicago, in order to board a METRA train. The Plaintiff contends that while walking alongside the train on the platform, he slipped on a liquid substance and fell, sustaining serious personal injuries. Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered great pain and anguish, both in mind and body, and will in the future, continue to suffer. The Plaintiff further expended and became liable for, and will expend and become liable for, large sums of money for medical care and services endeavoring to become healed and cured of said injuries, asserts the suit. AMTRAK owns, operates, manages, and maintains the premises.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell B. Friedman, Esq. MITCH FRIEDMAN INJURY LAW 941 Skokie Ridge Drive Glencoe, IL 60022 Telephone: (773) 294-4235 E-mail: Mitch@MF-IL.com NUTS ON CLARK: Bahena Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Bahena, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Nuts on Clark, Inc. Case No. 1:25-cv-11306 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 18, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through https://nutsonclark.com (hereinafter "Nutsonclark.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Nutsonclark.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Nuts on Clark provides to the public a website known as Nutsonclark.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including the ability to view a variety of snacks, such as popcorn with diverse flavors, almonds, cashews, pecans, chocolate-covered nuts, and chocolates.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 Email: chan@ealg.law NVIDIA CORP: $2.5MM Class Settlement in Tobias Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRISTINA TOBIAS, ANTHONY BRIGGS, ANN MACDONALD and DAVID CALDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NVIDIA CORPORATION, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF NVIDIA CORPORATION, THE NVIDIA CORPORATION 401(K) PLAN BENEFITS COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 4:20-cv-06081-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement, preliminarily certifying class for settlement purposes, approving form and manner of class notice, and scheduling a date for a final approval hearing. 1. The Court conditionally certifies the following class ("Settlement Class"): "All persons, except Defendants and their immediate family members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan who participated in the Plan, at any time between Aug. 28, 2014, through the date of the Preliminary Approval Order." 2. The Court appoints the Plaintiffs Cristina Tobias, Anthony Briggs, Ann MacDonald and David Calder as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class, and Capozzi Adler, P.C. as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. 3. The Settlement Agreement is preliminarily approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate. a) The amount of the Settlement ($2,500,000) is fair, reasonable, and adequate, taking into account the costs, risks, and delay of litigation, trial, and appeal. 4. A hearing by Zoom videoconference is scheduled for Dec. 18, 2025. The action involves claims for alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), with respect to the NVIDIA Corporation 401(k) Plan. Nvidia develops graphics processing units (GPUs) and other high-performance computing hardware and software. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p549sl at no extra charge.[CC] NVIDIA CORP: Supreme Court Tosses Writ of Certiorari ---------------------------------------------------- NVIDIA Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report he quarterly period ended July 27, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 28, 2025, that after briefing and argument, the Supreme Court dismissed NVIDIA's writ of certiorari as improvidently granted on December 11, 2024, and issued judgment on January 13, 2025. On February 20, 2025, the Ninth Circuit's judgment, entered August 25, 2023 and corrected August 28, 2023, took effect, and the case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. A putative securities class action lawsuit (4:18-cv-07669-HSG) was initially filed on December 21, 2018 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and titled "In re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation." An amended complaint was filed on May 13, 2020. The amended complaint asserted that NVIDIA and certain NVIDIA executives violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false or misleading statements related to channel inventory and the impact of cryptocurrency mining on graphics processing unit demand between May 10, 2017 and November 14, 2018. Plaintiffs also alleged that the NVIDIA executives who they named as defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiffs sought class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees, and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. NVIDIA filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on March 4, 2024 which the Supreme Court approved on June 17, 2024. Four amicus briefs were filed in support of NVIDIA's petition. On March 2, 2021, the district court granted NVIDIA's motion to dismiss the complaint without leave to amend, entered judgment in favor of NVIDIA and closed the case. On March 30, 2021, plaintiffs filed an appeal from judgment in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, case number 21-15604. On August 25, 2023, a majority of a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's dismissal of the case, with a third judge dissenting on the basis that the district court did not err in dismissing the case. On November 15, 2023, the Ninth Circuit denied NVIDIA's petition for rehearing en banc of the Ninth Circuit panel's majority decision to reverse in part the dismissal of the case, which NVIDIA had filed on October 10, 2023. On November 21, 2023, NVIDIA filed a motion with the Ninth Circuit for a stay of the mandate pending NVIDIA's petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court's resolution of the matter. On December 5, 2023, the Ninth Circuit granted NVIDIA's motion to stay the mandate. NVIDIA is a full-stack computing company with data-center-scale offerings for "compute & networking" and graphics. OMEGAPRO FOREX: UIC Bid for Default Judgment Tossed --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as UNITED INVESTOR COMMUNITY INC., et. al., v. OMEGAPRO FOREX TRADING LTD., et. al., Case No. 1:24-cv-23359-KMW (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Williams entered an order as follows: 1. Judge D'Angelo's report is affirmed and adopted. 2. The Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment is denied. Specifically, the Report identifies several issues with Plaintiffs' request for default judgment: -- Plaintiffs failed to follow the two-step procedure for a default judgment; -- Plaintiffs have not demonstrated proper service of process on all defaulting defendants -- Plaintiffs have not identified a sufficient basis for a default judgment; and -- Plaintiffs' request for a class-wide default judgment is not legally permissible because class certification is a pre- requisite to class-wide relief. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hCirsh at no extra charge.[CC] PASENTI CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carlos Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS CARLOS CACERES; GERARDO URGILES LEON; JULIO CESAR CAMBISACA ARCENTALES; and JOFFRE PACA TELENCHANO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PASENTI CONSTRUCTION INC. (D/B/A PASENTI CONSTRUCTION); PASENTI CONCRETE INC. (D/B/A PASENTI CONCRETE); PASENTI INC. (D/B/A PASENTI CONSTRUCTION); PASENTI DEVELOPMENT CORP. (D/B/A PASENTI DEVELOPMENT); MARTIN PARENTI; and LOUIS PASCIUTO, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05148 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 12, 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. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as laborers. Pasenti Construction Inc. owns, operates, and controls Construction companies located at Warwick, New York, under the name Pasenti Construction. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 PERDUE FARMS: Bid for Class Certification Closed in Jien Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jien, et al., v. Perdue Farms, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02521 (D. Md., Filed Aug. 30, 2019), the Hon. Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher entered an order administratively closing the Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification, subject to reopening. The nature of suit states Antitrust Litigation (Monopolizing Trade). Perdue is a provider of quality chicken, food gifts, pork, lamb and other great meats.[CC] PERDUE FARMS: Class Cert Reply Briefs in Jien Extended to Oct. 13 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUDY JIEN, et al., v. PERDUE FARMS, INC., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02521-SAG (d. Md.), the Hon. Judge Stephanie Gallagher entered an order extending time for the Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for class certification. Event Deadline The Plaintiffs file reply briefs on class Oct. 13, 2025 certification and class certification expert reports: On May 28, 2024, the Court entered the parties' proposed interim scheduling order No. 4. On Oct. 28, 2024, the Court entered the parties' proposed interim scheduling order No. 6, which granted the Plaintiffs and Agri Stats an additional extension of the class certification schedule to pursue settlement discussions. Perdue is a provider of quality chicken, food gifts, pork, lamb and other great meats. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yeXTTI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shana E. Scarlett, Esq. Rio S. Pierce, Esq. Steven W. Berman, Esq. Breanna Van Engelen, Esq. Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq. Abigail D. Pershing, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com riop@hbsslaw.com steve@hbsslaw.com breannav@hbsslaw.com elaine@hbsslaw.com abigailp@hbsslaw.com - and - Brent W. Johnson, Esq. Benjamin D. Brown, Esq. Daniel H. Silverman, Esq. Alison S. Deich, Esq. Zachary R. Glubiak, Esq. Zachary Krowitz, Esq. Sabrina S. Merold, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue NW, 5th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com bbrown@cohenmilstein.com dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com adeich@cohenmilstein.com zglubiak@cohenmilstein.com zkrowitz@cohenmilstein.com smerold@cohenmilstein.com - and - George F. Farah, Esq. Rebecca P. Chang, Esq. Nicholas J. Jackson, Esq. Matthew K. Handley, Esq. Rachel E. Nadas, Esq. William H. Anderson, Esq. Simon Wiener, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 33 Irving Place New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 477-8090 E-mail: gfarah@hfajustice.com rchang@hfajustice.com njackson@hfajustice.com mhandley@hfajustice.com rnadas@hfajustice.com wanderson@hfajustice.com swiener@hfajustice.com - and - Brian D. Clark, Esq. Arielle S. Wagner, Esq. Eura Chang, Esq. Stephen J. Teti, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: bdclark@locklaw.com aswagner@locklaw.com echang@locklaw.com sjteti@locklaw.com - and - Candice J. Enders, Esq. Julia R. McGrath, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market St., Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215)-875-4604 E-mail: cenders@bm.net jmcgrath@bm.net The Defendants are represented by: Justin W. Bernick, Esq. William L. Monts III, Esq. Steven F. Barley, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-1109 Telephone: (202) 637-5910 Facsimile: (202) 637-5911 E-mail: justin.bernick@hoganlovells.com william.monts@hoganlovells.com steve.barley@hoganlovells.com PHARMACARE US: Sunderland Bid for Class Cert Partly OK'd -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA SUNDERLAND and BENJAMIN BINDER, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. PHARMACARE U.S., INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-01318-JES-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Simmons Jr. entered an order: -- granting in part and denying in part the motion for class certification; -- denying motion to exclude testimony of J. Michael Dennis and Colin Weir; and -- granting the Plaintiffs motion to file documents under seal. Only the New York class is certified. Certification of the proposed California class is denied because those claims are barred. The Plaintiffs seek to certify two classes: (1) a California class of: "all persons in California who, before March 31, 2023, purchased the Products for personal or household use and not for resale;" and (2) a New York class of: "all persons in New York who, before March 31, 2023, purchased the Products for personal or household use and not for resale." The Court certified two California classes that included the following individuals: "All persons who, from Jan. 21, 2017 to March 29, 2024, while in California, purchased the Defendant's Sambucol Black Elderberry Original Syrup, Sambucol Black Elderberry Advanced Immune Syrup, Sambucol Black Elderberry Sugar Free Syrup, Sambucol Black Elderberry Syrup for Kids, Sambucol Black Elderberry Gummies, Sambucol Black Elderberry Gummies for Kids, Sambucol Black Elderberry Advanced Immune Capsules, Sambucol Black Elderberry Effervescent Tablets, Sambucol Black Elderberry Chewable Tablets, Sambucol Black Elderberry Pastilles (Throat Lozenges), Sambucol Black Elderberry Daily Immune Drink Powder, and Sambucol Black Elderberry Infant Drops for personal or household use and not for resale." Pharmacare specializes in the distribution of prescription medications and medical supplies. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Rciyya at no extra charge.[CC] PHH MORTGAGE: Bids for Summary Judgment & Class Cert Due Nov. 12 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNTWANETTE JONES and LUCINDA ALLARD, individually, and on behalf of a class similarly situated persons, v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION D/B/A PHH MORTGAGE SERVICES, Case No. 1:23-cv-01040-CPO-SAK (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Christine P. O'Hearn, entered an order that the Briefing Schedule set forth in the Stipulation is adopted by the Court and the parties shall brief the Motions for Summary Judgment and for Class Certification as follows: The parties shall file their Motions for summary judgment and for class certification on or before Nov. 12, 2025; The parties shall file their opposition to motions for summary judgment and for class certification on or before Dec. 19, 2025; and The parties shall file any replies in further support of the motions for summary judgment and for class certification on or before Jan. 16, 2026. PHH provides mortgage financing solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ebCD41 at no extra charge.[CC] PLEX INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Ramirez Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- DAVID RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PLEX, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-07884 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 16, 2025) seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the injuries inflicted on the Plaintiff and at least tens of thousands of others due to Defendant's egregiously inadequate data security, which resulted in the private information of Plaintiff and those similarly situated to be exposed to unauthorized third parties. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to impose and maintain reasonable and appropriate data security controls to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII from unauthorized access that Defendant should have anticipated and guarded against. The Defendant was fully aware of its obligation to protect the PII of its customers because of its collection, storage, and maintenance of PII. Defendant was also aware of the significant consequences that would ensue if it failed to do so because Defendant collected, stored, and maintained sensitive private information from millions of individuals and knew that this information, if hacked, would result in injury to Plaintiff and Class Members. As a direct and proximate result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered actual and present injuries, says the suit. Plex, Inc. operates as an entertainment and media streaming company. The Company provides a streaming media platform where users can enjoy free movies and TV shows. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael F. Ram, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 711 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (628) 267-1537 Facsimile: (415) 358-6923 Email: Mram@forthepeople.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Facsimile: (813) 222-4736 Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com POLLY KAISER: Plaintiffs Win Bid for TRO to Preserve Status Quo --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEX RIVERA GIORGES and SOKHA KHAN, v. POLLY KAISER, in her official capacity, Acting San Francisco Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; TODD M. LYONS, in his official capacity, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; KRISTI NOEM, in her official Capacity, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and PAMELA BONDI, in her official capacity, Attorney General of the United States, Case No. 5:25-cv-07683-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina Thompson entered an order granting Petitioners-Plaintiffs' ex parte motion for temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo pending further briefing and a hearing on this matter. Respondents are enjoined and restrained from re-detaining Petitioners-Plaintiffs Alex Rivera Giorges and Sokha Khan without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker that Petitioners-Plaintiffs' detention is legally justified, and from removing them from the United States. This Order shall remain in effect until September 23, 2025 at 5 p.m. The Petition, Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, and this Order SHALL be served on Respondents such that they receive actual notice as soon as practicable, and Petitioners Plaintiffs shall file proof of such service by no later than September 12, 2025 at 5 p.m. Accordingly, the Court finds that the three factors relevant under the Mathews v. Eldrige test, "the private interest that will be affected by the official action," "the risk of an erroneous deprivation and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards," and "the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail," weigh in favor of Petitioners-Plaintiffs being given notice and a pre-detention hearing before a neutral decisionmaker prior to being taken back into custody. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Xbmz91 at no extra charge.[CC] PORT WASHINGTON: Court Orders Discovery in "Khan" Wage & Hour Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Akleema Khan, Plaintiff, v. Port Washington Hospitality LLC d/b/a Nino's Beach, Nino AQ LLC d/b/a Nino's AQ, 46th Street Hospitality, Inc. d/b/a Nino's 46, Fillas Restaurant Group, LLC, Vendome Hospitality Group, LLC, EVP Hospitality, Inc., Franco Vendome, Michael Vendome, Gennaro Vendome, Christopher Fillas, Elias Fillas, and Efthimios Papanastasopoulous, Defendants, Case No. 24-CV-1064(JMA)(SIL), United States Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a collective action but granted her motion for class discovery in this wage and hour action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The Court issued its Memorandum and Order on September 17, 2025. Defendant Port Washington Hospitality LLC is a limited liability company that owns and operates three restaurants in New York City and on Long Island: (1) Nino's Beach in Port Washington, New York; (2) Nino's AQ in Queens, New York; and (3) Nino's 46 in Manhattan, New York. Plaintiff alleged that the restaurants operated as a single integrated enterprise as they share common ownership, interrelation of operations, centralized control of labor relations, and common management. From approximately April 2022 until March 2023, Plaintiff worked as a bartender and server at Nino's Beach, while also occasionally working at Nino's AQ as needed. Khan alleged that Defendants committed various wage and hour violations under both the FLSA and NYLL, including failure to compensate for the state-mandated spread of hours premium, failure to provide a wage notice and wage statements, failure to provide meal credits, and various illegal tip practices. She asserted these claims on behalf of herself and, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, sought to represent a class that includes all non-exempt employees (including but not limited to servers, bussers, food runners, bartenders, barbacks, line cooks, cooks, chefs, porters, hosts, among others) employed by Defendants on or after the date that is six years before the filing of the Complaint in this case. The Court found that Plaintiff's allegations in the Complaint and in her Declaration were insufficient to demonstrate that Plaintiff and the potential members of the collective were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law sufficient to conditionally certify a collective action. Plaintiff stated that Defendants paid her $10.00 for regular hours and $17.50 for overtime hours, and that other employees were also paid at similar rates based on the conversations she had with them, although she did not state the exact rate of other employees' rates of pay. Khan described her schedule and number of hours worked, but did not provide credible information for other employees other than vaguely asserting that they also worked off the clock above and beyond their scheduled shifts but were not paid for their time. Plaintiff further asserted that she primarily worked at Nino's Beach but also worked at Nino's AQ, on an as needed basis. Defendants regularly transferred other employees and managers across the different Restaurants on an as needed basis, depending on how busy the Restaurants were. Khan asserted that, based on her work experience, personal observations, and conversations with her co-workers, she knew that all employees were treated the same and were not paid all of their proper wages. She did not offer a single specific substantive fact concerning another employee who was allegedly treated similarly to her. The Court noted that of the nine individuals with whom Plaintiff claimed she spoke regarding Defendants' pay practices, she provided the last name of only one. While the Court acknowledged that the fact that Plaintiff identified potential class members only by first name and did not identify an entire opt-in class was not fatal to her motion for conditional certification, Plaintiff's failure to credibly establish commonality between herself and other putative members of the collective rendered conditional certification inappropriate. The Court explained that although the standard for conditional certification of a collective action is minimal, it is not automatic. Ultimately, Plaintiff failed to plausibly establish that other members of the proposed collective were similarly situated to her. Accordingly, Khan's motion for conditional certification was denied without prejudice. Despite denying conditional certification, the Court found that discovery related to conditional certification of a collective, as well as class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, was appropriate. Plaintiff sought a list of all Covered Employees in Excel format who were employed by Defendants at any point in the six years prior to the filing of the Complaint with the following information: names, titles, compensation rates, last known mailing address, email address, all known telephone numbers and dates of employment. Defendants did not plausibly refute that discovery regarding alleged members of the proposed collective was appropriate. The Court noted that when conditional certification is denied, the court may allow discovery to provide plaintiffs a second opportunity to obtain sufficient evidence of a collective to warrant conditional certification and the notice to opt in. Although Plaintiff failed to establish that conditional certification was presently appropriate, the Court did not conclude that certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 216(b) was impossible. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion seeking discovery related to conditional certification of a collective action was granted. Plaintiff was instructed to serve discovery requests consistent with the Order to obtain identifying information of potential members of the proposed collective by September 30, 2025. Moreover, Plaintiff was also entitled to discovery related to her putative Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 class action, most of which would satisfy both motions. The Court explained that discovery related to a class action is appropriate even before the class has been certified. As the analysis for class certification is more rigorous, pre-certification discovery is often necessary in order to provide the court with sufficient information to determine whether certification is appropriate in light of the requirements set out in Rule 23. Accordingly, Plaintiff was granted leave to seek the names and contact information of prospective Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 class members to the extent stated above. Regarding the deposition of a corporate representative, Plaintiff asserted that Port Washington Hospitality LLC failed to provide the identity of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) representative and offer potential dates to conduct the deposition of the corporate representative. The Court noted that Plaintiff was entitled to depose a corporate representative of Port Washington Hospitality LLC. While the Court presumed that the parties resolved this issue considering the September 30, 2025 deadline to complete discovery at the time the motion was filed, the Court deferred ruling on this portion of Plaintiff's motion and stated it would re-address the status of the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition at the upcoming October 21, 2025 status conference with the expectation that it had been completed. Regarding ESI, Plaintiff objected to Defendants' refusal to agree to an ESI protocol. Khan asserted that Port Washington Hospitality LLC objected and refused to provide any ESI at all. In response, Port Washington Hospitality LLC stated that it conducted a thorough review of its systems and devices and produced over a hundred responsive documents. Port Washington Hospitality LLC further represented that it would supplement its production should additional responsive documents become known, but denied that it was under an obligation to enter into an ESI search protocol. Considering Defendant's discovery obligations arising under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, as well as Port Washington Hospitality LLC's representation that it produced, and would continue to produce as necessary, responsive documents, the motion was denied without prejudice and with leave to renew in the event there were legitimate bases to question the adequacy of Defendants' document production. Finally, in her most recent motion, Khan sought to compel the completion of depositions by September 17, 2025. She further sought to extend the deadline to complete discovery by 90 days. Defendants did not substantively oppose the motion to compel insofar as Plaintiff sought depositions, nor did they oppose a reasonable extension of the discovery deadline to allow for completion of outstanding discovery and coordination of depositions. Defendants asserted that depositions had been scheduled for November. The Court granted Plaintiff's motion insofar as an updated deadline to complete discovery, including interim dates and deadlines, would be addressed at the October 21, 2025 conference. For the reasons set forth, Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a collective action was granted in part and denied in part, in that certification was denied without prejudice, but that discovery relevant to the subject matter must be produced. Plaintiff's motion for discovery related to a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 class action was granted. The remaining discovery issues, including whether a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) deposition was still necessary, whether disagreements regarding ESI issues remained, and the deadline to complete depositions would be addressed at a status conference scheduled for October 21, 2025 at 10:45 a.m. in Courtroom 820 of the Central Islip courthouse. The September 30, 2025 deadline to complete discovery would be reset at this conference, but the parties were encouraged to proceed with the discovery contemplated by these rulings. The parties were further instructed to submit a joint letter outlining any outstanding discovery issues for the Court to consider at this conference by October 17, 2025. This case involves both a proposed FLSA collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and a proposed class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The motion for conditional certification of the FLSA collective action was denied without prejudice. The Plaintiff may seek conditional certification again after obtaining discovery. The Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 class action has not yet been certified, but the Plaintiff was granted leave to seek the names and contact information of prospective Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class members to the extent stated above. Any remaining disputes regarding putative class members or corresponding pay records will be addressed at the October 21, 2025 status conference. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bwPst from PacerMonitor.com PORTMEIRION GROUP: Cole Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- MORGAN COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Portmeirion Group Designs, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-10952 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 11, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, Portmeirion.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Portmeirion.com provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the ADA. Yet, Portmeirion.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website, says the suit. Portmeirion.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Portmeirion Group Designs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: achan@ealg.law PREMERA BLUE: Appeals Summary Judgment Order in Suit to 9th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- PREMERA BLUE CROSS is taking an appeal from court orders in the lawsuit entitled L.B., et al., on behalf of their minor child and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Premera Blue Cross, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00953-TSZ, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs allege that Premera's categorical exclusion of mastectomies for transgender youth constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex and age in violation of Title IX and the Age Discrimination Act ("AgeDA"). On July 22, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on Premera's liability for discrimination based on sex. On Oct. 14, 2024, the Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. On Apr. 18, 2025, Judge Thomas S. Zilly granted the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. On Aug. 14, 2025, judgment is entered in favor of the Plaintiffs and against Premera as to Claim 1 in the amount of $27,752.00. Judgment is entered in favor of Premera and against the Plaintiffs as to the Plaintiffs' second claim. The appellate case is entitled L.B., et al. v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 25-5803, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on September 15, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on September 22, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on October 27, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on November 24, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees L.B., et al., on behalf of their minor child and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, Esq. LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATION FUND, INC. 120 Wall Street, 19th Floor New York, NY 10005 - and - Sasha Buchert, Esq. LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INC. 815 16th Street NW, Suite 4140 Washington, DC 20006 - and - Eleanor Hamburger, Esq. SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC 3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350 Seattle, WA 98121 Defendant-Appellant PREMERA BLUE CROSS is represented by: Stephanie Bedard, Esq. KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON, LLP 1100 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309 - and - Gwendolyn C. Payton, Esq. KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON, LLP 1420 5th Avenue, Suite 3700 Seattle, WA 98101 PREMIUM MERCHANT: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Feb. 6, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEON WEINGRAD v. PREMIUM MERCHANT FUNDING ONE, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-06247-JP (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge John R. Padova entered an order granting the Parties Joint Motion for Extension of Time for Deadlines as follows: 1. All discovery shall proceed forthwith and continue in such manner as will assure that all requests for and responses to discovery will be served, noticed and completed by Feb. 20, 2026. 2. On or before Jan. 16, 2026, counsel for each party shall serve upon counsel for every other party the information referred to in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) by expert report, deposition, or answer to expert interrogatory. If the evidence is intended solely to contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject matter identified by another party, counsel shall serve the information on counsel for every other party on or before Jan. 30, 2026. 3. Motion for Class Certification shall be filed no later than Feb. 6, 2026. Responses are due no later than Feb. 28, 2026. 4. All parties shall prepare and file with the Clerk of Court their pretrial memoranda in accordance with this Order and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 16.1, as follows: Plaintiff - on or before April 15, 2026. Defendant - on or before April 22, 2026. All motions in limine shall be filed on or before April 22, 2026. Responses thereto are due on or before April 29, 2026. 5. A final pretrial conference for this matter will be held on May 6, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. in chambers (Room 17613). Premium provides merchant cash advances and business loans to small business owners. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=92kCR1 at no extra charge.[CC] PRESTIGE INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs Seek Conditional Cert of Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JIMMY RODRIGUEZ, individually, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. PRESTIGE INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE GROUP, INC., a Florida Corporation, d/b/a PRESTIGE TRUCKING INSURANCE, INC., and CHRISTINA L. DOWNS, individually, Case No. 0:25-cv-61572-EA (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- conditionally certifying as a collective action, and -- facilitating notice, on a nationwide basis, to: "similarly situated employees and advising them of their statutory right to file a consent to opt-in and to become a party-plaintiff. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated to the Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per week every week (and typically 65 to 70). Prestige allegedly violated the FLSA's maximum hours (overtime compensation) provisions in that the Plaintiff, and other current and former inside sales agents, performed hours of service for Prestige, in excess of forty (40) hours, during one or more workweeks, for which Prestige failed to pay any overtime premiums. Prestige is an Insurance company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wkjf6C at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel R. Levine, Esq. Robin I. Frank, Esq. PADULA BENNARDO LEVINE, LLP 3837 NW Boca Raton Blvd., Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 544-8900 E-mail: DRL@PBL-Law.com RIF@PBL-Law.com PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN: Kostelny Suit Removed to M.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Julianne Kostelny and Alexander Quinones, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY and PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. MRS-L-903-25 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Orange County, Florida, to the United States District Court for Middle District of Florida on Sept. 19, 2025, and assigned Case No. 6:25-cv-01818. The putative class action challenges whether Progressive is required, under its filed and approved Florida auto insurance policy, to pay sales tax and certain fees as part of the "actual cash value" when an insured's vehicle is a "total loss."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher M. Hudon, Esq. Alex R. Couch, Esq. Amy L. Judkins, Esq. Edmund A. Normand, Esq. NORMAND PLLC 3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175 Orlando, FL 32803 Email: cmh@normandpllc.com arc@normandpllc.com alj@normandpllc.com ed@normandpllc.com The Defendants are represented by: Marcy Levine Aldrich, Esq. Bryan T. West, Esq. AKERMAN LLP Three Brickell City Centre 98 Southeast Seventh Street Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 305-374-5600 Fax: 305-374-5095 Email: marcy.aldrich@akerman.com bryan.west@akerman.com PROSPER FUNDING LLC: Park Files Suit in N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prosper Funding LLC, et al. The case is styled as Travis Park, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Prosper Funding LLC, Prosper Marketplace, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-07977 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 19, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Prosper -- https://www.prosper.com/ -- enables individuals to apply for personal loans, open credit cards, or invest in consumer credit through a marketplace model.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Dr. Beverly Hills, CA 92102 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: jnelson@milberg.com PROTECTIVE ASSET: Vaccaro Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Dave Vaccaro, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PROTECTIVE ASSET PROTECTION, INC., and DOES 1-100, and EACH OF THEM, Case No. 25STCV23970 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Sept. 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-08918. The Plaintiff asserts one cause of action: invasion of privacy in violation of California Penal Code. The Plaintiff alleges PAP illegally recorded inbound cellular telephone calls made by Plaintiff and the Putative Class without their consent, thereby invading their privacy. Based on this claim, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, statutory damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Charles K. Chineduh, Esq. MAYNARD NEXSEN LLP 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310.596.4500 Email: Charles.Chineduh@maynardnexsen.com PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Matthews Seeks to Continue Class Cert Filing ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIM MATTHEWS, as an individual and as Administrator of the Estate of Hedwig Nosek, Deceased, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 8:24-cv-00497-JVS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order continuing deadline to file class certification motion. The action was filed by the Plaintiffs on March 7, 2024, against Prudential as a putative class action. A First Amended Complaint was filed on July 1, 2024, followed by a Second Amended Complaint on Sept. 5, 2024. The causes of action include: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, (3) Fraudulent Inducement, (4) Fraud, and (5) Unfair Business Practices. On Oct. 3, 2024, Prudential filed a Motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint and strike class allegations. Prudential operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kGSgFA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq. George B. Singer, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590-5550 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net gsinger@mahoney-law.net R.R. DONNELLEY: Conditional Class Cert. Filing Due Feb. 25, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENJAMIN HOPPE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, Case No. 1:25-cv-00839-BBC (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Byron B. Conway entered an order adopting the Parties' Joint Rule 26(f) Conference Report. Accordingly, the parties shall comply with the following schedule and procedures. 1. Initial disclosures are to be exchanged between the parties no later than Oct. 9, 2025. 2. Amendments to the pleadings may be filed without leave of court on or before Oct. 9, 2025. 3. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, primary expert witness disclosures are due on or before March 18, 2026, and rebuttal expert witness disclosures are due on or before April 29, 2026. 4. All fact discovery and expert discovery in this case are to be completed no later than Jan. 27, 2027. 5. The Plaintiff will file a motion for conditional certification under the FLSA on or before Feb. 25, 2026. 6. Final certification, class certification, and decertification motions are due by Aug. 19, 2026. 7. Boilerplate objections to discovery requests are not to be used. 8. Motions for summary judgment must comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and Civil L.R. 7 and shall be served and filed on or before Feb. 26, 2027. RR is a provider of integrated marketing, packaging, print, and supply chain services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SKE8df at no extra charge.[CC] R1 RCM: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due March 24, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Locke v. R1 RCM, INC., et al., Case No. 6:23-cv-01904 (D. Or., Filed Dec. 18, 2023), the Hon. Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai entered an order granting unopposed motion for extension of Discovery & PTO Deadlines: -- Class Certification Discovery is to be completed by Nov. 7, 2025. -- Class Certification Exchange of Expert Witness Disclosures must be completed by Dec. 5, 2025. -- Class Certification Exchange of Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosures must be completed by Jan. 9, 2026. -- Class Certification Expert Discovery to be completed by Feb. 11, 2026. -- Motion for Class Certification/Motion to Deny Class Certification to be filed by March 24, 2026. -- Class Certification Motion Responses are due by April 22, 2026. -- Class Certification Motion Replies are due by May 20, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). R1 is an American 'revenue cycle management' company.[CC] REEF LIFESTYLE: Dalton Seeks Equal Web Access for Blind Users ------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Reef Lifestyle, LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-03641 (D. Minn., Sept. 12, 2025) contends that Defendant's Website www.reef.com is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations as well as asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found the Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users full and equal access to important Website content -- content the Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users, the suit says. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in the Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota pursuant to Minn. Stat. The Defendant offers footwear and apparel for sale including, but not limited to, sandals, shoes, shirts, jackets, hoodies, shorts, and dresses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com RICE DRILLING: Clover Case Stayed Pending Resolution of Kemp Matter ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLOVER RIDGE HOLDINGS, LLC, et al., v. RICE DRILLING D, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-04137-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to stay. The case is stayed pending the resolution of the Kemp matter. Accordingly, the Defendants' pending motion to dismiss is denied as moot. Upon the lifting of the stay, the Defendants may renew their motion to dismiss, incorporating any relevant updates or developments as appropriate. The case arises from certain oil and gas leases entered into by Plaintiffs, or their predecessors, giving Defendants the right to develop certain subsurface formations, reserving the remainder of the formations to Plaintiffs. In 2023, this Court denied class certification in a case where Plaintiffs were putative class members with the same clause at issue in the oil and gas leases here. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9bwUv4 at no extra charge.[CC] ROHRMAN MIDWEST MOTORS: Rabbitt Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rohrman Midwest Motors, Inc. The case is styled as Devin Rabbitt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rohrman Midwest Motors, Inc. doing business as: Arlington Acura, Case No. 1:25-cv-11312 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 18, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Rohrman Midwest Motors, Inc. doing business as Arlington Acura -- https://www.arlingtonacura.com/ -- offers a variety of Acura services, from routine maintenance to extensive repairs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com ROKU INC: E.A.R.R. Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as E.A.R.R. & E.A.R., by and through their Guardian LYNETTE GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. ROKU, INC., Case No. CIVVS2505433 was removed from the Superior Court of the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Sept. 19, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-02474. The Plaintiffs allege claims against Roku under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"), and California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"). The Plaintiffs allege that Roku violated ECPA by intercepting Plaintiffs' electronic communications without authorization or consent and that Roku is secondarily liable for third parties' interception of users' electronic communications from Roku's platform.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Victor Jih, Esq. Kelly H. Yin, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C. 1900 Avenue of The Stars, 28th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (424) 446-6900 Facsimile: (866) 974-7329 Email: vjih@wsgr.com kyin@wsgr.com - and - Dylan G. Savage, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C. 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10019-6022 Phone: (212) 999-5800 Facsimile: (866) 974-7329 Email: dsavage@wsgr.com SALESFORCE INC: Faces Morton Suit Over Unauthorized Access of Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ DANIEL R. MORTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SALESFORCE, INC., and TRANSUNION, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-07791 (N.D. Cal., September 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, 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 their network systems following a data breach discovered on or about July 30, 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. Salesforce, Inc. is a software company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. TransUnion, LLC is a credit reporting agency, with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen R. Basser, Esq. Samuel M. Ward, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE One America Plaza 600 W. Broadway, #900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 Email: sbasser@barrack.com sward@barrack.com - and - Andrew J. Heo, Esq. 2001 Market Street, Suite #3300 Philadelphia, PA 19146 Telephone: (215) 963-0600 Email: aheo@barrack.com SAMUEL ALLAN: Schlich Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Schlich v. Samuel Allan, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-05121-NJC-LGD (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to certify class of inmates. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=toTi46 at no extra charge. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC] SEAWORLD PARKS: Class Settlement in Coppel Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FERNANDO COPPEL et al., individually and as a representative of a Class of Participants and Beneficiaries on behalf of the SWBG, LLC, 401(K) PLAN, f/k/a "SEAWORLD PARKS AND ENTERTAINMENT 401(K) PLAN," v. SEAWORLD PARKS & ENTERTAINMENT, INC. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-01430-RSH-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Robert S. Huie entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement: 1. The Court affirms the following certified settlement class and subclasses: "All participants in or beneficiaries of the SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment 401(K) PLAN, and the SWBG, LLC 401(K) PLAN from Aug. 10, 2015, through Sept. 10, 2025, excluding the Defendants and members of the Defendant Boards and Committees." i. The MassMutual Subclass: "All class members who participated in the Plan while MassMutual was the Plan's recordkeeper." ii. The Prudential Subclass: "All class members who participated in the Plan while Prudential was the Plan's recordkeeper." iii. The Injunctive Relief Subclass: "All class members who currently participate in the Plan." 2. The Court awards attorneys' fees to Class Counsel in the amount of $375,000. 3. The Court awards the payment of costs to Class Counsel in the amount of $273,540. 4. The Court approves an incentive award to Plaintiffs Fernando Coppel, Pablo Martinez, Tyler Mitchell, Judith Uriostegui, and Elizabeth Usselman in the amount of $5,000 each. 5. The Court approves settlement administration costs in the amount of $74,500; Recordkeeper costs in the amount of $1,500; and the costs for the evaluation of the settlement by an independent fiduciary in the amount of $17,500. On Aug. 9, 2021, the Plaintiffs, former employees of SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment, Inc., filed the instant action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), on behalf of the SWBG, LLC 401(K) Plan ("the Plan"), a defined contribution 401(k) retirement savings plan offered by SeaWorld. SeaWorld is an American theme park chain. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cQrsfK at no extra charge.[CC] SECURITAS SECURITY: Greco Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Perry Greco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC., a foreign profit corporation, and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown entities, Case No. 25-2-23853-9 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, in and for the County of King, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Sept. 19, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01820. The Complaint sets forth once cause of action – Violation of Washington's Non-Compete Statute, RCW 49.62.070.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. Hannah M. Hamley, Esq. Paige V. Gagliardi, Esq. EMERY REDDY PLLC 600 Stewart St., Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206.442.9106 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com hannah@emeryreddy.com paige@emeryreddy.com The Defendants are represented by: Derek A. Bishop, Esq. Elena M. Gutbrod, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101.3122 Phone: 206.623.3300 Facsimile: 206.447.6965 Email: debishop@littler.com egutbrod@littler.com SEQUOIA BENEFITS: Settlement in Data Breach Suit Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned re: Sequoia Benefits and Insurance Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 3:22-cv-08217-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement: (1) The Court provisionally certifies the following Nationwide Class for purposes of settlement only, defined as: "All persons in the United States who appear on Sequoia's list of individuals whose information was compromised in the Data Security Incident." (2) The Court provisionally certifies the following California Subclass for purposes of settlement only, defined as: "All California residents at the time of the Data Security Incident, which occurred between Sept. 22 and Oct. 6, 2022, who appear on Sequoia's list of individuals whose information was compromised in the Data Security Incident." (3) Excluded from the Classes are officers and directors of the Defendants, Class Counsel, the presiding Federal District Court Judge, and any members of that Judge's immediate family and judicial staff. (4) Kevin Mindeguia, Erin McGurk, Adam Enger, Amy Carter, Seth Jones, and Christopher Cottrell are designated and appointed as the Settlement Class Representatives. (5) David M. Berger (Gibbs Mura LLP) and Rachele R. Byrd (Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP), previously designated as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel, and M. Anderson Berry (Clayeo C. Arnold, APC) and Kaleigh N. Boyd (Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC), previously designated as the Interim Class Counsel Executive Committee, are all designated as Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). (6) A Final Approval Hearing shall take place before the Court on April 7, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. (7) Class Counsel shall submit their application for fees, costs, and expenses and the application for Service Awards by Jan. 5, 2026. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Gr7H0E at no extra charge.[CC] SHOWA HOSPITALITY: Herrera Sues Over Disability Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------------- Oscar Herrera, on behalf of others similarly situated v. SHOWA HOSPITALITY, LLC, d/b/a BISTRO 8, a foreign limited liability company, Case No. 1:25-cv-24336-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 22, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant owns, controls, maintains, and/or operates an adjunct website, https://www.bistro8miami.com (the "Website"). One of the functions of the Website is to provide the public information on the location of Defendant's physical restaurant. The Website also allows the public to make reservations to dine in the physical restaurant through a direct link to a third party reservation system, and purchase e-gift cards for use in the physical restaurant. The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with websites. However, Defendant's Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. These access barriers, one or more of which were experienced by Plaintiff, are severe and pervasive and, as confirmed by Plaintiff's expert, include the following (with reference to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines ("WCAG"), says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been a blind and visually disabled person who has been medically diagnosed with complete blindness as a result of trauma to both eyes. The Defendant is a restaurant open to the public.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rodenck V. Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. 4800 N. Hiatus Road Sunrise, FL 33351 Phone: 954/362-3800 Facsimile: 954/362-3779 Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com - and - Pelayo Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO 6355 NW. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Phone: 305/266-9780 Facsimile: 305/269-8311 Email: duranandassociates@gmail.com SHREE RAM K. INC: Foster Sues Over Accommodation Barriers --------------------------------------------------------- Leland Foster, individually, and on behalf of individuals similarly situated v. SHREE RAM, K., INC., an Ohio corporation for profit, Case No. 3:25-cv-00311-MJN-CHG (S.D. Ohio, Sept. 22, 2025), is brought against Defendant pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") due to the Defendant's place of public accommodation which contains barriers for people with disabilities. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendant's non-compliance with the ADA with respect to this property as described but not necessarily limited to the allegations contained in this complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination in violation of the ADA by the Defendant. The Plaintiff desires to visit the Defendant's place of business again on future occasions, not only to avail himself of the goods and services available at the property but to assure himself that this property is in compliance with the ADA so that he and others similarly situated will have full and equal enjoyment of the hotel and its amenities without fear of discrimination. The Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the buildings, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff qualifies as an individual with disability. Shree Ram, K., Inc. operates and owns a Days Inn Dayton Huber Heights located in Dayton, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is are represented by: Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFCIES OF OWEN B. DUNN, JR. The Offices of Unit C 6800 W. Central Ave., Suite C-1 Toledo, OH 43617 Phone: (419) 241-9661 Facsimile: (419) 241-9737 Email: obdjr@owendunnlaw.com - and - Brian A. Hizer, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN A. HIZER The Offices of Unit C 6800 W. Central Ave., Suite C-1 Toledo, OH 43617 Phone: 419-841-3600 Fax: 419-842-9966 Email: brianahizer@bex.net SIGNANT HEALTH: Seeks Dismissal of Several Claims in Morgan Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLAS MORGAN, individually and on Behalf of all similarly situated individuals, v. SIGNANT HEALTH GLOBAL LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-100; Case No. 4:25-cv-06523-KAW (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants, on Nov. 6, 2025, will move for an Order dismissing Plaintiff Nicholas Morgan's claim for unpaid commissions that is pled in the Plaintiff's second, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth counts, or, in the alternative, an Order striking the putative "Failure to Pay Commission Wages Class" allegations from the Plaintiff's first amended complaint. The Defendant brings this motion because Signant Health's Fiscal Year 2025 Incentive Compensation Plan contains a condition precedent to earning commissions—that he be actively employed on the quarterly payment date. The Plaintiff resigned in November 2024, so he did not "earn" the commissions he seeks here as unpaid wages. Moreover, this motion is proper even though the Plaintiff groups his unpaid commissions claim in the same counts as his other claims for unpaid wages arising out of his alleged misclassification. The facts he alleges for unpaid commissions do not overlap with those supporting his misclassification wage claims, and they do not entitle him to any relief. Signant offers clinical supplies, endpoint quality, and patient solutions. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Sept 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QVG0oB at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Mara D. Curtis, Esq. Andrew B. Workman, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 515 South Flower Street, Suite 4300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 457-8000 Facsimile: (213) 457-8080 E-mail: mcurtis@reedsmith.com aworkman@reedsmith.com SISKIYOU COUNTY, CA: Class Cert Bid Filing Changed to Feb. 10, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Russell Mathis, et al., v. County of Siskiyou, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01378-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order granting request to modify the pretrial scheduling order. -- Fact discovery is Dec. 15, 2025. -- Initial expert witness disclosures is Jan. 30, 2026 -- Filing any motion for class certification is Feb. 10, 2026 -- Rebuttal expert witness disclosures is Feb. 27, 2026. -- All expert discovery is March 27, 2026 -- Filing all dispositive motions is April 20, 2026 Siskiyou is a county located in the northwestern portion of the U.S. state of California. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KcjnzD at no extra charge.[CC] SKECHERS USA INC: Liss Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Stephen Liss, Boni Melchor, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Skechers USA, Inc., Case No. 25-00002-03207-34 was removed from the Thurston County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Sept. 22, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-05861-TLF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. -- https://www.skechers.com/ -- is an American multinational footwear and apparel company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Walter M. Smith, Esq. SMITH & DIETRICH LAW OFFICES PLLC 1226 State Ave. NE, Ste. 205 Olympia, WA 98506 Phone: (360) 915-6952 Email: walter@smithdietrich.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N Michigan Ave., Ste 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com The Defendant is represented by: Daniel J. Cooper, Esq. Daniel Petrocelli, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP (CA) 1999 Avenue of The Stars, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 553-6700 Email: dcooper@omm.com dpetrocelli@omm.com - and - Jeffrey A. Barker, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP (NEWPORT BEACH, CA) 610 Newport Center Drive, 17th Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 823-6900 Email: jbarker@omm.com - and - Tyler Weaver, Esq. Angelo J Calfo, Esq. ANGELI & CALFO LLC (SEA) 701 Pike St., Ste. 1625 SEATTLE, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 703-4810 Email: tylerw@angelicalfo.com angelo@angelicalfo.com SNAP INC: Black Suit Stayed Pending Settlement Documentation ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLIE BLACK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. SNAP INC., EVAN SPIEGEL, and JEREMI GORMAN, Case No. 2:21-cv-08892-GW-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge George Wu entered an order granting joint stipulation to stay action pending documentation of settlement: 1. The action is stayed and all upcoming deadlines and proceedings— including the upcoming post-mediation status conference and the Defendants' deadline to file their opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification— are suspended to allow the Parties to document the settlement; and 2. The Parties shall execute a stipulation of settlement, and the Plaintiff shall file a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement no later than Monday, Oct. 27, 2025. Snap operates as a technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UjUCEk at no extra charge.[CC] SOUTH BEACH OCEAN: Lopez Sues Over Unlawful Barriers ---------------------------------------------------- Daniel Lopez, and the others similarly situated v. SOUTH BEACH OCEAN PARCEL II, LTD. and LINGENFELSER ENTERPRISES SOUTH POINTE INC, Case No. 1:25-cv-24407-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 24, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (hereinafter, the "ADA"), and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines (hereinafter, the "ADAAG") as a result of the unlawful barriers. The Plaintiff has visited the Subject Premises and intends to return to utilize the goods, services, and accommodations offered to the public. However, he is deterred from returning while the discriminatory barriers and non-compliant policies described herein persist. The Plaintiff has been denied full and equal access to the Subject Premises, preventing him from enjoying the goods and services offered therein. These denials are caused by the physical barriers, including those outlined in this Complaint, and will continue until the barriers are removed. The Plaintiff has suffered harm and injury as a result of personally encountering barriers to access at the Subject Premises, and she will continue to suffer harm due to the Defendants' failure to address the ADA violations described herein. The Plaintiff has experienced direct and indirect injury as a result of the physical barriers and ADA violations at the Subject Premises and the Defendants' actions or inactions in remedying these violations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a double-leg amputee from above the knee, which limits his major life activities including but not limited to walking, and requires the use of a wheelchair for mobility purposes. THE LOBSTER SHACK is a seafood restaurant offering a variety of coastal-style dishes including lobster rolls, tacos, raw bar selections, fresh oysters, and rotating seafood entrees. The establishment provides a welcoming atmosphere, inviting guests to enjoy fresh seafood in a relaxed, beach adjacent setting.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lauren N. Wassenberg, Esq. LAUREN N. WASSENBERG & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 33 SE 4th St., Ste. 100 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Phone: 844-702-8867 Email: WassenbergL@gmail.com SPARC GROUP RETAIL: Marquez Sues Over Disability Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- Olga Sanchez Marquez, on behalf of others similarly situated v. SPARC GROUP RETAIL LLC, a foreign for-profit corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-24335-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 22, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant is a store open to the public, each of Defendant's physical stores is a place of public accommodation subject to the requirements of the ADA. In its physical stores, including the store Plaintiff patronized and intends to patronize at 18447 S. Dixie Highway in Miami, Defendant has installed credit/debit card reader point of sale ("POS") devices that allow customers to insert, swipe, or input their debit card information, view information displayed on the screen, and use a key pad to make and complete purchases using a confidential debit card pin number. On August 4, 2025, Plaintiff visited and sought to patronize and purchase merchandise from Defendant's Southland Mall store. During her visit, Plaintiff attempted to use the POS device to complete her purchase using her debit card and attempted to access the information displayed on the POS screen by plugging into the device her personal headset. However, Plaintiff was unable to independently and privately pay for her order through the POS device because the device did not have any place for Plaintiff to plug in her headset nor was the device configured with screen reader software and/or tactile feedback that would effectively communicate to Plaintiff the visual information displayed on the POS device's screen. As a result of Defendant's POS devices not being fully accessible to and not independently usable by blind and visually disabled persons such as Plaintiff, Plaintiff was unable to fully access and use the devices to effectively, efficiently, and confidentially make her purchase in Defendant's physical store. This left Plaintiff feeling excluded, frustrated, and humiliated, and contributed to her sense of isolation and segregation, as she was unable to participate in the same shopping experience as provided in the physical store as the non visually disabled public, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and at all relevant times has been a visually disabled person. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls a chain of over 1000 retail stores selling clothing, accessories, and other products, including the store Plaintiff had patronized in the past and intends to continue to patronize in the near future located in the Southland Mall.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rodenck V. Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. 4800 N. Hiatus Road Sunrise, FL 33351 Phone: 954/362-3800 Facsimile: 954/362-3779 Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com - and - Pelayo Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO 6355 NW. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Phone: 305/266-9780 Facsimile: 305/269-8311 Email: duranandassociates@gmail.com STAKE CENTER: Court Modifies Class Definition in Loonsfoot Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Loonsfoot v. Stake Center Locating, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-03171 (S.D. Ill., Filed Sept. 21, 2023), the Hon. Judge David W. Dugan entered an order modifying the class definition, clarifying that it has certified the following class in this case: "All hourly Utility Locators who worked for SCL in Illinois who were subject to SCL's auto allowance policy at any time from September 21, 2020, to August 5, 2025." Specifically, the class definition erroneously referenced the per diem pay scheme. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation. Stake is engaged in high-risk infrastructure and fiber optic network locating.[CC] STEPHEN JAMES: Parties Seek Extension to File Class Cert Opposition ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nathan Best, et al., v. Stephen C. James, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00299-RGJ-RSE (W.D. Ky.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order amending the deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification. The parties also jointly move to change the deadline for any opposition to the class certification motion to Oct. 17, 2025. The parties believe that further conferral is appropriate, and that the most efficient manner of handling class certification proceedings is to allow them additional time to confer. This is the parties' first request for any amendment to the scheduling order. The parties do not propose by this Motion to amend any other deadlines in the case, and in particular, do not intend to extend the October 30 deadline for filing a reply in support of the class certification motion. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=frvvni at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Clark C. Johnson, Esq. Michael T. Leigh, Esq. Burt A. (Chuck) Stinson, Esq. KAPLAN JOHNSON ABATE & BIRD LLP 710 W. Main St., 4th Fl. Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (502) 416-1630 E-mail: cjohnson@kaplanjohnsonlaw.com mleigh@kaplanjohnsonlaw.com cstinson@kaplanjohnsonlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Steven B. Lowery, Esq. Andrew J. Dorman, Esq. REMINGER CO. LPA 730 W. Main St., Ste. 300 Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (502) 625-7306 E-mail: slowery@reminger.com adorman@reminger.com bsullivan@reminger.com - and - Eric G. Serron, Esq. Andrew J. Sloniewsky, Esq. Caitlin Rebecca Tharp, Esq. B. Gammon Fain, Esq. STEPTOE LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 429-3000 E-mail: eserron@steptoe.com asloniewsky@steptoe.com ctharp@steptoe.com gfain@steptoe.com TACOS EL POBLANITO: Carcamo Sues Over Unpaid Compensations ---------------------------------------------------------- Eduardo Carcamo, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. TACOS EL POBLANITO INC. d/b/a TACOS EL POBLANITO, and DANIEL BARRIOS CASTILLO, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-05339 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 23, 2025), is brought for damages and other redress based upon willful violations that Defendants committed of Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by: the minimum and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), and the N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. ("NYCRR"). Throughout his employment, Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work, a regular schedule in excess of forty hours each workweek, or virtually each week, plus, several times each spring and summer, additional hours outside of his regular schedule for private events. Yet in exchange, Defendants paid Plaintiff a flat daily rate that did not change regardless of how many hours he worked in a day or in a week. For all weeks, the amount that Defendants paid Plaintiff fell below the minimum wage that New York law requires per hour of work. Thus, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate, or one and one-half times the minimum wage rate, if greater, for the hours that he worked over forty in a week, in violation of the FLSA's and the NYLL's overtime provisions, or at least at the minimum wage rate per hour worked, in violation of the NYLL's minimum wage provisions, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a food truck worker primarily in Brooklyn, New York, from May 22, 2022, until June 24, 2024. The Defendants is a New York corporation that operates Mexican food trucks based out of Brooklyn, New York, and its owner and day-to-day overseer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edgar M. Rivera, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 248-5550 Fax: (516) 248-6027 TAPESTRY INC: Merrell ADA Suit Transferred to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Richard Paul Merrell, and others similarly situated v. Tapestry, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-06671 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Sept. 24, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-02510-RGK-MAR to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Tapestry, Inc. -- https://www.tapestry.com/ -- is an American multinational fashion holding company.[BN] The Petitioner is represented by: Chumahan Benjamin Bowen, Esq. Jennifer M. Leinbach, Esq. Thiago Merlini Coelho, esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 660 S. Figueroa Street, Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Email: chumahan.bowen@wilshirelawfirm.com jennifer.leinbach@wilshirelawfirm.com thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com The Respondent is represented by: Gregory F. Hurley, Esq. Stacy Marie Dominguez, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER AND HAMPTON LLP 650 Town Center Drive 10th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993 Phone: (714) 513-5100 Fax: (714) 513-5130 Email: ghurley@sheppardmullin.com sdominguez@sheppardmullin.com TAPESTRY INC: Merrell Case Transferred to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD PAUL MERRELL, v. TAPESTRY, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-06671-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an order granting Tapestry's motion to transfer venue under section 1404(a). The Clerk is directed to transfer this case to the Central District of California. Tapestry has submitted sufficient evidence suggesting that the balance of convenience weighs in favor of transfer. The convenience of the witnesses is typically the most important factor in a motion to transfer. Although Merrell argues that judicial economy and court congestion concerns weigh in favor of transfer, they do not weigh heavily into the analysis here even if the Court were to conclude that they tipped in Merrell's favor: Merrell has not yet moved for class certification and the hearing on that motion is not scheduled until April 2026. Salazar alleged that Tapestry's website violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. Tapestry is an American multinational fashion holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XZirq9 at no extra charge.[CC] TARTER GATE: Partial Bid to Dismiss Spears Class Suit Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BELINDA SPEARS, v. TARTER GATE COMPANY, LLC Case No. 1:24-cv-00149-GNS (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge entered an order denying the Defendant's partial motion to dismiss. Tarter's argument, however, is premature at this phase of litigation. This dispute over the applicable statute of limitations has no effect on Spears’s claims. Spears has alleged that he was employed by Tarter from "approximately November 2023 to July 2024." Thus, the earliest harm that Spears could have suffered was in November 2023, 11 months before this action was commenced and well within the FLSA's standard two-year statute of limitations. Therefore, this argument lacks merit. On Dec. 18, 2024, the Plaintiff filed this action alleging that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and Kentucky's state wage and hours laws. In particular, Spears alleges that Tarter both failed to pay its employees for the actual number of hours which they worked and failed to properly compute employees' overtime rates, resulting in underpayment for overtime worked Tarter manufactures building materials. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Sept 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dYHRNe at no extra charge.[CC] TCP-ASC ACHI SERIES: Kalampoukas Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TCP-ASC ACHI Series LLLP. The case is styled as City of Dearborn Police & Fire Revised Retirement System (Chapter 23), Employees' Retirement System of Rhode Island, Jay Teasley, The City of Providence, and all others similarly situated v. TCP-ASC ACHI Series LLLP, Anthony J. Speranzo, Anthony R. Tersigni, Ascension Health Alliance Clay Ashdown, Dominic Nakis, Ian Sacks, John B. Henneman III, Joseph Flanagan, Lee Rivas, Michael C. Feiner, Neal Moszkowski, TCP-ASC-GP, LLC, Case No. 2025-1067-MTZ (Del. Chancery Ct., Sept. 19, 2025). The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duty in the Corporate Context."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ned Weinberger, Esq. Phone: (302) 573-2540 Fax: (302) 573-2529 - and - Lindsay K. Faccenda, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (302) 499-3602 Email: lindsay@blockleviton.com TD BANK: Barbieri Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Adriana Trufant Barbieri, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. TD BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case No. CACE-25-012326 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, to the United States District Court for Southern District of Florida on Sept. 24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 0:25-cv-61915-XXXX. The Plaintiff asserts a single cause of action against TD Bank based on an alleged violation of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA") excessive call provision, for allegedly callingconsumers with Florida addresses more than seven times over the course of seven days in an attempt to collect a debt. The Plaintiff alleges that TD Bank called her ten times between January 15, 2025 and January 17, 2025, seeking collection on Plaintiff's overdue credit card debt.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Julian A. Jackson-Fannin, Esq. Carolina Z. Goncalves, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 201 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3400 Miami, FL 33131-4325 Phone: +1 305 960 2200 Email: JJFannin@duanemorris.com CGoncalves@duanemorris.com PNMendoza@duanemorris.com TEKSYSTEMS INC: Lindow Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Gregory Lindow, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated current employees v. TEKSYSTEMS, INC., a Corporation and FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-13015-DPH-EAS (E.D. Mich., Sept. 23, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), that the Plaintiff is: entitled to unpaid overtime wages from Defendant, entitled to liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA; and entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Specifically, Plaintiff complains that he, as well as other similarly situated hourly TEKSystems employees contracted out to Ford ("TEKSystems-Ford Personnel"), were not paid time-and-a-half for the overtime hours they worked; instead, they were given one hour of PTO for every hour of overtime worked. Therefore, Plaintiff and others similarly situated were not paid full and proper overtime wages in violation of the law. Based on TEKSystems' and Ford's uniform policies requiring overtime and providing PTO in lieu of paying the correct overtime rate, Plaintiff and those TEKSystems-Ford Personnel similarly situated to him were not paid the statutorily required overtime premiums for any of the hours they worked in excess of 40 in a given workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants TEKsystems and Ford as a Program Manager–Apps. TEKsystems provides IT and talent solutions to businesses, which includes sourcing and placing IT professionals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anna Kozak, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 150 W. Jefferson Ave., Suite 1400 Detroit, MI 48226 Phone: (313) 739-1969 Fax: (313) 739-1994 Email: Anna.Kozak@forthepeople.com THIGH SOCIETY: Faces Davis Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE DAVIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Thigh Society (USA), Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10994 (N.D. Ill., September 11, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.thighsociety.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On August 7, 2025, the Plaintiff was looking for slip shorts online when she came across the Defendant's website. Encouraged by customers' reviews, she continued exploring the website with the intention of making a purchase. However, she encountered accessibility barriers during her navigation, including an automatic and recurring pop-up window prompting her to enter her email address. She asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Thigh Society's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Thigh Society (USA), Inc. operates the website that offers a variety of slip shorts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Cellphone: (718)-554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law THREE BIRD: Bowman Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------ TANISIA BOWMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Three Bird Nest, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-10956 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 11, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, Threebirdnest.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Threebirdnest.com provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the ADA. Yet, Threebirdnest.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website, says the suit. Threebirdnest.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Three Bird Nest.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law TRANSLATIONS.COM INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Due August 6, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HANIEH IRAVANIAN, v. TRANSLATIONS.COM, INC., et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-09157-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Tigar entered an amended scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Deadline to add parties or amend the pleadings: Sept. 1, 2023 Fact discovery cut-off: July 2, 2026 Class certification motion and the Plaintiffs' Aug. 6, 2026 expert disclosures due: Class certification opposition and the Sept. 17, 2026 Defendants' expert disclosures due: Expert discovery cut-off: Oct. 16, 2026 Class certification reply due: Nov. 12, 2026 Translations.com operates as a translation agency. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SyWRpZ at no extra charge.[CC] TRANSUNION LLC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Alexander Says ------------------------------------------------------------ JEFFERY ALEXANDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSUNION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-05265 (E.D. Pa., Sept. 12, 2025) is a data breach class action against the Defendant for its failure to adequately secure and safeguard confidential and sensitive information held throughout the typical course of business of Plaintiff and the Class. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant breached its numerous duties and obligations by failing to implement and maintain reasonable safeguards; failing to comply with industry-standard data security practices and federal and state laws and regulations governing data security; failing to properly train its employees on data security measures and protocols; failing to timely recognize and detect unauthorized third parties accessing its system and that substantial amounts of data had been compromised; and failing to timely notify the impacted Class. As a direct result of the Defendant's Data Breach, Plaintiff's and the Class's PII has been exposed to cybercriminals and may already be offered for sale on the dark web, where it can be accessed and exploited to the detriment of Plaintiff and the Class. The Plaintiff and the Class face a current and lifetime risk of identity theft or fraud as a direct result of the Data Breach, says the suit. TransUnion, LLC operates as a credit reporting agency. The Company offers consumer reports, risk scores, analytical services, and decisioning capabilities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven A. Schwartz, Esq. Beena M. McDonald, Esq. Alex M. Kashurba, Esq. Marissa N. Pembroke, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP One Haverford Centre 361 Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 Email: sas@chimicles.com bmm@chimicles.com amk@chimicles.com mnp@chimicles.com TRANSUNION LLC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Judka Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY JUDKA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSUNION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-11249 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII"), and financial information stored within Defendant's information network. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and financial information was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, the PII and financial information of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party—an undoubtedly nefarious third party that seeks to profit off this disclosure by defrauding Plaintiff and Class Members in the future, says the suit. TransUnion LLC is a global information and analytics company that provides credit and information services, helping individuals and businesses understand and manage their credit and financial well-being. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com - and - Andrew J. Sciolla, Esq. SCIOLLA LAW FIRM, LLC Land Title Building, Suite 1910 100 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19110 Telephone: (267) 328-5245 Email: andrew@sciollalawfirm.com TRANSUNION LLC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Bonilla Says ----------------------------------------------------------- ALLISON BONILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRANSUNION, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-11007 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 11, 2025) is a data breach class action against the Defendant for its failure to adequately secure and safeguard confidential and sensitive information held throughout the typical course of business of Plaintiff and the Class. The Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members bring this class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information including Social Security numbers and dates of birth that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed on Aug. 26, 2025. On July 30, 2025, the Defendant became aware of unauthorized activity on its IT Network. In response, Defendant engaged third-party forensic specialists to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. The Defendant's investigation confirmed an unauthorized individual accessed data within its IT Network. The Defendant then began a review of the impacted portions of its IT Network to determine the types of information impacted, and to whom the information related, the suit says. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff has suffered actual damages and faces imminent, impending, and substantial risk of identity theft and future economic harm due to the highly sensitive nature of the information targeted and stolen, added the suit. The Defendant is a global consumer credit reporting agency, founded in 1968, that collects and provides credit information on individuals and businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle Shamberg, Esq. Katrina Carroll, Esq. CARROLL SHAMBERG LLC 111 West Washington Street Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (872) 215-6205 E-mail: katrina@csclassactions.com kyle@csclassactions.com - and - Beena M. McDonald, Esq. Marissa N. Pembroke, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP One Haverford Centre 361 Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 E-mail: bmm@chimicles.com MarissaPembroke@chimicles.com TTEC SERVICES: Alvarez Seeks Leave to File First Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOREN ALVAREZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. TTEC SERVICES CORPORATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-02847-PAB-SBP (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file first Amended Complaint. Pursuant to the Court’s Order dated August 29, 2025, Ms. Alvarez moves for leave pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) to file a First Amended Complaint specifically for the purpose of adding opt-in Plaintiffs Guadalupe Vega and Lamis Baker as substitute Named Plaintiffs. In the proposed Amended Complaint, Ms. Plaintiff Alvarez remains a party plaintiff as her claims were stayed pursuant to the Court's Order. Adding Baker and Vega as Named Plaintiffs will not change the nature of the evidence to be presented in this case. In fact, they are already in the case, albeit as opt-in Plaintiffs. Moreover, the Defendant has not yet issued discovery requests or taken depositions. Accordingly, allowing Baker and Vega to move forward as Named Plaintiffs will not, in any way, affect this matter's trial, briefing, or discovery schedule. On Oct. 15, 2024, Plaintiff Alvarez filed a collective and class action alleging Defendant violated federal overtime law and Virginia state overtime and wage payment laws by failing to reimburse its remote employees for internet and equipment that they were required to purchase to perform Defendant's work. The collective action claims were brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the state law Rule 23 Class Action claims were brought pursuant to Va. Code sections 40.1-29.2 and 40.1-29 (the "VOWA" and "VWPA") respectively). On Dec. 6, 2024, the Plaintiff moved the Court for Conditional Certification. TTEC is a global provider of customer experience strategy, technology and business process outsourcing solutions A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TuqxcI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zev H. Antell, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 237-1413 E-mail: zev@butlercurwood.com - and - Timothy Lawrence Coffield, Esq. COFFIELD PLC 106-F Melbourne Park Circle Charlottesville, VA 22901 Telephone: (434) 218-3133 Facsimile: (434) 321-1636 E-mail: tc@coffieldlaw.com TUMBLE LIVING: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Ford Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA FORD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tumble Living, LLC, Case No. 1 1:25-cv-11016 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 12, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, Tumbleliving.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Tumble provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the ADA. Accordingly, Tumbleliving.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website, says the suit. Tumbleliving.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Tumble Living.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law UBS GROUP: Gromick Action Consolidated with Diabat Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gromicko v. UBS Group AG (re Credit Suisse Securities Class Actions), Case No. 1:25-cv-00934-CM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge McMahon entered an order as follows: (1) this action shall be consolidated with the related class action -- Diabat v. Credit Suisse Group AG, No. 23-cv-5874 (S.D.N.Y.) -- for all pre-trial purposes; and (2) the Plaintiff's State Claim under Colorado law is dismissed. The Clerk of Court is directed to consolidate this case with Diabat v. Credit Suisse Grp. AG, 23-cv-5874 (S.D.N.Y.) for all pretrial matters. Going forward, the caption will be " In re Credit Suisse Securities Class Actions," with an under-legend stating "This matter relates to Diabat or Core Capital or Gromicko or All Cases." Parties shall continue to file pleadings under the appropriate docket number. Any pleading that pertains to both Diabat and Gromicko must be docketed in both cases. UBS is a Swiss multinational financial services firm. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Sept 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4e3QJ9 at no extra charge.[CC] UIPATH INC: Class Cert Deadlines in Severt Suit Vacated ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Severt, et al., v. UiPath, Inc. et al., (Re: UiPath, Inc. Securities Litigation), Case No. 1:23-cv-07908-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Denise Cote entered an order that the remainder of the deadlines set forth in the Order of January 31 are vacated in light of the pending motion to dismiss: -- This includes the upcoming October 10 deadline for the filing of a motion for summary judgment or a joint pretrial order. The Court further entered an order that the February 28 motion for class certification is denied without prejudice to its renewal, either by letter or through the filing of a renewed motion, after the Court's decision on the motion to dismiss. UiPath is a provider of enterprise robotic process automation (RPA) software solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mRihXU at no extra charge.[CC] UNION HOME: Fails to Properly Secure Personal Info, Brown Says -------------------------------------------------------------- DOMINIC BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNION HOME MORTGAGE CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01920 (N.D. Ohio, September 11, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. On June 25, 2025, the Defendant learned that an unauthorized third-party accessed its IT Network. In response, the Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the data breach. On August, 19, the Defendant learned that private information contained in its IT Network was accessed by the unauthorized third-party. The complaint alleges that Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the private information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the private information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the data breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. The Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant and a data breach victim. Union Home Mortgage Corp. is a privately held mortgage lending company based in Strongsville, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terence R. Coates, Esq. Dylan J. Gould, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com dgould@msdlegal.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com UNITED NATURAL FOODS: Verley Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Malakhi Verley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNITED NATURAL FOODS, INC., a Delaware corporation; UNITED NATURAL FOODS WEST, INC., a California corporation; UNFI DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and CENTRALIA HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 25-2-00542-21 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of Lewis, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Sept. 19, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-05846. The Plaintiff asserts causes of action for: failure to provide rest and meal periods in violation of the Washington Industrial Welfare Act; failure to pay overtime wages, failure to accrue and allow the use of paid sick leave, and failure to pay wages in the amount to which the employee was entitled, in violation of the Washington Minimum Wage Act; unlawful deductions and rebates and willful withholding of wages in violation of the Wage Rebate Act (RCW 49.52); and failure to pay all wages due at the time of termination in violation of RCW 49.48.010.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Douglas Han, Esq. Dean Petitta, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Phone: (818) 230-7502 Email: statavos@justicelawcorp.com dhan@justicelawcorp.com dpetitta@justicelawcorp.com The Defendants are represented by: Damon C. Elder, Esq. Claire M. Lesikar, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 274-6400 Email: damon.elder@morganlewis.com claire.lesikar@morganlewis.com UNITED STATES: Appeals Attorney Fees & Costs Order in J.O.P. Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs in the lawsuit entitled J.O.P., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. United States Department of Homeland Security, et al., Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01944-SAG, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. In 2019, a class of individuals who arrived in this country as "unaccompanied alien children" (UACs) filed this lawsuit to challenge a revision to policies governing adjudication of their subsequent asylum applications. On Nov. 25, 2024, the Court held a fairness hearing and granted the parties' joint motion for final approval of a settlement agreement in this case. On Dec. 24, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney fees and expenses, which Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher granted in part and denied in part on July 15, 2025. The Court ordered to award fees in the amount of $909,809.17 and expenses in the amount of $4,812. The appellate case is captioned J.O.P. v. United States Department of Homeland Security, Case No. 25-2098, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on September 16, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees J.O.P., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Elaine Herrmann Blais, Esq. Kevin Jon DeJong, Esq. Jesse Aaron Lempel, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP 100 Northern Avenue Boston, MA 02210-0000 Telephone: (617) 570-1000 (617) 570-1508 - and - Brian Timothy Burgess, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP 1900 N. Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 346-4000 - and - Kristen Jackson, Esq. 610 South Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005 - and - Michelle Natalia Mendez, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT 1763 Columbia Road NW, Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (410) 929-4720 - and - Mary Tanagho Ross, Esq. BET TZEDEK LEGAL SERVICES 3250 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90010 - and - Rebecca Scholtz, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT 30 South 10th Street Minneapolis, MN 55403 - and - Stephen Richard Shaw, Esq. SPARK JUSTICE LAW LLC 3435 South Inca Street Englewood, CO 80110 Telephone: (303) 802-5390 - and - Wendy Wylegala, Esq. KIDS IN NEED OF DEFENSE 252 West 37th Street New York, NY Defendants-Appellants UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al. are represented by: Erhan Bedestani, Esq. Yamileth G. Davila, Esq. Kelark Azer Habashi, Esq. Richard Gordon Winstead Ingebretsen, Esq. William Charles Peachey, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 - and - Jacob Moshe Roth, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 UNITED STATES: Chornooka Balks at Adjustment of Immigration Status ------------------------------------------------------------------ OKSANA CHORNOOKA and VLADYSLAV IVANOV v. KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; JOSEPH B. EDLOW, in his official capacity, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; and PAM BONDI, in her official capacity, Attorney General, Office of Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Case No. 1:25-cv-05110 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 12, 2025) is an action is brought as a result of the Defendant's failure to adjudicate the Plaintiffs respective Applications within a reasonable period of time. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs filed two separate Form I-485 Applications for Adjustment of Status with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. The Applications have been pending since May 2, 2025, for a period of over four months or 132 days. The Plaintiffs have a clear right to the adjudication of their respective Applications within a timely manner. The final adjudication of the respective Applications is a ministerial, nondiscretionary task that Defendants must perform within a reasonable period of time. The Plaintiffs are citizens of Ukraine and have brought the instant action to compel USCIS to adjudicate their respective Form I-485 Applications to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status under the Diversity Visa Lottery Program before September 30, 2025, the close of the current fiscal year. In February 2025, the Trump Administration announced an indefinite suspension of adjudications for immigration applications filed by individuals who had entered the United States under Biden-era humanitarian parole programs, including the Uniting for Ukraine (U4U) program. This suspension halted the processing of applications for Temporary Protected Status (TPS), employment authorization documents (EADs), adjustment of status, and asylum for Ukrainian parolees and other similarly situated applicants. In June 2025, a federal court ordered the Administration to resume adjudications. This unlawful pause caused substantial disruption to the processing of applications for Ukrainian nationals, including Plaintiffs, jeopardizing their path to lawful permanent residency and placing them at imminent risk of losing eligibility, the suit alleges. The Defendants cannot reasonably continue to use COVID-19 as a defense to their failure to adjudicate Plaintiffs' respective cases. Per USCIS, most, if not all, USCIS Field Offices have resumed in person interactions. As such, COVID-19 related issues do not prohibit the scheduling of an interview in this matter, asserts the suit. KRISTI NOEM is sued in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sadaf F. Ahmed, Esq. JEELANI LAW FIRM, PLC 3701 W. Algonquin Road, Ste. 630, Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 E-mail: sadaf@jeelani-law.com Telephone: (312) 767-9030 Facsimile: (312) 549-9981 US CUSTOMS: Mora Seeks OK of Renewed Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIAN SANCHEZ MORA, et al., v. U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-03136-BAH (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting renewed motion for class certification: The Plaintiffs seek an order from the Court certifying the proposed class, appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives, and appointing the undersigned counsel as class counsel. The Plaintiffs request an oral hearing on the motion. A proposed order also accompanies this motion. US Customs protects the American people, safeguards borders, & enhances the nation's economic security. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=poBDmK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Trina Realmuto, Esq. Mary Kenney, Esq. Kristin Macleod-Ball, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LITIGATION ALLIANCE 10 Griggs Terrace Brookline, MA, 02446 Telephone: (617) 819-4447 E-mail: trina@immigrationlitigation.org mary@immigrationlitigation.org kristin@immigrationlitigation.org - and - Matt Adams, Esq. Leila Kang, Esq. NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 957-8611 E-mail: matt@nwirp.org leila@nwirp.org - and - Marc Van Der Hout, Esq. Johnny Sinodis, Esq. VAN DER HOUT LLP 360 Post St., Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-3000 E-mail: ndca@vblaw.com USA TEES COM INC: Padilla Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against USA Tees Com Inc., et al. The case is styled as Raul Gomez Padilla, on behalf of himself, and other similarly situated employees v. USA Tees Com Inc., David Cardinale, Case No. 1:25-cv-05303-BMC (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 22, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act for Denial of Overtime Compensation. USA Tees -- https://www.usatees.com/ -- is a family-owned custom screen printing and embroidered t-shirt company based in Brooklyn.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 60 East 42nd Street, 40th Floor New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 209-3933 Fax: (212) 209-7102 Email: pcooper@jcpclaw.com V.F. CORP: Brenton Sues Over Alleged Drop in Share Price -------------------------------------------------------- SHARON BRENTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. V.F. CORPORATION; BRACKEN P. DARRELL; MATTHEW H. PUCKETT; and PAUL AARON VOGEL, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02878-CYC (D. Colo., Sept. 12, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired VFC securities between October 30, 2023, to May 20, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws (the "Class"). According to the complaint, the full truth finally emerged on May 21, 2025, when VFC reported its fourth quarter and full-year fiscal 2025 results, highlighting a significant decline in Vans' growth trajectory, which faltered from an 8% loss the quarter before to a 20% loss in the fourth quarter, and noting such decline would continue through the next quarter. The Company attributed its results and below-expectation guidance largely as "a direct effect of deliberately reduced revenue to eliminate unprofitable or unproductive businesses" and "an additional set of deliberate actions" already in-place but previously unannounced. VFC further noted that, disregarding these deliberate actions, Vans would still have shown a "high single digit[]" revenue decline, suggesting growth slowed in comparison to the prior years' sequential improvements irrespective of management's new "deliberate actions." The price of VFC's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $14.43 per share on May 20, 2025, VFC's stock price fell to $12.15 per share on May 21, 2025, a decline of about 15.8% in the span of just a single day, alleges the suit. V.F. Corporation is an international lifestyle apparel and footwear company. The Company owns a broad portfolio of brands in the jeanswear, outerwear, packs, footwear, sportswear, and occupational apparel categories. V.F. offers products which are marketed to consumers shopping in specialty stores, upscale, traditional department stores, national chains, and mass merchants worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: aapton@zlk.com VICTORIA'S SECRET: Marquez Sues Over Disability Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------------- Olga Sanchez Marquez, on behalf of others similarly situated v. VICTORIA'S SECRET STORES, LLC, a foreign for-profit corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-24332-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 22, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant is a store open to the public, each of Defendant's physical stores is a place of public accommodation subject to the requirements of the ADA. In its physical stores, including the store Plaintiff patronized and intends to patronize at 18447 S. Dixie Highway in Miami, Defendant has installed credit/debit card reader point of sale ("POS") devices that allow customers to insert, swipe, or input their debit card information, view information displayed on the screen, and use a key pad to make and complete purchases using a confidential debit card pin number. On August 4, 2025, Plaintiff visited and sought to patronize and purchase merchandise from Defendant's Southland Mall store. During her visit, Plaintiff attempted to use the POS device to complete her purchase using her debit card and attempted to access the information displayed on the POS screen by plugging into the device her personal headset. However, Plaintiff was unable to independently and privately pay for her order through the POS device because the device did not have any place for Plaintiff to plug in her headset nor was the device configured with screen reader software and/or tactile feedback that would effectively communicate to Plaintiff the visual information displayed on the POS device's screen. As a result of Defendant's POS devices not being fully accessible to and not independently usable by blind and visually disabled persons such as Plaintiff, Plaintiff was unable to fully access and use the devices to effectively, efficiently, and confidentially make her purchase in Defendant's physical store. This left Plaintiff feeling excluded, frustrated, and humiliated, and contributed to her sense of isolation and segregation, as she was unable to participate in the same shopping experience as provided in the physical store as the non visually disabled public, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and at all relevant times has been a visually disabled person. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls a chain of 1350 retail stores selling clothing, accessories, and other products, including the store Plaintiff has patronized in the past and intends to continue to patronize in the near future located in the Southland Mall.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rodenck V. Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. 4800 N. Hiatus Road Sunrise, FL 33351 Phone: 954/362-3800 Facsimile: 954/362-3779 Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com - and - Pelayo Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO 6355 NW. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Phone: 305/266-9780 Facsimile: 305/269-8311 Email: duranandassociates@gmail.com VINEYARD VINES: Carter Suit Removed to D. Maryland -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jarrett Carter, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VINEYARD VINES, LLC, Case No. C-03-CV-25-003960 was removed from the Circuit Court of Maryland for Baltimore County, to the United States District Court for District of Maryland on Sept. 24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03178-ELH. The Plaintiffs allege that Vineyard Vines violated the Maryland Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("MCEMA"), and Indiana's Deceptive Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("IDCEMA"), by sending marketing emails with false and misleading information in the subject lines to consumers residing in Maryland and Indiana. The Plaintiffs seek statutory and exemplary damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive relief.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jason R. Scherr, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004-2541 Phone: (202) 373-6709 Fax: (202) 373-3001 Email: jr.scherr@morganlewis.com - and - Damon C. Elder, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 274-6400 Email: damon.elder@morganlewis.com - and - Ari M. Selman, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178-0060 Phone: (206) 309-6000 Email: ari.selman@morganlewis.com VOX MEDIA: Maldonado Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ------------------------------------------------------ EDGARDO MALDONADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VOX MEDIA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07622 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 15, 2025) alleges violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant is responsible for the installation of a tracker (i.e., third-party script) into the code of its Website -- namely, the PubMatic Tracker. The Tracker is operated by a separate and distinct third party: PubMatic, Inc.. Through its Tracker -- as integrated by Defendant -- the Third Party collects from every visitor to Defendant's Website the user's internet protocol ("IP") address and other device identifier information such as device type, browser type, and unique and persistent identifiers ("Device Metadata"). The Third-Party Tracker also sets a cookie that includes a unique user identifier, which the Tracker collects on subsequent visits. The Defendant and the Third Party use the data collected by the Tracker to identify and de-anonymize users, hyper-target advertisements to users, and to enrich themselves. By installing and using the Tracker and disclosing Plaintiff's IP address to the Tracker without Plaintiff's prior consent and without a court order, Defendant violated CIPA. Vox Media, LLC. of delaware develops and delivers content, conversations, and applications for consumer technology audiences and marketers. The Company owns and operates websites related to consumer technology and sports, including a network of fan-centric online sports communities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Alec M. Leslie, Esq. Max S. Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7408 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com ykopel@bursor.com aleslie@bursor.com mroberts@bursor.com WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Roberts Files Suit in D. Colorado --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wakefield & Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Mark Roberts, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wakefield & Associates, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02938-CYC (D. Colo., Sept. 18, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Wakefield & Associates -- https://www.wakeassoc.com/ -- has established itself as a leading provider of accounts receivable management and delinquent account recovery in the healthcare arena.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary Michael Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com WASHINGTON GASTROENTEROLOGY: Healy Sues Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Healy, individually an on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WASHINGTON GASTROENTEROLOGY, PLLC, Case No. 25-2-11422-3 (Wash. Super. Ct., Pierce Cty., Sept. 9, 2025), is brought arising out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant (the "Data Breach"), which held in its possession certain sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively, the "Private Information"), of Plaintiff and other current and former patients of Defendant, the putative class members ("Class"). This Data Breach occurred on or about March 10, 2025. The Private Information compromised in the D ata Breach include d certain PII and PHI of Defendant's current and former patients, including Plaintiff. This Private Information included but is not limited to "name and medical information."2 Defendant has reported to the Washington State Office of the Attorney General that the Private Information of 556,349 individuals were impacted by the Data Breach affecting their name; Social Security number; financial and banking information; full date of birth; and medical information. Upon information and belief, the Private Information was acquired by cyber-criminals who perpetrated the attack and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals. The Data Breach resulted from Defendant'S failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which they were entrusted. The Defendant maintained the Private Information in a reckless manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on Defendant's computer network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the Data Breach and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiffs and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to Defendant, and thus Defendant was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure the Private Information from those risks left that property in a dangerous condition, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided Defendant with his sensitive PII and PHI as part of the process of becoming a patient of the Defendant's practice. WAGI is a Washington professional limited liability company that specializes in gastroenterology practice.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Janelle N. Bailey, Esq. WASHINGTON INJURY LAW 1905 Queen Anne Avenue North, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98109 Phone: (206) 960-4522 Fax: (206) 960-4502 Email: Litigation@WashingtonInjuryLaw.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (888) 350-3931 Fax: (888) 276-3455 Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com service@eksm.com WILINE NETWORKS: Loses Bid to Dismiss WCMC Suit ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as W.A. CALL MFG. CO., INC., et al., v. WILINE NETWORKS INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-07141-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered an order denying motion to strike and dismiss: The motion to strike the class allegations is denied: The analysis extends only to the contract claim, the surviving class claim. The section 201(b) claim (claim two) is dismissed with prejudice. The UCL claim is dismissed without prejudice, and with leave to amend. The motion to dismiss the false-promise claim is denied. The plaintiffs must file an amended complaint within twenty-one days and attach a blackline compare of the new complaint against the existing complaint. The issues -- whether WiLine raised rates more than annually, without notice, and untethered to the CPI — present common questions available for classwide resolution. Challenges to predominance are best resolved on a class-certification motion. The complaint adequately pleads false promise by alleging that WiLine promised annual CPI tethered increases with thirty days' notice and that at the time, WiLine did not intend to perform. In this putative class action, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and a class of California consumers, sued their internet and phone service-provider, WiLine. The plaintiffs allege that WiLine violated their service agreements by increasing rates more than once per year, without thirty days' notice, and in amounts exceeding the Consumer Price Index (CPI). They also allege that WiLine obscured automatic renewal terms and used early termination fees to extract additional funds or deter cancellations. WiLine is a nationwide company that provides internet and telephone services to consumers in California. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NspnOo at no extra charge.[CC] WOMEN'S CARE LLC: Bowen Files Suit in M.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Women's Care LLC. The case is styled as Victoria Bowen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Women's Care LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-01848-WWB-RMN (M.D. Fla., Sept. 24, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Violation of Computer Fraud & Abuse Act. Women's Care -- https://www.womenscareobgyn.com/ -- offers OBGYN and women's health care through all phases of life for every woman.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel Gilot, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (850) 222-5108 Email: sgilot@brysonpllc.com - and - Jonathan Betten Cohen, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 3833 Central Ave St. Petersburg, FL 33713 Phone: (865) 247-0080 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: jcohen@brysonpllc.com YOLI LLC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Sheri Suit Due Feb. 2, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERI BUTLER BROCKINGTON, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. YOLI, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00159-KAC-JEM (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Kaatherine Crytzer entered a phase one scheduling order as follows: The Plaintiff shall disclose any expert testimony related to the issue of class certification in accordance with Rule 26(a)(2)(B) and (C) by Dec. 1, 2025. The Defendant shall disclose any expert testimony related to the issue of class certification in accordance with Rule 26(a)(2)(B) and (C) by Dec. 15, 2025. Parties shall disclose rebuttal expert testimony no later than Dec. 22, 2025. The Parties must complete all discovery related to the issue of class certification, including expert depositions, by Jan. 2, 2026. The Plaintiff shall file any motion for class certification under Rule 23 on or before Feb. 2, 2026. Any response shall be filed on or before Feb. 23, 2026. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3SVZBf at no extra charge.[CC] ********* 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 ***