251013.mbx

251013.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, October 13, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 204 Headlines ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Legrand Seeks to File Class Docs Under Seal ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Legrand Seeks to File Renewed Class Cert Bid ALEX CAMILLE: Johnston Files TCPA Class Suit in C.D. Cal. ALPHABET INC: Agrees to Settle Trump Class Action for $24.5MM AMERICA OOTOYA: Naung Seeks to Recover Servers' Unpaid Wages ANNE ARUNDEL: Discloses Personal, Health Info to Meta, Hillis Says APOLLOMD BUSINESS: Townsend Balks at Unprotected Personal Info ARISTOCRAT LEISURE: Removes Bean Suit to E.D. Tenn. ATKINSON CONSULTING: Herzog Class Suit Seeks Wages Under FLSA ATX MAFIA: Potter FTSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. BENEFITS NOW: Class Certification Discovery Ordered in "Rashley" BENNINGTON POTTERS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Suit Says BESSA BROTHERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sousa Suit Says BIG JIM'S: Fernandez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind BLACKBERRY LTD: Swisscanto Trial Date Still Not Set BOYD GAMING: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Tiedke Alleges BOYKIN FARMS: Court Decertifies Lopez Collective Action BUCKLEY CABLE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Amended to Feb. 27, 2026 CAMPER'S INN: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Marshall Suit Says CAULER CONTAINERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, O'Donnell Says CCI FINANCIAL: Obritz Files Personal Injury Suit in D. Utah CELIGO INC: Faces Hecht Class Suit Over Data Broker Software CEPTON INC: Faces Kabula Suit Over Securities Market Value Drop CHARRO CONCRETE: Suarez Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA, NYLL CHILDREN'S CENTER: Faces Mims Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info COCA-COLA BOTTLING: Williams Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Faces Heiting Suit Over Data Broker Software COSTA DEL MAR: Class Cert Oral Argument in Reed Set for Oct. 22 CREDIT SUISSE: Core Capital Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action DANIEL BEERS: Glasgow Seeks Leave to File Corrected Reply Brief DAVA MARKETING: Cook Seeks Conditional Class Cert of Action DAVID SALINAS: Bid to Extend Class Cert Deadline Nixed DISNEY WORLDWIDE: Faces Suit Over Data Privacy Violations DRINK RECESS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Young Says EPISCOPAL CHURCH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Admiral Alleges ESSENTIA HEALTH: Kraft Suit Seeks to Certify Class FARMER BROS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Stanford Says FARMERS INSURANCE: Garcia Files Tort Suit in C.D. Calif. FFF+US INC: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind FRANCA SERVICE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Costa Suit Alleges FREEPORT-MCMORAN INC: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims FUNDAMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE: Thompson Sues Over Unprotected Info GORILLA SUSHI: Faces Macias Suit for Misappropriation of Tips HABITAT FOR EXCELLENCE: Takpiti Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages HAG LLC: Seeks Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in Georgia HARD ROCK: Syla Seeks FLSA Conditional Collective Status HERSHEY COMPANY: Court Tosses Vidal Suit w/o Prejudice HOME PARTNERS: Agrees to Settle Misleading Leases' Suit for $34MM HOSPITAL SISTERS: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $7.6MM HUM NUTRITION: Faces Nwaigbo Suit Over Misleading GLP-1 Booster Ads ICONIC MORTGAGE: Laccinole Files Suit Over FCRA Violation INOTIV INC: Continues to Defend Doyal Class Suit in Indiana INOTIV INC: Continues to Defend Merrell Class Suit in Indiana INOTIV INC: Continues to Defend Wagner Class Suit in Indiana INTERNATIONAL GAME: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Martinelli Says INTERNATIONAL GAME: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Michaelis Says JCF HOUSEMENTS: Settlement in Hadley Class Suit Gets Approval JOJO'S RESTAURANT: Sued Over Property's Architectural Barriers KAISER PERMANENTE: Removes Cedillo Suit to C.D. Calif. KENT MARTIN: Burch Seeks to Certify Class of Detainees LATOYA HUGHES: Court Narrows Claims in Brozak Suit LOAN STORE: Furman Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA LOANCARE LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Centeno Alleges LUNA INNOVATIONS: Securities Suit Gets Preliminary Certification LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Class Cert Hearing Set for Oct. 23 MAYO CLINIC: S.S. Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. META PLATFORMS: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Partly OK'd MLS PROPERTY: $4-Mil. Class Action Settlement Gets Final Approval MONSANTO COMPANY: Schannette Sues Over Defective Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Tanner Sues Over Defective Herbicide Roundup MOTILITY SOFTWARE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Reynicke Says MULTICARE HEALTH: Hill Suit Removed from State Ct. to W.D. Wash. NATIONAL INSTRUMENTS: Court Certifies Class in Securities Suit NESTLE HEALTHCARE: Seeks to File Class Opposition Under Seal NEW ERA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind Users, Cazares Alleges NEW LOTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Zhang Suit Alleges NEXAR INC: Faces Richard Suit Over Fraudulent Dash Cam Security OPW FUELING: Solis Seeks FLSA Conditional Class Certification ORGANIFI LLC: Fernandez Balks at Blind User-Inaccessible Website OUTCOMES ONE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Anderson Alleges PASTEUR PHARMACY: Faces Trippett Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PAYACTIV INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Gomez Says PAYACTIV INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Mijangos Suit Says PAYACTIV INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Toth Says PETER MILLAR: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Moran Alleges PHILLIP MICHAEL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Ford Alleges POLARIS SOFTWARE: Hughes Suit Over Use of Data Broker Software POMPEII 3 INC: Bahena Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind REIMAGINE FOOTBALL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, David Says REMARKABLE OPERATIONS: Young Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website REZOLVE AI: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims RITCHIE TRUCKING: Class Settlement in Imber Gets Initial Nod RODNEY RIGGS: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Alger Says RPM PIZZA: Rist Seeks Minimum Wages & OT for Delivery Drivers SALESFORCE INC: Yockey Seeks to File Docs Under Seal SAVOYA LLC: Court Dismisses State Claims in "Cuhadar" SAZERAC COMPANY: Bid to Stay Del Rosario Class Suit Tossed SELLAN STRUCTURAL: Parties in Conejo Suit Seek Settlement Talk SEMRUSH HOLDINGS: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Mody Suit Says SIMULATIONS PLUS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims SMILE DESIGN: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Ford Alleges SNAP LOCK: Lambing Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices SOLSTICE BENEFITS: Lyngaas's Bid to Certify Class Tossed SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bell Alleges SPRINTFONE INC: Court OKs Discovery in "Bland" STAINEDGLASSWINDOWS.COM INC: Frost Sues Over Inaccessible Website STITCH FIX: Securities Class Suit Pending in N.D. Cal. SYNGENTA CROP: Faces Dehaven Suit Over Defective Paraquat Products SYNGENTA CROP: Faces Roller Suit Over Defective Paraquat Products SYNGENTA CROP: Lorton Sues Over Defective Paraquat Products T.R.A. INDUSTRIES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Post Says TAKEDA PHARMA: Court Adopts CVS' Initial Class Definition TIKTOK INC: Robinson Files Fraud Class Suit in C.D. Calif. U.S. SILVER: Faces Otto Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages UMATILLA, FL: Faces Liggett Suit Over Unpaid OT, Retaliation UNICOIN INC: Continues to Defend Finch Class Suit in New York UNITED COAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Tester Alleges UNITED EQUITY: Ball Sues Over Deceptive Foreclosure Practices UNITED STATES: Faces Chicago Suit Over First Amendment Rights UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Parties Seek Sealing Order of Class Documents UNIVERSITY RETIREMENT: Cisco Files Labor Class Suit in Cal. Super. VALPARAISO UNIVERSITY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Clark Says VENEZUELA: Mazzaccone Seeks Class Certification VERIFY DEBT: Faces Keedi Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages WALGREENS BOOT: Faces Keedi Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages WASHINGTON NATIONALS: Faces Class Suit Over Undisclosed Junk Fees WASTE MANAGEMENT: Deadline to File Settlement Claim Set Nov. 21 WEBMD LLC: Must Face "Penning" Suit in California State Court WERNER GOURMET: Fernandez Balks at Blind User-Inaccessible Website WESTGATE VACATION: Faces Tina Class Suit Over Predatory Lending WOODS CONSTRUCTION: Property Violated ADA, Azzou Suit Says X CORP: Fact Discovery in Gerber Suit Extended to Jan. 30, 2026 ********* ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Legrand Seeks to File Class Docs Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 asks the Court to enter an order granting administrative motion to consider whether materials designated as "CONFIDENTIAL" and "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL" by Abbott Laboratories, provisionally filed under seal, should be maintained under seal. On June 8, 2023, the Court entered a Stipulated Protective Order. Accordingly, Abbott has 7 days from the filing of this motion to demonstrate compelling reasons for sealing Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Supplemental Monroe Declaration and discussions of the same in the Plaintiff's [Proposed] Renewed Motion for Class Certification. Abbott is an American multinational healthcare company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yuA3Ty 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 ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Legrand Seeks to File Renewed Class Cert 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, 2025 at 10:00 a.m., will, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1), move the Court for an Order granting leave to file a renewed motion for class certification. The Plaintiff has now addressed the Court's limited concerns in denying certification by eliciting additional testimony from her damages experts, Messrs. Gaskin and Weir, as to their conjoint analysis, and by providing evidence that the health message is the reason for purchasing Ensure. The Plaintiff also further explains her approach to this case and the reasons this case fits within the widely accepted framework, including cases like Montera v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 111 F.4th 1018 (9th Cir. 2024), which was tried to a jury and the judgment in favor of the class affirmed on appeal. Contrary to the Court's analysis, that case was strikingly similar to this one. Abbott is an American multinational healthcare company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Yi3Q8w 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 ALEX CAMILLE: Johnston Files TCPA Class Suit in C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alex Camille LLC. The case is captioned Bianca Johnston, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Alex Camille LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-02499-MEMF-AJR (C.D. Cal., September 15, 2025). The suit is brought over Defendant's alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case is assigned to Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong. Alex Camille LLC retails clothing and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com ALPHABET INC: Agrees to Settle Trump Class Action for $24.5MM ------------------------------------------------------------- Jill Goldsmith, writing for Deadline, reports that YouTube agreed to pay $24.5 million to settle a July, 2021 lawsuit by Donald Trump after his account was suspended following the U.S. Capitol riot. Trump filed class action suits against tech giants Meta and Twitter as well and the CEOs of all three companies for blocking his social media accounts. YouTube/Google parent Alphabet is the last of the three to settle with the president. Mark Zuckerberg's Meta agreed early this year to pay $25 million to settle, with about $22 million going to Trump's presidential library and the rest to legal fees and other plaintiffs. X (formerly Twitter) agreed to a $10 million settlement. Google executives were eager to keep their settlement smaller than the one paid by rival Meta, said the WSJ citing people familiar with the matter. It said Trump's share of the settlement -- $22 million -- will go towards a new ballroom at the White House. Some $2.5 million will go to the other plaintiffs in the case. Trump has been raking in cash from legal settlements from tech and media companies. That includes $16 million from Paramount in July during a federal review of the company's merger with Skydance, and the same amount from Disney in January. He had sued Paramount over an interview with Kamala Harris by CBS' 60 Minutes, and took Disney and ABC News to court for defamation for comments by anchor George Stephanopoulos. [GN] AMERICA OOTOYA: Naung Seeks to Recover Servers' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ PYO NE KHANT NAUNG, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICA OOTOYA INC. d/b/a TEMPURA MATSUI, IZURU YOSHIMOTO, KOCHI ENDO, and ERIC DUONG, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-07932 (S.D.N.Y., September 24, 2025) is an action brought by Plaintiff on his own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The complaint arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay proper minimum wages, overtime compensation, and "spread of hours" premium, Defendants' misappropriation of Plaintiffs tips, and requiring Plaintiff to participate in an unlawful tip sharing arrangement with other of Defendants' employees who do not customarily receive tips as part of their employment. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work at a restaurant as non-exempt server from June 2022 until August 24, 2025. America Ootoya Inc. owns and operates a high-end Japanese restaurant doing business as Tempura Matsui located in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 60 East 42nd Street, 40th Floor New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 ANNE ARUNDEL: Discloses Personal, Health Info to Meta, Hillis Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ STEPHANIE ALLORI HILLIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ANNE ARUNDEL DERMATOLOGY, P.A., Case No. 6:25-cv-1936 (M.D. Fla., October 6, 2025) seeks to address the Defendant's outrageous, illegal, and widespread practice of disclosing the Plaintiff's and Class Members' confidential personally identifiable information and protected health information to Meta Platforms As recently as 2025, AAD regularly disclosed information about prospective and actual patients, including their actual or potential dermatologists, the clinics they visited or may visit, and their personal identities, to Meta without those patients' knowledge, authorization, or consent. The Defendant's unauthorized disclosures of Private Information occurred, and continues to occur, because of the tracking technology Defendant installed on its Website, aadermatology.com, specifically, the Meta Pixel, says the suit. The Meta Pixel allows unauthorized third parties to intercept patients' communications, capture and view their Private Information, analyze it for purposes entirely unrelated to the delivery of healthcare, and ultimately exploit it to serve targeted advertising to individuals. The Defendant owns and controls its Website, which it encourages patients and prospective patients to use for: (1) scheduling appointments; (2) learning about dermatological services and treatment options; (3) identifying providers; (4) submitting contact requests and forms; and (5) accessing information about locations and insurance. By coding the Meta Pixel onto its Website, Defendant knew that Private Information of patients would be transmitted in connection with seeking and receiving medical services, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff and other Class Members reasonably believed that when they visited and used Defendant's Website, they were communicating solely with their trusted healthcare provider. ANNE ARUNDEL DERMATOLOGY offers medical, pediatric, surgical, and aesthetic dermatology services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark E. Silvey, Esq. Robert R. Jimenez, Esq. Valentina R. Barboza, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DeMAY PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Miami, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 206-7896 E-mail: msilvey@brysonpllc.com rjimenez@brysonpllc.com vbarboza@brysonpllc.com APOLLOMD BUSINESS: Townsend Balks at Unprotected Personal Info -------------------------------------------------------------- SHAWANNA TOWNSEND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APOLLOMD BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC and RUSH COPLEY MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05443-SEG (N.D. Ga., September 24, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendants with sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information that was impacted in a data breach. The Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to them, and their accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. According to the complaint, the sensitive nature of the data exposed through the data breach signifies that Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered irreparable harm. The Plaintiff and Class Members have lost the ability to control their private information and are subject to an increased risk of identity theft. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendants for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and breach of third-party beneficiary contract. ApolloMD is a physician practice management company based in Georgia that offers multispecialty business and health services to hospitals and health systems, including to Defendant Rush. Rush is a 210-bed, non-profit, full-service hospital located in Aurora, Illinois, providing inpatient, outpatient and ancillary services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: cturner@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW 1 W Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 3301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com ARISTOCRAT LEISURE: Removes Bean Suit to E.D. Tenn. --------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of JENNIFER LYNN BEAN; ALLEN BEAN; GREGORY MOORE; and MICHELLE MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ARISTOCRAT LEISURE, LLC; ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; and PRODUCT MADNESS, INC., Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Circuit Court for the Fourteenth Judicial District of Tennessee, County of Coffee (Case No. 2023-CV-49184) to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on Sept. 26, 2025. The clerk of court for the Eastern District of Tennessee assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00054 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Curtis Lynn Collier and referred to Magistrate Susan K. Lee. Aristocrat Leisure Limited manufactures and sells gaming machines in Australia and internationally. The Company also supplies gaming systems, software, table gaming equipment and other gaming related products and services to casinos, clubs and hotels. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Robb S. Harvey, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 511 Union Street, Suite 2700 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-6380 - and - Lindsey Barnhart, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 3000 El Camino Real 5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112 Telephone: (650) 632-4700 Email: lbarnhart@cov.com - and - Gary Rubman, Esq. Nathan P. Lange, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One CityCenter 850 Tenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662-6000 Email: grubman@cov.com nlange@cov.com ATKINSON CONSULTING: Herzog Class Suit Seeks Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN HERZOG, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ATKINSON CONSULTING, LLC, and FLUOR FEDERAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 0:25-cv-62006 (S.D. Fla., October 6, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages unlawfully withheld by the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint challenges the Defendants' uniform policy of willfully misclassifying their Site Inspectors as independent contractors when they are, under the economic reality test, employees of Defendants as defined by the FLSA. By unlawfully misclassifying their Site Inspectors, the Defendants create a scheme in which they pass the ordinary costs of doing business on to those employees they unlawfully categorize as independent contractors and, therefore, evade Defendants’ obligations to pay their employees the overtime premium required by Federal law, asserts the suit. Mr. Herzog began working for Defendants as a Site Inspector in May 2023. The Defendants are in the business of providing project management and technical services through contracting to FEMA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Amanda E. Heystek, Esq. Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 337-7992 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 Email: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com aheystek@wfclaw.com aketelsen@wfclaw.com - and - Eric Lechtzin Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 South State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399, Ext. 1 E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com ATX MAFIA: Potter FTSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as SIERRA POTTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATX MAFIA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 56-2025-CA-001722, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in and for St. Lucie County, Florida to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on September 26, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-14354 to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff alleges ATX made telephonic sales calls by text message from a phone number that was not capable of receiving phone calls in violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. ATX Mafia, LLC is a limited liability company with its principal place of business in the State of Texas.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Daniel S. Liebowitz, Esq. Landmark Center Two 225 E. Robinson Street, Suite 650 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 730-3535 Facsimile: (407) 730-3540 E-mail: FLCourtFilings@cmlawfirm.com BENEFITS NOW: Class Certification Discovery Ordered in "Rashley" ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Kyle Butler Rashley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Benefits Now, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:25-CV-10398-TGB-DRG (E.D. Mich.), Judge Terrence G. Berg of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted the Motion for Leave to Conduct Class Certification Discovery. This is a putative class action in which Plaintiff alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227. On February 10, 2025, Rashley filed a class action Complaint against Benefits Now, LLC, alleging violations of the TCPA on behalf of Rashley and the National Do Not Call Registry Class. Specifically, Rashley alleges violations of 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c)(5) and 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(c), which prohibits telephone solicitations to a residential telephone subscriber who has registered his or her telephone number on the national do-not-call registry. Rashley alleges that Plaintiff and members of the National Do Not Call Registry Class are presumptively entitled to an award of between $500 and $1,500 in damages for each call made. Rashley proposed a class of all persons in the United States whose (1) residential telephone numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 31 days, (2) but who received more than one telemarketing call from or on behalf of Defendant, (3) within a 12-month period, (4) at any time in the period that begins four years before the date of filing this Complaint to trial. Defendant was properly served on February 14, 2025. After Defendant failed to appear or defend against the allegations, Rashley filed a Motion for Clerk's Entry of Default, which was granted on April 24, 2025. On June 30, 2025, the Court directed Rashley to file a memorandum setting forth the reasons for not yet having sought default judgment or a motion for default judgment. On July 25, 2025, Rashley moved this Honorable Court for an order permitting him to commence discovery so that he may seek class certification and ultimately a potential classwide judgment. Rashley reasoned that he is unable to move for a default judgment at this time as to the classwide claims because the Plaintiff has not yet obtained classwide calling records to ascertain the members of the putative class and has not moved for class certification under Rule 23, or given appropriate notice to the class under Rule 23(c)(2), both of which are prerequisites to seeking a classwide default judgment. Specifically, Rashley posited that third-party service providers may be within the possession of classwide calling records identifying who was called, and how many times, classwide text messaging records, as well as potential recordings of some or all of the calls and ancillary records identifying, for example, information for the individuals called, whether other putative class members were called as part of a specific calling campaign, like Plaintiff, or alternatively, whether the calls were manually dialed, such as in response to a customer inquiry. The Court noted that a plaintiff seeking to certify a class must meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 even when default has been entered against the defendant. Accordingly, when a default has been entered against a defendant, but discovery is necessary to resolve issues surrounding class certification, courts routinely permit the plaintiff to conduct limited discovery. Courts have frequently granted such discovery in TCPA cases. The Court explained that it would be unjust to prevent Plaintiff from attempting to demonstrate the elements for certification of a class without the benefit of discovery, due to Defendant's failure to participate in this case. However, the Court underlined that such discovery should be limited to determine whether class certification is proper and to evaluate the extent of the damages. Therefore, the Court granted leave to conduct limited class certification discovery as requested. Should any relevant third parties object to Plaintiff's discovery requests, the Court will then address the issue of the requests' scope and propriety. Additionally, Plaintiff is directed to file a proposed scheduling order within 7 days of the date of this Order allowing for a discovery period not to exceed 120 days and setting dispositive motion dates within 30 days of the close of discovery. A copy of the Court's case is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bYfR5e from PacerMonitor.com BENNINGTON POTTERS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DUSTIN YOUNGREN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bennington Potters, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-12100 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 3, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, Benningtonpotters.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 they provide 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, the website 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. Benningtonpotters.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Bennington Potters.[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 BESSA BROTHERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sousa Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- VALDECI SOUSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BESSA BROTHERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-40145 (D. Mass., September 24, 2025) is a class action seeking compensatory and punitive damages, counsel fees and costs, and other equitable relief arising out of Defendant's violations of the Massachusetts Payment of Wages Act, the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wages Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated worked for Defendant without receiving the appropriate overtime and/or minimum wage compensation. The Defendant failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked by Plaintiff and all others similarly situated. Further, the Defendant maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and all others similarly situated to work without providing overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations. Plaintiff Sousa was employed by the Defendant as a carpenter for approximately eight years until his eventual termination in September of 2023. Bessa Brothers, Inc. is a hospitality company based in Milford, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Olayiwola O. Oduyingbo, Esq. Ana Barros, Esq. ODU LAW FIRM, LLC 888 Reservoir Avenue, Floor 2 Cranston, RI 02910 Telephone: (401) 209-2029 Facsimile: (401) 217-2299 E-mail: odu@odulawfirm.com abarros@odulawfirm.com BIG JIM'S: Fernandez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------- DEVIN FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BIG JIM'S BAR & GRILL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-05388 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.villageidiotpubs.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. Big Jim's Bar & Grill, Inc. operates as a retail restaurant. The Restaurant provides craft beers, tacos, burgers and desserts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com BLACKBERRY LTD: Swisscanto Trial Date Still Not Set --------------------------------------------------- Blackberry Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending August 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 25, 2025, that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has not yet scheduled trial date for Swisscanto Fondsleitung class suit. Between October and December 2013, several purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its former officers in various jurisdictions in Canada alleging that certain of the Company's financial statements contain material misstatements. On July 23, 2014, the plaintiff in the putative Ontario class action (Swisscanto Fondsleitung AG v. BlackBerry Limited, et al.) filed a motion for class certification and for leave to pursue statutory misrepresentation claims. On November 17, 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a statutory claim for misrepresentation. On December 2, 2015, the Company filed a notice of motion seeking leave to appeal this ruling. On November 15, 2018, the Court denied the Company's motion for leave to appeal the order granting the plaintiffs leave to file a statutory claim for misrepresentation. On February 5, 2019, the Court entered an order certifying a class comprised persons (a) who purchased BlackBerry common shares between March 28, 2013, and September 20, 2013, and still held at least some of those shares as of September 20, 2013, and (b) who acquired those shares on a Canadian stock exchange or acquired those shares on any other stock exchange and were a resident of Canada when the shares were acquired. Notice of class certification was published on March 6, 2019. The Company filed its Statement of Defence on April 1, 2019. Discovery is proceeding and the Court has not set a trial date. BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and services to enterprises and governments based in Canada. BOYD GAMING: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Tiedke Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA TIEDTKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOYD GAMING CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01837 (D. Nev., Sept. 29, 2025) arising out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against the Defendant that involved Plaintiff's and the proposed Class Members personally identifying information. According to the complaint, on September 6, 2025, the Defendant experienced a data breach that resulted in an unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, and theft of highly personal information in the possession and custody and/or control of Defendant (the "Data Breach"). The Plaintiff and proposed Class Members' information impacted includes their personally identifying information. Given the Defendant's failure in protecting Plaintiff's and Class Members PII, it is likely that Defendant's cybersecurity program as a whole is severely inadequate in comparison to the measures it is legally obligated to provide to individuals for whom it collects PII, thus leaving them exposed to the Data Breach that indeed came into fruition. The Defendant's failure in even the most basic requirements of cybersecurity, it is likely that Defendant's cybersecurity program as a whole is severely inadequate in comparison to the measures it is legally obligated to provide to individuals for whom it collects PII, thus leaving them exposed to the Data Breach that indeed came into fruition, says the suit. Boyd Gaming Corp. is a casino entertainment company. The Company owns and operates hotels, casino, and gaming properties. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan R. Ring, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 3100 W. Charleston Boulevard, Suite 208 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: (725) 235-9750 Email: nring@stranchlaw.com - and - Grayson Wells, Esq. John C. Roberts, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gwells@stranchlaw.com jroberts@stranchlaw.com BOYKIN FARMS: Court Decertifies Lopez Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRISTOBAL LOPEZ LOPEZ and GILBERTO FLORES LOZANO, on behalf ) of themselves and all other similarly situated persons, v. BOYKIN FARMS, INC., RHODES FARMING, LLC, WILLIE C. BOYKIN, III, MATTHEW Z. RHODES, TONY D. LEE, d/b/a LEE AND SONS FARMS, CAMERON LEE, d/b/a LEE AND SONS FARMS, and CLINT LEE, d/b/a LEE AND SONS FARMS, Case No. 5:22-cv-00491-BO-RN (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Boyle entered an order granting the motion for summary judgment and decertifies collective action by the Boykin and Rhodes defendants. The Defendants Boykin Farms, Inc., Rhodes Farming, LLC, Willie C. Boykin, III, and Matthew Z. Rhodes are entitled to judgment in their favor as to all of plaintiffs' claims at the entry of final judgment in this matter. As to these defendants only, the FLSA collective action is decertified, and the claims of the opt-in plaintiffs are dismissed without prejudice. In sum, there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Boykin/Rhodes and Lee and Sons were joint employers and as to whether Boykin/Rhodes is responsible for any contract, wage, or meal plan violations for the named plaintiffs. As Boykin/Rhodes has established that summary judgment in its favor is appropriate as to the two named plaintiffs, decertification of the collection action as to Boykin/Rhodes only is appropriate. The Plaintiffs allege that they and others were employed by defendants through the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services' H-2A Temporary Agricultural Workers system. In their complaint, the plaintiffs allege that none of the defendants properly reimbursed their H-2A workers for travel expenses, which resulted in payment of less than minimum wage, and further that the defendants failed to pay an adequate piece rate, for time travelling between fields, and that defendants required illegal kickbacks for meal charges, all of which resulted in payment of less than minimum wage. As the Boykin/Rhodes defendants argue, the complaint assumes that all of the defendants were the employers of all of the plaintiffs and the putative similarly situated workers. Boykin is a family-owned agricultural business, specializing in the cultivation and distribution of a variety of crops. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KDnext at no extra charge.[CC] BUCKLEY CABLE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Amended to Feb. 27, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL DUGGAN, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated, and ERIC LANEY, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated, v. BUCKLEY CABLE CONSTRUCTION CO., Case No. 2:24-cv-04188-MKC (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Mary Kay Costello entered an amended scheduling order: 1. In the event all parties agree and so inform the Court, the Court will refer this case to a magistrate judge for a settlement conference. 2. Motions regarding class certification, if any, shall be filed by Feb. 27, 2026. Responses shall be filed no later than March 20, 2026. The Court will hold a hearing to address the motion on April 9, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6A, United States District Court, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106. 3. The parties shall complete all discovery by April 20, 2026. 4. The parties shall complete fact discovery by Feb. 9, 2026. 5. The Plaintiffs shall serve expert reports, if any, on or before Feb. 23, 2026. 6. The Defendant shall serve expert reports, if any, on or before March 23, 2026. 7. Responsive or supplemental expert reports, if any, must be served on or before April 9, 2026. 8. A party intending to offer lay witness opinion testimony must disclose the name of any witness who will offer such an opinion and a summary of each such opinion at the same time the expert reports are exchanged. Buckley is a telecommunication company that offers aerial construction and general maintenance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3EPaS9 at no extra charge.[CC] CAMPER'S INN: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Marshall Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- WESTLEY MARSHALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CAMPER'S INN, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-00288-TKW-MJF (N.D. Fla., Oct. 7, 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 (the Data Breach). 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. Accordingly, the Defendant learned that Private Information contained in its network was accessed by the unauthorized third-party. The information exfiltrated from Defendant's network included the sensitive Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members. The Defendant has yet to formally notify impacted individuals. The Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure. 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. 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, asserts the suit. The sensitive nature of the data exposed through the Data Breach signifies that Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered irreparable harm. The Plaintiff and Class Members have lost the ability to control their private information and are subject to an increased risk of identity theft. The Defendant, despite having the financial wherewithal and personnel necessary to prevent the Data Breach, nevertheless failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. As a result of the Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals, the suit says. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose Private Information was compromised as a result of the Defendant's failure to adequately protect the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members. The Defendant sells camper units across the country and is based in Panama City Beach, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com CAULER CONTAINERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, O'Donnell Says ------------------------------------------------------------ JENNI O'DONNELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAULER CONTAINERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-05558 (E.D. Pa., Sept. 26, 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 O'Donnell was employed by the Defendant as a driver and loader. Cauler Containers, Inc. is a full-service solid waste company providing waste collection, recycling, and disposal services to commercial, industrial, and residential customers throughout Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy J. Peter, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 1617 John F Kennedy Blvd #1550 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 277-5770 Facsimile: (215) 277-5771 Email: tpeter@faruqilaw.com - and - Innessa M. Huot, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 Email: ihuot@faruqilaw.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin Anderson, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com CCI FINANCIAL: Obritz Files Personal Injury Suit in D. Utah ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CCI Financial Inc. The case is captioned as Michele Obritz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CCI Financial Inc., doing business as CheckCityCashing.com, Case No. 2:25-cv-00813-TC (D. Utah, September 16, 2025). The case is brought against the Defendant over personal injury claims. The suit is assigned to Judge Tena Campbell. CCI Financial Inc. is the operator of a financial group providing wealth management services with headquarters in Provo, Utah.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jared D. Scott, Esq. ANDERSON & KARRENBERG 50 W Broadway Ste 600 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Telephone: (801) 534-1700 Facsimile: (801) 364-7697 E-mail: jscott@aklawfirm.com CELIGO INC: Faces Hecht Class Suit Over Data Broker Software ------------------------------------------------------------ BENJAMIN HECHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CELIGO, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 3:25-cv-08533 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 6, 2025) alleges that Celigo uses data broker software on its website -- https://www.celigo.com/core-values/ -- to secretly collect data about Plaintiff and other Website visitor's computer, location, and browsing habits. According to the complaint, the data broker software then compiles this data and correlates that data with extensive external records it already has about most Californians in order to learn the identity of the Website user. The Defendant's installation and use of data broker software without obtaining consent is a violation of the California Trap and Trace Law. Tthe Defendant systematically violated these expectations through its unauthorized surveillance activities, the suit says. The Defendant is a California corporation that owns, operates, and/or controls the Website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: rtauler@taulersmith.com eshapiro@taulersmith.com CEPTON INC: Faces Kabula Suit Over Securities Market Value Drop --------------------------------------------------------------- LISA KABULA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CEPTON, INC., JUN PEI, DONG CHANG, and MITCHELL HOURTIENNE, Case No. 3:25-cv-08571 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 7, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of Plaintiff and all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or sold shares Cepton common stock between July 29, 2024 and January 6, 2025, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants’ violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Prior to the Company's merger with Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Cepton was an electronics company focused on the deployment of high performance, mass-market light detection and ranging ("lidar") technologies to deliver safety and autonomy across the Automotive and Smart Infrastructure markets. The Company offered near-range lidars, long-range lidars and ultra-long-range lidars, automotive software and smart lidar systems that include its perception software. As of July 2023, Koito, a Japanese manufacturer of automotive lighting equipment, had invested $200 million in Cepton in exchange for common and preferred stock amounting to 30.1% of Cepton's voting power on an as-converted basis and held two out of seven seats on the Company's Board of Directors. In October 2023, Koito requested that the Board form a special committee to negotiate a potential transaction with Koito. In December 2023, Koito announced a bid to acquire Cepton for $3.17 per share in cash in a going private transaction. In July 2024, Cepton announced that it had accepted Koito's bid to acquire all of the Company's outstanding capital stock not owned by Koito for $3.17 per share in an all-cash transaction. According to Cepton, the Koito Acquisition would purportedly "complement Koito's existing sensor technology roadmap, while providing Cepton with the financial stability and scalability that are crucial to the commercialization of its lidar technology." The Koito Acquisition closed on January 7, 2025, at which point all outstanding Cepton shareholders received $3.17 per share of Cepton common stock in cash. In a press release issued that same day, Cepton stated that the Merger "marks a strategic milestone in the industrialization of Cepton's cutting-edge lidar technology, combining the strengths of both companies to reshape future mobility" and "supported by Koito's world-renowned automotive expertise, Cepton will continue to commercialize its lidar solutions with a strong focus on quality, reliability and sustainability." Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Cepton had received a credible third-party bid valuing Cepton at more than double the Koito Acquisition, says the suit. Investors began to learn the truth four months after the Merger closed when, in May 2025, former Cepton shareholders filed two verified class action complaints in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware against, among others, Cepton and certain of the Company's executive officers, in connection with the Koito Acquisition. Then, in September 2025, a redacted version of an amended consolidated class action complaint filed in the Delaware Action became publicly available. The Amended Complaint alleges that Cepton’s Board agreed to the Koito Acquisition "at a price that was so unreasonable as to shock the conscience, and then pitched the grossly unfair deal to stockholders with a Proxy that concealed critical facts." Moreover, the Amended Complaint alleges that "the Proxy failed to disclose Cepton's receipt of -- and the Board's utter failure to explore -- a credible third-party bid valuing Cepton at more than double" the Koito Acquisition. The Amended Complaint further alleges that Cepton's Chief Executive Officer Defendant Jun Pei was subject to conflicts in his negotiations with Koito and encouraged the Board to recommend accepting the Koito Acquisition so as to protect his own personal economic interests at the expense of Cepton's stockholders. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. CEPTON, INC. operates as an electronics company. The Company provides lidar-based technology solutions for automotive, cities, spaces, and industrial applications to enable privacy-sensitive crowd analytics, social distancing, safety, and security services. Cepton serves customers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com CHARRO CONCRETE: Suarez Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA, NYLL --------------------------------------------------------------- JADIRA SUAREZ v. CHARRO CONCRETE LLC and GERARDO RODRIGUEZ, individual, Case No. 1:25-cv-08208 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 3, 2025) is class action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees of the Defendants seeking to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime wage compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Plaintiff was employed primarily as a construction laborer; she was required to carry heavy rebar, lumber, and other dangerous construction materials without proper safety equipment, training, or supervision, in direct violation of OSHA regulations 29 CFR 1926.20(b)(1) regarding safety programs, 29 CFR 1926.21(b)(2) regarding safety training, and 29 CFR 1926.250(a) regarding safe materials handling practices, creating an imminent danger to life and limb, creating an immediate and substantial risk to her health and safety. Accordingly, the Defendants were required, under relevant New York State law, to pay and compensate the Plaintiff at a minimum rate of $15.00 per hour (the minimum wage); however, the Plaintiff was willfully and knowingly compensated at only $13 per hour for six months of her employment, despite the Defendants' clear awareness of the legal minimum wage requirements, constituting a willful violation under NYLL section 198(1-a) and entitling Plaintiff to liquidated damage, says the suit, The Defendants owned and operated CHARRO CONCRETE LLC, which is a corporate entity principally engaged in Middletown, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. www.StillmanLegalPC.com 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 E-mail: lina@stillmanlegalpc.com CHILDREN'S CENTER: Faces Mims Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA MIMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CHILDREN'S CENTER OF HAMDEN, INC., Defendant, Case No. _________ (Conn. Super., New Haven Cty., September 24, 2025) is a class action arising out of the December 2024 data security incident and breach that was perpetrated against Defendant by INC Ransom, which exploited known vulnerabilities in Defendant's computer network system to access, encrypt, and steal the personally identifiable information and protected health information of Defendant's current and former patients and employees, including Plaintiff. On August 28, 2025, the Defendant informed the Office of the Maine Attorney General that 5,213 individuals were impacted by the Data Breach, including 3 Maine residents2 and 9 residents of Massachusetts. The data breach resulted from Defendant's failure to fix vulnerabilities in its network system to protect individuals' private information with which they were entrusted for treatment and required to maintain by statute, regulation, and common law, says the suit. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct since the Private Information that Defendant collected and maintained is now in the hands of data thieves, INC Ransom. Accordingly, the Plaintiff sues Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for: (i) negligence, (ii) breach of implied contract and (iii) unjust enrichment. The Children's Center of Hamden is a psychiatric residential treatment facility for people under 12 with serious mental health need. TCCOH operates as a nonprofit behavioral health organization.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: ofaircloth@sirillp.com - and - Michael J. Reilly, Esq. CICCHIELLO & CICCHIELLO, LLP 364 Franklin Avenue Hartford, CT 06114 Telephone: (860) 296-3457 Facsimile: (860) 296-3457 E-mail: mreilly@cicchielloesq.com - and - Benjamin J. Eisner, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 E-mail: beisner@eksm.com COCA-COLA BOTTLING: Williams Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- GERMAN WILLIAMS, JEAN DAMY, AND TYSHAWN SWEET for and on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated v. COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY UNITED, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-05664-SCJ (N.D. Ga., Oct. 3, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiffs are all employed by Defendant, who was the FLSA employer of Plaintiffs for the relevant period of time. The Plaintiffs served in the capacity of a merchandisers for Defendant. The Plaintiffs were not paid the full amount of overtime required by the FLSA, asserts the suit. Accordingly, the Defendant failed to pay overtime and failed to pay employees full compensation for all hours worked. The collective action claims are for overtime compensation, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendant is a private Coca-Cola bottling company headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. Coca-Cola United is the second-largest privately held Coca-Cola bottler in the United States and in which the Coca-Cola Company does not own an interest.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Douglas R. Kertscher, Esq. Julie H. Burke, Esq. HKW LAW 3625 Cumberland Blvd., SE, Ste. 1050 Atlanta, GA 30339-6406 Telephone: (770) 953-0995 E-mail: drk@hkw-law.com jb@hkw-law.com - and - Jennifer Ivey Range, Esq. BROOKS LAW PARTNERS, LLC Peachtree Corners, GA 30092 Telephone: (678) 813-2202 Office E-mail: jir@brookslawpartners.com COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Faces Heiting Suit Over Data Broker Software --------------------------------------------------------------- JANE HEITING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COMMVAULT SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-09526 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 6, 2025), alleges that Commvault uses data broker software on its website --https://www.commvault.com/ -- to secretly collect data about Plaintff and other Website visitor's computer, location, and browsing habits. The data broker software then compiles this data and correlates that data with extensive external records it already has about most Californians in order to learn the identity of the Website user. The Defendant's installation and use of data broker software without obtaining consent is a violation of the California Trap and Trace Law. The Defendant systematically violated these expectations through its unauthorized surveillance activities, asserts the suit. The Defendant is a California corporation that owns, operates, and/or controls the Website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: rtauler@taulersmith.com eshapiro@taulersmith.com COSTA DEL MAR: Class Cert Oral Argument in Reed Set for Oct. 22 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reed, IV, v. Costa Del Mar, Inc., Case No. 6:19-cv-01751 (M.D. Fla., Filed April 3, 2019), the Hon. Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr., entered an order granting Request for Oral Argument re Motion to Certify Class. Oral argument is set for Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2025, at 9 a.m. The parties should place particular emphasis on the choice of law issue and whether issues of individual class member standing affect predominance. The nature of suit states Diversity-Deceptive Trade Practices. Costa Del Mar offers polarized sunglasses.[CC] CREDIT SUISSE: Core Capital Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Core Capital Partners, Ltd. v. Credit Suisse Group AG et al, (RE CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES FRAUD CLASS ACTIONS), Case No. 1:23-cv-09287-CM (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move the Court, on a date and a time designated by the Court, for an Order: (1) certifying a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 23(a) and 23(b)(3) and certifying the Class defined in the accompanying Memorandum of Law; (2) appointing Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3); and (3) appointing Pomerantz LLP as Class Counsel and Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC as additional counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). Credit was a global investment bank and financial services firm. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MbXEOX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Calandra, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: bcalandra@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com DANIEL BEERS: Glasgow Seeks Leave to File Corrected Reply Brief --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROCHELLE GLASGOW, et al., v. DANIEL J. BEERS, et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-02001-DAR (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting them leave to file a corrected omnibus reply memorandum of law in support of the motion for class certification. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bewhuF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq. William W. Stone, Esq. Oliver S. Tum Suden, Esq. JOHNSON FISTEL, PLLP 40 Powder Springs Street Marietta, GA 30064 Telephone: (470) 632-6000 Facsimile: (770) 200-3101 E-mail: MichaelF@johnsonfistel.com WilliamS@johnsonfistel.com OliverT@johnsonfistel.com - and - George W. Cochran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE W. COCHRAN 1981 Crossfield Circle Kent, OH 44240 Telephone: (330) 607-2187 Facsimile: (330) 230-6136 E-mail: lawchrist@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Douglas D. Behrens, Esq. SAVNET INTERNATIONAL, LLC 3867 Medina Road, Suite 264 Akron, OH 44333 DAVA MARKETING: Cook Seeks Conditional Class Cert of Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AUSTIN COOK, HARRISON FOLLETT, CHARLIE ALLEN, SOPHIE SANDERS, THOMAS BARTELL, JUSTIN ROBERTS, CARSON MCMASTER, ALONSO BARRANTES, BRADY PERKINS, JEREMY THOMPSON, PAIGE LUDDEN, KEATON HALES, TROOPER JOHNSON, RYAN GRIMMIUS, AIDAN WALSH, and RYAN HADLEY, individually and on behalf of persons similarly situated, v. DAVA MARKETING, LLC, A Utah Limited Liability Company and DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:23-cv-00632-DBB-DBP (D. Utah), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- conditionally certifying a collective action, -- approving the proposed notice plan, and -- directing production of the collective list. Under the motion for Conditional Collective Certification, Plaintiffs assert the Claims for Relief I and II of the First Amended Complaint pursuant to FLSA, on behalf of themselves and the following Collective: "All current and former employees who were paid by DAVA to sell, design and edit videos and manage online and social media content for DAVA Marketing LLC in the United States during the applicable limitations period (the "FLSA Collective" or "employees")." The Plaintiff further requests that the Court enter an order providing the following relief: 1. Directing DAVA to provide Plaintiffs within seven days of the entry of the Court's order a list, in electronic, delimited, and importable format, of each Collective member's: (1) name, (2) last known mailing address, (3) last known telephone number(s), (4) last known personal email address, (5) dates and location of employment, (6) date of birth, and (7) Social Security number (last four digits only). 2. Approving the form and content of the Plaintiffs' proposed notice, reminder notice, and consent form; 3. Authorizing the Plaintiffs to send the proposed judicial notice to all Collective Members via U.S. Mail, email, and text message, as well as via website, and to send a reminder notice 45 days before the expiration of the opt-in period; and 4. Providing Collective Members 90 days from the time notice is initially sent out to opt-in and join the lawsuit. DAVA is a video editing, design, and content management company, A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LjGm0m at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Randall K. Edwards, Esq. 70 North Main Street, Suite 105 Bountiful, UT 84010 Telephone: (801) 328-0300 Facsimile: (801) 328-4822 The Defendants are represented by: Rod Andreason, Esq. Christopher M Sanderson, Esq. KIRTON McCONKIE 50 E S Temple #400 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 DAVID SALINAS: Bid to Extend Class Cert Deadline Nixed ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Taft, et al., v. David Salinas, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00697 (S.D. Cal., Filed May 16, 2022), the Hon. Judge Robert S. Huie entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion for extension of time. The Court denies without prejudice the parties' Motion to Extend the deadline for filing a Motion for Class Certification. The suit alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.[CC] DISNEY WORLDWIDE: Faces Suit Over Data Privacy Violations --------------------------------------------------------- A.L., minor, by and through guardian Jessica Savich, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DISNEY WORLDWIDE SERVICES, INC.; DISNEY ENTERTAINMENT OPERATIONS, LLC; and THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-08183 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 25, 2025) alleges violation of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. The Plaintiff allege in the complaint that the Defendants are engaged in intrusive and unlawful business practices by enabling the collection of personal information from millions of children under the age of 13 in the United States, without first notifying parents or obtaining verifiable parental consent. Disney Worldwide Services, Inc. provides electrical and electronic repair services. The Company offers its services exclusively to Disney operations worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Alexis M. Wood, Esq. Kas L. Gallucci, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 Email: Ron@consumersadvocates.com Alexis@consumersadvocates.com Kas@consumersadvocates.com - and - William Darryl Harris, II, Esq. Ryan Wagenleitner, Esq. HARRIS LEGAL ADVISORS LLC 3136 Kingsdale Center, Suite 246 Columbus, OH 43221 Telephone: (614) 504-3350 Facsimile: (614) 340-1940 Email: will@harrislegaladvisors.com ryan@harrislegaladvisors.com DRINK RECESS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Young Says ------------------------------------------------------------- LESHAWN YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DRINK RECESS INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07920 (S.D.N.Y., September 24, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://takearecess.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, New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on September 17, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Recess Black Cherry Mood Drink from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied her a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. The Plaintiff was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Drink Recess Inc. operates the website that offers a variety of beverages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal EPISCOPAL CHURCH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Admiral Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ ERNEEST RASHEEN ADMIRAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF SAINT MARK THE EVANGELIST, INC. D/B/A SAINT MARK'S EPISCOPAL SCHOOL; DR. JAMES SPENCER TAINTER; MAGDA LIPSCOMB; HELLEN MARTINEZ; CARLOS NOVOA; RIGHT2PROTECT LLC; and MIGUEL D. PUYUDA, Defendants, Case No. 0:25-cv-61957-AOV (S.D. Fla., Sept. 30, 2025) alleges Defendants' violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay proper wages to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees. Plaintiff Admiral was employed by the Defendants as a security officer. The Episcopal Church of Saint Mark the Evangelist, Inc. d/b/a Saint Mark's Episcopal School is a non-profit corporation operating a private school and church in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented pro se. ESSENTIA HEALTH: Kraft Suit Seeks to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA KRAFT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENT OF MINORS L.K., S.K., and O.K.; SHELLI SCHNEIDER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENT OF MINORS A.S. and W.S.; ANNE BAILEY, AS PARENT OF MINOR D.B.; AMY LAVELLE, AS PARENT OF MINORS Em.L. and El.L.; ELIZABETH BEATON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENT OF MINOR M.B.; AMANDA AND TYRELL FAUSKE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENTS OF MINORS C.R.F. and C.J.F.; JENNIFER REIN, INDIVIDUALLY; and JESSICA BERG, AS PARENT OF MINORS A.B. and S.B., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ESSENTIA HEALTH, INNOVIS HEALTH, LLC d/b/a ESSENTIA HEALTH, Case No. 3:20-cv-00121-PDW-ARS (D.N.D.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3). The Plaintiffs request that the Court certify Counts II (Implied Warranty), III (North Dakota and Minnesota Consumer Protection Laws), IV (Unjust Enrichment), and V (Negligence). The Plaintiffs further request that the Court certify the following Class: "All persons and health plans that paid, in whole or in part, for Affected Medications that were administered at Essentia Health or by Innovis Health, and all persons who were administered the Affected Medications at Essentia Health or by Innovis Health." Or, in the alternative, the Plaintiffs request that the Court certify the following Subclasses: (i) "All persons and health plans that paid, in whole or in part, for Affected Medications that were administered at Essentia Health or by Innovis Health in North Dakota, and all persons who were administered the Affected Medications at Essentia Health or by Innovis Health in North Dakota." (ii) "All persons and health plans that paid, in whole or in part, for Affected Medications that were administered at Essentia Health or by Innovis Health in Minnesota, and all persons who were administered the Affected Medications at Essentia Health or by Innovis Health in Minnesota." The Plaintiffs further request that the Court appoint them as class representatives, appoint undersigned counsel as class counsel under Rule 23(g)(1), and grant such other and further relief as it deems appropriate. Essentia is an integrated health system serving patients in Minnesota, North Dakota, and Wisconsin. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5MMtGj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael von Klemperer, Esq. Ashali P. Chimata, Esq. Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq. FEGAN SCOTT LLC 1763 Columbia Rd. NW, Suite 100 Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 921-0002 Facsimile: (312) 264-0100 E-mail: mike@feganscott.com ashali@feganscott.com beth@feganscott.com - and - Scott A. Haider, Esq. J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. Brian Marty, Esq. SCHNEIDER LAW FIRM 815 3rd Ave. S. Fargo, ND 58103 Telephone: (701) 235-4481 E-mail: scott@schneiderlawfirm.com goplerud@sagwlaw.com marty@saglaw.com FARMER BROS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Stanford Says -------------------------------------------------------- KARL STANFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FARMER BROS. CO., Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-01063-O (N.D. Tex., Sept. 29, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information and Protected Health Information (collectively, "Private Information) and that was impacted in a cyber incident (the "Data Breach" or the "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. The Defendant, despite having the financial wherewithal and personnel necessary to prevent the Data Breach, nevertheless failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. 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, alleges the suit. Farmer Bros. Co. operates as a coffee foodservice company. The Company roasts, packages, and distributes coffee and allied products to restaurants, hotels, hospitals, convenience stores, and fast food outlets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com FARMERS INSURANCE: Garcia Files Tort Suit in C.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Farmers Insurance Exchange, et al. The case is captioned Mia Garcia, et al., individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-08774-SRM-PVC (C.D. Cal., September 16, 2025). The case is brought over personal injury caused from Diversity-Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. The suit is assigned to Judge Serena R. Murillo. Farmers Insurance Exchange provides insurance products and services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric Lechtzin, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 South State Street Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Facsimile: (267) 685-0676 E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com The Defendants are represented by: Isabelle Louise Ord, Esq. Andrew B. Serwin, Esq. Matthew Danaher, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400 San Francisco, CA 94105-2933 Telephone: (415) 836-2500 Facsimile: (415) 836-2501 E-mail: isabelle.ord@dlapiper.com andrew.serwin@dlapiper.com matt.danaher@us.dlapiper.com FFF+US INC: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------- DENISE CRUMWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FFF+US, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07986 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 26, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.meandem.com/us, 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. FFF+US, Inc. manufactures girl's clothing. The Company markets its products through retail shops throughout the United States. [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 FRANCA SERVICE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Costa Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- RAFAEL GONCALVES COSTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRANCA SERVICE INC.; FRANCA ENTERPRISE SERVICE, INC.; and DAVID FRANCA, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-40150 (D. Mass., Sept. 29, 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 Costa was employed by the Defendants as a laborer. Franca Service Inc. operate a construction company located in Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Olayiwola O. Oduyingbo, Esq. Ana Barros, Esq. ODU LAW FIRM, LLC 888 Reservoir Avenue, Floor 2 Cranston, RI 02910 Telephone: (401) 209-2029 Facsimile: (401) 217-2299 Email: Odu@odulawfirm.com abarros@odulawfirm.com FREEPORT-MCMORAN INC: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Freeport-McMoRan Inc. (NYSE: FCX) resulting from allegations that Freeport may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Freeport securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=45553 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On September 24, 2025, Freeport issued a press release entitled "Freeport Provides Update on PT Freeport Indonesia Operations." It stated that Freeport "announced an update on the status of the previously reported mud rush incident at the Grasberg Block Cave mine (GBC) in Indonesia. On September 20, 2025, PT Freeport Indonesia (PTFI) located two team members who were regrettably fatally injured in the September 8th incident." On this news, Freeport stock fell by 16.95% on September 24, 2025. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by Law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. [GN] FUNDAMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE: Thompson Sues Over Unprotected Info --------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FUNDAMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC and THI OF NEVADA II AT DESERT LANE, LLC d/b/a HORIZON HEALTH & REHABILITATION CENTER, Case No. 1:25-cv-03293-SAG (D. Md., Oct. 3, 2025) arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal health information and personal identifiable information from a foreseeable, preventable data breach. Between Oct. 27, 2024, and Jan. 13, 2025, criminal hackers accessed Fundamental's network systems and stole the stored Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, including their names, dates of birth, driver's license or state identification numbers, Social Security numbers, financial account information, medical treatment information, health insurance and Medicaid/Medicare information, and other sensitive data. Accordingly, as a condition of receiving healthcare, the Plaintiff and Class Members were required to entrust their sensitive, non-public Private Information to their providers and, through those providers, to Fundamental. Healthcare providers and their business associates that handle patients' Private Information (like Defendants) owe the individuals to whom the information relates a duty to adopt reasonable measures to protect it from disclosure to unauthorized third parties, and to keep it safe and confidential. This duty arises under contract, statutory and common law, industry standards, representations made to Plaintiff and Class Members, and because it is foreseeable that the exposure of Private Information to unauthorized persons -- and especially hackers with nefarious intentions -- will harm the affected individuals, including but not limited to the invasion of their private health and financial matters. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former patients of Horizon and other nursing homes and rehabilitation centers that contracted Fundamental to provide operational and management services. Fundamental operates and manages a group of over 60 nursing homes and rehabilitation centers located throughout the United States, including Horizon.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com GORILLA SUSHI: Faces Macias Suit for Misappropriation of Tips ------------------------------------------------------------- AXEL LUNA MACIAS and JUSTIN LEE LLASOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GORILLA SUSHI, LLC, GORILLA KOREAN GRILL, INC., WOO CHANG CHOI and AMY NAKANISHI, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01808 (D. Nev., September 24, 2025) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada common law. According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully violated the federal and state laws by keeping tips for the two these purposes: -- requiring the Plaintiff and those similarly situated to give a portion of their tips to other employees who do not regularly and customarily receive tips from customers; and -- requiring the Plaintiff and those similarly situated to give a portion of their tips to managers and supervisors of the Defendants. Plaintiff Macias is a current employee of the Defendants while Plaintiff Llasos is a former employee of the Defendants. Gorilla Sushi, LLC is a sushi restaurant with principal place of business in Clark County, Nevada.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Leon Greenberg, Esq. Ruthann Devereaux-Gonzalez, Esq. LEON GREENBERG PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1811 South Rainbow Blvd., Suite 210 Las Vegas, NV 89146 Telephone: (702) 383-6085 Facsimile: (702) 385-1827 E-mail: leongreenberg@overtimelaw.com HABITAT FOR EXCELLENCE: Takpiti Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- WILFRIED TAKPITI, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HABITAT FOR EXCELLENCE, LLC, NATHANIEL DOTSE, and MIRIAM ACQUAH DOTSE, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00703-SJD (S.D. Ohio, September 24, 2025) seeks to recover Plaintiff's unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act stemming from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices. Pursuant to Defendants' compensation policies and practices, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were not compensated at the statutorily mandated overtime rate of one and one-half times their regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess of 40 in a work week. Instead, the Defendants compensated non-exempt employees at their regular hourly rate for all hours worked, regardless of the amount of overtime accrued during the applicable pay period, says the suit. The Plaintiff was employed by Habitat for Excellence as a Direct Support Professional from May 1, 2023, until April 18, 2025. Habitat for Excellence is a For-Profit Limited Liability Company serving nine Ohio Counties. Habitat for Excellence is a health-care agency that provides home health, nursing, and supportive services to individuals with developmental disabilities and mental health diagnoses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terence R. Coates, Esq. Isabel C. DeMarco, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com idemarco@msdlegal.com - and - Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. Elizabeth Orrick, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Facsimile: (612) 336-2940 E-mail: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com eorrick@chestnutcambronne.com HAG LLC: Seeks Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in Georgia ---------------------------------------------- On October 7, 2025, HAG LLC sought Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection in the Northern District of Georgia, marking the start of liquidation proceedings. Court documents show that the company has liabilities between $0 and $100,000, and lists 1 to 49 creditors in its petition. About HAG LLC HAG LLC is a single asset real estate company HAG LLC sought relief under Chapter 7 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Case No. 25-611645) on October 7, 2025. In its petition, the Debtor reports estimated assets and liabilities up to $100,000 each. Honorable Bankruptcy Judge Barbara Ellis-Monro handles the case. HARD ROCK: Syla Seeks FLSA Conditional Collective Status -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JETNIK SYLA and BESNIK BERISHA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. HARD ROCK INTERNATIONAL (USA), INC., HARD ROCK HOTELS, INC., HR HOTEL NYC LLC d/b/a HARD ROCK HOTEL NEW YORK, NYY STEAK LLC, NYY STEAK MANHATTAN, LLC and KLAUBER PINTO, Case No. 1:24-cv-08247-JLR-HJR (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court to enter an Order: -- granting conditional certification of a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and -- mailing of a court-authorized notice to the putative collective action members, as well as such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Hard is an operator of a chain of theme restaurants intended to offer collectible fashion and music-related merchandise. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gHhGtP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William Brown, Esq. Angela Kwon, Esq. BROWN KWON & LAM, LLP 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (212) 295-5828 Facsimile: (718) 795-1642 E-mail: wbrown@bkllawyers.com akwon@bkllawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: Kathleen McLeod Caminiti, Esq. Sarah Wieselthier, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 400 Connell Drive, Suite 4000 Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922 Telephone: (908) 516-1064 E-mail: kcaminiti@fisherphillips.com swiesselthier@fisherphillips.com HERSHEY COMPANY: Court Tosses Vidal Suit w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN VIDAL and EDUARDO GRANADOS, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals, v. THE HERSHEY COMPANY, Case No. 0:24-cv-60831-MD (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Melissa Damian entered an order -- granting Defendant's motion to dismiss; and -- dismissing without prejudice the Vidal complaint. In the event the Plaintiffs intend to seek leave to file an amended complaint, they must request leave to do so in a properly filed motion in accordance with the applicable Federal and Local Rules within 15 days of the date of the instant Order. After that date, any new pleading must be filed in a new case. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. All pending motions, including the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and joint motion to stay are denied as moot, and any deadlines previously set are terminated. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts demonstrating a concrete injury. Therefore, this Court finds that Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to assert the claim for relief3 in the Complaint, either individually or on behalf of a purported class. On May 17, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of consumers who purchased one of the Reese's Products in the State of Florida, alleging a single cause of action for violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA"). Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that they and numerous other consumers purchased the Reese's Products "with the reasonable expectation that the Products would look similar to the pictures displayed on the Products’ packaging." According to the Plaintiffs' allegations, Hershey "has deceived reasonable consumers, like the Plaintiffs and members of the Class, into believing the Products were something that they were not." Hershey is a chocolate manufacturer. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9sTqx9 at no extra charge.[CC] HOME PARTNERS: Agrees to Settle Misleading Leases' Suit for $34MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that Home Partners has agreed to a $34 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that it leased residential homes through leases containing misleading, unenforceable or otherwise unlawful provisions. The Home Partners class action settlement benefits individuals who leased homes from Home Partners or were household members or occupants listed in such leases and occupied the home at any time during the applicable settlement class periods: -- Multistate class: Dec. 22, 2019, through July 31, 2025 -- Minnesota class: March 1, 2016, through July 31, 2025 -- Washington class: Sept. 21, 2016, through July 31, 2025 -- Colorado class: May 1, 2017, through July 31, 2025 Home Partners is a real estate company that leases homes to renters with the option of buying the home they rent. Home Partners has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $34 million to resolve the Home Partners class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Home Partners class action settlement, class members can receive two types of cash benefits: a base payment and a reimbursement for repair and maintenance costs. Base payments will be distributed on a pro rata basis. Class members who paid a higher amount in rent will receive a larger share of the net settlement fund. Exact payment amounts will vary depending on the number of class members who participate in the settlement. The settlement also allocates $7.5 million for repair and maintenance cost reimbursement. Class members can receive up to $2,500 for repairs they performed or paid others to perform that they believe were Home Partners' responsibility. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Oct. 20, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Home Partners class action settlement is scheduled for Dec. 2, 2025. To receive a base payment, class members must have been a member of the class as of Oct. 20, 2025. Class members who wish to receive repair and maintenance cost reimbursement must submit a valid claim form by Oct. 27, 2025. Who's Eligible The settlement benefits people in every state and the District of Columbia in which Home Partners has leased homes who are or were parties to leases with Home Partners, or were household members or occupants listed in such leases, and occupied the home at any time during the applicable settlement class periods. Potential Award Varies. Proof of Purchase Class members must submit documentation of repairs, such as receipts, work orders, invoices or other documents, to support the amount requested. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 10/27/2025 Case Name Sewall, et al. v. Home Partners Holdings LLC, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-07849, United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois Final Hearing 12/02/2025 Settlement Website HPASettlement.com Claims Administrator Home Partners Settlement Administrator PO Box 1829 Baton Rouge, LA 70821 admin@HPASettlement.com (866) 952-4063 Class Counsel Anne T. Regan HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC Joseph Bourne LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP Scott Harris MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC Defense Counsel Michael J. Yim KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP John C. McCarthy MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP [GN] HOSPITAL SISTERS: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $7.6MM ----------------------------------------------------------- Steve Alder of The HIPAA Journal reports that a class action lawsuit against Hospital Sisters Health System has been settled for $7.6 million. The lawsuit relates to an August 2023 cyberattack that affected approximately 883,000 individuals. The cyberattack caused an outage of computer systems, phone lines, and websites, and its MyChart and MyPrevea applications were taken offline for several days, leaving the health system unable to take payments. The investigation confirmed that the threat actor accessed systems containing patient and employee information between August 16, 2023, and August 27, 2023, and potentially exfiltrated data. Notification letters started to be mailed to the affected individuals on October 26, 2023. Several class action lawsuits were filed against Hospital Sisters Health System in response to the data breach. Since they had overlapping claims and were based on the same facts, the lawsuits were consolidated into a single action -- In re Hospital Sisters Health System Data Breach Litigation, in the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit of the State of Illinois, Sangamon County, Chancery Division. The lawsuit alleged that Hospital Sisters Health System was negligent because it failed to implement reasonable and appropriate security measures to protect its network and patient and employee data from unauthorized access, and had those measures been implemented, the data breach could have been prevented. Hospital Sisters Health System denies all claims asserted in the lawsuit and denies all allegations of wrongdoing and liability. Class counsel and the plaintiffs believe that the legal claims asserted in the lawsuit have merit. After assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the case, the plaintiffs and defendants moved to settle the litigation to avoid the burden, expense, risk, and uncertainty of continued litigation. Class counsel and the plaintiffs believe that the settlement is fair and provides substantial benefits for the settlement class. Under the terms of the settlement, all class members are entitled to enroll in financial data monitoring services for two years. The CyEx Financial Shield package includes fraud and identity monitoring, including monitoring for unauthorized financial transactions and compromised bank and financial account numbers. Class members will also benefit from a $1 million financial fraud insurance policy. Class members are also eligible to claim one of two cash benefits. They may submit a claim for reimbursement of documented, unreimbursed losses due to the data breach, up to a maximum of $5,000 per class member. Alternatively, they can submit a claim for a pro rata cash payment, which will be paid after attorneys' fees, expenses, settlement administration costs, class representative awards, financial data monitoring costs, and claims have been paid. The settlement has received preliminary approval from the court, and the final fairness hearing has been scheduled for December 4, 2025. Class members wishing to object to the settlement or exclude themselves must do so by November 14, 2025, and the deadline for submitting a claim is November 14, 2025. [GN] HUM NUTRITION: Faces Nwaigbo Suit Over Misleading GLP-1 Booster Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judith Nwaigbo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HUM Nutrition, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-09440 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 3, 2025) is a class action lawsuit against HUM, which sells a variety of health supplements on its website, www.humnutrition.com, and through third-party retailers. The case is about one of HUM's supplements, the "Flatter Me Fiber GLP-1 Booster," which the Defendant falsely and misleadingly advertises as providing a sustained and meaningful increase to natural GLP-1 levels comparable to actual GLP-1 agonist medications like Ozempic. GLP-1 is a hormone naturally produced by the human body. It serves many functions, including slowing digestion, increasing the sensation of satiety after eating, telling the pancreas when to release insulin, and stopping glucose from entering the bloodstream. Medicines such as Ozempic and Wegovy are GLP-1 agonists -- synthetic versions of GLP-1. They are a medicine used to manage type-2 diabetes and are also extremely effective weight loss medications. While naturally occurring GLP-1 is quickly processed by enzymes in the body, giving it a half-life of only 1-2 minutes, GLP-1 agonists are designed to resist enzymes, giving them half-lives as long as 7 days. This longer half-life is what makes GLP-1 agonists an extremely effective weight loss tool, giving users the benefits of the GLP-1 hormone -- such as slower digestion and feelings of satiety -- for days rather than minutes, says the suit. As a result, increasing naturally produced GLP-1 by modest amounts cannot create nearly the same weight loss effects provided by long-lasting GLP-1 agonists like Ozempic. Despite this, HUM deceptively claims that its GLP-1 Booster can naturally increase GLP-1 production to a meaningful level with the effect of "curb[ing] cravings," and allowing users to "escape cravings." HUM prominently represents on its website and social media advertising that its GLP-1 Booster "Doubles GLP-1 Levels." But HUM omits from its marketing claimsthat simply eating a modest meal raises natural GLP-1 levels by three to five fold. In other words, even if the GLP-1 Booster "doubles" GLP-1 levels, the "doubling" has no meaningful and sustained impact on hunger or satiety, let alone to a degree that would allow consumers to "escape cravings," the suit contends. HUM also takes its deceptive advertising a step further by drawing comparisons to actual GLP-1 agonist medications like Ozempic. For example, HUM refers to its GLP-1 Booster as "Fauxzempic," with claims that the GLP-1 Booster provides a natural alternative to prescription GLP-1 medications. In reality, GLP-1 medications like Ozempic have a half-life of approximately 7 days -- resulting in sustained appetite suppression -- not the 1-2 minutes associated with naturally increasing GLP-1. The Defendant's false and misleading statements caused Plaintiff and members of the proposed classes to pay a price premium for the GLP-1 Booster. Had Plaintiff known the truth, the Plaintiff would not have purchased the GLP-1 Booster or would have paid significantly less, the suit further asserts. The Plaintiff seeks monetary and injunctive relief against Defendant for violating the California Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The Plaintiff resides in California and purchased the Defendant's GLP-1 Booster from the Defendant's website. Before purchasing the GLP-1 Booster, the Plaintiff saw an advertisement from HUM that referred to the GLP-1 Booster as "Fauxzempic." The Defendant markets and sells the GLP-1 Booster through its own website and through third-party retailers including Target and Amazon.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Caleb L. Marker, Esq. Ryan J. Ellersick, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 6420 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1080 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (877) 500-8780 E-mail: 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 E-mail: raphael@janove.law ICONIC MORTGAGE: Laccinole Files Suit Over FCRA Violation --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Iconic Mortgage Corp. The case is captioned Christopher Laccinole, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Iconic Mortgage Corp., Case No. 1:25-cv-24186-RAR (S.D. Fla., September 15, 2025). The case is brought over Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The suit is assigned to Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II. Iconic Mortgage Corp. is a mortgage broker in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Anthony Love, Esq. LOVE CONSUMER LAW 2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 330 Alpharetta, GA 30009 Telephone: (404) 855-3600 E-mail: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com INOTIV INC: Continues to Defend Doyal Class Suit in Indiana ----------------------------------------------------------- Inotiv Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report for filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 21, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Doyal class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The Company has been named as a defendant in a putative class action relating to the cybersecurity incident reported in the Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the Company on August 18, 2025 (the "2025 Cybersecurity Incident") pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana: Doyal v. Inotiv, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-00046 (filed on August 21, 2025). The complaint generally allege that the plaintiffs and the proposed class members were harmed when their personally identifying information and protected health information (together, "Private Information") was impacted by the 2025 Cybersecurity Incident. The purported class includes all persons in the United States whose Private Information allegedly was impacted by the 2025 Cybersecurity Incident. The complaints seek (i) an order certifying the cases as class actions, (ii) unspecified amounts of monetary damages, restitution, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and (iii) certain injunctive or equitable relief relating to (a) the safeguarding of proposed class members' Private Information, and (b) the implementation of technical and administrative cybersecurity programs, procedures and controls. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend the matter vigorously. Inotiv, Inc. operates as a contract research organization providing research and development resources. The Company sells its services to pharmaceutical, medical device, and biotechnology companies around the world. [BN] INOTIV INC: Continues to Defend Merrell Class Suit in Indiana ------------------------------------------------------------- Inotiv Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 21, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Merrell class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The Company has been named as a defendant in a putative class action relating to the cybersecurity incident reported in the Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the Company on August 18, 2025 (the "2025 Cybersecurity Incident") pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana: Merrell v. Inotiv, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-00047 (filed on August 25, 2025. The complaint generally allege that the plaintiffs and the proposed class members were harmed when their personally identifying information and protected health information (together, "Private Information") was impacted by the 2025 Cybersecurity Incident. The purported class includes all persons in the United States whose Private Information allegedly was impacted by the 2025 Cybersecurity Incident. The complaints seek (i) an order certifying the cases as class actions, (ii) unspecified amounts of monetary damages, restitution, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and (iii) certain injunctive or equitable relief relating to (a) the safeguarding of proposed class members' Private Information, and (b) the implementation of technical and administrative cybersecurity programs, procedures and controls. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend the matter vigorously. Inotiv, Inc. operates as a contract research organization providing research and development resources. The Company sells its services to pharmaceutical, medical device, and biotechnology companies around the world. [BN] INOTIV INC: Continues to Defend Wagner Class Suit in Indiana ------------------------------------------------------------ Inotiv Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report for filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 21, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Wagner class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The Company has been named as a defendant in a putative class action relating to the cybersecurity incident reported in the Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the Company on August 18, 2025 (the "2025 Cybersecurity Incident") pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana: Wagner v. Inotiv, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-00049 (filed on September 2, 2025). The complaint generally allege that the plaintiffs and the proposed class members were harmed when their personally identifying information and protected health information (together, "Private Information") was impacted by the 2025 Cybersecurity Incident. The purported class includes all persons in the United States whose Private Information allegedly was impacted by the 2025 Cybersecurity Incident. The complaints seek (i) an order certifying the cases as class actions, (ii) unspecified amounts of monetary damages, restitution, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and (iii) certain injunctive or equitable relief relating to (a) the safeguarding of proposed class members' Private Information, and (b) the implementation of technical and administrative cybersecurity programs, procedures and controls. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend the matter vigorously. Inotiv, Inc. operates as a contract research organization providing research and development resources. The Company sells its services to pharmaceutical, medical device, and biotechnology companies around the world. [BN] INTERNATIONAL GAME: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Martinelli Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANTHONY MARTINELLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY, a Nevada corporation, and BRIGHTSTAR GLOBAL SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-01917 (D. Nev., Oct. 7, 2025) arises from the Defendants failure to secure the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Class, following a cyberattack (the Data Breach). Accordingly in the course of their regular business operations, the Defendants collect, store, and maintain substantial amount of Private Information, and have a resulting duty to safeguard that Private Information from unauthorized access. On Nov. 17, 2024, the Defendants discovered that an unauthorized third party gained access to certain of their internal corporate systems. Upon discovery, the Defendants launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. The Defendants investigation was completed on August 21, 2025. The following types of Private Information were compromised as a result of the Data Breach: name, contact information, date of birth, government identification documents or government identification number such as driver's license number, Social Security number or other tax identifier, financial account information, health data, and other information. On Oct. 3, 2025, nearly 11 months after being made aware of the Data Breach, the Defendants issued a notice of public disclosure about the Data Breach. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in the form of loss of the value of their private and confidential information, loss of the benefit of their contractual bargain, out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members are comprised of current and former customer and employees of Defendants. IGT is a company that produces slot machines and other gambling technologies. BGSC is a lottery operator.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan R. Ring, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC Nevada Bar No. 12078 3100 W. Charleson Blvd., Suite 208 Las Vegas, NE 89102 Telephone:(725) 235-9750 E-mail: nring@stranchlaw.com - and - Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (771) 772-3086 E-mail: cturner@milberg.com - and - Courtney Maccarone, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: maccarone@kolawyers.com INTERNATIONAL GAME: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Michaelis Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JASON MICHAELIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY, a Nevada corporation, and BRIGHTSTAR GLOBAL SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-01918 (D. Nev., Oct. 7, 2025) arises from the Defendants failure to secure the personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Class, following a cyberattack (the Data Breach). Accordingly in the course of their regular business operations, the Defendants collect, store, and maintain substantial amount of Private Information, and have a resulting duty to safeguard that Private Information from unauthorized access. On Nov. 17, 2024, the Defendants discovered that an unauthorized third party gained access to certain of their internal corporate systems. Upon discovery, the Defendants launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. The Defendants investigation was completed on August 21, 2025. The following types of Private Information were compromised as a result of the Data Breach: name, contact information, date of birth, government identification documents or government identification number such as driver's license number, Social Security number or other tax identifier, financial account information, health data, and other information. On Oct. 3, 2025, nearly 11 months after being made aware of the Data Breach, the Defendants issued a notice of public disclosure about the Data Breach. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in the form of loss of the value of their private and confidential information, loss of the benefit of their contractual bargain, out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack. The Plaintiff and Class Members are comprised of current and former customer and employees of Defendants. IGT is a company that produces slot machines and other gambling technologies. BGSC is a lottery operator.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan R. Ring, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. Miles M. Schiller, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 3100 W. Charleson Blvd., Suite 208 Las Vegas, NE 89102 Telephone: (725) 235-9750 E-mail: nring@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com mschiller@stranchlaw.com JCF HOUSEMENTS: Settlement in Hadley Class Suit Gets Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- aIn the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERIKA HADLEY, et al., Individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. JCF HOUSEMENTS MANUFACTURING LLC, et al.; Case No. 4:23-cv-00023-KAC-MJD (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Crytzer entered an order: -- Denying the Parties' "Joint Motion For Entry Of Orders, -- Granting Approval of Settlement, -- Certifying The Class For Purposes Of Settlement Only, -- Appointing a Class Representative, -- Appointing Class Counsel, -- Directing Notice To the Settlement Class, and -- Scheduling a Fairness Hearing. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant for violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification ("WARN") Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and for breach of contract. JCF is engaged in real estate and housing construction. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=R81liz at no extra charge.[CC] JOJO'S RESTAURANT: Sued Over Property's Architectural Barriers -------------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS MAURER, an individual, Plaintiff vs. JOJO'S RESTAURANT, LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, & JOJO'S RESTAURANT REALTY, LLC, a New Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-15917 (D.N.J., September 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. The Defendants own a property/place of public accommodation, a restaurant known as Jo-Jo's Italian Grille, located in Pleasantville, New Jersey. The Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities as defined by and pursuant to the ADA. Mr. Maurer has multiple sclerosis and therefore has a physical impairment that substantially limits many of his major life activities. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff personally encountered exposure to architectural barriers and otherwise harmful conditions that have endangered his safety at the said property. The architectural barriers and violations of the ADA that Mr. Maurer has personally encountered during his visits to the property include inaccessible parking and exterior accessible route and restrooms. Jojo's Restaurant, LLC operates a place of public accommodation alleged by the Plaintiff to be operating in violation of Title III of the ADA and the LAD.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 2220 N. East Avenue Vineland, NJ 08360 Telephone: (609) 319-5399 E-mail: js@shadingerlaw.com KAISER PERMANENTE: Removes Cedillo Suit to C.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------ The Defendant in the case of ARELY CEDILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KAISER PERMANENTE INTERNATIONAL; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. 24STCV28553) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Sept. 26, 2025. The clerk of court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-09241. Kaiser Permanente International provides health care services. The Company offers urgent care and behavioral health facilities. [BN] Defendant KAISER PERMANENTE INTERNATIONAL is represented by: Richard H. Rahm, Esq. Sean Choi, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. One Embarcadero Center, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 442-4810 Facsimile: (415) 442-4870 Email: richard.rahm@ogletree.com sean.choi@ogletree.com KENT MARTIN: Burch Seeks to Certify Class of Detainees ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIJAH BURCH on behalf of himself and all similarly situated former and current pre-trial detainees housed at the Coles County Jail, v. KENT MARTIN, in his individual and official capacity as the COLES COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01068-SLD-RLH (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- certifying, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), a class consisting of: "all individuals who, from Feb. 19, 2023 to the present, were detained in the Coles County Jail and placed in "medical observation" cells or other similar rooms without running water, plumbing or toilets"; and -- appointing undersigned counsel to represent the class. The putative class action arises out of the systemic practice of the Coles County Jail to house pre-trial detainees in purported "medical observation" cells. These cells are essentially former visitation rooms and other rooms that have been refurbished into empty cells that have no plumbing, sink, running water or toilet. The Plaintiff Burch is a veteran of the United States Army who was honorably discharged from service, where he served as a military police officer. In 2023, the Plaintiff Burch was arrested and detained at the Coles County Jail where he spent approximately 3 1/2 months in pre-trial detention. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OpSE2m at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Devlin Joseph Schoop, Esq. LADUZINSKY & SCHOOP, P.C. 216 South Jefferson Street, Suite 301 Chicago, IL 60601-5743 Telephone: (312) 424-0700 E-mail: dschoop@laduzinsky.com - and - Judith Marie Redwood, Esq. REDWOOD LAW OFFICE St. Joseph, IL 61873 Telephone: (217) 469-9194 Facsimile: (217) 469-8094 E-mail: redwoodlaw42@hotmail.com LATOYA HUGHES: Court Narrows Claims in Brozak Suit -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRODIE BROZAK AND ANDRES JOYCE-DILBART, v. LATOYA HUGHES, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-03299-MMM-RLH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Michael M. Mihm entered an order that 1. The Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. It is denied as to Plaintiff Brozak's Eighth Amendment claims against Scroggins and Sefton. In all other respects it is granted. Defendants Hughes and Doe to be terminated. 2. The Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction is denied. 3. The Plaintiff's motion to certify class is moot. 4. This action is referred to the magistrate judge for further pretrial proceedings consistent with this Order. The Court has found no likelihood of success on the merits of the claims that seek an injunction mandating a change to IDOC policy. A preliminary injunction is not appropriate here and the request is denied. The Plaintiff's motion to certify class relies extensively on allegations that have been dismissed. It is moot. The Plaintiffs' first amended complaint seeks to allege, on behalf of themselves and a similarly situated class, that Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) Director Latoya Hughes, former supervisor of the records office at Graham Correctional Center Dawn Scroggins, current supervisor of the records office at Graham Correctional Center Jennica Sefton, and John Doe records office supervisor, violated their constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth amendments via an IDOC policy governing calculation of Mandatory Supervised Release. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bMhsk6 at no extra charge.[CC] LOAN STORE: Furman Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- Katherine Furman, an Arizona Resident, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Loan Store AZ, Inc. (FN), a Delaware corporation; and The Loan Store, Inc., A Delaware corporation, Case No. 4:25-cv-00554-AMM (D. Ariz., Oct. 6, 2025) is an action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated Collective Members who were not compensated for their correct overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and the Collective Members are current and former account specialists, partner support specialists, funders, closers, and doc drawers (or similarly titled and/or have similar job duties and responsibilities), that were employed by Defendant. The Plaintiff and the Collective Members worked over 40 hours including off the clock hours in which they were not compensated overtime for those hours. During her employment, the Plaintiff worked hours in excess of 40 hours in a given work week. They were not paid appropriate overtime for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek, says the suit. Plaintiff Furman was a full-time employee of Defendant or an associated company of Defendant from on or around May 28, 2024, to on or around August 15, 2025. The Defendant is a loan company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Weiler, Esq. Jason Barrat, Esq. WEILER LAW PLLC www.weilerlaw.com 5050 N.40th St., Suite 260 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone: (480) 442-3410 E-mail: jweiler@weilerlaw.com jbarrat@weilerlaw.com LOANCARE LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Centeno Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- RAQUEL CENTENO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOANCARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00609 (E.D. Va., Sept. 25, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Centeno was employed by the Defendant as a remote representative. Loancare, LLC is a company specializing in providing professional services to the mortgage industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew T. Sutter, Esq. SUTTER & TERPAK, PLLC 7540 Little River Turnpike, Suite A Annadale, VA 22003 Telephone: (703) 256-1800 Email: matt@sutterandterpak.com - and - Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 East Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Ethan C. Goemann, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Email: egoemann@sommerspc.com LUNA INNOVATIONS: Securities Suit Gets Preliminary Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re Luna Innovations Incorporated Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:24-cv-02630-CBM-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Consuelo Marshall entered an order that: 1. Pursuant to FRCP 23(a) and 23(b)(3), the Action is preliminarily certified as a class action on behalf of a Settlement Class consisting of: "all Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Luna securities between May 16, 2022, and April 19, 2024, inclusive and were damaged thereby." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) the Defendants; (ii) Immediate Family Members of Defendants Scott A. Graeff, Eugene J. Nestro, and George Gomez-Quintero; (iii) any person who is or was an officer or director of Luna; (iv) any firm or entity in which Defendants have or had a majority ownership interest; (v) Luna’s liability insurance carriers; (vi) any affiliates, parents, or subsidiaries of Luna; (vii) all Luna plans that are covered by ERISA; and (viii) the legal representatives, agents, affiliates, heirs, beneficiaries, successors-in-interest, or assigns of any excluded person or entity, in their respective capacity as such. Also excluded are any Persons or entities who properly exclude themselves by filing a valid and timely request for exclusion in accordance with the requirements set by the Court. 2. Lead Plaintiff is certified as the class representative of the Settlement Class and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP is appointed as class counsel for the Settlement Class. 3. The Court schedules the Fairness Hearing, to be held before the Court, on Dec. 17, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. Luna provides optical technology products. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yE8ZWq at no extra charge.[CC] The Parties are represented by: Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Street, Suite 300 Berkeley, CA 94710 E-mail: lucasg@hbsslaw.com - and – Lisa R. Bugni, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 533 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 E-mail: lbugni@kslaw.com - and – Emily Renshaw, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP One Federal Street Boston, MA 02110 E-mail: emily.renshaw@morganlewis.com - and – Daniel Roeser, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP The New York Times Building 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 E-mail: droeser@goodwinlaw.com - and – Stephen L. Ascher, Esq. JENNER AND BLOCK LLP 1155 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 E-mail: sascher@jenner.com LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Class Cert Hearing Set for Oct. 23 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PASSION GABOUREL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA INC. d/b/a LENSCRAFTERS, an Ohio corporation; LUXOTTICA RETAIL NORTH AMERICA, INC., a business entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-00471-FWS-MAA (C.D. Ca.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order modifying the Court's Scheduling Order, setting a deadline for Plaintiff to file a renewed motion for class certification, and extending all remaining deadlines approximately 120 days, as follows: New Date Deadline to file motion for class Sept. 25, 2025 certification ("MFCC"): The Defendant's opposition to MFCC due: Oct. 2, 2025 The Plaintiff's reply in support of MFCC Oct. 9, 2025 due: Hearing on MFCC: Oct. 23, 2025 Non-expert discovery cut-off: Jan. 16, 2026 Last day to hear motions: March 13, 2026 Trial: May 29, 2026 The Plaintiff intends to file a renewed motion for class certification seeking certification of a narrower class of individuals not subject to arbitration agreements, and the remaining deadlines in the Scheduling Order should be continued to allow the time for briefing of and a ruling on Plaintiff’s renewed motion. The Defendant has not identified any prejudice that would result from the requested amendment of the Scheduling Order. To the extent that the Defendant argues that it will be prejudiced by delay, any delay will be brief and will not result in any significant prejudice. On the other hand, Plaintiff and the putative class members will suffer irreparable harm if the requested relief is not granted. The Plaintiff filed her motion for class certification on March 26, 2025, which the Court denied on August 26, 2025. Therefore, there is not sufficient time to file a noticed motion to amend the Scheduling Order prior to the remaining deadlines in the Scheduling Order, and thus extraordinary relief is necessary. Luxottica offers prescription glasses and sunglasses. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZDJUx6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Launa Adolph, Esq. Kayvon Sabourian, Esq. MATTERN LAW GROUP, PC 2101 E. El Segundo Blvd., Suite 403 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 431-1900 E-mail: KSabourian@maternlawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Khatereh Sage Fahimi, Esq. Noah J. Woods, Esq. Heidi E. Hegewald, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101.3577 Telephone: (619) 232-0441 Facsimile: (619) 232-4302 E-mail: sfahimi@littler.com nwoods@littler.com hhegewald@littler.com MAYO CLINIC: S.S. Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as S.S., individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. MAYO CLINIC; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25CV138118, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on September 26, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-08208-KAW to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint asserts causes of action for (1) violation of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, (2) aiding and abetting unlawful interception under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), (3) unlawful recording of and eavesdropping upon confidential communications under CIPA, and (4) violation of Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution, against Defendant in connection with its alleged unauthorized disclosure of Plaintiff's and putative class members' personal health information and/or personal identifying information to third parties, which was discovered in September 2024. Mayo Clinic operates as a non-profit organization. The Organization provides health books, living program, sports medicine, medical products, and stores. Mayo Clinic serves clients in the United States.[BN] Defendant Mayo Clinic is represented by: Teresa C. Chow, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4301 Telephone: (310) 820-8800 Facsimile: (310) 820-8859 E-mail: tchow@bakerlaw.com META PLATFORMS: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Partly OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PURUSHOTHAMAN RAJARAM, et al., v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-02920-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered an order granting in part and denying in part motion to strike: The motion as to the class definitions' inclusion of class members who are non-citizens or were terminated or not hired for any reason is granted. The court denies the remainder of the motion as premature. Meta moved to strike the class allegations of the plaintiffs' third amended complaint (TAC). The plaintiffs counter that the motion is premature because discovery has not begun. The court grants the motion in part and denies it in part Meta contends that the termination class should be struck as overbroad because it is not limited to specific roles like the hiring class. But overbreadth alone does not warrant striking, and discovery may shed more light on this issue.22 Regarding plaintiff Webb, the plaintiffs have pleaded that although he worked for a third-party vendor, his employment was controlled by Meta.23 Thus, striking related allegations now would be premature. This is a putative class action against Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc. The named plaintiffs — Purushothaman Rajaram, Ekta Bhatia, Qun Wang, Michael Browne, and William Webb — are U.S. citizens who applied for jobs with Meta or worked for Meta through a third-party vendor between May 2020 and January 2025. They allege that Meta terminated or did not hire them because it favors H-1B visa holders because it can pay them less than U.S. citizens. The plaintiffs claim that this hiring practice violates 42 U.S.C. section 1981(a) by discriminating against U.S. citizens. The TAC defines two classes: (1) a "hiring class" including "All individuals who are not visa holders who applied for the following positions with (or within) Facebook and/or Meta in the U.S., either directly or through a third party vendor, and were not hired: Software Engineer, Research Scientist, Data Scientist, Data Engineer, Data Analyst, Engineer, Engineering Manager, Machine Learning, and PLM roles," and (2) a "termination class" including "All individuals who are not visa holders who were employed by Facebook and/or Meta in the U.S., either directly or through a third-party vendor (e.g., Crystal Equation Corporation, Infosys, and others), and were terminated." The Plaintiff Webb is the only named plaintiff who is alleged to have worked for Meta. He is a senior data engineer and scientist with a bachelor of science from the California Institute of Technology and a master of science in computer science from the University of Washington. In August 2023, he "began working for Meta as a Senior Data Scientist, a contractual employee role staffed through one of Meta’s third-party vendors, Crystal Equation Corporation." In October 2024 and January 2025, Mr. Webb was contacted, respectively, by Michael Woo, a technical recruiter for Meta, and Avneet Grewall with Mindlance, a third-party recruiter for Meta, both of whom informed Mr. Webb of open roles with Meta suited to his skills. Mr. Webb applied for the positions with Meta, was qualified for them, performed well in interviews, but was ultimately not hired in favor of visa-holders. Meta is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ICc9zP at no extra charge.[CC] MLS PROPERTY: $4-Mil. Class Action Settlement Gets Final Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that a federal judge has granted final approval to a $4 million class action settlement between home sellers and MLS Property Information Network, a regional listing service featuring homes for sale in New England. U.S. District Judge Patti Saris in Boston on September 29, Monday said, the settlement was fair and reasonable, concluding months of litigation over its merits, including questions from the Justice Department. Her ruling followed a settlement fairness hearing earlier that day. The lawsuit, filed in 2020, accused MLS of forcing home sellers to pay excessive commission fees in the sale of residential real estate. The class period runs roughly from December 2016 to the date of the court's approval order, and covers up to 700,000 home sellers. Attorneys for the home sellers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. MLS had no immediate comment. The listing service denied any wrongdoing in agreeing to settle. The case is among several that challenged a longstanding real estate industry practice requiring home sellers to pay a commission that is split between their own agent and the buyer's agent. Some major U.S. brokerages in recent years have paid tens of millions of dollars or more to settle claims from home sellers that they conspired with the industry's trade group to artificially inflate commissions. The U.S. Justice Department previously raised concerns about the MLS settlement, but the plaintiffs' lawyers said the deal would not prevent the department from pursuing its own claims. As part of the agreement, MLS will implement rule and practice changes, including eliminating any requirement that sellers offer commissions to buyers' agents. Individual payouts to class members from the $4 million fund will depend on how many claims are submitted. The plaintiffs' lawyers said eligible class members are also expected to receive additional compensation from multimillion-dollar settlements elsewhere involving some of the country's largest real estate brokerages. The case is Jennifer Nosalek et al v. MLS Property Information Network et al, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, No. 1:20-cv-12244-PBS. For plaintiffs: Robert Izard and Seth Klein of Izard, Kindall & Raabe, and Christopher Lebsock and Jose Roman Lavergne of Hausfeld For MLS: J. Matthew Goodin of Troutman Pepper Locke, and Jon Anderson of Brennan Scungio & Kresge [GN] MONSANTO COMPANY: Schannette Sues Over Defective Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------------ REGINA SCHANNETTE, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-01416 (W.D. La., September 24, 2025) is a class action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Defendant failed to appropriately and adequately inform and warn Plaintiff of the serious and dangerous risks associated with the use of and exposure to glyphosate and/or Roundup, including, but not limited to, the risk of developing Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, as well as other severe and personal injuries, which are permanent and/or long-lasting in nature, cause significant physical pain and mental anguish, diminished enjoyment of life, and the need for medical treatment, monitoring and/or medications, says the suit. The Plaintiff was exposed to Roundup in Iberia Parish, Louisiana beginning for about a decade in the State of Louisiana and was allegedly diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma in 2023. Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Enochs, Esq. Betsy Barnes, Esq. Morris Bart LLC 601 Poydras Street, 24th Floor New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 525-8000 Facsimile: (833) 277-4214 E-mail: jenochs@morrisbart.com bbarnes@morrisbart.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Tanner Sues Over Defective Herbicide Roundup -------------------------------------------------------------- RUTH TANNER, individually and on behalf of ELEY TANNER, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00287-TBM-BWR (S.D. Miss., September 24, 2025) is a class action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Defendant failed to appropriately and adequately inform and warn Plaintiff of the serious and dangerous risks associated with the use of and exposure to glyphosate and/or Roundup, including, but not limited to, the risk of developing Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, as well as other severe and personal injuries, which are permanent and/or long-lasting in nature, cause significant physical pain and mental anguish, diminished enjoyment of life, and the need for medical treatment, monitoring and/or medications, says the suit. Plaintiff Ruth Tanner is a citizen and resident of Lucedale, Mississippi. Her husband Eley Tanner purchased and used Roundup and/or other Monsanto glyphosate-containing products for decades in Mississippi, including in George County, prior to his diagnosis with Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma in 2017. Mr. Tanner died in 2021. Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Enochs, Esq. Betsy Barnes, Esq. Morris Bart LLC 601 Poydras Street, 24th Floor New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 525-8000 Facsimile: (833) 277-4214 E-mail: jenochs@morrisbart.com bbarnes@morrisbart.com MOTILITY SOFTWARE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Reynicke Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- HEATHER REYNICKE and CHRISTOPHER SANTORA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. MOTILITY SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00331-MJN-PBS (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 3, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data of approximately 760,000 individuals. On Aug. 19, 2025, Motility discovered it had lost control over its computer network and cybercriminals accessed highly sensitive personal information stored on its computer network in at least two separate incidents. Motility itself did not publicly announce the data breach; its parent, The Reynolds and Reynolds Company, disclosed Motility's Data Breach on or around September 12, 2025. It is unknown how long the data breach continued before Motility identified "suspicious activity" on August 19, 2025. The same day, Motility responded by taking the impacted server offline to contain the incident and began an investigation with the help of cybersecurity experts. Law enforcement was also notified. Motility's investigation revealed that the breach exposed the personally identifiable information, including at least names, birthdates, driver's license numbers, and social security numbers, belonging to approximately 760,000 consumers (the Data Breach). Accordingly, Motility has not notified impacted individuals, or the attorney generals of states where impacted individuals reside. The cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems over an undisclosed period of time because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity, failed to adequately monitor its agents, contractors, vendors, and suppliers in handling and securing the private information of Plaintiffs, and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's private information—rendering it an easy target for cybercriminals, asserts the suit. The Defendant's deliberate and ongoing failure to timely report the Data Breach makes the victims vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their private information. In failing to adequately protect consumers' private information, adequately notify them about the breach, and obfuscating the nature of the breach, Defendant violated state law and harmed an unknown number of its consumers, the suit asserts. The Plaintiffs and the Class are victims of the Defendant's negligence and inadequate cyber security measures. Specifically, Plaintiffs and Members of the proposed Class trusted Defendant with their private information. But Defendant betrayed that trust when Defendant failed to properly use up-to-date security practices to prevent the Data Breach, the suit says. Plaintiffs Heather Reynicke and Christopher Santora are current and former customers of Alpin Haus. Alpin Haus, a recreational retailer and dealer with multiple locations, uses Motility's dealer management software to manage sales, inventory, and customer records. Motility develops and provides dealer management software for the RV industry and automotive manufacturers founded in 1984.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Terence R. Coates, Esq. Dylan J. Gould, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com dgould@msdlegal.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com MULTICARE HEALTH: Hill Suit Removed from State Ct. to W.D. Wash. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY HILL and CHERIE BURKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MULTICARE HEALTH SYSTEM, a Washington nonprofit corporation; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 25-2-18460-9 SEA, was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for King County to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle on Oct. 6, 2025. The District Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01935 to the proceeding. On August 6, 2025, Plaintiffs Jeffrey Hill and Cherie Burke filed their First Amended Complaint that they purport to bring individually and on behalf of a putative class of persons they seek to represent. The FAC alleges MultiCare violated Washington's Equal Pay and Opportunity Act (EPOA) at RCW 49.58.110. The EPOA requires that a job posting disclose a salary range/wage scale and a general description of benefits. The Plaintiffs are both serial litigants and, together, are the lead plaintiffs in at least thirty-two separate boiler plate class action lawsuits, which like the instant First Amended Complaint, allege that a class of job applicants applied to a non-compliant job posting that did not contain the salary range/wage scale or general description of benefits (or both) MULTICARE HEALTH SYSTEM is a Washington-based, locally governed, nonprofit health system headquartered in Tacoma.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, E Paul Cipriani, Esq. Hannah M. Hamley, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PLLC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: 206.442.9106 E-mail: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com hannah@emeryreddy.com - and - Craig J. Ackermann, Esq. Brian Denlinger, Esq. Avi Kreitenberg, Esq. ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C. 2602 North Proctor Street, Suite 205 Tacoma, WA 98406 Telephone: (310) 277-0614 E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com bd@ackermanntilajef.com ak@ackermanntilajef.com The Defendant is represented by: Kathryn Rosen, Esq. Scott Prange, Esq. David Rund, Esq. 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 E-mail: katierosen@dwt.com scottprange@dwt.com davidrund@dwt.co NATIONAL INSTRUMENTS: Court Certifies Class in Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE NATIONAL INSTRUMENTS CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:23-cv-10488-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Denise Cote entered an order granting the lead plaintiff's May 2, 2025, motion for class certification with modification to the class definition. The following class is certified: "All persons who sold National Instruments common stock between Aug. 12, 2022 and Aug. 30, 2022 and/or between Sept. 12, 2022 and Sept, 28, 2022, inclusive, and were damaged thereby (the "Class")." Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, the officers and directors of the Company, at all relevant times, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns and any entity in which the Defendants have or had a controlling interest. Lead Plaintiff Wayne County Employees' Retirement System is appointed as class representative. Robbins Geller is appointed as class counsel. National is a producer of automated test equipment, semiconductor production, and virtual instrumentation software. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NrDFri at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad Johnson, Esq. Noam Mandel, Esq. Desiree Cummings, Esq. Jonathan Zweig, Esq. Jai Chandrasekhar, Esq. Christopher T. Gilroy, Esq. Alyssa H. Plascoff, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1832 New York, NY 10170 - and - Robert C. Finkel, Esq. Joshua W. Ruthizer, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor New York, NY 10022 The Defendants are represented by: James F. Bennett, Esq. J. Russell Jackson, Esq. Jenny E. Braun, Esq. DOWD BENNETT LLP 7676 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1900 St. Louis, MO 63105 - and - Andrew Ditchfield, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 NESTLE HEALTHCARE: Seeks to File Class Opposition Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Horti, et al., v. Nestle Healthcare Nutrition, Inc. (RE: NESTLE BOOST NUTRITIONAL DRINK LITIGATION), Case No. 3:21-cv-09812-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its administrative motion to file portions of the Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the expert report of Ronald T. Wilcox, PhD under seal. Nestle's opposition to class certification and the accompanying Wilcox Report reference internal, confidential Nestle documents produced under the protective order throughout the course of discovery. These documents contain information about market research, surveys, and studies prepared for and on behalf of Nestlé regarding strategies to differentiate Boost Glucose Control from competing products in the marketplace. Nestle manufactures, markets and/or distributes more than 2 drugs in the United States. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Sept. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=piiNUW at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Christopher Chorba, Esq. Perlette Jura, Esq. Timothy W. Loose, Esq. Al Kelly, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (213) 229-7746 E-mail: cchorba@gibsondunn.com pjura@gibsondunn.com tloose@gibsondunn.com AKelly@gibsondunn.com NEW ERA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind Users, Cazares Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- AMELIA CAZARES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. New Era, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-01312-LA (E.D. Wisc., Oct. 3, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, www.heritagesteel.us, 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 New Era 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, www.heritagesteel.us 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. Heritagesteel.us provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by New Era.[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 LOTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Zhang Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- RUI ZHANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW LOTS LAUNDROMAT INC.; and BORONG WU, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05439 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 29, 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 Zhang was employed by the Defendants as a sales person. New Lots Laundromat is a Brooklyn-based company that offers a wide range of furniture, home decor, and outdoor furniture options. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. Stillman Legal, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 Email: www.StillmanLegalPC.com NEXAR INC: Faces Richard Suit Over Fraudulent Dash Cam Security --------------------------------------------------------------- KARL RICHARDS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NEXAR, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-08211 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 3, 2025) seeks damages for Plaintiffs and other consumers who were victims of the Defendant's fraudulent and misleading representations concerning the dash cam's security and privacy features. The complaint alleges that Nexar monetizes users' data and recordings by repackaging them into various products. One of those is the company's CityStream map which uses recent and blurred images taken by Nexar dash cams, superimposes them on a publicly available map, and annotates things such as yield or speed limit signs, damaged roads, and other hazards. According to a report from 404 Media, in September 2025, a hacker accessed a database of video recordings taken from Nexar-branded cameras, which are built to be placed in drivers' cars. In a clip provided by the hacker to 404 Media, a Nexar camera is faced towards the inside of the car, capturing a rideshare driver picking up passengers. In these videos, the riders' faces are clearly visible. The hacker had found all these videos on an improperly secured Amazon Web Services (AWS) bucket. An AWS bucket acts as a virtual file folder in the cloud where users can store various types of data and the hacker found more than 130 TB worth of data. According to the hacker, every Nexar dash cam is equipped with a "key" to Nexar's database. The key allows users to upload their own camera's data to the database. However, the key also allows users to access the data uploaded from other users' camera. Allegedly, Nexar makes strong promises about how it will protect users' privacy. Indeed, in its privacy policy, Nexar boldly proclaims that "while privacy laws may vary between jurisdictions, Nexar is committed to protecting personal data in accordance with this Privacy Policy, customary industry standards, and such appropriate lawful mechanisms and contractual terms requiring adequate data protection, regardless of any lesser legal requirements that may apply in the jurisdiction to which such data is transferred." Giving any Nexar camera user effectively carte blanche access to all other Nexar users' video files is not compliant with any "customary industry standard," nor is it "adequate data protection," asserts the suit. Plaintiff Karl Richards is a resident and citizen of New York who purchased and used a dash cam camera in his car. Nexar is a dash cam company that promotes its products as "virtual CCTV cameras" and offers automatic cloud uploads of critical incidents, AI-driven insights, and real-time road alerts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main Street, Ste. 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0708 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 E-Mail: pfraietta@bursor.com mgirardi@bursor.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com OPW FUELING: Solis Seeks FLSA Conditional Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ESTRELLA SOLIS, on behalf of the Estate of Narciso Solis and all others similarly situated, v. OPW FUELING COMPONENTS, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-00562-FL (E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting: (1) conditional certification of this action and for court- authorized notice pursuant to section 216(B) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); (2) approval of the proposed FLSA notice of this action and the consent form; (3) complete list (from Jan. 29, 2021 through the present), of all manufacturing employees (across all departments), and such list will include names, job titles, dates of employment, locations and/or departments where such employees are employed with the Defendant, last-known mailing addresses, last-known cell numbers, home phone numbers, personal email addresses, dates of birth, and last four digits of their SSNs; and all related clock in and out time records with corresponding payroll records for the relevant time period of all putative plaintiffs within 15 days of the Order; (4) the ability to distribute the Notice and Opt-in Form, along with a Spanish translated version, via first class mail, email, text message, and a posting at the Defendant's facilities to all putative plaintiffs of the conditionally certified collective, with a reminder mailing to be sent 45- days after the initial mailing to all non-responding putative plaintiffs; (5) approval of Named Plaintiff Estrella Solis, on behalf of the Estate of Narciso Solis, as class representative; and (6) approval of Law Office of Gilda Hernandez, PLLC as collective counsel. OPW designs and manufactures fueling equipment. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xhBK1K at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq. Hannah B. Simmons, Esq. Briahna B. Koegel, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC 215 S. Academy Street Cary, NC 27511 Telephone: (919) 741-8693 Facsimile: (919) 869-1853 E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com hsimmons@gildahernandezlaw.com bkoegel@gildahernandlaw.com ORGANIFI LLC: Fernandez Balks at Blind User-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH ADELA FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. ORGANIFI, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-08283 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 7, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.organifishop.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendants denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. 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 offers the commercial website, https://www.organifishop.com/, to the public. The Website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services offered by Defendant and which Defendant ensures delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, New York 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal OUTCOMES ONE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Anderson Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ BELINDA ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OUTCOMES ONE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-01883 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information, personally identifiable information, 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' PHI/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 PHI/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. Outcomes One, Inc. provides pharmacy technology solutions. The Company offers healthcare solutions for pharma, payers, pharmacy management, and other clinical pharmacy solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com PASTEUR PHARMACY: Faces Trippett Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALFRED TRIPPETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PASTEUR PHARMACY, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-08214 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 3, 2025) contends that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://pasteurpharmacy.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. On Aug. 17, 2025, the Plaintiff visited https://pasteurpharmacy.com/ intending to purchase skincare items, including Wholly Kaw Dr. Mudgil HydroNourish with Hyaluronic Acid Niacinamide Zinc & Copper Medical Grade Dermatologist Approved Moisturizer 28ml. The Plaintiff struggled to locate the main product categories because the navigation system was not properly coded for screen reader use. On Aug. 31, 2025, the Plaintiff made a second attempt to shop on the site. He encountered further barriers: product images lacked descriptive text, making it impossible to distinguish between variants such as different colors or formulations. The wishlist function also created confusion, as the software incorrectly read items as selected when they were not. On Sept. 28, 2025, the Plaintiff again attempted to browse Defendant's products. The same barriers remained, and additional issues persisted, including the business address in the website footer, which was unreadable by NVDA. This prevented Plaintiff from independently confirming the location of Defendant's physical store. These barriers, which Plaintiff personally experienced, were consistent with a SortSite accessibility audit performed on the website. The audit confirmed multiple violations of accessibility standards, including missing alt text on images, mislabeled form fields, improper navigation structures, and other deficiencies that prevent blind and visually impaired users from equally accessing the website, asserts the suit. Mr. Trippett is legally blind and resides in New York County. He relies on NVDA screen reader software to navigate websites and independently shop for goods and services online. Pasteur operates a physical retail store located at 53 East 34th Street, New York, New York, as well as the website https://pasteurpharmacy.com/. Through the website, Defendant offers detailed product information, online purchasing functions, and promotional content for its curated selection of skincare, fragrance, grooming, and wellness items.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com PAYACTIV INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Gomez Says ------------------------------------------------------- JESSENIA GOMEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. PAYACTIV, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-08511 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information of at least 174 individuals, including, but not limited to, name and Social Security number. Prior to and through August 20, 2025, the Defendant obtained the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, including by collecting it directly from Plaintiff and Class Members. From April 3, 2025, to August 20, 2025, Defendant experienced a cybersecurity incident that involved unusual activity in its network (the Data Breach). The Defendant determined that, during the Data Breach, an unauthorized actor viewed information stored in its systems. On or around September 26, 2025, Defendant began notifying Plaintiff and Class Members of the Data Breach. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The Defendant admits that the unencrypted PII that was potentially accessed and acquired by an unauthorized actor included name and Social Security number. According to its website, the Defendant provides services to employers so their employees can immediately access wages for hours already worked, transfer to their bank, load it on a Payactiv Card, or pick up cash at Walmart.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael F. Ram, Esq. Patrick A. Barthle II, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 711 Van Ness Ave, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 358-6913 E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com pbarthle@ForThePeople.com - and - Ryan D. Maxey, Esq. MAXEY LAW FIRM, P.A. 107 N. 11th St. #402 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 448-1125 E-mail: ryan@maxeyfirm.com PAYACTIV INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Mijangos Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- BLAKE MIJANGOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PAYACTIV, Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-08580 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 7, 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 the Plaintiff and other current and former customers and employees of Defendant, the putative class members. The Data Breach occurred between April 3, 2025, and August 20, 2025. Based on the Defendant's report to the Montana Department of Justice, the Private Information for 174 Montanans alone were impacted by the Data Breach. The Defendant has also reported to the Attorneys General of Vermont and New Hampshire that residents of those states were impacted by the Data Breach. On Sept. 26, 2025, the Defendant mailed data breach notification letters to impacted individuals informing them of a cyberattack ("the Data Breach") and admits that their Private Information was impacted by the Data Breach. The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach includes names and Social Security numbers. The Defendant is a national financial services company that provides clients with access to their earned wages before payday. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant who received a letter in the mail from Defendant informing him that his Private Information was impacted in the data breach. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of himself, and those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Personal Information that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information was likely accessed by an unknown third party and precisely what type of information was accessed. Payactiv is a financial services company headquartered in Milpitas, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John P. Kristensen, Esq. KRISTENSEN LAW GROUP 120 Santa Barbara Street, Suite C9 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: 805-837-2000 E-mail: john@kristensen.law - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com PAYACTIV INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Toth Says ------------------------------------------------------ SUSAN TOTH, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PAYACTIV, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-08476 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 3, 2025) seeks monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief arising from the Defendant's failure to safeguard the Personally Identifiable Information of Plaintiff and Class members, which resulted in unauthorized access to its information systems on or around September 12, 2025, and the compromised and unauthorized disclosure of that Private Information, causing widespread injury and damages to Plaintiff and the proposed members. Accordingly, the Defendant detected unusual activity in their computer systems and ultimately determined that an unauthorized third party accessed their network and obtained certain files from their systems on or around September 12, 2025 (Data Breach). As a result of the Data Breach, which the Defendant failed to prevent, the Private Information of Plaintiff and the proposed Class members, was stolen, including their Social Security numbers. The Defendant's investigation concluded that the Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff's and other Class Members information. The Defendant's failure to safeguard the Plaintiff and Class Members' highly sensitive Private Information as exposed and unauthorizedly disclosed in the Data Breach violates their common law duties, California law, and Defendant's implied contract with Clients to safeguard their Private Information, says the suit. Allegedly, the Plaintiff and Class members now face a lifetime risk of identity theft due to the nature of the information lost, which they cannot change, and which cannot be made private again. Payactiv is a financial services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Srourian, Esq. Srourian Law Firm, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com PETER MILLAR: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Moran Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- WASHINGTON MORAN, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. PETER MILLAR LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-08192 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 3, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://www.gfore.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. During the Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on September 24, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Men's MG4+ O2 Golf Shoes from the Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the Website by being unable to purchase Men's MG4+ O2 Golf Shoes, as well as other products available online and to ascertain information relating to Defendant's: golf clothing and footwear, as well as other types of goods, locations and hours of operation of their physical retail stores and directions thereto, pricing, privacy policies and internet pricing specials, the suit says. The Defendant operates the G/Fore online retail store and physical retail stores, as well as the G/Fore interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal PHILLIP MICHAEL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Ford Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA FORD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. The Phillip Michael Group, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-12109 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 3, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, Moderndentalchicago.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 the Defendant 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, Moderndentalchicago.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. Moderndentalchicago.com provides to the public a wide array of the services, price specials, and other programs offered by The Phillip Michael Group.[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 POLARIS SOFTWARE: Hughes Suit Over Use of Data Broker Software -------------------------------------------------------------- DANA HUGHES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. POLARIS SOFTWARE LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-09527 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 6, 2025), alleges that Polaris uses data broker software on its website -- https://www.benchmarkemail.com/pricing/ -- to secretly collect data about Plaintiff and other Website visitor's computer, location, and browsing habits. The data broker software then compiles this data and correlates that data with extensive external records it already has about most Californians in order to learn the identity of the Website user. The Defendant's installation and use of data broker software without obtaining consent is a violation of the California Trap and Trace Law. The Defendant systematically violated these expectations through its unauthorized surveillance activities, asserts the suit. The Defendant is a California corporation that owns, operates, and/or controls the Website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: rtauler@taulersmith.com eshapiro@taulersmith.com POMPEII 3 INC: Bahena Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY BAHENA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POMPEII 3, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-11629 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 25, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.pompeii3.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. Pompeii 3, Inc. is an independent, family-owned online boutique specializing in fine diamond jewelry and more. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630) 478-0856 Facsimile: (929) 442-2154 Email: achan@ealg.law REIMAGINE FOOTBALL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, David Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE DAVIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Reimagine Football Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-12107 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 3, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, Goalfive.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 the Defendant 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, Goalfive.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. Goalfive.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Reimagine Football.[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 REMARKABLE OPERATIONS: Young Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- LESHAWN YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REMARKABLE OPERATIONS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07921 (S.D.N.Y., September 24, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://remarkable.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on September 19, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a ReMarkable Paper Pro Move from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied her a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. The Plaintiff was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Remarkable Operations LLC operates the website that offers digital notebooks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal REZOLVE AI: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Rezolve AI plc (NASDAQ: RZLV) resulting from allegations that Rezolve may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Rezolve securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=45542 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On September 29, 2025, Investing.com published an article entitled "Rezolve AI faces short seller allegations of deceptive practices." The article stated that Fuzzy Panda Research had "announced a short position in Rezolve AI," based on the claim that Rezolve "is misrepresenting its artificial intelligence capabilities and revenue growth." On this news, Rezolve stock fell 10.7% on September 29, 2025. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. [GN] RITCHIE TRUCKING: Class Settlement in Imber Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON IMBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BRUCE LACKEY, PAM LACKEY, LACKEY FAMILY TRUST, COLE SCHARTON, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE PEOPLE BUSINESS EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN, MIGUEL PAREDES, RICH ROUSH, DEL THACKER, RICHARD DEYOUNG, AND RITCHIE TRUCKING SERVICE HOLDINGS, INC., and PEOPLE BUSINESS EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN, Case No. 1:22-cv-00004-HBK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Helena Barch-kuchta entered an order the following: (1) granting the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. (2) granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification to the extent that the Court conditionally certifies the following Settlement Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for settlement purposes only in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement as follows: "All participants in the ESOP from Dec. 31, 2018, or any time thereafter until Dec. 31, 2024 (unless the participant terminated without vesting) and those participants' beneficiaries other than the Excluded Persons." "Excluded Persons" means the following persons who are excluded from the Class: (a) the Defendants; (b) any fiduciary of the Plan; (c) the officers and directors of Ritchie Trucking or of any entity in which the individual Defendants have a controlling interest; (d) immediate family members of any of the foregoing excluded persons; and (e) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons. (3) appointing the Plaintiff's counsel, R. Joseph Barton, as class counsel. (4) appointing the Plaintiff Brandon Imber as the class representative. (5) preliminarily approving the Settlement, including the Proposed Plan of Allocation, as fair, reasonable, and adequate. Ritchie provided services including hauling, last minute delivery, warehousing, distribution, and installation of household appliances. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vpNZsV at no extra charge.[CC] RODNEY RIGGS: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Alger Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES ALGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RODNEY RIGGS, dba CANDYLAND dba AS SEEN ON TV, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-08254 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 28, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' commercial properties located at 700 Cannery Row, Monterey, CA 93940; and 685 Cannery Row, Monterey, CA 93940, are not accessible to mobility-impaired individuals in violation of ADA. Rodney Riggs, dba Candyland dba As Seen On TV owns and operates commercial properties in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Irakli Karbelashvili, Esq. ALLACCESS LAW GROUP 1400 Coleman Ave Ste F28 Santa Clara, CA 95050 Telephone: (408) 295-0137 Facsimile: (408) 295-0142 Email: irakli@allaccesslawgroup.com RPM PIZZA: Rist Seeks Minimum Wages & OT for Delivery Drivers ------------------------------------------------------------- EMILY RIST, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. RPM PIZZA HOLDINGS, LLC, and RPM PIZZA BATON ROUGE, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00294-HSO-BWR (S.D. Miss., Oct. 3, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to the Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendants at their pizza delivery stores under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate several pizza franchise stores. The Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, the Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks, the suit says. RPM PIZZA HOLDINGS, LLC is a Domino's pizza franchise in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Ryan, Esq. DONATI LAW, PLLC 1545 Union Avenue Memphis, TN 38104 Telephone: 901-278-1004 E-mail: billy@donatilaw.com SALESFORCE INC: Yockey Seeks to File Docs Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Yockey v. Salesforce, Inc., Case No. 4:22-cv-09067-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order allowing them to file under seal documents containing information or references to information that either Defendant Salesforce, Inc. or Non-Party Rite Aid designated as either "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential – Attorneys' Eyes Only" pursuant to the Protective Order. The Plaintiffs certify that they have reviewed and complied with the Court's Standing Order Governing Administrative Motions to File Materials Under Seal. The Plaintiffs further certify that they have reviewed and complied with Civil Local Rule 79-5 and established that only one motion is necessary, as Plaintiffs are not the Designating Party with respect to any materials seeking consideration. Thus, only Salesforce and Rite Aid must individually satisfy the showing required in Civil Local Rule 79-5(c)(1). The present motion only seeks consideration of documents designated as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” by Defendant Salesforce, Inc. or Non-Party Rite Aid, or references thereto by Plaintiffs’ experts or by Plaintiffs in their Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs state that the "compelling reasons" standard applies at class certification. Salesforce is an American cloud-based software company specializing in customer relationship management (CRM) and related applications. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d8VLwT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Daniel S. Guerra, Esq. Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Max S. Roberts, Esq. Ira Rosenberg, Esq. Caroline C. Donovan, 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 jmarchese@bursor.com mroberts@bursor.com irosenberg@bursor.com cdonovan@bursor.com SAVOYA LLC: Court Dismisses State Claims in "Cuhadar" ----------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Henry Huseyin Cuhadar and Gurhan Ergezer, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Savoya, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:25-CV-0443-X, Judge Brantley Starr of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted in part the Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint and found as moot the Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Rule 23 Class Action Allegations. The ruling resulted in dismissal, without prejudice, of Counts III, IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII of the Complaint, termination of any basis for maintenance of this matter as a class action, and continuation of the case as a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action. The Court granted leave to the parties to file a briefing stating their objections, if any, by October 22, 2025. Plaintiffs Henry Huseyin Cuhadar and Gurhan Ergezer individually and on behalf of others similarly situated filed this suit against Savoya for alleged violations of the FLSA and the New York Labor Law. Savoya operates a chauffeured limousine and luxury car transportation business. Plaintiffs, former Savoya limousine drivers in the New York City area, believe that Savoya misclassified them as independent contractors instead of employees and denied them overtime premiums and expense reimbursements, among other violations. When a party files a 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in conjunction with other Rule 12 motions, a court must resolve the jurisdictional challenge first. A court must dismiss a complaint if it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. And such dismissal is always without prejudice. The party asserting jurisdiction carries the burden to prove it. At the pleading stage, the party may meet its burden by alleging a plausible set of facts that establish jurisdiction. To bring a case before a federal court, a plaintiff must have standing—the bedrock constitutional requirement that restrains the judiciary and preserves separation of powers. An injury in fact may exist solely by virtue of statutes creating legal rights, the invasion of which creates standing. But statutes cannot dispense with the injury requirement altogether. Put differently, the deprivation of a right created by statute must be accompanied by some concrete interest that is affected by the deprivation. An injury must also be particularized, which the Supreme Court has defined to mean it must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way. Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes the Court to dismiss a claim that is not plausibly alleged. To survive a 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must allege enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim is plausible when it allows the Court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, which requires more than a sheer possibility that defendant has acted unlawfully. Savoya sought to dismiss all of Plaintiffs' state law claims, raising two principal reasons. First, Savoya argued that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring their recordkeeping claims under New York law, or the claims are otherwise implausible. Second, Savoya argued that Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims are preempted by the FLSA. Although the Court disagreed with Savoya that Plaintiffs lack standing and that the FLSA preempts New York state law, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed Plaintiffs' state law claims without prejudice. Under the New York Law, employers must provide each employee a notice of their rate of pay and a wage statement listing specific information with each paycheck. Section 195 of the New York Labor Law requires an employer provide a statement detailing the calculation of regular and overtime pay for that pay period, along with information on deductions and minimum wage allowances. Additionally, New York Labor Law provides for statutory damages of up to $10,000 for the failure to provide the required wage notices and wage statements. In order for a plaintiff to bring a claim under a statutory right, he must suffer an injury in fact due to the defendant's violation of law. The Court disagreed that Plaintiffs fail to plead an injury in fact. Instead, Plaintiffs expressly state that Savoya's failure to provide them with the wage statements prevented them from advocating for their overtime benefits prior to this suit. That is a causal connection between the wage statements Savoya did not provide and downstream harm. Additionally, Savoya moved to dismiss the recordkeeping claims for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The facts, as alleged in the Amended Complaint, are sufficient to plausibly state a claim. Plaintiffs' necessity to estimate the hours they worked for their other claims, because Savoya did not provide the required statements, does not render the recordkeeping claim implausible. FLSA Preemption Next, Savoya moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims as preempted by the FLSA. Both sides argued that Aldridge v. Mississippi Department of Corrections controls this case, but they read that case differently. In Aldridge, the Fifth Circuit held that state law tort claims for conduct prohibited by the FLSA were preempted. Here, Savoya sought dismissal of state statutory claims that prohibit the same conduct as the FLSA. But Aldridge expressly does not control this case. Instead, the Fifth Circuit was abundantly clear that whether the FLSA preempts state law claims when the state does provide for minimum wages and overtime compensation is not before us. And they saved that issue for a different day. Today is that day, at least for this Court. There are three types of federal preemption: (1) express preemption; (2) field preemption; and (3) conflict preemption. The Fifth Circuit rejected the argument that the FLSA preempts state law expressly or by field preemption. There are two types of conflict preemption: impossibility and obstacles-and-purposes preemption. Savoya's argument rests entirely on a theory of obstacles-and-purposes conflict preemption. Obstacles-and-purposes preemption arises when state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. In all these types of preemption, however, evidence of pre-emptive purpose must be sought in the text and structure of the federal provision at issue. The purpose of the FLSA is to protect all covered workers from substandard wages and oppressive working hours. And the FLSA has a savings provision that provides: No provision of this chapter or of any order thereunder shall excuse noncompliance with any Federal or State law or municipal ordinance establishing a minimum wage higher than the minimum wage established under this chapter or a maximum work week lower than the maximum workweek established under this chapter. Notably, Congress's inclusion of the savings provision is evidence that Congress did not have preemptive purpose for the FLSA. After all, where New York law provides added protection for workers, it does not stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the FLSA's objective, namely, protecting workers from overwork and underpayment. This is categorically different from attempting to bypass the FLSA by asserting common law causes of action, as was the case in Aldridge. Moreover, the majority approach around the country rejects preemption of state statutory law that provides additional protection for workers. Savoya raised three other arguments regarding preemption. First, Savoya argued that the logic of Aldridge supports preemption. But for the reasons stated above, the Court disagreed. Second, Savoya argued that the overlapping purposes and conceptual similarities between the FLSA and New York Labor Law requires preemption. But that argument misunderstands obstacles-and-purposes preemption. Instead, the FLSA contemplates concurrent state regulation by virtue of the savings provision. Third and finally, Savoya argued that the FLSA opt-in and Rule 23 opt-out procedures are incompatible in the same action. Although that is not a basis for preemption, the Court is inclined to decline supplemental jurisdiction on this basis. Where a district court has original jurisdiction over a civil action, it also has supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. However, even where a district court has supplemental jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances if there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction. Further, supplemental jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff's right. Here, FLSA opt-in and Rule 23 opt-out procedures are an exceptional circumstance to decline jurisdiction. Further, it is likely that the state law claims may predominate over the FLSA claim by the mere fact that a Rule 23 class action utilizes an opt-out procedure instead of opting in, like the FLSA. The resolution of this motion to dismiss—and motion to strike—are further evidence of the predomination of the state law claims. Accordingly, the Court declined to exercise jurisdiction. Conclusion Accordingly, the Court granted in part Savoya's Motion to Dismiss and the Court found as moot Savoya's Motion to Strike having declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims in this action. Plaintiffs' state law claims are dismissed without prejudice. A copy of the court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LTgdAm from PacerMonitor.com SAZERAC COMPANY: Bid to Stay Del Rosario Class Suit Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Del Rosario v. Sazerac Company, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01060-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Arun Subramanian entered an order adopting the proposed briefing scheduled and denying Sazerac's motion to stay the case pending the Second Circuit's decision on its Rule 23(f) petition. The Court has considered the factors articulated in Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) and finds that a stay is unwarranted. On the first factor, "Defendant has not demonstrated a sufficient probability that the Court's previous order of class certification was made in error." Sazerac is a privately held American alcoholic beverage company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=edsNDW at no extra charge.[CC] SELLAN STRUCTURAL: Parties in Conejo Suit Seek Settlement Talk -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONEJO et al., v. SELLAN STRUCTURAL ERECTORS, LLC et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-02930-SKC-STV (D. Colo.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion to allow the Parties to engage in settlement discussions, and extending the deadline for the Defendants to file their response to the Rule 23 Class Certification to Oct. 6, 2025. The Parties acknowledge the Court's directive that "no further extensions would be granted," however, the Parties jointly seek the Court's indulgence once more since good cause exists to extend the Defendants' deadline to respond to the Rule 23 Motion. On Aug. 11, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their Rule 23 motion. On Sept. 8, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Rule 23 class action. Sellan provides on-site steel erection services for construction projects. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pugFJk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Penn A. Dodson, Esq. ANDERSON DODSON, P.C. 14143 Denver West Pkwy. Suite 100-50 Golden, CO 80401 Telephone: (212) 961-7639 E-mail: penn@andersondodson.com The Defendants are represented by: Stacey A. Campbell, Esq. Bayan Biazar, Esq. CAMPBELL LITIGATION, P.C. 1410 N. High Street Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: (303) 536-1833 E-mail: stacey@campbell-litigation.com bayan@campbell-litigation.com SEMRUSH HOLDINGS: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Mody Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- CHIRAG MODY, Plaintiff v. STEVEN ALDRICH, ANNA BAIRD, TRYNKA SHINEMAN BLAKE, DMITRY MELNIKOV, DYLAN PEARCE, OLEG SHCHEGOLEV, CAROLINE TSAY, MARK VRANESH, and WILLIAM WAGNER, Defendants, and SEMRUSH HOLDINGS, INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2025-1147 (D. Del., Oct. 7, 2025) is a class action alleging that Shchegolev—Semrush's co-founder, largest stockholder, and longest tenured director, exerted his influence over the Company's Board to secure authorization of a $150 million share repurchase program (the Repurchase Program) that will use corporate funds to ensure that Shchegolev regains for the majority voting power he voluntarily relinquished without spending a penny of his own capital. According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Repurchase Program without any safeguards, thereby allowing Shchegolev to imminently gain control of the Company without any cost to Shchegolev, without paying a control premium, and at expense and to the significant detriment of the Company's public stockholders. Indeed, the Defendants breaches have sanctioned a change of control without even attempting to maximize stockholder value. In 2008, Shchegolev formed Semrush alongside childhood friend and fellow Board member Melnikov. In the ensuing years, Semrush thrived by capitalizing on the global shift from traditional to digital advertising and marketing. Along the way, Shchegolev attracted substantial outside investor interest, but he rejected the approaches that might have curtailed his freedom to run the Company as he saw fit. As artificial intelligence (AI) now presents another growth opportunity, Shchegolev recently transitioned from Chief Executive Officer to Chief Technology Officer, a move that allowed Shchegolev to help pick his successor while remaining central to the Company's future. As recently as late 2024, Shchegolev held a majority of Semrush's voting power based on his ownership of a significant amount of high-vote Class B shares. Coinciding with his planned transition to CTO, Shchegolev down-converted to one-vote-per-share Class A stock and sold a substantial number of shares, reaping more than $30 million over multiple sales. But given the Company's tremendous upside, Shchegolev sought to ensure that he would retain his outsized influence, and regain a controlling position, in the Company. Shchegolev thereafter used his influence to cause the Board, through a committee consisting of unspecified directors, to authorize the Repurchase Program. On Aug. 4, 2025, Semrush announced that the Board authorized the Repurchase Program, permitting the repurchase of up to $150 million in shares of Class A common stock. The Repurchase Program will be administered by Semrush's Shchegolev-selected management and has no expiration date. Based on recent trading prices, Shchegolev is likely to regain outright voting control over Semrush. And unlike what other companies' boards have done when approving stock repurchase plans which have the potential to install a majority stockholder, Semrush's Board did not negotiate to limit Shchegolev's power or implement limitations on management's execution of the Repurchase Program that would impede Shchegolev's resumption of majority control. Accordingly, the Repurchase Plan threatens to misuse corporate funds to give Shchegolev control of the Company without compensating Semrush's public, minority stockholders for a change of control. 8. By reducing the outstanding Class A shares, the Repurchase Plan will also delay the sunset of Semrush's Class B shares, which will automatically convert to Class A shares immediately upon constituting less than 10% of the Company's total equity. Class B shares currently account for approximately 14.1% of Semrush's equity, down from 69.6% just a few years ago and perilously close to the sunset trigger. Four of the Board's nine directors -- Blake, Melnikov, Shchegolev, and Vranesh -- are conflicted with respect to the Repurchase Program because they are directly interested in prolonging their super-voting power. In addition, Defendants have failed to submit the Repurchase Plan to Semrush's minority stockholders for approval. Defendants have further failed to disclose the membership of the committee that approved the Repurchase Plan, or any details concerning how management will carry out the Repurchase Plan. 10. Plaintiff seeks immediate judicial intervention to prevent Defendants from using Semrush's corporate treasury to facilitate Shchegolev's imminent acquisition of control. The Plainitff is a current Semrush stockholder and has owned such shares at all relevant times. Semrush is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Massachusetts. Semrush provides an online visibility management SaaS platform that enables businesses to run search engine optimization, advertising, content, social media, and competitive research campaigns. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Meyer, Esq. Jeroen van Kwawegen Christopher J. Orrico BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 E-mail: daniel.meyer@blbglaw.com - and - Douglas E. Julie, Esq. W. Scott Holleman, Esq. JULIE & HOLLEMAN LLP 157 East 86th Street, 4th Floor New York, NY 10028 Telephone: (929) 415-1020 SIMULATIONS PLUS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Simulations Plus, Inc. (NASDAQ: SLP) resulting from allegations that Simulations Plus may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Simulations Plus securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=42476 https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=42439 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On July 15, 2025, during market hours, Benzinga published an article entitled "Simulations Plus Sees Weaker Demand Persist, Outlook Softens." The article stated that Simulations Plus shares had declined "following the release of [Simulations Plus'] third-quarter 2025 earnings report." The article stated that Simulations Plus had reported sales of $20.4 million, representing a 10% year-over-year increase, but this fell short of the consensus estimate of $20.9 million." Further, "[t]his miss followed preliminary third-quarter sales figures released in June, which were already lower than expectations at $19 million to $20 million, compared to a consensus of $22.78 million." On this news, Simulations Plus' stock fell 25.75% on July 15, 2025. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: case@rosenlegal.com[GN] SMILE DESIGN: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Ford Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA FORD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Smile Design Studio of Hyde Park, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-12108 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 3, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, Chicagodentistry.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 the Defendant 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, Chicagodentistry.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. Chicagodentistry.com provides to the public a wide array of services, price specials and other programs offered by Smile Design Studio of Hyde Park.[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 SNAP LOCK: Lambing Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices --------------------------------------------------------- JEFF LAMBING, a natural person, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. SNAP LOCK INDUSTRIES INC. d/b/a SNAPSPORTS COMPANY, a Utah corporation; GERFLOR USA Inc., an Illinois corporation; and DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:25-cv-09575 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 7, 2025) is a class action complaint for damages and equitable relief seeking statewide or nationwide relief. Accordingly, Gerflor and SnapSports engaged in unlawful and fraudulent business practices by holding themselves out as legitimate California contractors and providing services for which a California contractor's license is required, thus violating pertinent laws, including but not limited to California Business & Professions Code section 7028.5. Mr. Lambing brings this action as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of all dealers and former dealers of SnapSports products who have suffered damages as a result of SnapSports' misleading, deceptive, and unfair business practices in the State of California since October 3, 2021, to the present day. Excluded from the Plaintiff Class are defendants and entities in which any defendant has a controlling interest, as well as the legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns of any such excluded parties. Because SnapSports engaged in deceptive, widespread business practices, the members of the Plaintiff Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. While the exact number of Plaintiff Class members can be determined only by appropriate discovery, Mr. Lambing believes that class members number in excess of 20, asserts the suit. SnapSports is a manufacturer of interlocking modular flooring used to create athletic surfaces (e.g, basketball courts) in both residential and commercial settings. Gerflor is in the business of manufacturing flooring. It acquired SnapSports in August 2023.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Lawton, Esq. Arianna Camargo, Esq. KLINEDINST PC 501 West Broadway, Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 400-8000 Facsimile: (619) 238-8707 SOLSTICE BENEFITS: Lyngaas's Bid to Certify Class Tossed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN J. LYNGAAS, D.D.S., v. SOLSTICE BENEFITS, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 2:22-cv-10830-LVP-CI (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Linda V. Parker entered an order: (1) denying the Plaintiff’s motion to certify class; (2) denying without prejudice the Defendant's motion for summary judgment; (3) denying as moot the plaintiff's motion to stay; and (4) denying as moot the plaintiff's and the Defendant's motions to strike. This is a putative class action lawsuit filed under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The action arises from a single, one-page fax sent on behalf of Defendant Solstice Benefits, Inc. to dental providers, including the Plaintiff on April 23, 2018. The Plaintiff proposes the following Class: "All persons and entities: (1) sent a one-page announcement to their fax number on April 23 or April 24, 2018, stating, "Solstice is happy to announce that The National Association for Medical and Dental, Inc./Healthcare National Marketing, Inc. has selected us as their carrier," "This group has over 25,000 members," and "We look forward to continuing to promote your practice through our growing membership base!"; (2) whose fax number was included on a provider list Solstice obtained through a network agreement with United Concordia Companies, Inc. or GEHA, Inc.; and (3) regarding which Solstice has produced no evidence of contact prior to April 23, 2018." "Evidence of contact" means (a) that one or more providers using the fax number had a contract with Solstice before April 23, 2018, as identified on a spreadsheet bearing Bates number SOLSTICE000206 or otherwise identified in correspondence produced by Solstice at SOLSTICE000790-020940; or (b) that one or more providers using the fax number submitted a claim to Solstice for services rendered before April 23, 2018, as identified on a spreadsheet of claims data bearing Bates number SOLSTICE000759 or otherwise identified in correspondence produced by Solstice at SOLSTICE000790-020940. All such persons and entities, and their fax numbers, have been removed and are excluded from the class. Furthermore, the class does not include: (1) Solstice, or any parent, subsidiary, affiliated, or controlled person, or its attorneys, officers, directors, agents, servants, or employees, or the immediate family members of such persons; (2) the named counsel in this case or employees of their offices or firms; or (3) the judges assigned to this case or any member of their staff. The class also will exclude each member who timely and validly requests exclusion, as directed by the Court. The Plaintiff is a dental practice in Livonia, Michigan, owned by Brian J. Lyngaas, D.D.S. Solstice is a licensed insurance company which provides dental and vision benefits to groups, employers, and individuals throughout the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vs3SNM at no extra charge.[CC] SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bell Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ CHARMAINE TRENISE BELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CROSSROADS; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 25NWC03490 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 30, 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 Bell was employed by the Defendants as a staff. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CROSSROADS provides violence prevention and youth development programming to youth who have three or more risk factors for criminal involvement and/or have experienced two or more adverse childhood experiences shown to result in trauma and compromise healthy function. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manny Starr, Esq. Daniel Ginzburg, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 6200 Canoga Ave., Suite 470 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 914-3433 Facsimile: (818) 914-3433 Email: manny@frontierlawcenter.com dan@frontierlawcenter.com eservice@frontierlawcenter.com SPRINTFONE INC: Court OKs Discovery in "Bland" ---------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Kelly Bland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sprintfone Inc. d/b/a Talkdaily, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-CV-00782 (N.D.N.Y.), United States Magistrate Judge Mitchell J. Katz of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York granted the Plaintiff's motion to commence discovery to obtain records identifying putative class members. Bland commenced this action on June 17, 2025 by filing a Class Action Complaint seeking relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. The Complaint was served on June 25, 2025. On August 26, 2025, Bland filed a request for a Clerk's entry of default. The request was granted on August 27, 2025. The Court entered a text order on August 29, 2025 directing Bland to file a motion for default judgment within thirty days thereof if she wished to pursue the same. On September 3, 2025, the Rule 16 conference and deadline for submitting a joint Civil Case Management Plan and exchange of mandatory disclosures was adjourned without date. The Court noted that under Fed. R. of Civ. P. 26(d)(1), a party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order. To obtain discovery in advance of such a conference, the moving party must satisfy a flexible standard of reasonableness and good cause. The Court found that Bland established good cause and reasonableness for the requested relief. The Court observed that district courts in numerous circuits have authorized discovery against a non-appearing defendant in support of a class certification investigation. The Complaint appeared to sufficiently state a claim under the TCPA, and Bland sufficiently alleged that the Defendant's purported violation of the statute affects members of the proposed class. Accordingly, there exists good cause for limited discovery to identify class members and to determine damages. The Court ordered that Bland may utilize Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 to conduct any post-default discovery needed to obtain information regarding the identity of putative class members, for the ultimate purpose of seeking class certification and/or a classwide or individual default judgment. The Court ordered that Bland shall complete all discovery on or before January 30, 2026. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZjrVqO from Pacermonitor.com STAINEDGLASSWINDOWS.COM INC: Frost Sues Over Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- CLARENCE FROST; and TAMMY FROST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STAINEDGLASSWINDOWS.COM, INC., Defendant, Case 0:25-cv-03800 (D. Minn., Sept. 29, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.stainedglasswindows.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiffs seek 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. Stainedglasswindows.com, Inc. specializes in custom-made stained glass solutions, catering to residential and commercial clients across the nation. [BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndselaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com STITCH FIX: Securities Class Suit Pending in N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------ Stitch Fix Inc. Disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending August 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 25, 2025, that a securities class suit is pending before the United States Court for the Northern District of California. On August 26, 2022, a class action lawsuit alleging violations of federal securities laws was filed by certain of the Company's stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming the Company as defendants and certain of its officers and directors (the "Securities Class Action"). An amended complaint was filed on August 15, 2023. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by the Company and its officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding its Freestyle offering between June 2020 and June 2022. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on November 1, 2023. A hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on April 18, 2024, and the motion to dismiss was granted on July 16, 2024, with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on September 13, 2024. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on November 8, 2024. A hearing on the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was held on March 27, 2025, and the motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part on July 9, 2025. The lawsuit remains pending. Stitch Fix is an online personal styling service in the United States and United Kingdom that uses recommendation algorithms and data science to personalize clothing items based on size, budget and style. SYNGENTA CROP: Faces Dehaven Suit Over Defective Paraquat Products ------------------------------------------------------------------ ROBERT DEHAVEN, et al. v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N25C-10-045 PQT (Del. Super. Ct., Oct. 3, 2025) is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of products containing the herbicide Paraquat, which causes the Parkinson's disease in humans. The Plaintiffs maintain that Defendants' Paraquat products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable, asserts the suit. The Plaintiffs used and/or were exposed to Paraquat products designed, manufactured, and/or distributed by Syngenta and, as a result of that use and/or exposure, developed Parkinson's disease, Parkinsonism, and/or Parkinson's symptoms or precursor conditions. The Plaintiffs include CLINTON RASMUSSEN, DOUGLAS BREWER SR., MICHAEL PERKINS, STEPHEN SMITH, STEVE PATTERSON, DON SARGENT, JOSEPH HARMS, DONALD ASHBY, RUSS DAMOUDE, STEVEN SIMPSON, MICHEAL WEST, DARYL WIETZEMA, BILLY HOBBY, LEVI TYRE, MARCIA PRUSSA, MARIA HOLLAND, ROBERT HENDRICKSON, KEVIN HELGESON, CHUCK YEAMAN JR., CHARLES CARTER, JERRY SANDERLIN, TAMMY HOWINGTON, LARRY GEIB, TOM NORDEEN, BRIAN LEE, CHRISTOPHER LOGAN, RICHARD TINGELHOFF, JEFFREY LOVKVIST, DAVID KRUER, SHERI STORER, JEFFERY DOZHIER, MARCIA HUGHES, MERTON HAILEY JR., DELBERT FORREST, WENDY BOLLING, SUE LYON, SAMUEL O'BRYAN, JAMES MOORE, BILLY JEAN WALTERS, CURTIS PRITCHARD, WILLIAM PLOTNER, JOHN MANIEKEE, LORRAINE KESSLER, ALVIN MEHRING, JONATHAN ANDREWS, ROGER SCOFIELD, DONALD HAIRSTON, MARTHA HEINZ, and JOHN COURTWAY. The Defendant is a science-based agriculture company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Aimee H. Wagstaff, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 N. Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: Awagstaff@wagstafflawfirm.com SYNGENTA CROP: Faces Roller Suit Over Defective Paraquat Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- ORVAL ROLLER, et al. v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N25C-10-046 PQT (Del. Super., Oct. 3, 2025) is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of products containing the herbicide Paraquat, which causes the Parkinson's disease in humans. The Plaintiffs maintain that Defendants' Paraquat products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable, asserts the suit. The Plaintiffs used and/or were exposed to Paraquat products designed, manufactured, and/or distributed by Syngenta and, as a result of that use and/or exposure, developed Parkinson's disease, Parkinsonism, and/or Parkinson's symptoms or precursor conditions. The Plaintiffs include BURRELL HENDLEY JR., CECELIA FREDRIKSEN, RICKY SIEVERS, JAMES WALLACE, ROMEL COLLINS, TRACY PIERCE, STUART STEWART, JARED FOSTER, PAUL BINKLEY, JOSE MEJIA-MORALES, DONALD WESTMAN, LINDA FERNS, ANTHONY WESLEY, JOHN JACKSON, ALFRED BLOCK, PAUL PLUMMER, SANDRA SERVIN, HAROLD PYNE, NATARSHA LYONS, MARY SIMMONS, JOSEPH TILLMAN, ALBERT WITT, RALPH MATTHEWS, BRYAN SHINE, HARITH GOODWIN, PAMALA JACKSON, JERROD PATTON, TRAVIS BROWN, AVORY SHEARER, ANDREW SMITH, KENYON DOBBINS, TELVIN TURNER, CAROL SUE JACKSON, DANNY ROSSON, RAUL MARTINEZ, DERRICK BROOKENS, DWIGHT EVANS, TONY ROGERS, ANDREW DODD, TYRESE WILLIAMS, ONYANGO HEARD, CARLOS CROOKS JR., ANDRE PORTER, GARY PROCTOR, WALTER HERMANOWSKI, RUTHIE OWENS, ANDRE FOUNTAIN, GREGORY PETERSON, CHAZ VARNER, RONALD JONES, DESMOND JONES, DASHAYANA EDIRIWEERA, NANCY WEVER, BILLY JONES, TERRENCE SCOTT, TYRONE WINSLOW, DARSHAY LADD, DEVI PARKS, VINCENT VIRGILI, TYWON STEWART, XAVIER HAWTHORN, KURTIS NEVILLES, DANA JETT - RAND, and ARAMIS SPRINGER. The Defendant is a science-based agriculture company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: 302-655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Aimee H. Wagstaff, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 N. Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: Awagstaff@wagstafflawfirm.com SYNGENTA CROP: Lorton Sues Over Defective Paraquat Products ----------------------------------------------------------- SONYA LORTON, et al. v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N25C-10-043 PQT (Del. Super. Ct., Oct. 3, 2025) is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of products containing the herbicide Paraquat, which causes the Parkinson's disease in humans. The Plaintiffs maintain that Defendants' Paraquat products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable, asserts the suit. The Plaintiffs used and/or were exposed to Paraquat products designed, manufactured, and/or distributed by Syngenta and, as a result of that use and/or exposure, developed Parkinson's disease, Parkinsonism, and/or Parkinson's symptoms or precursor conditions. The Plaintiffs include CHARLES DOVE, CYNTHIA MILLS, CAROL BRIDEGROOM, DALE ROBINSON II, WILLIAM BROWN, JAMES DOUGLAS JOHNSON, CATHRYN BRUCE, DELFORD OMDAL, ROBERT HIRLEMAN, MICHAEL TYRA, EDWARD EVERITT, JANICE MCCLEARY, WAYNE TUCKER, STEVEN GREENFELD, MICHAEL SHEPHERD, ROGER ROUSH, DOLOIS TAYLOR, ROBERT VAUGHN, HERMAN PARKS, JAMES HADEN, ANTHONY RICHARDSON, LINDA OXENDINE, KIM SEILER, ROBERT SCHLEMMER, THOMAS PETRUCELLI, ANTHONY MARCHESE, KEVIN GETTY, RHONDA BAGBY, ANTHONY HUDSON, KIRK GILDNER, JOHN GREENE, BOBBY DENNING, LARRY GILL JR., ANTWAN CHASE, JEFFREY YOLEVICH, JANICE IRWIN, SUZANNE NICHOLS, GERALD RIPPEN, ROBERT MATNEY, PATSY WRIGHT, ULYSSES WELCH, RANDOLPH ROTEN, RAYMOND MILLER SR., STEPHEN CRUIKSHANK, KAREN JONES, JOHN LEWIS, RANDY COLLINS, SHAWN WALKER, DWAYNE ROSE, TERRY HORN, KIMBERLY HODGES, WILLIAM AYERS JR., JOSEPH KATZ, and DAVID TANNER. The Defendant is a science-based agriculture company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Aimee H. Wagstaff, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 N. Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: Awagstaff@wagstafflawfirm.com T.R.A. INDUSTRIES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Post Says ----------------------------------------------------------- JACK POST, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. T.R.A. INDUSTRIES, INC. D/B/A HUNTWOOD INDUSTRIES, Case No. 2:25-cv-00397 (E.D. Wash., Oct. 3, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information (PII) about its current and former employees and customers. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. The cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train their employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' PII. In short, Defendant's failures placed the Class's PII in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim, being a former employee of Defendant. He brings this class action on behalf of himself, and all others harmed by Defendant's misconduct. Huntwood is a custom cabinet manufacturer in the Western United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason T. Dennett, Esq. Kaleigh N. Boyd, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 5th Ave, Ste 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 E-mail: jdennett@tousley.com kboyd@tousley.com TAKEDA PHARMA: Court Adopts CVS' Initial Class Definition --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CVS Pharmacy, Inc. v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited et al., (RE AMITIZA ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No. 1:24-cv-10223 (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Myong J. Joun entered an order -- granting in part and denying in part the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' motion; and -- granting the Defendants' motion to strike the Plaintiffs' amended class definition. The Court adopted the Plaintiffs' initial class definition and exclude from the class Meijer and the thirteen AG-only purchasers who purchased directly from DRL and Sun. The Court further entered an order that: -- KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., a/k/a Kinney Drugs, Inc. is appointed as Class Representative for the DPPs; -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro is appointed as Lead Class Counsel\ for the DPPs; and -- The DPP class shall be comprised of: "All persons and entities in the United States and its territories that directly purchased brand Amitiza and/or generic Amitiza in any form from Takeda or any generic Amitiza manufacturer other than Par, or their subsidiaries or affiliates, from the beginning of the period of delayed generic entry until January 2023." The Plaintiffs bring this antitrust class action against the Defendants for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Takeda is a Japanese multinational pharmaceutical company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p0delg at no extra charge.[CC] TIKTOK INC: Robinson Files Fraud Class Suit in C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TikTok Inc. et al. The case is captioned as Karin Robinson, on behalf of D.K. and G.K., et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TikTok Inc. et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-08813-AB-SSC (C.D. Cal., September 16, 2025). The case is brought over alleged fraud-related claims. The suit is assigned to Judge Andre Birotte Jr. TikTok Inc. is a U.S.-incorporated company that operates the popular short-form video social media platform TikTok.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kelly Christina Weil, Esq. COTCHETT PITRE AND MCCARTHY LLP 2716 Ocean Park Boulevard Suite 3088 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (310) 392-2008 Facsimile: (310) 392-0111 E-mail: kweil@cpmlegal.com U.S. SILVER: Faces Otto Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- PIERCE OTTO, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. U.S. SILVER - IDAHO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00550-REP (D. Idaho., September 24, 2025) is a class and collective action against the Defendant to recover unpaid wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Idaho Wage Claim Act. According to the complaint, U.S. Silver's pre/post shift off the clock policy and straight time for overtime pay scheme violate the FLSA and IWCA by depriving Plaintiff and the other hourly employees of wages, including premium overtime wages, for all hours worked. Plaintiff Otto has worked for U.S. Silver as a maintenance mechanic at U.S. Silver's underground Galena Complex since approximately September 2019. U.S. Silver is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal place of business in Wallace, Idaho.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Erika Birch, Esq. BIRCH HALLAM HARSTAD & JOHNSON, LLC 1516 West Hays Street Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: (208) 336-1788 Facsimile: (208) 287-3708 E-mail: 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 E-mail: 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 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com UMATILLA, FL: Faces Liggett Suit Over Unpaid OT, Retaliation ------------------------------------------------------------ LANCE LIGGETT, an individual, and on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. THE CITY OF UMATILLA, FLORIDA, a Florida municipal corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00594 (M.D. Fla., September 24, 2025) is an action for unpaid overtime compensation, unlawful retaliation, unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Florida common law. According to the complaint, the Defendant maintained a policy across its operations whereby it required all of its firefighters to work in excess of 106-hours in each 14-day work period without proper overtime compensation. As a result, the Plaintiff was required to work an average of 40-hours of overtime each work period for which he was not compensated at the overtime rate of $28.13 per hour, resulting in a loss of approximately $1,125.20 each work period. The Plaintiff began his employment with the Defendant in or about January 2025, and was employed as a firefighter. Umatilla is a city in Lake County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin H. Yormak, Esq. YORMAK EMPLOYMENT & DISABILITY LAW 27200 Riverview Center Blvd., Suite 109 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Telephone: (239) 985-9691 Facsimile: (239) 288-2534 E-mail: byormak@yormaklaw.com UNICOIN INC: Continues to Defend Finch Class Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- Unicoin Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report for filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 25, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Finch class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On September 24, 2025, a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Unicoin Inc. (the "Company") and certain current and former officers, captioned Finch, et al. v. Unicoin Inc., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-07939. The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of New York General Business Law 349 and 350, as well as related claims, in connection with the Company's marketing of Unicoin Rights Certificates. To the Company's knowledge, neither the Company nor any of the individual defendants have yet been served with the complaint. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend the matter vigorously. Unicoin Inc. is a technology company operating in the digital assets and crypto-currency markets. The Company seeks to minimize volatility and improve transparency and compliance for investors. Unicoin Inc. offers its product globally. [BN] UNITED COAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Tester Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ JIMMY TESTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED COAL COMPANY LLC; WELLMORE COAL COMPANY, LLC; and WELLMORE ENERGY COMPANY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00060-JPJ-PMS (W.D. Va., Sept. 29, 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 Tester was employed by the Defendants as a mine worker. United Coal Company LLC provides mineral products. The Company produces and processes coal. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexis I. Tahinci, Esq. TAHINCI LAW FIRM PLLC 105 Ford Avenue, Suite 3 Kingsport, TN 37663 Telephone: (423) 406-1151 Email: alexis@tahincilaw.com - and - Mark N. Foster, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC P.O. Box 869 Madisonville, KY 42431 Telephone: (270) 213-1303 Email: Mfoster@MarkNFoster.com - and - John R. Kleinschmidt, III, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN R. KLEINSCHMIDT III, PLLC P.O. Box 1746 Lexington, KY 40588 Telephone: (859) 866-3097 Email: John@EmploymentLawKY.com UNITED EQUITY: Ball Sues Over Deceptive Foreclosure Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- CALEB BALL; and JACQUELINE BALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KATHY L. HOUSTON, ESQ.; AMANDA L. LUNDERGAN, ESQ.; MICHAEL S. SPOLIANSKY, ESQ.; MATTHEW DANIEL WOLF, ESQ.; JOHN DOES 1-10 ATTORNEYS OR PARAPROFESSIONAL; UNITED EQUITY ADVISORS, LLC; PALM BEACH REO INVESTORS JV; 30905 SW 194 AVE LLC; 4871 LAND TRUST LLC; 7042 NW 66 TERRACE LLC;4940 CHERRY LLC AS TRUSTEE OF THE 4940 CHERRY LAND TRUST DATED NOVEMBER 3, 2022; 7910 SW 12 ST., LLC; 8571 NW 26 ST. LLC; MORTGAGE LAWYERS, P.A., ESQUIRE SUPPORT, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-24418-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 25, 2025) alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in the operations of a foreclosure attorneys kinetic enterprise (referred to as "FAKE") that fabricated, filed, and prosecuted fraudulent mortgage foreclosures across Florida's judicial system. Armed with fabricated mortgages, FAKE manipulated the foreclosure process and expedited the online judicial auctions so they could sell fully encumbered, underwater properties to an unsuspecting public through the use of interstate mail and wire. The Defendants' skullduggery emotionally and financially harmed the Plaintiffs and any others similarly situated, alleges the suit. United Equity Advisors, LLC provides investment advisory services. The Company offers investment advice, portfolio management, securities, and other financial services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary M. Murphree, Esq. AM LAW PLLC 10743 SW 104th Street Miami, Florida 33176 Telephone: (305) 441-9530 E-mail: gmm@amlaw-miami.com UNITED STATES: Faces Chicago Suit Over First Amendment Rights ------------------------------------------------------------- CHICAGO HEADLINE CLUB, BLOCK CLUB CHICAGO, CHICAGO NEWSPAPER GUILD LOCAL 34071, NABET-CWA LOCAL 54041, ILLINOIS PRESS ASSOCIATION, RAVEN GEARY, CHARLES THRUSH, STEPHEN HELD, DAVID BLACK, WILLIAM PAULSON, AUTUMN REIDY-HAMER, and LEIGH KUNKEL, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-12173 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 6, 2025) concerns the right of the demonstrator Plaintiffs to exercise their First Amendment rights to peacefully protest and to exercise their religion in the area around the ICE facility in Broadview, Illinois, and in other places where demonstrators are opposing the Administration's federal incursion into the Chicagoland area as well as concerns the rights of the journalist Plaintiffs to observe, record, and report on the federal agents' activities and the public's demonstrations against them. The Plaintiffs endeavor to protect their basic constitutional rights to express their views opposing the lawlessness unleashed on the Chicagoland area, and to safely report on that public outcry, without fear of again being shot, gassed, and beaten by federal agents. Accordingly, the federal government has sent federal forces to cities across the United States in order to prevent the press, elected officials, religious leaders, and civilians engaged in peaceful protest from exercising their First Amendment rights. All over the country, federal agents have shot, gassed, and detained individuals engaged in cherished and protected activities. Never in modern times has the federal government undermined bedrock constitutional protections on this scale or usurped states' police power by directing federal agents to carry out an illegal mission against the people for the government's own benefit, asserts the suit. Following the announcement of "Operation Midway Blitz" in early September 2025, the Trump Administration has ramped up immigration enforcement operations and deployed federal officers to Broadview and other Chicagoland area locations. Civilians, elected officials, and religious leaders in the community have continually gathered outside of the Broadview ICE facility to make their voices heard in opposition to the federal government's policies and actions. The demonstrations have been staged daily for 30 days as of the filing of this complaint and are ongoing. The vast majority of protesters are animated but peaceful. The people of faith gather in prayer. Collectively, they express their views with chants, prayer, and uplifted voices. Local and national press have continuously covered the federal law enforcement deployment to Chicago and the Broadview ICE facility in particular, sending reporters to the scene. They have written countless news articles, keeping the public informed and facilitating public debate in furtherance of the bedrock American democratic principle that the government is accountable to its people. Federal agents have responded with a pattern of extreme brutality in a concerted and ongoing effort to silence the press and civilians. Dressed in full combat gear, often masked, carrying weapons, bearing flash grenades and tear gas canisters, and marching in formation, federal agents have repeatedly advanced upon those present at the scene who posed no imminent threat to law enforcement. Snipers with guns loaded with pepper balls, paintballs, and rubber bullets are stationed on the roof of the Broadview ICE facility with their weapons trained on the press and civilians, the suit contends. The Defendants include TODD LYONS, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); MARCOS CHARLES, Acting Executive Associate Director, Enforcement and Removal Operations, ICE; RUSSELL HOTT, Chicago Field Office Director, ICE; RODNEY S. SCOTT, Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP); GREGORY BOVINO, Chief Border Patrol Agent, CBP; DANIEL DRISCOLL, Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF); WILLIAM K. MARSHALL III, Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP); PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General of the United States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; UNIDENTIFIED FEDERAL OFFICER DEFENDANTS; UNIDENTIFIED FEDERAL AGENCY DEFENDANTS; and DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States. Kristi Noem is an American politician serving since 2025 as the 8th United States secretary of homeland security.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jon Loevy, Esq. Locke Bowman, Esq. Steve Art, Esq. Heather Lewis Donnell, Esq. Theresa Kleinhaus, Esq. Matt Topic, Esq. Lindsay Hagy, Esq. Jordan Poole, Esq. Dominique Gilbert, Esq. Justin Hill, Esq. Aaron Tucek, Esq. Alexandra Wolfson, Esq. Elizabeth Wang, Esq. Isaac Green, Esq. LOEVY + LOEVY 311 N. Aberdeen Street Chicago, IL 60647 Telephone: (312) 243-5900 E-mail: steve@loevy.com - and - David B. Owens, Esq. CIVIL RIGHTS AND JUSTICE CLINIC UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON LAW SCHOOL William H. Gates Hall, Suite 265 Seattle, WA 98145-1110 - and - Wallace Hilke, Esq. COMMUNITY JUSTICE AND CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC Bluhm Legal Clinic, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law 375 E. Chicago Ave. Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 503-2224 E-mail: wally.hilke@law.northwestern.edu - and - Craig B. Futterman, Esq. MANDEL LEGAL AID CLINIC University of Chicago Law School 6020 S. University Chicago, IL 60637 Telephone: (773) 702-9611 E-mail: futterman@uchicago.edu - and - Hayden Johnson, Esq. Katie Schwartzmann, Esq. Conor Gaffney, Esq. PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT 2020 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Ste 601 Washington DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 579-4582 E-mail: hayden.johnson@protectdemocracy.org katie.schwartzmann@protectdemocracy.org conor.gaffney@protectdemocracy.org - and - Daniel Massoglia, Esq. Hannah C. Marion, Esq. FIRST DEFENSE LEGAL AID 601 S. California Ave. Chicago, IL 60612 Telephone: (336) 575-6968 E-mail: daniel@first-defense.org hannah@first-defense.org - and - Kevin M. Fee, Jr., Esq. Rebecca Glenberg, Esq. ROGER BALDWIN FOUNDATION OF ACLU, INC. 150 N. Michigan, Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 201-9740 E-mail: kfee@aclu-il.org rglenberg@aclu-il.org UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Parties Seek Sealing Order of Class Documents ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMBURRINO, M.D. et al v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-12766-SDW-LDW (D.N.J.), the Parties, on Oct. 20, 2025, shall jointly move the Court for an Order sealing the unredacted versions of certain documents filed in connection with the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, the Defendants Opposition thereto, and the Plaintiff's reply. These documents have been designated as "Confidential" and/or "Attorneys' Eyes Only" under to the Discovery Confidentiality and Protective Order. United is a health insurance company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=z6rPbC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Natalie Lesser, Esq. Amey J. Park, Esq. Julie S. Selesnick, Esq. Zoe Seaman-Grant, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: nlesser@bm.net apark@bm.net jselesnick@bm.net zseamangrant@bm.net - and - Leslie S. Howard, Esq. Michael F. Fried, Esq. COHEN HOWARD, LLP 766 Shrewsbury Avenue, Suite 200 Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 Telephone: (732) 747-5202 Facsimile: (732) 747-5259 E-mail: lhoward@cohenhoward.com mfried@cohenhoward.com The Defendants are represented by: Stephanie L. Silvano, Esq. Seton Hartnett O'brien, Esq. Geoffrey Sigler, Esq. Heather L. Richardson, Esq. Jennafer M. Tryck, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue, 47th Floor New York, NY 10166-0193 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 Facsimile: (212) 351-4035 E-mail: ssilvano@gibsondunn.com sobrien@gibsondunn.com gsigler@gibsondunn.com hrichardson@gibsondunn.com jtryck@gibsondunn.com UNIVERSITY RETIREMENT: Cisco Files Labor Class Suit in Cal. Super. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against University Retirement Community at Davis, Inc. The case is captioned as Domika A. Cisco, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. University Retirement Community at Davis, Inc., Defendant, Case No. VCU326118 (Cal. Super., September 16, 2025). The suit is brought over alleged employment law violation. A case management conference is set for January 21, 2026. University Retirement Community at Davis, Inc. is a retirement community in Davis, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S. Grand Ave., Ste 1450 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3152 Telephone: (213) 985-1150 VALPARAISO UNIVERSITY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Clark Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ZACHARY CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VALPARAISO UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00451 (N.D. Ind., Sept. 30, 2025) is an action arising from the Defendant's failure to safeguard certain Personally Identifying Information and other sensitive, non-public financial information (collectively, "Personal Information") of thousands of its current, former, and prospective students (collectively, "students") and employees, as well as others whose personal information was stored on Valpo's systems. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that Valpo's failure to safeguard these individuals' PII resulted in Defendant's network systems being unauthorizedly accessed by hackers and the Personal Information of Plaintiff and other students and employees, being disclosed, stolen, compromised, and misused, causing widespread and continuing injury and damages. The Defendant allegedly disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class Members by failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that the Personal Information it stores was safeguarded; failing to take available steps to prevent the Data Breach from happening; failing to follow the mandatory, applicable, and appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures; and failing to timely notify Plaintiff and the Proposed Class Members. As a consequence of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class Members' sensitive Personal Information has been released into the public domain and they have had to, and will continue to have to, spend time, effort, and money to protect themselves from fraud and identity theft, says the suit. Valparaiso University provides degrees in both undergraduate and graduate level curriculum. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHEN & MALAD LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenmalad.com athomas@cohenmalad.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 908 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com VENEZUELA: Mazzaccone Seeks Class Certification ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MASSIMO MAZZACCONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA, Case No. 1:24-cv-06168-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff shall move before the Honorable Denise L. Cote, at a date and time to be set by the Court, for an Order: (1) certifying a plaintiff Class of all holders of ISIN USP9395PAA95 ("AA95") Notes and plaintiff Class of all holders of ISIN USP922646AT10 ("AT10") Notes, both on Aug. 14, 2024 and who continue to hold thereafter; (2) appointment of the Plaintiff as class representative for the Classes; and (3) appointment of Duane Morris LLP as Class counsel, as well as for such other relief as this Court deems just and proper. Venezuela is a country on the northern coast of South America with diverse natural attractions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PfqcMZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Costantini, Esq. Stephanie Lamerce, Esq. Jillian M. Dreusike, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 22 Vanderbilt 335 Madison Avenue, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10017-4669 Telephone: (212) 692-1000 Facsimile: (212) 692-1020 E-mail: ajcostantini@duanemorris.com slamerce@duanemorris.com jdreusike@duanemorris.com VERIFY DEBT: Faces Keedi Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------ JESSICA KEEDI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VERIFY DEBT SOLUTIONS INC., Case No. CACE-25-015120 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Oct. 3, 2025) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On June 27,2024, the Defendant placed a call using a prerecorded voice message to the Plaintiff' s cellular telephone number ending in 9236. During the call, the Defendant played a prerecorded voice message identifying Defendant. The message used by Defendant was recorded prior to it being utilized during the call to Plaintiff, and a live person did not read a script during the call, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of the Class defined as follows: "All persons in the United States who, within four years prior to the filing of this action through the date of class certification, received a prerecorded voice call on their cellular telephone, from Defendant." The Defendant provides personalized debt relief solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell D. Hansen, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (813) 340-8838 E-mail: mitchell@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com WALGREENS BOOT: Faces Keedi Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages --------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA KEEDI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WALGREENS BOOT ALLIANCE, INC., Case No. CACE-25-015115 (Fla Cir., Broward Cty., Oct. 3, 2025) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On September 12, 2024, the Defendant placed a call using a prerecorded voice message to the Plaintiff' s cellular telephone number ending in 9236. During the call, the Defendant played a prerecorded voice message identifying Defendant. The message used by Defendant was recorded prior to it being utilized during the call to Plaintiff, and a live person did not read a script during the call, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of the Class defined as follows: "All persons in the United States who, within four years prior to the filing of this action through the date of class certification, received a prerecorded voice call on their cellular telephone, from Defendant." The Defendant operates a retail pharmacy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell D. Hansen, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (813) 340-8838 E-mail: mitchell@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com WASHINGTON NATIONALS: Faces Class Suit Over Undisclosed Junk Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that the Washington Nationals has failed to disclose to consumers the full price of game tickets up front and instead tacked on various junk fees at the end of the purchasing process. The 23-page lawsuit says that the National East team, until roughly July 2024, failed to accurately represent the prices of its tickets to online and in-person purchasers, deceiving customers into paying more than was advertised by adding junk fees—listed as service charges, handling and convenience charges, ticket processing charges and order processing charges—at the last stage of the purchasing process. The suit accuses the Nationals of "systemically cheating customers out of millions of dollars" by falsely advertising ticket prices. Though the team reportedly stopped charging undisclosed junk fees last year, it has not refunded fans the millions they have been wrongfully charged, the case says. Junk fees, the filing explains, are a form of drip pricing whereby a seller does not disclose the full price of an item until the consumer is already committed to or otherwise involved in the purchase. Junk fees are also a variety of partition pricing, where a portion of a good or service's cost is excluded from the advertised total price, the case says. The complaint claims that Nationals ticket prices regularly increased by almost 60 percent once the junk fees were added at the end of the purchasing process. The lawsuit argues that hidden junk fees are deceptive and unfair, given that they trick consumers into thinking a ticket costs less than it actually does, while also stopping a potential buyer from effectively comparing prices to find the best deal. Additionally, per the complaint, consumers are unlikely to abandon a purchase once they reach the point in the process at which the junk fees are revealed. This is because consumers generally do not want to expend the additional effort of searching for a better price when they have already invested time and effort into their present option, the case contends. Even if the fees at issue are disclosed earlier, the complaint writes, they are still partitioned and listed separately from a ticket's base price. The filing argues that the disclosure of partitioned fees is still insufficient, as research has shown that consumers will place more importance on the base price of a product and are unlikely to calculate the actual total cost. This is especially true, the complaint says, if the junk fees are disclosed in smaller, fainter text than the base price, as is often the case. The filing also alleges that both in-person and online buyers were further pressured into accepting the Washington Nationals' junk fees due to time limits placed on their purchases. For in-person purchases, consumers typically seek to not hold up the line at the box office, while for online purchases, the website or app would place a time limit on every transaction before that ticket or set of tickets were put back into the pool of available seats for others to potentially buy. The Washington Nationals class action lawsuit seeks to represent all individuals in the United States who, prior to July 16, 2024, purchased a Washington Nationals ticket at the Nationals Park Box Office, through the MLB Ballpark app or via MLB.com and was subsequently charged a service fee, ticket processing fee, handling and convenience fee, order processing fee and/or other similar fee. [GN] WASTE MANAGEMENT: Deadline to File Settlement Claim Set Nov. 21 --------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets, writing for ClaimDepot, reports that Individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired certain Waste Management Inc. redeemable senior notes in one or more domestic transactions between Feb. 13, 2020, and June 23, 2020, and suffered losses as a result may qualify to submit a claim for a cash payment from a class action settlement. Waste Management Inc. agreed to pay $30,000,000 to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it and certain executives made materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the timing and regulatory review of its acquisition of Advanced Disposal Services Inc. during the class period. Who is eligible for a Waste Management settlement payout? Class members must meet all of the following criteria: -- They purchased or otherwise acquired, in one or more domestic transactions, any of the following Waste Management redeemable senior notes between Feb. 13, 2020, and June 23, 2020: -- 2.95% senior notes due 2024 (CUSIP 94106LBF5) -- 3.20% senior notes due 2026 (CUSIP 94106LBH1) -- 3.45% senior notes due 2029 (CUSIP 94106LBG3) -- 4.00% senior notes due 2039 (CUSIP 94106LBJ7) -- Their transaction(s) occurred in a domestic (U.S.) market. -- They suffered damages as a result of their purchase or acquisition of these notes. Additional details: -- Those who held notes in their own name are both the beneficial and record owners and must sign the claim form themselves. -- Those who held notes registered in the name of a third party (such as a brokerage) are the beneficial owners and must submit the claim form themselves. -- Executors, administrators, guardians or trustees may file on behalf of a deceased or incapacitated owner but must provide proof of authority (such as a death certificate and legal documentation). How much is the Waste Management payout? Pro rata payment: The total settlement fund is $30,000,000. The actual amount each class member receives depends on several factors, including: -- The total number of valid claims submitted -- The amount of each claimant's recognized loss -- Deductions for taxes, administrative costs, attorneys' fees and expenses Each claimant's share is proportional to their recognized loss compared to the total recognized losses of all claimants. The average distribution per damaged note is estimated at approximately $24 before deductions and $9.28 after deductions. However, the actual payment may be higher or lower. Detailed award calculation The settlement administrator will calculate each class member's recognized loss amount based on the type of note(s), purchase and sale dates, and the price they paid or received. -- 2.95% senior notes due 2024 (CUSIP 94106LBF5): -- If sold prior to June 24, 2020: Recognized loss amount is $0. -- If sold or disposed of June 24-July 20, 2020: Recognized loss amount per $100 of par is the least of: -- $2.97 (decline in inflation per $100 of par during the holding period) -- The purchase price minus the sale price -- The purchase price minus the average price between June 24, 2020, and the date of sale -- 3.20% senior notes due 2026 (CUSIP 94106LBH1): -- If sold prior to June 24, 2020: Recognized loss amount is $0. -- If sold or disposed of June 24, 2020-July 20, 2020: Recognized loss amount per $100 of par is the least of: -- $5.46 -- The purchase price minus the sale price -- The purchase price minus the average price between June 24, 2020, and the date of sale -- 3.45% senior notes due 2029 (CUSIP 94106LBG3): -- If sold prior to June 24, 2020: Recognized loss amount is $0. -- If sold or disposed of June 24-July 20, 2020: Recognized loss amount per $100 of par is the least of: -- $5.41 -- The purchase price minus the sale price -- The purchase price minus the average price between June 24, 2020, and the date of sale -- 4% senior notes due 2039 (CUSIP 94106LBJ7): -- If sold prior to June 24, 2020: Recognized loss amount is $0. -- If sold or disposed of June 24-July 20, 2020: Recognized loss amount per $100 of par is the least of: -- $3.14 -- The purchase price minus the sale price -- The purchase price minus the average price between June 24, 2020, and the date of sale If the calculated distribution for a claimant is less than $10, they will not receive payment. How to claim a class action payment Class members can file the online claim form or download, print, complete and mail PDF claim form to the settlement administrator. The claim deadline is Nov. 21, 2025. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Waste Management Notes Securities Settlement Claims Administrator, c/o Verita Global, P.O. Box 301170 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1170 What proof or documentation is required to submit a claim? All class members must provide: -- The last four digits of their Social Security or taxpayer identification number -- Waste Management senior note transaction information, including note type, trade dates, quantities and purchase prices Claimants must provide documentation to support their transactions. Acceptable documentation includes: -- Brokerage confirmation slips -- Monthly account statements showing opening and closing balances for the relevant months -- Authorized statements from brokers containing transaction and holding information The settlement administrator will not accept written documents, self-prepared tax forms, spreadsheets or illegible statements. Do not send original documents as the settlement administrator will not return them. Payout options -- Electronic payment -- Paper check Third-party filers cannot be the payee of any distribution payment. $30 million settlement fund breakdown The $30,000,000 settlement fund covers: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $10,000,000 -- Attorneys' expenses: Up to $1,000,000 -- Service awards to lead plaintiffs: Up to $60,000 total -- Payments to eligible class members: The remainder of the fund Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: Nov. 21, 2025 -- Deadline to request exclusion: Nov. 25, 2025 -- Fairness hearing: Dec. 16, 2025 When is the Waste Management securities settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to eligible class members after the court grants final approval of the settlement and resolves any appeals. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged Waste Management Inc. and certain executives made false and misleading statements and omissions about the timing and regulatory review of the company's acquisition of Advanced Disposal Services Inc. during the class period. The plaintiffs claimed these misrepresentations artificially inflated the prices of the notes, causing losses when they learned the truth. Waste Management Inc. denies any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the risks and costs of continued litigation. [GN] WEBMD LLC: Must Face "Penning" Suit in California State Court ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Stacy Penning, Plaintiff, v. MedicineNet, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 25-cv-05992-JST (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand. Defendant WebMD LLC removed this case from the Superior Court of California for the County of Contra Costa under the Class Action Fairness Act. Seven days later, WebMD filed a motion to transfer this case to the District of New Jersey or, in the alternative, to dismiss the case under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Among other arguments, WebMD contended that the Court lacked jurisdiction over this case because Penning failed to allege Article III standing. Penning filed a motion to remand and a motion to stay briefing on WebMD's motion to transfer or dismiss pending consideration of the motion to remand. The Court stayed the briefing and hearing schedule on WebMD's motion so that it could consider the jurisdictional question first. The parties did not dispute that the allegations in this case satisfied CAFA's jurisdictional requirements concerning citizenship and the amount in controversy under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). Nor did they dispute that WebMD, as the party seeking to invoke the Court's jurisdiction, had the burden of establishing the facts necessary to support standing. WebMD argued that Penning lacked Article III standing, and Penning did not make any arguments to the contrary. If WebMD was correct about Penning's lack of standing, the case had to be remanded because it would not have been properly removed. Penning asked the Court to remand this case based on WebMD's failure to satisfy its burden to demonstrate jurisdiction. WebMD, on the other hand, acknowledged that remand without standing might be the ultimate outcome of this Court's analysis, but it asked the Court to undertake its own analysis of the sufficiency of Plaintiff's allegations to establish a cognizable injury or Article III standing before determining whether remand was appropriate. The Court declined WebMD's invitation. As the Court concluded in a previous case with the same procedural posture, by arguing, immediately upon removal and without any changed circumstances, that Penning lacked standing, WebMD had not met its burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction, and the case should therefore be remanded. The Court noted that although several courts have concluded that an independent analysis of whether plaintiffs have standing is appropriate in situations where defendants have removed an action to federal court and then contested Article III standing, another line of cases supported Plaintiff's view and found remand appropriate, without further analysis, under similar circumstances. The Court found persuasive the reasoning that defendants cannot use the bare requirements of Section 1332 to get a foot in the door of a federal court and thereby obtain a clean slate on which to seek dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Instead, defendants bear the burden to show both a basis for diversity jurisdiction and that the plaintiff has Article III standing. By arguing the plaintiff lacked standing, defendants have not carried their burden. Since the Court decided Walker, other courts in the Ninth Circuit reached the same conclusion. The Court found that remand based on the defendant's failure to meet its removal burden did not depend on Plaintiffs' position on standing or on the Court making a final jurisdictional ruling. By removing the lawsuit to federal court based on the assertion that the Court had subject matter jurisdiction and then reversing course and asserting a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the defendant had not met its burden to establish that the Court had subject matter jurisdiction. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction was presumed, and remand was mandatory. WebMD relied heavily on the Seventh Circuit's opinion in Collier v. SP Plus Corp., but the Court found the opinion did not state that a district court must conduct an analysis of standing before granting a motion to remand. The Court also found that the two cases cited by WebMD from the Northern District of Illinois were distinguishable because in those cases the defendants did not expressly argue that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing. The Court concluded that a defendant does not satisfy its burden of proving that all the elements of federal jurisdiction were satisfied upon removal when it attempts to invoke federal jurisdiction for purposes of removal and then argued for dismissal based on the lack of standing. Accordingly, Penning's motion to remand was granted. The case was remanded to the Superior Court of California for the County of Contra Costa. A copy of the court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jKNzGg from PacerMonitor.com WERNER GOURMET: Fernandez Balks at Blind User-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ JUDITH ADELA FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. WERNER GOURMET MEAT SNACKS, INC., Case No. 11:25-cv-08266 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 6, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://wernerjerky.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendants denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. 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 Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. The Defendant offers the commercial website, https://wernerjerky.com/, to the public. The Website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services offered by Defendant and which Defendant ensures delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, New York 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal WESTGATE VACATION: Faces Tina Class Suit Over Predatory Lending --------------------------------------------------------------- NICHOLAS TINA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and LISSETTE TINA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WESTGATE VACATION VILLAS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, WESTGATE RESORTS, LTD., a Florida limited partnership, WESTGATE MARKETING, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and WESTGATE RESORTS, INC., a Florida corporation, Case No. 6:25-cv-01924 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 3, 2025) seeks to enforce the Military Lending Act, which was enacted to protect members of the United States Military from an epidemic of predatory lending that endangers our Nation's military readiness and impacts servicemember retention. Defendant Westgate sells vacations, or more accurately, the potential to book a future vacation based on factors solely in Westgate's control. The vacations are sold through a timeshare mechanism across the United States. Westgate targets several groups of consumers, including members of the United States Military. Plaintiff Nicholas Tina is an active-duty member of the United States Military. Along with his wife, Lissette Tina, they were pressured into purchasing a timeshare interest from Westgate in July 2021. Westgate provides financing for the sale of its timeshare interests. However, a consumer's purchase of a Westgate timeshare interest is more akin to an installment agreement allowing the purchaser to have the potential to rent vacation properties from Westgate sometime in the future, which often must be at least one year or more in the future from the booking date. The timeshare interests sold and financed by Westgate are covered by the MLA because they extend consumer credit to covered borrowers primarily for personal, family, or household purposes and are subject to finance charges and payable pursuant to written agreements in more than four installments, says the suit. WESTGATE VACATION VILLAS, LLC is an American timeshare resort company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey L. Newsome, II, Esq. Janet R. Varnell, Esq. Brian W. Warwick, Esq. Pamela G. Levinson, Esq. Christopher J. Brochu, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. 400 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 Facsimile: (352) 504-3301 E-mail: jvarnell@vandwlaw.com bwarwick@vandwlaw.com plevinson@vandwlaw.com jnewsome@vandwlaw.com cbrochu@vandwlaw.com - and - Craig E. Rothburd, Esq. Dylan J. Thatcher, Esq. CRAIG E. ROTHBURD, P.A. 320 W. Kennedy Blvd., No. 700 Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone:(813) 251-8800 E-mail: craig@rothburdpa.com dylan@rothburdpa.com maria@rothburdpa.com - and - Scott R. Jeeves, Esq. JEEVES LAW GROUP, P.A. 2100 1st Ave S Ste 2 Saint Petersburg, FL 33712-1212 Telephone: (727) 894-2929 E-mail: sjeeves@jeeveslawgroup.com khill@jeeveslawgroup.com - and - Roger L. Mandel, Esq. JEEVES MANDEL LAW GROUP, P.C. 2833 Crockett St, Suite 135 Fort Worth, TX 76107 Telephone: (214) 253-8300 E-mail: rmandel@jeevesmandellawgroup.com WOODS CONSTRUCTION: Property Violated ADA, Azzou Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- LISA AZZOU, as guardian and natural parent on behalf of her minor daughter S.A., Plaintiff v. THE WOODS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00322-WHR-CHG (S.D. Ohio, Sept. 30, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' commercial property located at 225 E 6th Street, Dayton, OH 45402 in Montgomery County, Ohio, which is a restaurant known as Jay's Seafood, is not accessible to mobility-impaired individuals in violation of ADA. The Woods Construction Company is engaged in the business of construction of nonresidential buildings. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF OWEN B. DUNN, JR. The Offices of Unit C 6800 W. Central Ave., Suite C-1 Toledo, OH 43617 Telephone: (419) 241-9661 Facsimile: (419) 241-9737 Email: obdjr@owendunnlaw.com X CORP: Fact Discovery in Gerber Suit Extended to Jan. 30, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN GERBER, ERIC COHEN, and CASEY WEITZMAN, Individually and on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, v. X CORP., as Successor-in-Interest to Twitter, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-00186-KAW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order: 1. The stay currently in place in this Action is dissolved; 2. Each of the deadlines set forth in the Court's Feb. 4, 2025 Pretrial Schedule is extended by twelve weeks, commensurate with the length of time this action has been stayed since June 26, 2025, as follows: a. Fact Discovery cutoff is extended from Jan. 30, 2026 to April 24, 2026; b. Expert disclosure is extended from Feb. 13, 2026 to May 8, 2026; c. Expert rebuttal is extended from Feb. 27, 2026 to May 22, 2026; d. Expert discovery cutoff is extended from March 20, 2026 to June 12, 2026; e. Motion for class certification deadline is extended from May 22, 2026 to Aug. 14, 2026; f. Opposition deadline is extended from June 19, 2026 to Sept. 11, 2026; g. Reply deadline is extended from July 10, 2026 to Oct. 2, 2026; h. Dispositive Motions deadline is extended from Aug. 20, 2026 to Nov. 19, 2026; X Corp. is an American tech company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WRebif 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 ***