251014.mbx

251014.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, October 14, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 205 Headlines ADVANCED BIONICS: Gibson Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. AHDS BAGEL: Seeks Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in New York ALKERMES INC: Value Drug Sues Over Monopoly of Naltrexone Market ALORICA INC: Munoz Wins Class Cert Bid AMAZON LOGISTICS: Spinney Labor Suit Removed to D. Nev. AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Wright Due Oct. 26, 2026 AMAZON.COM INC: Martinho Wins Class Certification Bid AMERICAN WELL: Aids Heap to Access Patients' Info, Polk Claims APPLE INC: Faces Guerra Class Action Suit Over Deceptive Ads ASPIRE USA: Esparza Files Suit Over Data Breach BASEUS TECHNOLOGY: Moran Sues Over Blind's Access to Online Store BENEFITS NOW: Court OKs Class Certification Discovery in "Rashley" BETTERHELP INC: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Briefing Sched BLACK ANGUS: Faces Ramos Suit Alleging ADA Breach BNY MELLON: Waldens Lose Bid to File SAC BOYD GAMING: Fails to Protect Clients' Personal Info, Ruehlman Says BOYD GAMING: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Granata Claims BOYKIN FARMS: Court Certifies Classes & Subclasses in Lopez Suit CAREWELL INSURANCE: Underpays Insurance Agents, Schulz Suit Claims CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Eberwein Consumer Suit Removed to D.N.J. CATALENT INC: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Extended to Oct. 16 CAVU ECOMMERCE: Settles Parking Fees Class Suit for $425,000 CENTRAL PARK: Ademi Bid to Certify Class Tossed CGB ENTERPRISES: Class Cert Filing Bid in Hayes Due May 15, 2026 CLASSPASS INC: Filing for Class Certification Due Feb. 19, 2027 CLUB EXPLORIA: Appeals Court Order in Moore TCPA Suit to 7th Cir. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Gets Prelim Settlement Approval in "McCutcheon" COMERICA INC: M&A Probes Sale to Fifth Third Bancorp COMMONWEALTH BANK: ASB Settles Class Action Suit for $119.7MM COUPLE SPA: Hwang Second Bid for Default Judgment Partly OK'd DIAMOND SIGHT: Yeager Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages, Retaliation DIRECTTOU LLC: Settlement in Hoang To Suit Gets Prelim. Nod DONALD TRUMP: Thakur Wins Provisional Class Certification Bid EATON CORP: More Time to File Partial Summary Judgment Sought FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY: Parties in Koney Must Confer Class Cert Dates FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines FLORIDA NATURAL: Collins Sues Over Deceptive Labeled Products FOUR SEASONS: Staley Appeals WARN Act Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit FTW ENTERPRISES: Paylor Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes GATEHOUSE MEDIA: Ewalt Appeals Denied Remand Bid to 6th Circuit GENERAL MOTORS: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class GLOBAL PLASMA: Court OK's Bid to Certify Statewide Class GLOSSIER INC: Cordoba Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users GOOD VIBES: Faces Warner Suit Over Deceptive Product Discount Ads GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES: Loses Bid to Strike Class Allegations HEALTHEQUITY INC: Court OKs Arbitration Discovery in "Hafoka" HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES: M&A Investigates Sale to Advent International HUMACH LLC: Collects Data from Website Visitors, Escobedo Alleges INDIAN RIVER: Appeals Injunction Order in Faus Suit to 2nd Circuit INFINITY SOFTWARE: 605 Lending Scheme "Illegal," Sharits Alleges IRA INNOVATIONS: Sake TN Bid for Class Certification Tossed JAMES LEBLANC: Giroir Bid for Class Cert Partly OK'd JAMES LEBLANC: Humphrey Bid for Class Cert Partly OK'd KD CREATIVES: Appeals Arbitration Order in Carruth Suit to 9th Cir. KRISTI NOEM: Petitioner Must File Class Cert Response by Oct. 16 LAKE CONSUMER: Court Narrows Claims in Pineda Class Suit LEHIGH VALLEY: Kiskeravage Seeks Prelim. Approval of Settlement LIBERTY MUTUAL: Extension of Class Cert Hearing Continuance Sought LINCOLN NATIONAL: Local 295 Appeals Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Tossed LOFCO LIMITED: Walker Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website LUIS CORREA: Initial Case Order Entered in Craft Class Suit LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Sends Unsolicited Marketing Calls, Wilson Says LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Bid for More Time to File Class Cert Tossed LVNV FUNDING: Shaw Bid for Class Certification Tossed w/o Prejudice MARCO RUBIO: Court Postpones Class Cert Briefing in OCA MAX'S SERVICES: Underpays Company Employees, Guerrero Says MDL 2832: Panel Remands 13 Suits in Toppings Dispensing System Row MDL 2846: Krinn Suit Consolidated in Hernia Mesh Product Row MDL 3052: Lloyd Suit Consolidated in Kia Hyundai Vehicle Theft Row MDL 3114: 4 Suits Consolidated in AT&T Data Privacy Row MEDSTAR HEALTH: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Foxwell Says MICHAEL BETLEY: Loses Bid to Dismiss McCarrell SAC MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Faces Shareholder Suits over SEC Disclosures MID-AMERICA PET: Class Settlement in Filardi Gets Initial Nod MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Settlement in Sanchez Suit Gets Final Nod MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit MONSANTO COMPANY: Cunningham Sues Over Defective Herbicide Roundup MONTEREY MUSHROOMS: Sherman Sues Over Unauthorized Access of PII NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Seeks to Amend Class Certify Briefing Sched NATURE'S PATH: Martin Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit NEW YORK, NY: Payne Sues Over Racial Discrimination, Wage Theft OCEAN DETAILING: Triana Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Car Detailers OREGON COMMUNITY: Settlement in Arthur Gets Initial Nod OSHKOSH CORP: Faces Augusta Suit Over Fire Trucks' Inflated Prices PHARMACARE US: Sunderland Appeals Class Cert. Order to 9th Circuit PIKASSO EMPANADAS: Faces Parrales Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. PPG INDUSTRIES: Munoz Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. PRECISION HEATING: Picon Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Breach of Contract QUAKER OATS: Amjad Appeals Class Cert. and Attorney Fees Ruling RADIO SYSTEMS: $1.9-Mil. Class Suit Settlement Gets Prelim. OK RALPH LAUREN: Fact Discovery in Merrell Due Oct. 14 RCI HOSPITALITY: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit REPUBLIC SERVICES: Appeals Class Certification Order to 8th Circuit RICHLAND COUNTY, SC: Plaintiff's Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Standing Order Entered in Ortega Class Suit RUGSUSA LLC: Court Narrows Claims in Hong Class Action RYVYL INC: Monteverde & Associates Investigates Sale to RTB Digital SALESFORCE INC: Fails to Protect Clients' PII, Swearingen Alleges SECURLY INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Bate Due March 20, 2026 SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Farney Seeks to Certify Rule 23 class SG PIZZA: Aragon Class Action Referred to Magistrate Judge SHEHEEN HANCOCK: Fails to Protect Private Info, Hinson Says SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Agrees to Settle Military Leave Suit for $18.5M SPECIALTYCARE INC: Barta Bid for Issuance of Notice Partly OK'd ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Faces Richard Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. STAKE CENTER: Holtsclaw Seeks to Certify Utility Locator Class STATE FARM: Bid to Certify State Farm Insured Class Tossed STEUBEN COUNTY, NY: Keeps Property's Surplus Proceeds, Simpson Says STEVEN SANDERS: Must Oppose George Class Cert Bid by Oct. 14 SYNERGY COMPANY: Henry Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TD BANK: Faces Trisal Suit Over Failure to Refund Overdraft Fees TEKNI-PLEX INC: C.H. Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Clients' Info TERRAPIN RIDGE: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Hampton Says TORO COMPANY: Martinez Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. TOYOTA ARENA: Phoenix Seeks to Continue Class Cert Deadlines ULTIMATE CARE: Cruz Mus File Class Cert. Bid by Jan. 20. 2026 UNION HOME: Faces Kinney Suit Over FTCA Violation UNITED STATES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 18 UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Must File Reply by Oct. 17 UNITED STATES: Venegas Sues Over Unlawful Searches and Seizures UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE: Fails to Accredit Degrees, Suit Claims UPONOR INC: Class Certification Bid Filing Due April 17, 2026 VESYNC CORP: Court Narrows Claims in Menter Suit VISITING NURSE: Faces Simpson Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. W.W. GRAINGER: Navarro Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. WALMART INC: Devane Class Cert Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice WITRON INTEGRATED: Fails to Properly Pay Workers, Thornton Claims ********* ADVANCED BIONICS: Gibson Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- GRANT GIBSON, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Grant Gibson, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Advanced Bionics, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00423-MCS-SSC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, is brought against the Defendant for fraud claims. On Mar. 13, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss on Mar. 27, 2025. On Sept. 2, 2025, Judge Mark C. Scarsi entered an Order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The case is dismissed with prejudice. No party shall take anything from this action. The appellate case is captioned Gibson, et al. v. Advanced Bionics, LLC, Case No. 25-6159, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 1, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 6, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order is due on October 14, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on November 13, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on December 23, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on January 22, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants GRANT GIBSON, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW PC 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Defendant-Appellee ADVANCED BIONICS, LLC is represented by: Andrew James Soukup, Esq. Stephen Petkis, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP One CityCenter 850, 10th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 AHDS BAGEL: Seeks Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in New York --------------------------------------------------- On October 10, 2025, AHDS Bagel LLC submitted a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in the Southern District of New York. Court documents show that the company holds liabilities up to $100,000. In its filing, the company stated that it has between 1 and 49 creditors. About AHDS Bagel LLC AHDS Bagel LLC is a limited liability company. AHDS Bagel LLC sought relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 25-12251) on October 10, 2025. In its petition, the Debtor reports estimated assets and liabilities up to $100,000 each. Honorable Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn handles the case. The Debtor is represented by Lawrence Morrison, Esq. ALKERMES INC: Value Drug Sues Over Monopoly of Naltrexone Market ---------------------------------------------------------------- VALUE DRUG COMPANY, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALKERMES, INC. and ALKERMES PHARMA IRELAND LIMITED, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-12872-GAO (D. Mass., October 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The case arises from Alkermes' alleged anticompetitive scheme of unlawfully prolonging its monopoly in the injectable naltrexone market and protecting its brand Vivitrol monopoly profits from AB-rated generic competition. According to the complaint, Alkermes obtained the '499 patent by fraud and took various additional anticompetitive actions thereafter to unlawfully exclude generic competition and preserve its brand Vivitrol monopoly revenues. As a result of Alkermes' anticompetitive and monopolistic practices, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered overcharge damages. Value Drug Company is a pharmaceutical products wholesaler based in Duncansville, Pennsylvania. Alkermes, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company, with its principal place of business in Waltham, Massachusetts. Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited is a pharmaceutical company based in Dublin, Ireland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean K. McElligott, Esq. Steven L. Bloch, Esq. Johnathan Seredynski, Esq. SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP One Landmark Square, 15th Floor Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (203) 325-4491 Email: smcelligott@sgtlaw.com sbloch@sgtlaw.com jseredynski@sgtlaw.com - and - Peter Kohn, Esq. Joseph Lukens, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI LLP 1617 JFK Blvd., Suite 1550 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 277-5770 Email: pkohn@faruqilaw.com jlukens@faruqilaw.com - and - Bradley J. Demuth, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI LLP 685 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Email: bdemuth@faruqilaw.com - and - Russell A. Chorush, Esq. Chris First, Esq. Carlos Ruiz, Esq. HEIM PAYNE & CHORUSH LLP 1111 Bagby Street, Suite 2100 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 221-2000 Email: rchorush@hpcllp.com cfirst@hpcllp.com cruiz@hpcllp.com - and - Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq. Dan Litvin, Esq. GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP 88 Pine Street, 28th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 398-0055 Email: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com dlitvin@garwingerstein.com - and - David F. Sorensen, Esq. Caitlin G. Coslett, Esq. Andrew Curley, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Email: dsorensen@bm.net ccoslett@bm.net acurley@bm.net - and - Stuart Des Roches, Esq. Dan Chiorean, Esq. Thomas Maas, Esq. Caroline Hoffmann, Esq. ODOM & DES ROCHES LLC 650 Poydras Street, Suite 2350 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 522-0077 Email: stuart@odrlaw.com dchiorean@ordlaw.com tmaas@ordlaw.com choffmann@odrlaw.com - and - Susan Segura, Esq. David C. Raphael, Esq. SMITH SEGURA RAPHAEL & LEGER LLP 221 Ansley Blvd. Alexandria, LA 71303 Telephone: (318) 445-4480 Email: ssegura@ssrllp.com draphael@ssrllp.com ALORICA INC: Munoz Wins Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON MUNOZ; CYNDY PANIAGUA; and MELISSA OLSEN, individually and as a representative of a Putative Class of Participants and Beneficiaries, on behalf of the ALORICA 401(K) RETIREMENT PLAN, v. ALORICA, INC.; ALORICA RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN COMMITTEE; LISA ADAMSHICK; JOYCE TODD-GUERRA; CHRIS HUYN; ELIZABETH LAN PAN; EMILY KILGORE; RICK HAYES; DEON STENNER; MATTHEW VONDETTE; DAN FINNEGAN; JAE CHANEY; MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY, LLC; and DOES 1-50, Case No. 8:22-cv-01856-JWH-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Holcomb entered an order regarding: -- the Plaintiff's motion for class certification; -- Alorica Defendants' motion to exclude the report and testimony of Rick Rodgers; -- MSSB's motions to join. The Plaintiffs' instant class certification motion is granted. The following class is certified: "All participants in or beneficiaries of the ALORICA 401(K) RETIREMENT PLAN from six years prior to the filing of the complaint in this matter through Dec. 31, 2022, excluding the Defendants and members of the Defendant Committee." The Plaintiffs Aaron Munoz and Melissa Olsen are appointed as class representatives. Christina Humphrey Law, P.C. and Tower Legal Group are appointed as class counsel. The Alorica Defendants' motion to exclude expert testimony of Rick Rodgers is denied. The Court concludes that the putative class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(b)(1)(A), or, alternatively, Rule 23(b)(1)(B). The Plaintiffs allege in essence that the Defendants mismanaged Plaintiffs' 401(k) Plan. The Plaintiffs assert the following two claims for relief: (1) breach of fiduciary duty of prudence; and (2) breach of fiduciary duties in violation of duty to investigate and monitor investments and covered service providers The Plaintiffs commenced this action in October 2022, and they filed a first amended complaint in January 2023. Alorica offers global leader in customer experience solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a2SrgK at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON LOGISTICS: Spinney Labor Suit Removed to D. Nev. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ANDREW SPINNEY, individually and on behalf of a class of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., and AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendants, Case No. A-25-925883-C, was removed from the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada, to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on September 24, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01803 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid minimum wages and related statutory penalties and damages owed to him and the Class members pursuant to Nevada's Statutes NRS 608.040, NRS 608.250 and Nevada's Constitution, including attorneys' fees, interests and costs. Amazon Logistics, Inc. is a freight transportation company located in Seattle, Washington.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jason Hicks, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600 Las Vegas, NV 89135 Telephone: (702) 792-3773 E-mail: Jason.Hicks@gtlaw.com - and - Megan Cooney, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1200 Irvine, CA 92612-4412 Telephone: (949) 451-3800 E-mail: MCooney@gibsondunn.com - and - Lucas C. Townsend, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1700 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-4504 Telephone: (202) 995-8500 E-mail: LTownsend@gibsondunn.com - and - Michael E. Kenneally, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004-2541 Telephone: (202) 739-5893 E-mail: michael.kenneally@morganlewis.com AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Wright Due Oct. 26, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wright, et al., v. Amazon.com Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00977-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge James L. Robart entered a scheduling order regarding class certification motion: Substantial completion of document production: March 27, 2026 Completion of fact witness depositions: May 22, 2026 The Plaintiffs' class certification motion: Oct. 26, 2026 Amazon's class certification opposition Nov. 27, 2026 and Daubert motions: The Plaintiffs' class certification reply; Dec. 18, 2026 the Plaintiffs' Daubert Motion(s); and the Plaintiff's opposition to any Daubert motion filed by Amazon: Hearing on class certification: To be set by the Court Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rpBYv1 at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: Martinho Wins Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE MARTINHO, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., ET AL., Case No. 4:22-cv-06849-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order: -- granting in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment; -- granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification; and -- denying with respect to the welcome presentation and photo station. The Plaintiff has demonstrated a triable issue capable of resolution class-wide which meets the requirements of Rule 23. As a result, the motion for class certification is granted with the following modified class definition: "All individuals who (1) applied for an hourly, non-exempt job position with the Defendant Amazon.com Services LLC; (2) received an offer letter from Amazon for an hourly, non-exempt position in one of Amazon's warehouses, distribution centers, and fulfillment centers in the State of California; and (3) attended a standard in-person or hybrid new hire event at any time from July 14, 2018, to the present (the "Class" or "Class Members") and completed either the badge photo or welcome presentation activities." The Plaintiff alleges she is entitled to pay for attendance at both new hire events. She brings two claims: one under California Labor Code Section 1194, permitting suits by "any employee receiving less than the legal minimum wage or the legal overtime compensation," and another under California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). Amazon.com operates as an online retailer in North America and internationally. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RE9zKo at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN WELL: Aids Heap to Access Patients' Info, Polk Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- VIRGINIA POLK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN WELL CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12790 (D. Mass., September 26, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Federal Wiretap Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, invasion privacy under California's Constitution, and intrusion upon seclusion. According to the complaint, the Defendant aids, employs, agrees, and conspires third-party Heap Inc. to intercept the Plaintiff's and Class members' communications while using the LiveHealth Online Website, the LiveHealth Online iOS App, and/or the LiveHealth Online Android App without prior consent. The Defendant secretly installed tracking technologies on its website, iOS App, and Android App which serve to track and disclose patients' activity, in real time, including their protected health information and personally identifiable information, to Heap, suit says. In doing so, the Defendant undermined the importance of safeguarding the identities and personal medical information of individuals seeking mental services and breached patients' trust, violating state and federal law, says the suit. American Well Corp. is a telemedicine company based in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: ykopel@bursor.com - and - Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10106 Telephone: (914) 874-0708 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Scott R. Drury, Esq. DRURY LEGAL, LLC 6 Carriage Lane Highwood, IL 60040 Telephone: (312) 358-8225 Email: scott@drurylegal.com APPLE INC: Faces Guerra Class Action Suit Over Deceptive Ads ------------------------------------------------------------ EDDIE GUERRA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. APPLE INC., a corporation, Case No. 5:25-cv-08593 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 8, 2025) is a class action against Apple based on its false and deceptive advertising of its Apple TV movies and other video content. According to the complaint, Apple advertises putative 4K digital content on its Apple TV platform as available for "purchase" even though it cannot be downloaded for offline viewing in 4K and despite the "sale" only conveying a limited license. Apple's claims are false and misleading and violate California's False Advertising Law, California's Unfair Competition Law, and California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act. In August 2025, the Plaintiff paid for a movie called "F1: The Movie" on Defendant's Apple TV service for $24.99. The Plaintiff believed that he was receiving unrestricted rights to the movie because he clicked the "Buy" button when purchasing it. The Plaintiff also believed that he would have unrestricted rights to download and view the movie in 4K resolution, because it was prominently advertised as "4K" on the screen at the time he made the purchase. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Apple instead only provided Plaintiff with a license to view the movie and retained the right to terminate the license at any time, alleges the suit. Apple is an American multinational technology company that designs and manufactures consumer electronics, software, and online services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. Brittany S. Scott, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 28 Geary Street, Ste. 650-1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 839-7000 Facsimile: (888) 410-0415 E-mail: yeremey@skclassactions.com brittany@skclassactions.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor, Ste. 1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 377-7404 Facsimile: (888) 410-0415 E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com ASPIRE USA: Esparza Files Suit Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------- JOLIE ESPARZA, ROHEN AN HAYNIE, GINO ORTIZ, SHELY FOSTER, and SCOTT SMITH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ASPIRE USA, LLC, and VALSOFT CORPORATION, INC. D/B/A ALL TRUST NETWORKS, Defendants, Case No. CACE-25-014963 (Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Fl., October 1, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendants bringing causes of action for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act, violation of the California Consumer Records Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief arising from Defendants' failure to safeguard the Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") of consumers in its possession and care, which resulted in unauthorized access to its information systems on or around February 12, 2024 and February 15, 2024, and the compromised and unauthorized disclosure of that PII, causing widespread injury and damages to Plaintiffs and the proposed Class Members. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs and Class Members suffered injury from this Data Breach in the form of actual misuse of their compromised data consisting of: posting the compromised data to the dark web, using the compromised data for fraudulent access to bank accounts resulting in actual monetary loss, using the compromised data for multiple attempted fraudulent financial transactions (including attempts to access bank and other financial accounts and fraudulent credit applications), and a noticeable increase in spam texts and phone calls after the Data Breach that they attribute to the Data Breach. The Plaintiffs 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, adds the complaint. Plaintiff Jolie Esparza is a resident and citizen of the State of California. Plaintiff Rohenan Haynie is a resident and citizen of the State of Washington. Plaintiff Gino Ortiz is a resident and citizen of the State of California. Plaintiff Shely Foster is a resident and citizen of the State of Colorado. Plaintiff Scott Smith is a resident and citizen of the State of Illinois. Defendant Valsoft Corporation, Inc. is a Canadian corporation, headquartered in Montreal, with its All Trust Networks division located at 45150 Russell Branch Parkway, Suite 201D, Ashburn, Virginia. Defendant Aspire USA, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Valsoft Corporation, Inc., and is a Delaware limited liability company with its headquarters and principal place of business in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMA, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com - and - Raina Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: 872.263.1100 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Neil P. Williams, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: rrodriguez@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com nwilliams@sirillp.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com BASEUS TECHNOLOGY: Moran Sues Over Blind's Access to Online Store ----------------------------------------------------------------- WASHINGTON MORAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BASEUS TECHNOLOGY (US) INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08034 (S.D.N.Y., September 27, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.baseus.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. BaseUS Technology (US) Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [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 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal BENEFITS NOW: Court OKs Class Certification Discovery 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 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Conduct Class Certification Discovery. The Clerk of Court had previously entered default against the Defendant on April 24, 2025. Rashley filed a putative class action against Benefits Now, LLC, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227. Specifically, Rashley alleged 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 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 Thirty-one days, (2) but who received more than one telemarketing call from or on behalf of the Defendant, (3) within a twelve-month period, (4) at any time in the period that begins four years before the date of filing this Complaint to trial. The Plaintiff alleged 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. The Defendant was properly served on February 14, 2025. After the Defendant failed to appear or defend against the allegations, default was entered against Benefits Now, LLC. Rashley moved the Court for an order permitting him to commence discovery so that he may seek class certification and ultimately a potential classwide judgment. The Plaintiff stated 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. The Court noted that under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, a party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except when authorized by these rules or by court order. The Court recognized 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. The Court observed that 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. Accordingly, the Court granted leave to conduct limited class certification discovery as requested. The Court directed the Plaintiff to file a proposed scheduling order within 7 days of the date of this Order allowing for a discovery period not to exceed one-twenty days and setting dispositive motion dates within Thirty days of the close of discovery. A copy of the Court's order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nhHTCt from PacerMonitor.com BETTERHELP INC: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Briefing Sched ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.M. v. BetterHelp, Inc. (RE BETTERHELP, INC. DATA DISCLOSURE CASES), Case No. 3:23-cv-01033-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint stipulation to modify briefing schedule, hearing date on plaintiffs’ motion for class certification: -- The depositions of Dr. Mizik, Mr. Mahler and Dr. Zhao will be completed by Oct. 15, 2025; -- The Plaintiffs' opposition to BetterHelp's motions to strike will be due on or before Oct. 31, 2025; -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support of their Motion shall be due on or before Oct. 31, 2025; -- BetterHelp's replies in support of their motions to strike will be due on or before Nov. 10, 2025; -- The hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion will either remain set for Nov. 20, 2025, or a subsequent date available to the Court except for the week of December 8-12, 2025 when counsel are not available. On May 8, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs had made one previous request to continue the briefing schedule through an administrative motion, which the Court granted with modifications. BetterHelp is a mental health platform that provides direct online counseling and therapy services via web or phone text communication. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KvwiwN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 gabramson@milberg.com ahoneycutt@milberg.com rnelson@milberg.com - and - Christina Tusan, Esq. HAMMONDLAW, P.C. 1201 Pacific Ave, Suite 600 Tacoma, WA 98402 Telephone: (310) 601-6766 Facsimile: (310) 295-2385 E-mail: ctusan@hammondlawpc.com - and - Maureen M. Brady, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 888-8010 E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com - and - Alan M. Mansfield, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS LLP 1 Sansome Street, 35th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (619) 308-5034 Facsimile: (888) 341-5048 E-mail: amansfield@whatleykallas.com The Defendant is represented by: Livia M. Kiser, Esq. Jeffrey Hammer, Esq. Craig H. Bessenger, Esq. James A. Unger, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4355 Facsimile: (213) 443-4310 E-mail: lkiser@kslaw.com jhammer@kslaw.com cbessenger@kslaw.com junger@kslaw.com BLACK ANGUS: Faces Ramos Suit Alleging ADA Breach ------------------------------------------------- Oscar Ramos, Plaintiff v. Black Angus Steakhouses, LLC, individually and dba Black Angus Steakhouse; Mitchell/Sippola Limited Partnership; and Does 1 to 50 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02740-CSK (E.D. Cal., September 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for injunctive relief and damages and denial of civil rights of a disabled person, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California's Civil Rights Statutes. According to the complaint, Black Angus, which operates a restaurant business, an establishment offering services to the public, failed to provide barrier free access to said establishment as required under federal and California state law. The Defendants failed to provide compliance with the law involving designated parking spaces, dining seating, and space between tables in some areas. The barriers interfered with Plaintiff's access to the facilities at the business, and continue to deter Plaintiff from visiting said facilities, and as a legal result, the Plaintiff has suffered and suffers violations of his civil rights to full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities and privileges, and has suffered and will suffer embarrassment and humiliation, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a "physically handicapped person," a "physically disabled person," and a "person with a disability" as those terms are used under applicable California law and under applicable federal law. Black Angus Steakhouse is sometimes called Black Angus Citrus Heights Restaurant #1018, which is located in Citrus Heights, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Mac Bride, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD A. MAC BRIDE 855 Marina Bay Parkway, Suite 210 Richmond, CA 94804 Telephone: (415) 730-6289 E-mail: richardmacbridelaw@gmail.com BNY MELLON: Waldens Lose Bid to File SAC ---------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN WALDEN, LESLIE WALDEN, v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, BNY MELLON, N.A., Case No. 2:20-cv-01972-CBB (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Christopher B. Brown denying the Waldens' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Ultimately, the Waldens were not diligent in seeking to amend their complaint to include their cash sweep account theory after discovery revealed their theory of liability over two years before they sought to amend their complaint and have failed to rebut the presumption by a clear and cognizable explanation of why they did not diligently move to amend their complaint after learning of this new information. The action was initiated on Dec. 21, 2020 by the Plaintiffs Stephen and Leslie Walden. The Waldens sought to maintain a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract and claims under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL"). In December 2024, the Court granted BNY's motion to dismiss the Waldens' class claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding the treatment of the Waldens' claims as a class were preempted by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act ("SLUSA"). BNY is an American international financial services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fsYtlt at no extra charge.[CC] BOYD GAMING: Fails to Protect Clients' Personal Info, Ruehlman Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- PAYTON RUEHLMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOYD GAMING CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01850 (D. Nev., September 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach in September 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Boyd Gaming Corporation is a casino entertainment company based in Las Vegas, Nevada. [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 - and - 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 Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com dgould@msdlegal.com - and - Zachary C. Schaengold, Esq. Cory D. Britt, Esq. ROBBINS, KELLY, PATTERSON & TUCKER 312 Elm St., Suite 2200 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 721-3330 Email: zschaengold@rkpt.com cbritt@rkpt.com BOYD GAMING: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Granata Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- COSIMO GRANATA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BOYD GAMING CORPORATION and PALA INTERACTIVE LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01932 (D. Nev., Oct. 8, 2025) is a class action against Boyd and Pala for their failure to adequately secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and millions of other individuals' personally identifiable information, including names, Social Security numbers, and dates of birth. The Plaintiff received a data breach notice from Pala Interactive dated Sept. 24, 2025, informing him that his personal information had been compromised in a cybersecurity incident affecting Pala's systems. Accordingly, Pala maintained this data in connection with Boyd's online gaming platforms and related customer accounts. This case arises from the Defendants' failure to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the information they collected and stored. Pala's deficient cybersecurity measures allowed unauthorized access to customer data, and Boyd failed to ensure that its subsidiary maintained adequate safeguards to protect that information. The Data Breach resulted in the unauthorized access and exfiltration of personally identifiable information of hundreds of thousands of individuals, including the Plaintiff, and potentially millions of Boyd customers nationwide, says the suit. Boyd is a diversified gaming and entertainment company headquartered in Nevada that owns and operates numerous casinos and gaming properties throughout the United States, as well as online gaming platforms developed and maintained by its subsidiary, Pala. Pala is an online gaming and technology company that provides internet and mobile gaming platforms and related infrastructure for Boyd's online gaming operations. Pala collects, stores, and processes customer data on behalf of Boyd in connection with those services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan R. Ring, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. John C. Roberts, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC 3100 W. Charleston Blvd., Ste. 208 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: (725) 235-9750 E-mail: nring@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com jroberts@stranchlaw.com - and - Melissa R. Emert, Esq. Gary S. Graifman, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 135 Chestnut Ridge Road Montvale, NJ 07645 Telephone: (201) 391-7000 Facsimile: (201) 307-1086 E-mail: memert@kgglaw.com ggraifman@kgglaw.com BOYKIN FARMS: Court Certifies Classes & Subclasses in Lopez Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 denying the motion to decertify the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action, and granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify Rule 23 classes and subclasses and to approve class notice. The following classes and subclasses are certified: The 2020 Contract Class: "All individuals who worked for the Lee defendants pursuant to the April 2020 H-2A Contract." The 2021 Contract Class: "All individuals who worked for the Lee defendants pursuant to the April 2021 H-2A Contract." The North Carolina Wage and Hour (NCWHA) Class as: "All individuals who were employed by the Lee defendants on an H-2A visa at any time between Dec. 2, 2020 and Dec. 31, 2022 and who were not paid the promised wage for one or more workweeks." The Piece-Rate Subclass: "All NCWHA Class members who were paid by the piece which resulted in pay below the promised wage for one or more workweek." The Reimbursement Subclass: "All NCWHA Class Members who worked in 2021 and were paid less than the promised wage in the first workweek because they were not reimbursed for their inbound transportation expenses in their first paycheck." The Mealplan Subclass: "All NCWHA Class Members who were required to purchase a weekly meal plan which brought their weekly pay below the promised age." The Plaintiffs shall prepare a revised notice to submit for the Court's approval not more than 15 days from the date of entry of this order. Accordingly, plaintiffs have demonstrated that class certification 1s appropriate. Defendants have not challenged the proposed notice to the class members. The Court takes no issue with the proposed class and subclass notices as provided by plaintiffs, except that they reference the Boykin and Rhodes defendants, who have been dismissed from this action. Plaintiffs shall prepare a revised notice to submit for the Court's approval not more than 15 days from the date of entry of this order. Boykin specializes in the cultivation and distribution of a variety of crops. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ew9PP1 at no extra charge.[CC] CAREWELL INSURANCE: Underpays Insurance Agents, Schulz Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ MELISSA SCHULZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAREWELL INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC, d/b/a MYCARECLUB INSURANCE AGENCY, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-61956 (S.D. Fla., September 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, and retaliation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt, full-time insurance agent from approximately March 15, 2025, to June 18, 2025. Carewell Insurance Agency, LLC, doing business as Mycareclub Insurance Agency, is an insurance firm based in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Eberwein Consumer Suit Removed to D.N.J. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled Estate of PHILIP EBERWEIN and CECILIA M.E. LINDENFELSER, executrix of the estate of Philip Eberwein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. MER-L-001719-25, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County, to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on September 26, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-16020 to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendants for violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the New Jersey Truth-In-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC is a provider of mortgage services based in California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Erika M. Lopes-McLeman, Esq. Melissa Sarsten Polito, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 101 JFK Parkway, 4th Floor Short Hills, NJ 07078 Telephone: (973) 912-7100 Facsimile: (973) 912-7199 Email: erika.lopes-mcleman@dentons.com melissa.sarstenpolito@dentons.com CATALENT INC: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Extended to Oct. 16 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF WARWICK RETIREMENT SYSTEM v. CATALENT, INC. et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01108 (D.N.J., Filed Feb. 24, 2023), the Hon. Judge Zahid N. Quraishi entered an order extending the Defendants' Time to Oppose Lead Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion from Sept. 30, 2025, to Oct. 16, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act. Catalent is a global contract development and manufacturing organization.[CC] CAVU ECOMMERCE: Settles Parking Fees Class Suit for $425,000 ------------------------------------------------------------ Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a $425,000 class action settlement will end litigation that alleged the operator of AirportParkingReservations.com and AirportParking.com failed to adequately disclose a mandatory "service charge" to California consumers who booked airport parking reservations online. The CAVU eCommerce class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on August 26, 2025 and covers all current/former California residents who, between July 1, 2024 and March 10, 2025, made at least one reservation via AirportParking.com or AirportParkingReservations.com and paid a mandatory "service charge" at checkout. The court-approved website for the CAVU eCommerce airport parking settlement can be found at CAVUServiceChargeSettlement.com. CAVU settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form will be able to receive a pro rata, or equal share, portion of the $425,000 settlement fund. The amount of each class member’s payout from the deal will depend on the number of "service charge" fees they paid, the website specifies. Class members will receive their payments via a mailed check unless they select an electronic payment method on the claim form, the settlement website shares. Checks from the airport parking settlement will expire and become void 180 days after they are issued, the site adds. To submit a claim form online, class members can visit this page of the class action settlement website and log in with the unique ID and PIN found in their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, a PDF of the claim form is available to print, fill out and mail back to the address listed on the first page of the form. All CAVU eCommerce settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked no later than January 15, 2026. Additionally, CAVU, as part of the class action settlement, has agreed to more conspicuously and clearly disclose to consumers the "service charge" at issue on its websites. A hearing is scheduled for December 1, 2025 to determine whether the settlement will receive final court approval. Payments will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The CAVU class action lawsuit claimed the e-commerce company failed to properly disclose its "service charge" fee to consumers in California who booked airport parking reservations on its AirportParking.com and AirportParkingReservations.com websites. The suit alleged CAVU eCommerce violated California’s Honest Pricing Law. [GN] CENTRAL PARK: Ademi Bid to Certify Class Tossed ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SKENDER ADEMI, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, v. CENTRAL PARK BOATHOUSE, LLC, and DEAN POLL, Case No. 1:22-cv-08535-CM-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge McMahon entered an order -- denying the Plaintiff's motion to certify class and appoint class counsel; -- denying the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment; -- denying as moot the Defendants' motion to dismiss; -- granting in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, with respect to the claims against Dean Poll and Ademi's individual claims against Central Park Boathouse, and denying in part, with respect to the claims of the opt-in Plaintiffs (FLSA Collective Plaintiffs) against Central Park Boathouse. The clerk of Court shall remove all these motions from the Court's list of open motions. Central offers lakeside dining, and rowboat excursions. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U0xPhC at no extra charge.[CC] CGB ENTERPRISES: Class Cert Filing Bid in Hayes Due May 15, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hayes v. CGB Enterprises, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-03296 (C.D. Ill., Filed Oct. 11, 2023), the Hon. Judge Sue E. Myerscough entered an order on motion for extension of time to complete discovery ~util - set/reset deadlines: -- Any motions for class certification are due by May 15, 2026. -- A telephonic status hearing remains set for Dec. 8, 2025, at 10:00 AM. The nature of suit states Contract -- Other Contract. CGB provides agricultural services.[CC] CLASSPASS INC: Filing for Class Certification Due Feb. 19, 2027 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHERINE CHABOLLA, v. CLASSPASS, INC., CLASSPASS, LLC, and CLASSPASS USA LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00429-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered a case management and pretrial scheduling order: Defendant's response to first amended complaint: Oct. 7, 2025 Joint case management conference statement: Feb. 22, 2027 Non-expert discovery cutoff: Aug. 14, 2026 Expert discovery cutoff: Jan. 15, 2027 The Plaintiff's motion for class certification Feb. 19, 2027 to be filed by: ClassPass is an American company operating a subscription platform for fitness, wellness, lifestyle experiences, and more. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6Ts2Ht at no extra charge.[CC] CLUB EXPLORIA: Appeals Court Order in Moore TCPA Suit to 7th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- CLUB EXPLORIA, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled George Moore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Club Exploria, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02504, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The appellate case is entitled George Moore v. Club Exploria, LLC, Case No. 25-2721, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on September 30, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee GEORGE MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Keith J. Keogh, Esq. Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD 55 W. Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 726-1092 Defendant-Appellant CLUB EXPLORIA, LLC is represented by: Eric J. Troutman, Esq. TROUTMAN AMIN LLP 400 Spectrum Center Drive Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 761-5021 - and - Peter A. Silverman, Esq. SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP 311 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 264-1004 COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Gets Prelim Settlement Approval in "McCutcheon" ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Rebecca M. McCutcheon and Paul Caufield, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., et al., Defendants, No. 16-cv-4170 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted preliminary approval of the parties' class action settlement and approved notice to the class. The Court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the litigation, Plaintiff McCutcheon, Class Members, and Defendants pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(e). Consistent with the Court's prior class certification order, the class definition in the Settlement Agreement is a non-opt-out class consisting only of the individuals identified on Attachment A to the Agreement, which reflect the parties' best efforts to identify everyone who, as of August 1, 2025, meets the following class definition previously certified by the Court: any person who, under any of Appendices B, C or D of the Plan, is entitled to a greater benefit than his or her Accrued Benefit as defined in Plan Section 1.2, provided such person received a lump sum payment from the Plan, and the beneficiaries and estates of any such person. The proposed settlement was preliminarily approved. The Court found the proposed settlement, supported by counsel previously certified as adequate and achieved through arm's-length negotiations, is sufficiently fair, reasonable and adequate to receive preliminary approval and to proceed to a Fairness Hearing. Accordingly, notice thereof should be given to the Class Members. The Court established a schedule for the settlement approval process. According to the schedule: Defendants were ordered to send CAFA Notices within 10 days of filing the Motion for Preliminary Approval. Plaintiffs were ordered to send the Class Members List to the Notice Administrator within 5 business days of the date of the Preliminary Approval Order. The Publication Notice was to be published no later than Twenty days after the date of the Preliminary Approval Order. The Administrator was ordered to begin mailing Notice to Class Members within Twenty-one days of the date of the Preliminary Approval Order and complete mailing within Thirty days. Class Counsel was ordered to file a Motion for Class Counsel Fees and Expenses, Settlement Administration Cost and Class Representative Service Award no later than forty-five days prior to the Final Approval Hearing. Class Member Objections were to be filed and served no later than Thirty days prior to the Final Approval Hearing. The Motion for Final Approval was to be filed no later than Fourteen days prior to the Final Approval Hearing. The parties' responses to objections were to be filed no later than 7 days prior to the Final Approval Hearing. The Final Approval Hearing was scheduled for no earlier than ninety days after CAFA Notice was served. Mailed Notices in the form of Exhibits 3A-3F to the Agreement were to be mailed within thirty days of the date of the Order to the last known addresses of all Participant Class Members, Spouse Class Members and/or Successors. The Notice Administrator was ordered to engage in reasonable efforts as set forth in the Settlement Agreement to locate any Class Member whose Mailed Notice is returned and undeliverable and to make a second mailing to such Class Member. The Publication Notice in the form found in Exhibit 4 to the Agreement was to be published in USA Today once within twenty days of the date of the Order, or as soon thereafter as possible. Defendants were ordered to serve the CAFA Notice on the appropriate state and federal officials by mailing the CAFA Notice on or before ten days of the entry of the Order. The Court found that Defendants, upon mailing of the CAFA Notice, will have complied with the notice requirements of CAFA. Any Class Member may appear at the Fairness Hearing, in person or through counsel, and be heard to the extent permitted by the Court in opposition to the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the Settlement, the motion for fees and expenses, settlement administration costs and a service award for Plaintiff McCutcheon. However, unless excused by the Court, no Class Member shall be heard on any of these matters unless, on or before thirty days prior to the Fairness Hearing such person files a written notice of objection. Class Counsel was ordered to publish copies of the Agreement, the Mailed Notice, the Publication Notice, and, once filed, the motion for Class Counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses, settlement administration costs and a service award for Plaintiff McCutcheon, and the motion for final approval, on a website, www.ColgatePensionClassAction.com, to be established by Class Counsel. If the Court grants final approval to the Settlement, Class Members shall be bound by all the provisions of the Agreement and all determinations and judgments made pursuant to the Agreement, including the Final Order and Judgment dismissing the litigation with prejudice. No Class Member may request exclusion from the Settlement. Pending the final determination of whether the settlement should be approved, Plaintiff and each Class Member were enjoined from commencing or prosecuting, either directly or indirectly, any action in any other court concerning or relating to any of the Released Claims described in the Agreement. Such injunction shall remain in force until such time as the Agreement has become null and void or the Court enters a Final Order and Judgment. A Copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AtTp8o from PacerMOnitor.com COMERICA INC: M&A Probes Sale to Fifth Third Bancorp ---------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2024 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. The firm is headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and is investigating Comerica Incorporated (NYSE: CMA) related to its sale to Fifth Third Bancorp. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Comerica shareholders will receive 1.8663 Fifth Third shares for each Comerica share. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/comerica-incorporated/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN] COMMONWEALTH BANK: ASB Settles Class Action Suit for $119.7MM ------------------------------------------------------------- William Farrington, writing for MPA MAG, reports that Commonwealth Bank's wholly owned New Zealand subsidiary ASB has agreed to pay NZ$135.625 million ($119.7 million) to settle a class action lawsuit filed in September 2021. In bringing the class action, plaintiffs alleged that ASB failed to provide compliant variation disclosures under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 (CCCFA). A compliant variation disclosure is a formal disclosure that a lender must provide to a borrower when there are agreed changes to the terms of a consumer credit contract. It is required to ensure borrowers are fully informed about any changes to their contract, such as adjustments to interest rates, fees and repayment schedules. Plaintiffs sought a repayment on interest or fees paid during the period which ASB allegedly did not provide the adequate disclosures. "In agreeing to resolve the litigation, ASB makes no admission of liability," CommBank said in an ASX regulatory filing. According to the ASX filing, the settlement is subject to approval by the High Court of New Zealand. CommBank will seek directions from the Court regarding the process for notifying class members about the settlement. A concurrent class action against ANZ is ongoing. [GN] COUPLE SPA: Hwang Second Bid for Default Judgment Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNY HWANG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. COUPLE SPA 65, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-05336-NGG-RM (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Nicholas Garaufis entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs second motion for default judgment. The court directs the Clerk of Court to enter default judgment against Couple Spa 65, Inc. The court permanently enjoins Couple Spa 65, Inc. from discriminating against Jenny Hwang, directs Couple Spa 65, Inc. to submit to counsel for Jenny Hwang an implementation plan that remedies the violations identified in the R&R within 60 days of this Memorandum & Order, directs Jenny Hwang to consent or seek further relief from the court within 30 days of receipt of Couple Spa 65, Inc.'s implementation plan, and DIRECTS Couple Spa 65, Inc. to make the necessary changes within 60 days of Jenny Hwang's consent or any other ruling from the court on Jenny Hwang's requested for further relief. The court awards Jenny Hwang $1,000.00 in compensatory damages under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL. The court denies Jenny Hwang's request for declaratory relief. The court directs Jenny Hwang to file a motion for attorneys' fees and costs within 30 days of this Memorandum & Order. The Plaintiff Jenny Hwang, a visually-impaired and legally blind per son, brought this putative class action against Defendant Couple Spa 65, Inc., alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), New York State Civil Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"), in connection with Defendant's alleged failure to design and operate its website to be fully accessible to Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. A copy of the Court's memorandum & order dated Sept. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=E787fo at no extra charge.[CC] DIAMOND SIGHT: Yeager Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages, Retaliation ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSEPH YEAGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIAMOND SIGHT, LLC, D/B/A JUDDS GLASS & MIRROR, and ANDREW WILLIAMSON, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03073 (D. Colo., September 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages and retaliation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order, and the Colorado Wage Act, and wrongful termination under Public Policy. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a window installer from May 6, 2024, until September 11, 2025. Diamond Sight, LLC, doing business as Judds Glass & Mirror, is a provider of glass products and installation services based in Woodland Park, Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew E. Swan, Esq. Samuel D. Engelson, Esq. LEVENTHAL SWAN TAYLOR TEMMING PC 3773 Cherry Creek North Drive, Suite 710 Denver, CO 80209 Telephone: (720) 699-3000 Facsimile: (866) 515-8628 Email: aswan@lstt.law sengelson@lstt.law DIRECTTOU LLC: Settlement in Hoang To Suit Gets Prelim. Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN HOANG TO, et al., v. DIRECTTOU, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-06447-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an order preliminarily approving settlement: 1. The final approval hearing shall be held before the Court on Jan. 28, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. via Zoom. 2. For purposes of settlement only: (a) Julian Hammond, Adrian Barnes, Polina Brandler, and Ari Cherniak of HammondLaw, P.C. and Frank Hedin of Hedin LLP are appointed Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; and (b) Jonathan Hoang To, Jeffry Heise, and Joseph Mull are named Class Representatives. 3. For purposes of settlement only, the Court conditionally certifies the following Settlement Class: "All persons who reside in the United States, purchased a video or videogame from DirectToU or signed up to receive notices about videos or videogames from DirectToU, and about whom information which identified such persons as having requested or obtained specific video materials or services from Defendants may have been disclosed to a third party between Aug. 8, 2022 and the date of Preliminary Approval." Also included in the "Settlement Class" are all persons who reside in California, purchased a video or videogame from DirectToU or signed up to receive notices about videos or videogames from DirectToU, and about whom information which identified such persons as having requested or obtained specific video materials or services from Defendants may have been disclosed to a third party between Aug. 8, 2020 and the date of Preliminary Approval. Excluded from the Class are (1) any Judge presiding over this Action and members of their families; (2) the Defendants, their subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendants or its parents have a controlling interest and their current or former officers, directors, agents, attorneys, and employees; (3) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the class; and (4) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any such excluded persons. DirectToU is the parent company of several wholesale and direct-to-consumer distributors of music, video, and software. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=APsSTC at no extra charge.[CC] DONALD TRUMP: Thakur Wins Provisional Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NEETA THAKUR, et al., v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-04737-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunction and provisional class certification as modified, and provisionally certifying two classes. In sum, the balance of harms and public interest favor granting a preliminary injunction. The Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of the APA arbitrary and capricious claim (as to DoD, DoT, and HHS) and, as to DoT, on their APA contrary to law claim and their First Amendment claim. This ruling is without prejudice to the Plaintiffs seeking further leave to amend, if supported by good cause, as the record in this case develops. A provisional Second Form Termination Class will be certified, comprising: "All University of California researchers, including faculty, staff, academic appointees, and employees across the University of California system who are named as principal researchers, investigators, or project leaders on the grant applications for previously awarded research grants by, or on behalf of, DoD, DoT, and NIH26 (or their sub-agencies) that are terminated by means of a form termination notice that does not provide a grant-specific explanation for the termination that states the reason for the change to the original award decision and considers the reliance interests at stake, from and after Jan. 20, 2025. Excluded from the class are the Defendants, the judicial officer(s) assigned to this case, and their respective employees, staffs, and family members. A provisional Second Equity Termination Class will also be certified, comprising: "All University of California researchers, including faculty, staff, academic appointees, and employees across the University of California system who are named as principal researchers, investigators, or project leaders on the grant applications for previously awarded research grants by, or on behalf of, DoT (or its sub-agencies) that are terminated pursuant to Executive Orders 14151 or 14173 from and after Jan. 20, 2025." Excluded from the class are Defendants, the judicial officer(s) assigned to this case, and their respective employees, staffs, and family members. Donald Trump is an American politician, media personality, and businessman. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kTIcWU at no extra charge.[CC] EATON CORP: More Time to File Partial Summary Judgment Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOB SCHLESINGER; ANDREW SMITH; JASON THOMAS; PACIFIC MANAGEMENT, LLC; GORDON KIRK; TAUNI DOSTER; STEVE WATKINS; and WILLIAM DOHERTY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. EATON CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-00157-RWS (N.D. Ga.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting the consent motion for a two week extension of the deadlines applicable to the Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment. Counsel for the Plaintiffs requires additional time to prepare a response to the motion and requested a two-week extension of time, through and including Oct. 7, 2025. The Defendant has agreed to the requested extension. Given the additional time that the Plaintiffs have been afforded to respond to the Defendant's motion, the Defendant requested an equal extension of time (i.e., two weeks) for its reply brief, i.e., to extend the Defendant's deadline for filing its reply from Oct. 21 to Nov. 4. This consent motion is made prior to the expiration of the original response period and is not made for the purpose of delay. The Defendant filed its motion for partial summary judgment on Sept. 2, 2025. Eaton is a multinational power management company. A copy of the Court's order the Plaintiff's motion the Defendant's motion dated Sept. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Wgshwg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas W. Armstrong, Esq. Oscar M. Price, IV, Esq. Graham Cotten, Esq. PRICE ARMSTRONG, LLC 1919 Cahaba Road Birmingham, AL 35223 Telephone: (205) 208-9588 Facsimile: (205) 208-9598 E-mail: oscar@pricearmstrong.com nick@pricearmstrong.com graham@pricearmstrong.com - and - Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq. BOWLINE LAW E-mail: taylor@bowlinelaw.com - and - W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq. HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC 2727 Paces Ferry Rd SE #750 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (205) 326-3336 Facsimile: (205) 326-3332 E-mail: lewis@hgdlawfirm.com FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY: Parties in Koney Must Confer Class Cert Dates ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Koney, et al., v. Finastra Technology, Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-01308 (M.D. Fla., Filed July 14, 2025), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery - class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other Personal Injury. Finastra provides banking software and solutions.[CC] FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Merideth v. Finastra Technology, Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-01497 (M.D. Fla., Filed Aug. 6, 2025), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery - class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract. Finastra provides banking software and solutions.[CC] FLORIDA NATURAL: Collins Sues Over Deceptive Labeled Products ------------------------------------------------------------- AMY COLLINS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. FLORIDA NATURAL GROWERS, INC., Case No. 6:25-cv-06552-MAV (W.D.N.Y., Oct. 8, 2025) is a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Florida’s Natural Grapefruit Juice products. According to the complaint, the Products prominently state on the front label that Florida's Natural is "Owned By Florida Farmers" next to an image of a United States Flag. The Florida Representations collectively represent that the Products are made exclusively of premium Florida grapefruit juice. The Defendant intentionally misleads consumers into believe that the Products are made exclusively of premium Florida grapefruit juice. It does this because consumers believe Florida grapefruit juice tastes better and is better quality than imported grapefruit juice. However, unbeknownst to consumers, the Products are actually blended with grapefruit juice from Mexico and are not in fact made exclusively from Florida grapefruit, asserts the suit. As such, Defendant has engaged in widespread false and deceptive conduct by designing, marketing, manufacturing, distributing, and selling the Products with the Florida Representations. Every package of the Products misleads consumers into believing the Products are made exclusively of Florida grapefruit juice. The Plaintiff and Class members purchased the Products, which are designed, marketed, manufactured, distributed, and sold by Defendant. The Plaintiff brings this action individually, and on behalf of similarly situated individuals who purchased the falsely and deceptively labeled Products for fraud and violations of New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350. FLORIDA NATURAL GROWERS, INC. manufactures, markets, and sells the Products under its "Florida’s Natural" brand. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stacey Ann Van Malden, Esq. GOLDBERGER & DUBIN, PC 401 Broadway, Ste 306 New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 431-9380 Facsimile: (212) 966-0588 E-mail: staceyl11@optonline.net - and - Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. Brittany S. Scott, Esq. 28 Geary Str Suite 640 # 1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: 415-839-7077 Facsimile: 888-410-0415 E-Mail: yeremey@skclassactions.com brittany@skclassactions.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor, Ste. 1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 377-7404 E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com FOUR SEASONS: Staley Appeals WARN Act Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- SELENA STALEY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Selena Staley, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-6781, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs brought this class action suit against the Defendants to remedy violations of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, the New York State Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, and for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and tortious interference with a contract. According to the complaint, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees that were working at the Defendants' hotel were placed on furlough for an indefinite period of time beginning approximately March 20, 2020, and continuing for thirty days thereafter. Because the furloughs/layoffs extended more than six months and proper notice for extension was never provided by any of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs and the other similarly situated employees were effectively terminated from their employment when their furloughs began, says the suit. On Sept. 4, 2025, Judge Jed S. Rakoff entered an Order dismissing the case with prejudice. The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs' action must be dismissed for want of standing. The Court is not happy about this result, since the WARN Act, by leaving it to injured employees to enforce the Act, seems to have unintentionally created a situation in which there will sometimes be no one left to ensure that employers will be forced to amend or supplement original WARN Act notices that have become inaccurate or misleading because of subsequent acts or decisions by the employers. Nevertheless, the Court is obliged to apply the aforesaid rulings of the higher courts. According, this action is dismissed with prejudice. The appellate case is captioned Staley v. Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts, Case No. 25-2381, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on September 30, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants SELENA STALEY, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Brian Lewis Bromberg, Esq. BROMBERG LAW OFFICE, PC 295 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10017 FTW ENTERPRISES: Paylor Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michelle Paylor, et al., v. FTW Enterprises, LLC d/b/a FTW Holdings, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-00735 (Mo.Cir.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying two classes: -- Independence Towers Class: "All Missouri residents who were subject to a lease with one or more the Defendants and rented at the Independence Towers at any time between March 2021 and the present;" and -- Stoneybrook East Class: "All Missouri residents who were subject to a lease with one or more Defendants and rented at the Stoneybrook East Apartments at any time." FTW manufactures molded plastic products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S3izbh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth B. McClain, Esq. Chelsea McClain Pierce, Esq. Jonathan M. Soper, Esq. Andrew K. Smith, Esq. HUMPHREY FARRINGTON & MCCLAIN, P.C. 221 West Lexington, Suite 400 Independence, MO 64050 Telephone: (816) 836-5050 Facsimile: (816) 836-8966 E-mail: kbm@hfmlegal.com jms@hfmlegal.com GATEHOUSE MEDIA: Ewalt Appeals Denied Remand Bid to 6th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN EWALT, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to remand in the lawsuit entitled John Ewalt, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Gatehouse Media Ohio Holdings II, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-04262, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, is filed against the Defendants challenging three aspects of their subscriptions to the Columbus Dispatch, which is owned by GateHouse Ohio: (1) that their subscriptions were shortened based on premium-edition charges; (2) that the premium editions they received were, in their opinion, not sufficiently "premium" to justify their price; and (3) that subscribers who received paper bills (as opposed to those who received electronic bills or enrolled in EZ Pay) were charged paper-statement fees. On Mar. 7, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, which Judge Michael H. Watson denied on Sept. 17, 2025. The appellate case is entitled In re: John Ewalt, et al., Case No. 25-0309, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on September 26, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners JOHN EWALT, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Todd H. Neuman, Esq. ALLEN STOVALL NEUMAN & ASHTON 10 W. Broad Street, Suite 2400 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-8500 Defendant-Respondent GATEHOUSE MEDIA OHIO HOLDINGS II, INC. is represented by: Daniel Hollis Bryan, Esq. TAFT 200 Public Square, Suite 3500 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 241-2838 GENERAL MOTORS: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned General Motors Corp Air Conditioning Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. 2:18-md-02818-MFL (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the classes pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3). The proposed classes each relate to a set of "Class Vehicles," defined as: "All model year 2014-17 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 and GMC Sierra 1500 pick-up trucks, and all model year 2015- 17 Cadillac Escalade and Escalade ESV, Chevrolet Suburban, Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon sport utility vehicles." Excluded from the Class Vehicles are models equipped with LV1 or LV3 ("6-cylinder" or "V6' engine). The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following five classes, each represented by the Plaintiffs from that state: 1. The California Class: "All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle in California." 2. The Florida Class: "All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle in Florida." 3. The Michigan Class: "All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle in Michigan." 4. The Tennessee Class: "All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle in Tennessee." 5. The Washington Class: "All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle in Washington." Excluded from all proposed Classes are: (1) GM, any entity or division in which GM has a controlling interest, and its legal representatives, officers, directors, assigns, and successors; (2) the Judge to whom this case is assigned and the Judge's immediate family and staff; (3) governmental entities; and (4) persons who have suffered personal injuries as a result of the alleged defect. The Plaintiffs request that they be appointed as Class Representatives for their respective state Classes. The Plaintiffs also request that Co-Lead Counsel be appointed Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). General is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ICQ1yB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 West University, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48306 Telephone: (248) 841-2201 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com - and - Annika K. Martin, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th fl. New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 E-mail: akmartin@lchb.com - and - Bryan L. Clobes, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 1101 Market St., Suite 2650 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 864-2800 E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com - and - Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC 1109 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (610) 200-0580 E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com GLOBAL PLASMA: Court OK's Bid to Certify Statewide Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEITH FISHLOCK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GLOBAL PLASMA SOLUTIONS INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00522-SB (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge Bibas entered an order granting motion to certify statewide class. Judge Bibas says, "This is the second in a pair of cases about allegedly defective air purifiers. In the first, I granted partial summary judgment to Global Plasma and denied the plaintiff’s motion to certify a class. Though this case rests on the same general theory, it involves a different plaintiff and different legal claims. Because of the legal and factual overlap between the cases, I grant partial summary judgment to Global Plasma for the same reasons that I did in Garner. But because this case involves claims that do not require the plaintiff to show reliance, I certify a statewide class." Though Fishlock originally argued for a nationwide class, he now defends only a Delaware-wide one. Because that proposed class satisfies Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3), I certify it. This stage is where Garner and Fishlock diverge. Like Garner, Fishlock can pro ceed only individually on his fraudulent misrepresentation claim. But unlike Garner, some claims here survive without needing to prove individual reliance, making them fit for classwide resolution. And with Rule 23 satisfied, the case moves ahead. Global "sells air purifiers that use ionization technology." A copy of the Court's memorandum dated Sept. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qWfSm7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dennis C. Reich, Esq. REICH & BINSTOCK LLP 4265 San Felipe, Suite 1000 Houston, TX 77024 Telephone: (713) 622-7271 Facsimile: (713) 623-8724 E-mail: dreich@reichandbinstock.com - and - Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 N. Market St., 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-0300 Facsimile: (302) 777-0301 E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Adam Wyatt Poff, Esq. Colin Aaron Keith, Esq. Samantha G. Wilson, Esq. YOUNG, CONAWAY, STARGATT & TAYLOR LLP Wilmington, DE - and - Robert A. Muckenfuss, Esq. Elizabeth Zwickert Timmermans, Esq. Kelly A. Warlich, Esq. Hannah K. Caison, Esq. Addison E. Fontein, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP Charlotte, NC GLOSSIER INC: Cordoba Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRITANY CORDOBA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. GLOSSIER, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-08342 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 8, 2025) alleges that the Glossier failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its highly interactive website, www.glossier.com, in a manner that is fully accessible to and independently usable by blind and visually impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On September 28 and October 2, 2025, the Plaintiff attempted to access Glossier's website using NVDA screen reader software. Her goal was to browse and purchase specific products including "Cloud Paint" blush in the shade Dawn, "Boy Brow" grooming pomade in Black, and "Balm Dotcom" lip balm in Sparkling Rose. These products were selected based on her dermatological sensitivity and Glossier's reputation for ingredient transparency and minimalist formulations. Despite multiple attempts, the Plaintiff was unable to independently complete a transaction due to persistent access barriers. These included unlabeled form fields, empty buttons, inaccessible variant selectors, and contrast failures that rendered key product information unreadable by screen reader software. The homepage alone contained 23 WCAG violations, and the "Makeup" section revealed an additional 16 errors, including duplicate alt text and missing instructions for interactive elements. The Defendant owns and operates the website www.glossier.com, which offers consumers nationwide access to cosmetics, skincare products, personalized product recommendations, and subscription services, including to residents of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 E-mail: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com GOOD VIBES: Faces Warner Suit Over Deceptive Product Discount Ads ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRITNI WARNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOOD VIBES TRADING COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-02203 (C.D. Cal., September 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California's False Advertising Law, California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law, breach of contract, breach of express warranty, quasi-contract/unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional misrepresentation. The case arises from the Defendant's false, misleading and deceptive price and purported discount advertising. On its website, the Defendant lists purported regular prices and purported limited-time sales offering steep discounts from those listed regular prices. However, the list prices the Defendant advertises are not actually its regular prices, or the prevailing market value of its products, because its products are nearly always available for less than that. As a result, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered damages, says the suit. Good Vibes Trading Company, Inc. is a jewelry retailer, with its principal place of business in Costa Mesa, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 Email: jonas@dovel.com simon@dovel.com GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES: Loses Bid to Strike Class Allegations ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT, v. GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-01552-DAD-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Drozd entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiff's request for judicial notice is granted; 2. The Plaintiff's request to seal is granted; 3. The Defendant's motion to deny class certification or strike class or group allegations is denied; 4. The Defendant's motion for summary judgment in its favor is granted in part and denied in part as follows; a. Defendant's motion for summary judgment in its favor on plaintiff's claims for disability discrimination (claim 1), failure to provide reasonable accommodation (claim 2), and failure to engage in the interactive process (claim 3) is granted only as to plaintiff’s theory of liability based upon the assertion that defendant failed to consider undue hardship; b. Defendant's motion for summary judgment in its favor on plaintiff’s claims for failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, and harassment and retaliation (claims 6–7) is granted only as to any theory of liability based upon the assertion that defendant failed to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment; c. Defendant's motion for summary judgment in its favor is otherwise denied; Because a reasonable trier of fact could conclude from the evidence now before the court that at least one employee in the class or group is disabled and otherwise qualified, with or without reasonable accommodation, defendant is not entitled to summary judgment in its favor based upon these individualized inquiries. Assuming for the sake of argument that California Government Code section 12961 does constrain plaintiff’s ability to bring civil suits, as discussed above in addressing defendant’s affirmative defenses 40 and 41, the court finds that plaintiff has satisfied the requirements of section 12961 based on the undisputed facts before it on summary judgment. Therefore, the court will grant plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in its favor as to defendant's affirmative defense 43. The Defendant grows, produces, and supplies agricultural products. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3arryS at no extra charge.[CC] HEALTHEQUITY INC: Court OKs Arbitration Discovery in "Hafoka" ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Kristin Hafoka, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HealthEquity, Inc., Further Operations, LLC and WageWorks, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00528-JNP-DBP,(D. Utah) Chief Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead of the United States District Court for the District of Utah granted Defendant HealthEquity, Inc.'s motion for leave to conduct reciprocal arbitration-related discovery and denied Plaintiffs' motion to compel better answers and production. This putative class action arose from a data breach. Defendants administer health savings accounts and work with various clients. Plaintiffs are consumers that had their personal identifiable information, or protected health information, compromised in a data breach. Defendants seek to arbitrate the parties' dispute. On April 18, 2025, the court granted Plaintiffs' Motion allowing arbitration discovery related to the issue of contract formation. Plaintiffs contest the formation of any contract requiring arbitration, while Defendants aver that arbitration is required. On June 5, 2025, the court denied without prejudice HealthEquity's Motion to Dismiss and its Motion to Compel Arbitration in order to allow the parties time to resolve their discovery disputes, and to afford HealthEquity the opportunity to incorporate the discovery into its motion. After the parties complete arbitration-related discovery, HealthEquity may refile a motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs requested the court overrule Defendants' objections and order Defendants to provide better answers and productions to Plaintiff's arbitration-related discovery requests. Plaintiffs also sought to have Defendants prepare a corporate representative for deposition on two general topics: (a) non-HSA agreements and (b) procedures for enrolling Plaintiffs as customers. Specifically, Plaintiffs sought complete answers and production to Interrogatories 2-4, and Request for Production 6-8, 14-16 and 20, along with a Rule 30(b)(6) designee to testify as to Topics 3 and 6. Plaintiffs argued the absence of an arbitration provision in the non-HSA agreements is directly relevant to contract formation. If one agreement has an arbitration provision, but another does not, then such circumstances do not demonstrate a meeting of the minds regarding arbitration. In support, Plaintiffs relied on three cases: Bellman v. I3Carbon, Ltd., Summit Contractors, Inc. v. Legacy Corner, L.L.C., and Penhall v. Young Living Essential Oils. Defendants sought to distinguish Plaintiffs' cited authority by asserting it only applies if the conflicting agreements cover the same subject matter. Defendants moved to compel arbitration for Plaintiffs that expressly agreed to arbitration as a condition of selecting HealthEquity to serve as their HSA custodian, pursuant to the HSA Custodial Agreement. For other non-HSA products, HealthEquity serves as a directed third-party administrator of employer sponsored benefit plans and contracts directly with those plan sponsors, not plan participants. Therefore, there are no product specific agreements between HealthEquity and Plaintiffs except for HSAs. Any disagreements between the product agreements are irrelevant as they are not between the same parties. The court agreed with Defendants' arguments. Defendants seek to compel arbitration for Plaintiffs that agreed for HealthEquity to serve as their HSA custodian. The other non-HSA products are not relevant, and this case is not like those relied on by Plaintiffs with conflicting agreements covering the same subject matter. HealthEquity's agreements with plan sponsors are not relevant to HealthEquity's agreements with the putative Plaintiffs. Thus, the court was not persuaded to overrule Defendants' objections and order Defendants to serve better answers. The court reviewed the responses Defendants gave to Plaintiffs' Interrogatives and Requests for Production and found they are not as evasive as Plaintiffs suggest. The court also agreed with Defendants that HealthEquity's enrollment policies are irrelevant. Defendants asserted that for HSA owners, contract formation happens when they agree to the terms of the HSA Custodial agreement by (1) utilizing and accepting the benefits of the account, and/or (2) clicking "I agree" to the terms of the HSA Custodial agreement upon registering their online member portal. This makes information relating to the enrollment process irrelevant to contract formation and outside the scope of arbitration discovery ordered by the court. Topic 3 sought information concerning all agreements, notices, and documents displayed or provided to each Plaintiff (a) when he or she enrolled for any of the Defendants' Products, and (b) subsequent to the Plaintiff's enrollment. This Topic focuses on any of the Defendants' Products, which is beyond the scope of arbitration-related discovery. Therefore, the court found this Topic to be overbroad. Topic 6 sought information concerning any of the Defendants' Products, which is also overbroad. Plaintiffs may narrow these topics to focus on the HSA agreements that Defendants seek to have arbitrated. Any Rule 30(b)(6) deposition conducted by Plaintiffs should mirror those depositions Defendant seeks and should be narrowly tailored to contract formation. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on Topics 3 and 6 was denied. Defendant HealthEquity sought leave to conduct reciprocal arbitration-related discovery including depositions of all Plaintiffs on the narrow issue of contract formation. Specifically, Defendant sought to obtain information related to each Plaintiff's use of the HealthEquity online member portal and website. Defendant also sought any confirmation or data in Plaintiffs' possession relating to the HealthEquity HSA Custodial Agreement and HealthEquity's Terms of Use. Plaintiffs opposed HealthEquity's discovery requests arguing the requests are procedurally improper, Defendant failed to show good cause, and the discovery requests are a tacit admission that moving to compel arbitration was improper as Defendant did not verify the evidence they had in support of that motion. Although a Rule 26(f) conference has not been held, there is nothing precluding HealthEquity from seeking to engage in discovery. Discovery is even expected by the Federal Arbitration Act that calls for a summary trial with discovery, wherein evidence on the motion may be received by the Court. Plaintiffs' procedural argument that because a motion to compel arbitration is not pending, then Defendant cannot engage in discovery is unavailing. The court denied Defendant's motions without prejudice so the parties could engage and complete arbitration-related discovery, not to preclude them from doing so. In addition, the court did not limit discovery only to Plaintiffs in its order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Discovery. HealthEquity's requested discovery is not a tacit admission that it lacks evidence. Rather, it is a response to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and contesting the formation of a contract to arbitrate in the first instance. The court found that Defendant just like Plaintiffs, seeks to add to the evidence before the court. The court found Defendant has shown good cause to engage in limited arbitration-related discovery concerning contract formation. Before referring a dispute to an arbitrator, the court determines whether a valid arbitration agreement exists. Evidence from all parties is essential to the court's determination of a valid arbitration agreement. Accordingly, the court found Defendant's requested discovery is permissible, relevant, and proportional to this putative class action. Defendant's Motion was granted. Defendant's discovery is to be narrow, and depositions of Plaintiffs will be tailored to contract formation based on their respective website usage, member portal and HSA accounts. The requested depositions sought by Defendant are to be scheduled within one-twenty days from the date of the order. For the reasons set forth, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel was denied. Defendants' Motion was granted. A Copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Wvrp2e from PacerMonitor.com HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES: M&A Investigates Sale to Advent International ------------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2024 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. The firm is headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and is investigating Heidrick & Struggles International, Inc. (NASDAQ: HSII) related to its sale to a consortium of investors led by Advent International and Corvex Private Equity. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Heidrick shareholders will receive $59.00 per share in cash. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/heidrick-struggles-international-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] HUMACH LLC: Collects Data from Website Visitors, Escobedo Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- SARAH ESCOBEDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HUMACH, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-09619 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 8, 2025) alleges that Humach uses data broker software on its website https://humach.com/ to secretly collect data about Website visitors' computer, location, and browsing habits. According to the complaint, 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 specifically intended its surveillance operations to cause injury to California residents. Defendant configured its tracking systems on its Website to identify, profile, and exploit California users, the suit says. The Defendant deliberately avails itself of California's commercial privileges by operating its interactive Website infrastructure, which the Defendant specifically designed to engage California customers. The Defendant's continuous California business activities establish general personal jurisdiction sufficient for this Court to adjudicate any claims against the Defendant, added the suit. Humach is a Delaware limited liability company that offers proprietors and businesses "call center solutions" including individuals serving as call center agents.[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: eshapiro@taulersmith.com rtauler@taulersmith.com INDIAN RIVER: Appeals Injunction Order in Faus Suit to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ INDIAN RIVER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction in the lawsuit entitled Kristen Faus, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Indian River Central School District, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-453, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this class action lawsuit is filed to stop the Defendants from illegally giving failing grades to middle school students who cannot participate in swim class while menstruating. On Apr. 11, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction, which Judge David N. Hurd granted on Aug. 29, 2025. The Court rules that during the pendency of this litigation and until a trial on the merits, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, the Defendants are hereby enjoined from issuing a menstruating student a 0/5 grade for a physical education class during which the student does not swim because they are menstruating. The Court also determines that no security is necessary under Rule 65(c) as the injunction is unlikely to cause the Defendants to suffer costs and damages if they are wrongly enjoined. The appellate case is entitled Faus v. Indian River Central School District, Case No. 25-2360, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on September 29, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees KRISTEN FAUS, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Alanna Gayle Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN LIEB LEBOWITZ & FRICK LLP 10 East 40th Street, Suite 802 New York, NY 10016 Defendants-Appellants INDIAN RIVER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. are represented by: Charles Edward Symons, Esq. FERRARA FIORENZA PC 5010 Campuswood Drive East Syracuse, NY 13057 INFINITY SOFTWARE: 605 Lending Scheme "Illegal," Sharits Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALLISON SHARITS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DUSTIN DERNIER; INFINITY SOFTWARE; FOREST HILL ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT INC.; UNITED PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT; STEVE CHRISTENSEN; ANTHONY REIDER; CYNDI WEDDELL; APRIL HERRICK; RYAN KILLS A HUNDRED; KRISTI BIETZ; DAVID ROSS; JONATHAN SCHRADER SR.; and JOHN DOES 1-40, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-11944 (N.D. Ill., September 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Illinois Predatory Loan Prevention Action, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Illinois Payday Loan Reform Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Illinois Collection Agency Act, and unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendants' operation of an illegal lending scheme called 605 Lending, which used the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe to get sovereign immunity and evade litigation and government enforcement actions. According to the complaint, the Tribe does not control or operate 605 Lending. Rather, non-tribal schemers, including Defendant Dustin Dernier, run and control the 605 Lending enterprise. Through the scheme, the Defendants make online, short-term loans that carry interest rates exceeding 700 percent. The Plaintiff and the Class seek to recover damages and penalties under state and federal law for the usurious interest and fees obtained by the Defendants and to halt their illegal practices. Infinity Software is a loan management services provider, located in Pembroke Pines, Florida. United Portfolio Management is a debt purchaser in Delaware. Forest Hill Account Management Inc. is a debt collector, with a principal place of business located in Buffalo, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Michelle Drake, Esq. John G. Albanese, Esq. Marika K. O'Connor Grant, Esq. Ariana B. Kiener, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 594-5999 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 Email: emdrake@bergermontague.com jalbanese@bergermontague.com moconnorgrant@bergermontague.com akiener@bergermontague.com IRA INNOVATIONS: Sake TN Bid for Class Certification Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAKE TN, LLC, and SEANACHE HOMES, INC., for themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PATRICK MOSS, IRA INNOVATIONS, LLC, MARY M. WESTER, individually and as Trustee of the Mary M. Wester Revocable Trust, ALYCIA WHITE, as Executrix of the Estate of William J. Gulas, Case No. 3:21-cv-00108 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Aleta Trauger entered an order denying the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In addition, the plaintiffs are put on notice that the court will dismiss defendant Alycia White, as Executrix of the Estate of William J. Gulas, for failure to effect timely service of process, unless the plaintiffs file proof that White has been served or waived service, within seven days of the date of this Order. The Court further entered an order that the parties shall attempt to mediate a settlement of this case. By Sept. 30, 2025, they shall file a joint mediation report that informs the court of the date set for the mediation and the name of the mediator. This case remains set for trial on March 31, 2026. IRA offers investment options for retirement and more. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZC6aNq at no extra charge.[CC] JAMES LEBLANC: Giroir Bid for Class Cert Partly OK'd ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOEL GIROIR, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, V. JAMES LEBLANC, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, ET AL., Case No. 3:21-cv-00108-JWD-SDJ (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge John deGravelles entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion for class certification. The motion is granted in that a class will be certified as follows: "All persons who have been remanded to the custody of the DOC since April 16, 2019, and who were entitled to release at the time of their remand (either pursuant to sentencing or parole revocation), but who were released by the DOC more than 48 hours past the date that they were remanded to the DOC's custody due to the Defendant's failure to implement and maintain an adequate process for timely releasing inmates." The motion is denied in that claims for emotional distress and mental anguish shall be severed. The Court FURTHER entered an order that the motion for class certification is granted, and a class will be certified as follows: "All persons who have been, or will be, sentenced to the custody of the Louisiana DOC, and who were, or will be, entitled to release at the time of their sentencing, but who nevertheless remain in custody, now or in the future, due to Defendants’ failure to implement and maintain an adequate process for timely releasing inmates, for more than 48 hours past their sentencing dates." On Jan. 26, 2021, Giroir's probation was revoked, and he was sentenced to one-year hard labor. Giroir declares how, at the time of his sentence, he was entitled to immediate release. Giroir stated that he was held for 64 days over his sentence. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eETuZq at no extra charge.[CC] JAMES LEBLANC: Humphrey Bid for Class Cert Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN HUMPHREY, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, V. JAMES LEBLANC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00233-JWD-SDJ (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge John deGravelles entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion for class certification. The motion is granted in that a class will be certified as follows: "All persons who have been remanded to the custody of the DOC since April 16, 2019, and who were entitled to release at the time of their remand (either pursuant to sentencing or parole revocation), but who were released by the DOC more than 48 hours past the date that they were remanded to the DOC's custody due to the Defendant's failure to implement and maintain an adequate process for timely releasing inmates." The motion is denied in that claims for emotional distress and mental anguish shall be severed. The Court FURTHER entered an order that the motion for class certification is granted, and a class will be certified as follows: "All persons who have been, or will be, sentenced to the custody of the Louisiana DOC, and who were, or will be, entitled to release at the time of their sentencing, but who nevertheless remain in custody, now or in the future, due to Defendants’ failure to implement and maintain an adequate process for timely releasing inmates, for more than 48 hours past their sentencing dates." A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mpt895 at no extra charge.[CC] KD CREATIVES: Appeals Arbitration Order in Carruth Suit to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- KD CREATIVES, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Jennifer Carruth, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KD Creatives, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02484-DAD-SCR, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff Carruth filed a putative class action complaint against the Defendant for knowingly selling, transmitting, or disclosing records containing its customers' personal information to third parties. On Dec. 6, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to compel arbitration, which Judge Dale A. Drozd denied on Sept. 11, 2025. The Court concludes that the Defendant has failed to carry its burden of establishing that notice of the arbitration agreement was reasonably conspicuous. The appellate case is entitled Carruth v. KD Creatives, Inc., Case No. 25-6110, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on September 29, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee JENNIFER CARRUTH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN, LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131 Defendant-Appellant KD CREATIVES, INC. is represented by: Jordan Susman, Esq. JORDAN SUSMAN 16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 820 Encino, CA 91436 - and - Noel Scott Cohen, Esq. POLSINELLI, LLP 2049 Century Park, E Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 KRISTI NOEM: Petitioner Must File Class Cert Response by Oct. 16 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jefferson Dominguez-Lara, et al., v. Kristi Noem, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01553-JAD-BNW (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge entered stipulated briefing schedule and proposed scheduling order: 1. The Federal Respondents shall file a response to the motion for preliminary injunction, a response to the motion for class certification, and a motion to dismiss the petition on or before Sept. 25, 2025. 2. Petitioner shall file replies to the Federal Respondent's response to the motion for preliminary injunction and response to the motion for class certification within 21 days after the Federal Respondents files their responses, or on or before Oct. 16, 2025. 3. Petitioner shall file a response to the Federal Respondents' motion to dismiss within 21 days after the Federal Respondents file their motion, or on or before Oct. 16, 2025. 4. The Federal Respondents shall file a reply, if any, within 7 days after Petitioner files its response to the Federal Respondents' motion to dismiss, or on or before Oct. 23, 2025. Kristi Noem is an American politician. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Sept. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dDx7cl at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeremey Mondejar, Esq. AZTEC LEGAL GROUP, LLC 2885 E Charleston BLVD, Suite 103 Las Vegas, NV 89104 Telephone: (702) 816-6611 The Defendants are represented by: Sigal Chattah, Esq. Christian R. Ruiz, Esq. US DOJ 501 Las Vegas Blvd. So., Suite 1100 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: (702) 388-6336 Facsimile: (702) 388-6787 E-mail: Christian.Ruiz@usdoj.gov - and - Ashlee B. Hesman, Esq. STRUCK LOVE ACEDO, PLC 3100 West Ray Road, Suite 300 Chandler, AZ 85226 E-mail: ahesman@strucklove.com - and - James E. Harper, Esq. HARPER | SELIM 1935 Village Center Circle Las Vegas, NV 89134 E-mail: eservice@harperselim.com LAKE CONSUMER: Court Narrows Claims in Pineda Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORISA PINEDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LAKE CONSUMER PRODUCTS, INC. Case No. 5:24-cv-01074-CH (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge entered a memorandum granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Pineda action. The Amended Complaint does not allege that Lake refused to provide Pineda with the Coal Tar Shampoo product in exchange for her payment. Rather, Pineda paid for the Coal Tar Shampoo Product, Lake accepted that payment and provided her with the product, and Pineda kept and/or used the product. Pineda claims that a certain Coal Tar Shampoo manufactured by Lake is not properly manufactured and tested, which resulted in the products containing "undisclosed, dangerously high levels of benzene," a known carcinogen. Pineda alleges that Lake's failure to properly manufacture and test its Coal Tar Shampoo products, and failure to disclose the products' alleged safety risks, resulted in the shampoo being adulterated or misbranded. Pineda is a resident of Pennsylvania. She claims that she purchased "at least one or more" of these products and specifically alleges that she purchased MG217 Medicated Conditioning 3% Shampoo in July 2022 and February 2023. Benzene is allegedly hazardous to humans, and is primarily used as a solvent in the chemical and pharmaceutical industries and in gasoline. Lake manufactures and sells over-the-counter shampoo products used to treat various scalp conditions. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated Sept. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XMYWe2 at no extra charge.[CC] LEHIGH VALLEY: Kiskeravage Seeks Prelim. Approval of Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA KISKERAVAGE, ANDREA YACHERA, JUAN DOMINGUEZ, KEILYN WILLIAMS, and KIM ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LEHIGH VALLEY HEALTH NETWORK, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF LEHIGH VALLEY HEALTH NETWORK, INC., THE EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE OF LEHIGH VALLEY HEALTH NETWORK, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 5:24-cv-05567-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement agreement. Lehigh was an independent healthcare network based in the Allentown, Pennsylvania. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dlrcqr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. James A. Wells, Esq. Giulia T. Conboy, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 232-3080 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com Jayw@capozziadler.com giuliac@capozziadler - and - Peter A. Muhic MUHIC LAW LLC 923 Haddonfield Road, Ste. 300 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: (856) 324-8252 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: peter@muhiclaw.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Extension of Class Cert Hearing Continuance Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA CORTINAS, ADELINE CLARKE FOSS, TERESA MCINTYRE, KASANDRA VITACCA-MITCHELL, CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL, MARCUS ODUM, CASSANDRA ODUM, DONALD VILLA, JOAN VILLA, TANYA RAWLINS, SARAH BAIOTTO, BRENT BAIOTTO, and DARREN PETTIS individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF INDIANA, Case No. 5:22-cv-00544-OLG-HJB (W.D. Tex.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the continuance of the hearing on the class certification motion. Accordingly, in order to allow the Parties additional time to continue mediating with Mr. Ungar, the Parties jointly ask the Court to extend the continuance of the hearing on the Class Certification Motion and permit the Parties to provide another status report on or before Oct. 22, 2025. The requested continuance is not sought for purposes of delay and will not prejudice any Party. On June 6, 2025, the Court issued an Order granting the Parties' joint motion to continue hearing on the Plaintiffs' opposed motion for class certification, appointment of class representative and appointment of counsel to permit the Parties to mediate this action on Aug. 13, 2025, and provide a joint report by Aug. 22, 2025. Since the August 22, 2025 Order, the Parties have continued their discussions and have reached agreement on some, but not all, terms that may lead to a resolution of the claims in this action. The parties have further scheduled another mediation with Mr. Ungar for Oct. 3, 2025 to continue their efforts. Liberty is an American diversified global insurer. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ASw9Q1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Brandon McWherter, Esq. McWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC 341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite 230 Franklin, TN 37067 Telephone: (615) 354-1144 E-mail: brandon@msb.law - and - Shaun W. Hodge, Esq. THE HODGE LAW FIRM, PLLC The Historic Runge House 1301 Market St. Galveston, TX 77550 Telephone: (409) 762-5000 E-mail: shodge@hodgefirm.com - and - Erik D. Peterson, Esq. ERIK PETERSON LAW OFFICES, PSC 110 W. Vine Street, Suite 300 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (800) 614-1957 E-mail: erik@eplo.law - and - T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq. SNODGRASS LAW, LLC 100 S. Fifth St., Suite 800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 448-2600 E-mail: jsnodgrass@snodgrass-law.com The Defendants are represented by: David T. Moran, Esq. Christopher A. Thompson, Esq. Maggie Burreson, Esq. Marilyn Brown, Esq. Michael Roberts, Esq. JACKSON WALKER L.L.P. 2323 Ross Avenue, Suite 600 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 953-6000 Facsimile: (214) 953-5822 E-mail: dmoran@jw.com cthompson@jw.com mburreson@jw.com mbrown@jw.com mroberts@jw.com - and - Mark L. Hanover, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5900 Chicago, IL 60606 LINCOLN NATIONAL: Local 295 Appeals Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- LOCAL 295 IBT EMPLOYER GROUP PENSION TRUST FUND is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing its lawsuit entitled Local 295 IBT Employer Group Pension Trust Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lincoln National Corp., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01704, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff Donald C. Meade, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") related to purchases or acquisitions of Lincoln National securities between Nov. 4, 2020, and Nov. 2, 2022. Local 295 IBT Employer Group Pension Trust Fund (the "Pension Trust Fund") moved for appointment as lead Plaintiff and for approval of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel. On Dec. 23, 2024, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on Feb. 21, 2025. On July 24, 2025, Judge John F. Murphy entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court concludes that Local 295 has not alleged with particularity the reasons why the alleged statements were false or misleading at the time made, nor has it pled facts from which scienter is a compelling inference. Therefore, Lincoln's motion to dismiss is granted in full. Local 295 has leave to amend its complaint. The appellate case is entitled Local 295 IBT Employer Group Pension Trust Fund v. Lincoln National Corp, et al., Case No. 25-2877, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on September 30, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant LOCAL 295 IBT EMPLOYER GROUP PENSION TRUST FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Lee Albert, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY 122 E. 42nd Street, Suite 2920 New York, NY 10168 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 - and - Natalie C. Arenella, Esq. Robert D. Gerson, Esq. David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD 58 S. Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 - and - Harini Raghupathi, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 - and - Lawrence F. Stengel, Esq. SAXTON & STUMP 280 Granite Run Drive, Suite 300 Lancaster, PA 17601 Telephone: (717) 556-1080 Defendants-Appellees LINCOLN NATIONAL CORP., et al. are represented by: Gabriel K. Gillett, Esq. Howard S. Suskin, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK 353 N. Clark Street, Suite 4500 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 840-7220 (312) 923-2604 - and - Timothy D. Katsiff, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH One Logan Square, Suite 2000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 988-2583 - and - Emily S. Mannheimer, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK 1155 6th Avenue New York, NY 10036 - and - Alex G. Romain, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK 515 S. Flower Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-5106 LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Tossed --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT HUBBLE, v. LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-11173-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Thomas L. Ludington entered an order denying the Defendant's pre-discovery motion to strike class allegations. The Plaintiff defines the Prerecorded Class as: "The Plaintiff and all persons within the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through class certification the Defendant called using an artificial or prerecorded voice message for the same purpose the Plaintiff was called." By contrast, Plaintiff defines the Prerecorded Stop Class as: "All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through class certification (1) the Defendant called (2) using an artificial or prerecorded voice (3) despite previously requesting to no longer be contacted.". The Plaintiff asserts two claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). LoanDepot is an Irvine, California-based nonbank holding company which sells mortgage and non-mortgage lending products. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MVWHfo at no extra charge.[CC] LOFCO LIMITED: Walker Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website --------------------------------------------------------------- LEAH WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOFCO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, D/B/A THE BOARDSMITH, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12061 (N.D. Ill., October 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, declaratory relief, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://theboardsmith.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, lack of alt-text on graphics, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Lofco Limited Liability Company, doing business as The Boardsmith, is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [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 Email: dreyes@ealg.law LUIS CORREA: Initial Case Order Entered in Craft Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA CRAFT, v. LUIS CORREA, et al., Case No. 6:25-cv-01767-JSS-NWH (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Sneed entered an initial case order: The court screens every case to identify parties and interested corporations in which any assigned judge may be a shareholder, as well as for other matters that might require consideration of recusal. Accordingly, no later than 14 days from the date of this Order, each party, pro se party, governmental party, intervenor, non-party movant, and Rule 69 garnishee shall file the attached Disclosure Statement and Certification as required under Local Rule 3.03. Any party or entity that appears after the date of this Order must file the Disclosure Statement within 14 days of appearance. Luis Correa is an American businessman and politician. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wYLOik at no extra charge.[CC] LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Sends Unsolicited Marketing Calls, Wilson Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHET WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01471-TAD-KDM (W.D. La., October 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending unwanted telemarketing communications to the cellular phone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote their products or services without obtaining prior consent. As a result of the Defendants' action, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered harm, says the suit. Lumen Technologies, Inc. is a multinational telecommunications and networking company, headquartered in Ouachita Parish, Louisiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. David Andress, Esq. ANDRESS LAW FIRM, LLC 143 Ridgeway Drive, Suite 227 Lafayette, LA 70503 Telephone: (337) 347-9919 Facsimile: (337) 541-2553 Email: andresslawfirm@gmail.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Bid for More Time to File Class Cert Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Passion Gabourel v. Luxottica of America Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00471-FWS-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fred Slaughter entered an order denying the Plaintiff's ex parte application for enlargement of time to file renewed motion for class certification. Here, the Plaintiff does not even attempt to show that this standard is satisfied; rather, she argues only that there is good cause under Rule 16 to modify the Scheduling Order. The court finds the record does not reflect that ex parte relief is appropriate. Even if there were a "fire" -- which the court seriously doubts—the court would find Plaintiff is not "without fault in creating the crisis that requires ex parte relief," and that there is an insufficient showing "that the crisis occurred as a result of excusable neglect." In particular, the Plaintiff waited nearly a month after the court issued the Order to seek relief to accommodate filing a renewed motion and waited eight days after meeting and conferring with Defendant to file the Application. The Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendants under the California Labor Code, including failure to provide meal and rest periods, pay minimum and overtime wages, and indemnify employees for necessary expenditures. On Aug. 26, 2025, the court denied the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Luxottica offers prescription glasses and sunglasses. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V62fqh at no extra charge.[CC] LVNV FUNDING: Shaw Bid for Class Certification Tossed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETSY SHAW, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. LVNV FUNDING, LLC, and LLOYD & MCDANIEL, PLLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00205-MW-MAF (N.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Mark E. Walker entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification without prejudice. While Mr. Alpin's testimony suggests Plaintiff may ultimately be able to define the class in a way that satisfies the ascertainability requirement, she has not done so here. The Plaintiff offers no explanation of what "similar" means and this Court cannot ascertain the class based on such subjective criteria, the Court says. The Plaintiff's proposed class is not ascertainable and therefore this Court cannot further engage with the Rule 23 analysis. The proposed class includes individuals sued by Defendants in actions in which Defendants submitted "a verified filing similar to the Verified MSD." This "similar to" requirement is both vague and subjective. The Plaintiff claims the Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the "FDCPA") in the underlying action by submitting an inadmissible verified motion for summary disposition to "intimidate and scare" the Plaintiff into paying debts. The Plaintiff asks this Court to certify a class of: "All Florida residents who (1) were sued by LVNV, (2) in which suit LVNV or its counsel submitted a verified filing similar to the Verified MSD, (3) from the beginning of the limitations period to the present." The relevant class period is March 27, 2024, through the date of Notice for the Class. LVNV is a debt buyer. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MjqSD9 at no extra charge.[CC] MARCO RUBIO: Court Postpones Class Cert Briefing in OCA ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OCA - ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN ADVOCATES v. MARCO RUBIO, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00287 (D.S.C., Filed Jan. 30, 2025), the Hon. Judge Timothy J. Kelly entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to postpone class certification briefing. The Parties shall file a joint status report within 14 days of an appellate court decision on the merits of any class certification decision that has been granted or is pending. The nature of suit states Administrative Procedure Act / Review or Appeal of Agency Decision.[CC] MAX'S SERVICES: Underpays Company Employees, Guerrero Says ---------------------------------------------------------- NICOLAS GUERRERO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAX'S SERVICES USA LLC fka MAX'S SERVICES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00806 (E.D. Va., October 1, 2025) is a class action for unpaid overtime and employment benefits in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Virginia Overtime Wage Act, and the Virginia Misclassification Law (VML). According to the complaint, the Plaintiff brings this action as a "hybrid" class and collective action for unpaid overtime and misclassification. Specifically, the Plaintiff contends that the Defendant fails to pay him and similarly situated employees overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff further contends that the Defendant has violated and continues to violate the VML by having a policy or practice of misclassifying him and similarly situated laborers as independent contractors when they are really employees. Plaintiff Nicolas Guerrero is a resident of Virginia who worked for Defendant as a laborer from approximately 2022 to 2024 and then again in 2025. Defendant Max's Services USA LLC, formerly known as Max's Services LLC, is a Virginia limited liability company that is in the business of installing and repairing home appliances, including electrical and plumbing work.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq. Zev Antell, Esq. ButlerCurwood, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: 804.648.4848 Facsimile: 804-237-0413 E-mail: zev@butlercurwood.com craig@butlercurwood.com - and - Timothy Coffield, Esq. COFFIELD PLC 106-F Melbourne Park Circle Charlottesville, VA 22901 Telephone: (434) 218-3133 Facsimile: (434) 321-1636 E-mail: tc@coffieldlaw.com MDL 2832: Panel Remands 13 Suits in Toppings Dispensing System Row ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the multi-district action captioned "In re: Liquid Toppings Dispensing System ('447) Patent Litigation," MDL No. 2832, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, remands 13 cases from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to their respective transferor courts. Defendants in those 13 actions moved to vacate the panel's order that conditionally remanded those actions to their respective transferor courts. Plaintiff Kona Ice, Inc. opposed the motion. After receiving a suggestion of remand from the transferee judge, the panel placed these actions on a conditional remand order to the respective district in which each was filed. Defendants initially requested for the panel to vacate the conditional remand order to give the transferee judge the opportunity to stay the litigation pending ex parte reexamination of the asserted patent. Alternatively, defendants asked the Panel itself to stay the litigation while the ex parte reexamination was pending. Those arguments are now moot after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) closed prosecution in the ex parte reexamination and stated that it will issue a certificate confirming the asserted patent's patentability. Defendants argue that remand is inappropriate because some pretrial matters concerning damages and willfulness are unresolved. "The transferee judge, Judge K. Michael Moore, addressed defendants' concern about whether there is a sufficient record for plaintiff to pursue damages and willfulness cases against each defendant. In his view, those issues "require a fact-intensive, individualized assessment" that is better suited for resolution in each defendant's respective transferor court. Defendants do not offer a sufficient reason for us to reject that reasoned determination," rules the panel. Plaintiff Kona Ice argued in a supplemental filing that the USPTO's conclusion of the ex-parte reexamination fully moots defendants' motion. Defendants disagreed and argued that the plaintiff should be judicially estopped from asserting its patent in this litigation because Kona Ice made inconsistent statements in the ex parte reexamination proceedings. Defendants argue now that the panel should vacate its conditional remand order so that Tikiz Franchising, LLC (Tikiz) -- against which Judge Moore has entered final judgment in Tikiz's declaratory judgment action1 -- can raise the judicial estoppel argument in a Rule 60 motion. They assert that Judge Moore should decide the judicial estoppel issue because he heard the testimony that is allegedly inconsistent with plaintiff's statements in the ex parte reexamination. "Our remand of these actions will not affect Judge Moore's ability to adjudicate a Rule 60 motion from Tikiz in its declaratory judgment action, as that action is not among those that we conditionally remanded," the panel opined. "We are also not persuaded that the prospect that multiple courts may adjudicate the judicial estoppel question weighs strongly in favor of vacating the conditional remand order. These actions, if appealed, will all go to the Federal Circuit, avoiding the possibility of inconsistent appellate decisions." "Defendants' motion to vacate the conditional remand order is DENIED," adds the panel. A full-text copy of the court's October 1, 2025 Remand Order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2832-Remand_Order-9-25.pdf MDL 2846: Krinn Suit Consolidated in Hernia Mesh Product Row ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers the case captioned "Krinn v. C.R. Bard, Inc., et al.," C.A. No. 2:25-00844 from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin to the Southern District of Ohio and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multi-district action captioned "In re: Davol, Inc./C.R. Bard, Inc., Polypropylene Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation," MDL NO. 2846. Krinn moved to vacate the panel's order that conditionally transferred the action to the Southern District of Ohio for inclusion in MDL No. 2846. The healthcare defendants more specifically request the panel sever the medical negligence claims against them and remand them to the transferor court. Defendants C.R. Bard, Inc., Becton, Dickinson and Company, and Davol Inc. opposed the motions and, alternatively, requested transfer of the product liability claims against Bard and separation and remand of the medical negligence claims against the healthcare defendants. The panel finds that this action involves common questions of fact with the actions transferred to MDL No. 2846; allegations that defects in defendants' polypropylene hernia mesh products can lead to complications when implanted in patients including, inter alia, adhesions, damage to organs and infections. Like many MDL plaintiffs, the Krinn plaintiff alleges that she was implanted with Bard hernia repair devices and, consequently, suffered injury. Plaintiff argues that removal of her action was improper, and the Eastern District of Wisconsin transferor court should decide her motion for remand to state court. She further argues that transfer would cause her and the healthcare defendants delay and inconvenience, and that severance of her claims is not appropriate. The panel, however, has held that jurisdictional objections generally do not present an impediment to transfer and that transfer of a particular action often is necessary to further the expeditious resolution of the litigation taken as a whole, even if it might inconvenience some parties to that action. The healthcare defendants argue that the malpractice claims against them present unique factual and legal issues, and those claims should be severed and remanded to the transferor court. The panel contends, however, that presence of unique legal theories is not a bar to transfer. MDLs involving medical devices often include similar claims (such as medical negligence) against healthcare defendants, it adds. A full-text copy of the court's October 1, 2025 Order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2846-Transfer_Order-9-25.pdf MDL 3052: Lloyd Suit Consolidated in Kia Hyundai Vehicle Theft Row ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers "Lloyd v. Kia America, Inc.," C.A. No. 5:25-03602 from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the Central District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge James V. Selna for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multi-district action captioned "In re: Kia Hyundai Vehicle Theft Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 3052. Pro se plaintiff moved to vacate the order conditionally transferring the Lloyd action to the MDL, while defendant Kia America, Inc., opposed the motion and supported transfer. After considering the argument of counsel, the panel finds that the action involves common questions of fact with the actions transferred to the MDL, and that transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. According to the panel, the Central District of California is an appropriate forum for actions sharing factual questions concerning allegations that certain Kia and Hyundai branded vehicles are defective because the cars lack engine immobilizer technology. Such technology prevents cars from being started unless a code is transmitted from a unique smart key. The vehicles at issue in MDL No. 3052 include 2011–2022 Kia vehicles and 2015–2022 Hyundai vehicles that were equipped with traditional "insert-and-turn" steel key ignition systems. Lloyd is the owner of a 2020 Kia Forte, which sustained damage during an attempted theft. Like the plaintiffs in the MDL, she alleges that a viral Tik-Tok video showing thieves starting a Kia by using a USB cable set off a wave of thefts that impacted her. She alleges that she has struggled to obtain car insurance because of her vehicle's susceptibility to theft, that Kia manufactured her car knowing that it was easy to steal, and that Kia concealed that the software upgrade it provided to address theft complaints would not actually prevent her vehicle from being stolen. The action thus falls within the scope of the MDL, concludes the panel. A full-text copy of the court's October 1, 2025 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3052-Transfer_Order-9-25.pdf MDL 3114: 4 Suits Consolidated in AT&T Data Privacy Row ------------------------------------------------------- Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers four cases from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the Northern District of Texas and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Ada E. Brown for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multi-district action captioned "In re: AT&T Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation," MDL No. 3114. Plaintiffs in the four actions moved to vacate the conditional transfer order transferring their actions to the Northern District of Texas for inclusion in MDL No. 3114. Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC opposed the motion and supported transfer. In opposition to transfer, plaintiffs principally argue that federal subject matter jurisdiction is lacking and that transfer is improper because their actions must be remanded to state court. However, the panel has held that such jurisdictional objections generally do not present an impediment to transfer, explaining that remand motions can be presented to and decided by the transferee judge. Plaintiffs also assert that that transfer will force them to participate in an MDL in violation of an alleged class action waiver in their AT&T consumer services agreements. "This argument misunderstands the nature of the MDL", the panel points out. "This MDL, like many others, includes both individual and class-based actions. Transfer does not force plaintiffs to litigate their claims as a class action. In fact, as they acknowledge in their briefs, they will be provided an opportunity to opt out of the proposed class action settlement currently pending in the MDL." Plaintiffs further argue that transfer is inefficient because they plan to opt out of the settlement. But settlement approval proceedings remain pending, holds the panel. If the settlement is not granted final approval, substantial pretrial proceedings will remain. Additionally, the transferee court is in the best position to oversee proceedings in any actions that remain pending after the opt-out period closes and approval proceedings have concluded. In its order establishing the MDL, the panel held that centralization was warranted for actions concerning "an alleged data security breach announced by AT&T in March 2024 concerning the personal information of over 70 million former and current AT&T customers released on the dark web." The four actions concern the AT&T data breach announced in March 2024 and share common factual questions with the actions in the MDL, the panel notes. A full-text copy of the court's September 30, 2025 transfer order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3114-Transfer_Order-9-25.pdf MEDSTAR HEALTH: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Foxwell Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD FOXWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MEDSTAR HEALTH, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-03334-MJM (D. Md., Oct. 8, 2025) arises out of MedStar's failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. The failure to secure and monitor its network resulted in an October 2025 data breach of highly sensitive documents and information stored on the computer network of MedStar, an organization that provides medical treatment and/or employment to individuals, including Plaintiff and Class Members, asserts the suit. The Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack in or about October 2025 to compromise Defendant's network that contained personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of Plaintiff and other individuals. On October 4, 2025, the threat actor "Rhysida" successfully breached MedStar's inadequately protected computer systems and accessed and exfiltrated an unknown quantity of highly sensitive patient data. The incident was publicly reported on BreachSense. As of the filing of this Complaint, Defendant has not provided any king of notice to affected individuals. The Plaintiff was an individual citizen of the State of Maryland, residing in the town of Nottingham, and was a patient of MedStar. The Defendant is a healthcare provider in Maryland and the Washington, D.C., region.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com dperry@masonllp.com MICHAEL BETLEY: Loses Bid to Dismiss McCarrell SAC -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHEAL MCCARRELL, et al., v. MICHAEL P. BETLEY, Case No. 1:23-cv-02781-JRR (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Julie R. Rubin will deny the Defendant's motion to dismiss second amended complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment and to strike class allegations. The court notes the Defendant's assertion that whether Mr. McCarrell had actual notice of his claims should be "resolved as a threshold issue." Because the court will issue a scheduling order calling for an initial joint status report shortly after Defendant files his forthcoming answer, the parties shall set forth their positions and proposals therein on this topic, and depending on same, the court will convene a status conference. Accordingly, Defendant has not met its burden to show that the Plaintiffs' invocation of the fraudulent concealment doctrine fails as a matter of law. Accordingly, at this stage of litigation where the court is obliged to accept the Plaintiffs' allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in their favor, the Defendant has not met its burden to show that Plaintiffs' class claims are time-barred as a matter of law. The court will therefore deny the Motion on that basis. The Plaintiffs and the alleged class members "are borrowers who currently have or had a residential mortgage loan originated and/or brokered by [MBA], which was or is secured by [their] residential real properties." The Plaintiffs allege they "are victims of an illegal kickback agreement between MBA and All Star Title, Inc., a Maryland based title and settlement services company, and a related scheme to defraud borrowers into paying fraudulent charges for title and settlement services, carried out through the use of the interstate U.S. mails." The Plaintiffs allege both RESPA and RICO class claims, with the proposed RESPA class defined as: "All individuals in the United States who were borrowers on a federally related mortgage loan (as defined under [RESPA], 12 U.S.C. section 2602) originated or brokered by [MBA] for which All Star Title, Inc. provided a settlement service, as identified in Section 1100 on the borrower's HUD-1, between July 1, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2015. Exempted from this class is any person who, during the period of July 1, 2009 through Dec. 31, 2015, was an employee, officer, member and/or agent of [MBA] or All Star Title, Inc. The Plaintiffs' proposed RICO class is defined as: "All individuals in the United States who were borrowers on a refinance, reverse mortgage, or other mortgage loan originated or brokered by [MBA], for which All Star Title, Inc., provided a settlement service, as identified in Section 1100 on the borrower's HUD-1, between July 1, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2017." Exempted from this class is any person who, during the period of July 1, 2009 through Dec. 31, 2017, was an employee, officer, member and/or agent of [MBA] or All Star Title, Inc. On Sept. 1, 2022, the Remsnyder plaintiffs moved for class certification in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for an MBA class with RESPA and RICO subclasses as follows: MBA Class: All individuals in the United States who were borrowers on a mortgage loan originated or brokered by [MBA], for which All Star Title, Inc., provided a settlement service, as identified in Section 1100 on the borrower's HUD-1 or on the Closing Disclosure1 between July 1, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2015." Exempted from this class is any person who, during the period of July 1, 2009 through Dec. 31, 2015, was an employee, officer, member and/or agent of [MBA] or All Star Title, Inc.; any judicial officer who handles this case, and the immediate family members of such judicial officer(s). RESPA Subclass: The RESPA Subclass is comprised of: "all members of the MBA Class who were borrowers on a federally related mortgage loans (as defined under [RESPA], 12 U.S.C. section 2602)." RICO Subclass: The RICO Subclass is comprised of: "all members of the MBA class." A copy of the Court's memorandum dated Sept. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sji3iZ at no extra charge.[CC] MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Faces Shareholder Suits over SEC Disclosures --------------------------------------------------------------- Micron Technology, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended August 28, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 5, 2025, that on January 9, 2025, a putative class action complaint was filed against Micron and certain individual officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On April 3, 2025, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Idaho and on May 23, 2025 an amended complaint was filed in said court. The complaint alleges defendants made materially false or misleading statements during a putative class period from September 18, 2024 to December 18, 2024, regarding the demand for Micron's products, particularly NAND and consumer-oriented products. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs. Micron Technology is into memory and storage solutions whose portfolio includes DRAM, NAND, and NOR memory and storage products through its Micron(R) and Crucial(R) brands. MID-AMERICA PET: Class Settlement in Filardi Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES FILARDI, COURTNEY ANDERSEN, LISA BURMEISTER, KENNETH LEONARD, DOROTHY PETERSEN, STEPHANIE RANEY, IRENE NUNEZ, CONRADO MOREIRA, KIARA REED, NACOLE HOUSTON, MONIKA BENNETT, JASON JARRELL, ALISON BARNHILL, KIMBERLEE FERRIS, JEFFREY GOULD, MELISSA SWARIN GEN-ORTON, MICHELLE RUBIANO, and COLEMAN STEPHENS on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. MID-AMERICA PET FOOD, L.L.C. Case No. 7:23-cv-11170-NSR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Nelson S. Roman entered an order granting unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Parties have agreed to a class action settlement of all Released Claims, including Unknown Claims. The Plaintiffs seek, and for purposes of settlement only Defendant does not object to, certification of a Settlement Class with the following definition: "All persons and entities residing in the United States who purchased one or more of the Mid America Pet Food Products. Specifically excluded are the following: (i) persons or entities whose claims are solely based upon the purchase of Mid America Pet Food Products for resale; (ii) corporate officers, members of the board of directors, and senior management of Defendant; (iii) persons or entities who otherwise meet the definition of Settlement Class Members, but who previously contacted Defendant prior to and during the pendency of this litigation, signed a release and in exchange received financial compensation from Defendant; (iv) any and all judges and justices assigned to hear or adjudicate any aspect of this litigation; (v) any members of the Settlement Class that opt out prior to the opt out deadline; (vi) any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest, and their legal representatives, officers, directors, assigns and successors; and (vii) Class Counsel. The proposed Settlement creates a $5,500,000 Settlement Fund from which Settlement Class Members may submit Pet Injury Claims and/or Food Purchase Claims. Settlement Class Members who file valid Pet Injury Claims and/or valid Consumer Food Purchase Claims shall have those claims adjudicated and paid according to the Plan of Allocation as described in the Settlement Agreement, which the Court has reviewed and preliminarily approves. The Court preliminarily appoints the Plaintiffs as representatives of the Settlement Class. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g), the Court preliminarily appoints Jeffrey Goldenberg, Goldenberg Schneider, LPA; Charles Schaffer, Levin Sedran Berman, LLP; Jason Sultzer, Sultzer & Lipari, PLLC; and Carlos F. Ramirez, Reese LLP, as Lead Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on Feb. 6, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to terminate motion at ECF No. 43. Mid America markets and manufactures premium branded pet food. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NLVLfj at no extra charge.[CC] MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Settlement in Sanchez Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICO CRUZ SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC.; DALTILE SERVICE, INC.; DAL-TILE SERVICES, INC.; DAL-TILE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-01510-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thurston entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the class action and PAGA settlement as follows: 1. The Plaintiff's request for certification of the Settlement Class is granted, and the class is defined as follows: "All current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for any of the Defendants within the State of California at any time during the period from Sept. 15, 2016, through April 11, 2024, and who reside in California." 2. Final approval of the Settlement Agreement -- with the modifications to parag. 4.5.6, 4.6.7, 4.6.9, 4.9 and 4.11.4, as identified in the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2024— is granted. 3. The PAGA award in the amount of $100,000.00 from the Maximum Settlement Amount, including payment of $75,000.00 to California's Labor and Workforce Development Agency and $25,000.00 to aggrieved employees, is approved. 4. The request for a class representative service payment for the Plaintiff is granted in the modified amount of $5,000.00. 5. Class Counsel's motion for fees is granted in the modified amount of 25 percent of the common fund, which totals $475,000.00. 6. Class Counsel's request for litigation costs and expenses is granted in the amount of $20,897.01. 7. Settlement Administration costs in the amount of $8,837.00, to be paid from the Maximum Settlement Amount, are approved. 8. The Court declined to appoint Legal Aid at Work as the cy pres beneficiary, without prejudice to renewal of the request following disbursement of the settlement shares to Class Members and Aggrieved Employees. Mohawk is an American flooring manufacturer. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YTcDMj at no extra charge.[CC] MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- MOH CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT: Molina Healthcare, Inc. Medical Costs Trigger Securities Fraud Class Action after Stock Plummets 16% -- Investors Urged to Contact BFA Law Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces that a lawsuit has been filed against Molina Healthcare, Inc. (NYSE: MOH) and certain of the Company's senior executives for potential violations of the federal securities laws. If you invested in Molina, you are encouraged to obtain additional information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/molina-healthcare-inc-class-action. Investors have until December 2, 2025, to ask the Court to be appointed to lead the case. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors in Molina securities. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and is captioned: Hindlemann v. Molina Healthcare, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-9461. Why Was Molina Sued Under the Federal Securities Laws? Molina is a health insurance company that provides managed healthcare services to low-income individuals under Medicaid and Medicare programs. During the relevant period, Molina stated that the Company's "earnings growth profile" was "solid heading into 2025." The Company also told investors that it "continuously monitor[ed] utilization patterns" and that it was able to "mitigate the negative effects of healthcare cost inflation." In truth, as alleged, Molina faced increased medical costs pressures that it could not mitigate due to increased utilization in all three of its business lines. The Stock Declines as the Truth Is Revealed On July 7, 2025, Molina revealed that its Q2 2025 adjusted earnings were approximately $5.50 per share, which was "below its prior expectations" due to "medical cost pressures in all three lines of business." The Company announced it "expects these medical cost pressures to continue into the second half of the year" and cut guidance for expected adjusted earnings per share by 10.2% at the midpoint to a "range of $21.50 to $22.50 per share." Then, on July 23, 2025, Molina revealed that it "now expects its full year 2025 adjusted earnings to be no less than $19.00 per diluted share." Molina stated this was due to a "challenging medical cost trend environment," including increased "utilization of behavioral health, pharmacy, and inpatient and outpatient services." On this news, the price of Molina stock fell $32.03 per share, or 16.8%, from $190.25 per share on July 23, 2025, to $158.22 per share on July 24, 2025. Click here for more information: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/molina-healthcare-inc-class-action. What Can You Do? If you invested in Molina you may have legal options and are encouraged to submit your information to the firm. All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any potential fees and expenses. Submit your information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/molina-healthcare-inc-class-action Or contact: Ross Shikowitz ross@bfalaw.com (212) 789-3619 Why Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP? BFA is a leading international law firm representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder litigation. It has been named a top plaintiff law firm by Chambers USA, The Legal 500, and ISS SCAS, and its attorneys have been named "Elite Trial Lawyers" by the National Law Journal, among the top "500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers" by Lawdragon, "Titans of the Plaintiffs' Bar" by Law360 and "SuperLawyers" by Thomson Reuters. Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million in value from Tesla, Inc.'s Board of Directors, as well as $420 million from Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. For more information about BFA and its attorneys, please visit https://www.bfalaw.com. https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/molina-healthcare-inc-class-action Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Ross Shikowitz ross@bfalaw.com (212) 789-3619 [GN] MONSANTO COMPANY: Cunningham Sues Over Defective Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------------ COLIN CUNNINGHAM v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. 3 N25C-10-086 MON (D. Del., Oct. 8, 2025) is brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly situated individuals, for damages suffered as a direct and proximate result of the 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(TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(TM) 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 Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. "Roundup" refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Prodry Herbicide, Roundup Promax, Roundup Quik Stik Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Quikpro Herbicide, Roundup Rainfast Concentrate Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Rainfast Super Concentrate Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Ready-to-Use Extended Control Weed & Grass Killer 1 Plus Weed Preventer, Roundup Ready-to-Use Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Ready-to-Use Weed and Grass Killer 2, Roundup Ultra Dry, Roundup Ultra Herbicide, Roundup Ultramax, Roundup VM Herbicide, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Concentrate, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Concentrate Plus, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Ready-to-Use Plus, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Super Concentrate, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer 1 Ready-to-Use, Roundup WSD Water Soluble Dry Herbicide Deploy Dry Herbicide, or any other formulation of containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM) containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, the suit says. The Plaintiffs include CRISTINA ABELLO, JOSEPH WAGENKNECHT, DONNA WILLIAMSON, JOHN MCGILL, DORIS AUFSCHLAGER, BRENDA PRAYTOR, BERNARD DOYLE JR., MICHAEL RUMPLE, GARY MATTESON, MARK EGERSDORF, AARON HULBERT, FRIEDA RHEA, THOMAS BOONE, GEORGE DUBIEL, MARGARET GIBSON on their own behalf and on behalf of the Estate of JOHN KILNA, DANIEL JAMES on their own behalf and on behalf of the Estate of ELIZABETH JAMES, CYNTHIA LUCAS-MCCOY on their own behalf and on behalf of the Estate of RANDALL MCCOY, CHRISTOPHER LABOVITZ, RONALD CHURCHMAN, JOHN CAREY JR., SUZANNE KRYGOWSKI, HENRY SEALY, JULIA ALLEN, NATALIE GRIFFIS, ELIZABETH HICKMAN, ROY FAUSNETT, GEORGIA RANGEL, RENE ALPI, JANE BRUEGGEMAN, MARY BETH SULLIVAN, ELIZABETH KINION, JOHN URBAN, PAULA DECKER, DENNIS VALENTINE, MARK STALLO, SANDRA MACKOOL, HOWELL GORDON PONTON on their own behalf and on behalf of the Estate of SHAUNA PONTON, BRENDA LOWRY, CARLOS RAMOS, VICTOR MAY, JOHN LARGE, GEORGE GARTMAN JR., MARIA SANDOVAL, JOHN GULLETT III, JOHN RICHARDS, BRENDA AUSTIN on their own behalf and on behalf of the Estate of PHILIP AUSTIN, JEANNE CHABRE on their own behalf and on behalf of the Estate of FELIX CHABRE JR., DENA PETTRY on their own behalf and on behalf of the Estate of CONNIE PETTRY, SANDRA WEAVER on their own behalf and on behalf of the Estate of DOUGLAS SANTEE, JOSE MACIEL on their own behalf and on behalf of the Estate of MARIA BEJARANO CENDEJAS, JUDITH CHU, JAY STILLMAN JR., CYNTHIA DENBROOK, JANE BRADDY, DOUGLAS ISHAM, CASSANDRA ECKERMAN, AMY KNOWER, GEORGE STYER JR, NIKITA GROMYKO, PAMELA SIMS on their own behalf and on behalf of the Estate of BARBARA SIMS, ELMER HINES, DONALD PATCH, CLYDE PERKINS, DONNA WALSH, THOMAS DALLAS, ALICE ESTRADA, TIMOTHY MOORE, KEVIN SCHOEN, JOSEPH BILES, LYNDA MAHORTER on their own behalf and on behalf of the Estate of ROBERT MAHORTER JR., JESUS BELMONTE, JAMES PARIS, GARY PARKER, and RICHARD FULGENZI. Monsanto was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation, known for developing the herbicide Roundup and genetically modified seeds. It was acquired by Bayer in 2018.[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 - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONTEREY MUSHROOMS: Sherman Sues Over Unauthorized Access of PII ---------------------------------------------------------------- CLARA SHERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONTEREY MUSHROOMS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-08407-BLF (N.D. Cal., October 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between August 2, 2025, and August 7, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Monterey Mushrooms, LLC is a mushroom farming corporation located in Watsonville, 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 Email: john@kristensen.law - and - Benjamin J. Eisner, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 Email: service@eksm.com NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Seeks to Amend Class Certify Briefing Sched -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Myers v. County of Nassau et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-07023-SJB-LGD (E.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to amend the current class certification briefing schedule to allow for the completion of expert discovery prior to completing briefing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification. Nassau is a suburban county located on Long Island, immediately to the east of New York City. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Sept. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nXFSui at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lorin L. Reisner, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 373-3250 The Defendants are represented by: Kathryn C. Cole, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 900 Stewart Avenue, 5th Floor Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 629-9600 NATURE'S PATH: Martin Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM J. MARTIN is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled William J. Martin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nature's Path Foods, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-00241-FWS-KES, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant for false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its frosted toaster pastries. On Apr. 18, 2025, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss on July 14, 2025. On Aug. 8, 2025, Judge Fred W. Slaughter entered an Order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss. On Aug. 21, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration the Aug. 8 Order, which Judge Slaughter denied on Sept. 12, 2025. The appellate case is captioned Martin v. Nature's Path Foods, Inc., Case No. 25-6161, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 1, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 6, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on November 10, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on December 10, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant WILLIAM J. MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Charles C. Weller, Esq. CHARLES C. WELLER, APC 11412 Corley Court San Diego, CA 92126 Defendant-Appellee NATURE'S PATH FOODS, INC. is represented by: Jaikaran Singh, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP 11988 El Camino Real, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92130 NEW YORK, NY: Payne Sues Over Racial Discrimination, Wage Theft --------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM PAYNE III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, Case No. 7:25-cv-08028 (S.D.N.Y., September 26, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for racial discrimination and retaliation in violation of Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, and wage theft in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Mr. Payne joined the Fire Department of the City of New York on March 28, 2022, initially as a probationary firefighter, until his termination on September 26, 2023. The City of New York is a municipal corporation of the State of New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tanvir H. Rahman, Esq. Gabrielle Rosen Harvey, Esq. FILIPPATOS PLLC 199 Main Street, Suite 800 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 984-1111 Email: trahman@filippatoslaw.com grosenharvey@filippatoslaw.com OCEAN DETAILING: Triana Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Car Detailers --------------------------------------------------------------- JORGE TRIANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OCEAN DETAILING USA MANAGEMENT INC., A/K/A OCEAN DETAILING USA, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-24506 (S.D. Fla., September 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a car detailer from approximately July 18, 2023, to August 11, 2025. Ocean Detailing USA Management Inc., also known as Ocean Detailing USA, is an auto detailing services provider based in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com OREGON COMMUNITY: Settlement in Arthur Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Angela Arthur, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. Oregon Community Credit Union, Case No. 6:24-cv-01700-MC (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Michael McShane entered an order preliminarily approving class action settlement: -- The Court preliminarily certifies a class action under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of the following settlement class: "All persons throughout the United States (1) to whom Oregon Community Credit Union placed, or caused to be placed, a call, (2) directed to a number assigned to a cellular telephone service, but not assigned to an Oregon Community Credit Union member or accountholder, (3) in connection with which Oregon Community Credit Union used, or caused to be used, an artificial or prerecorded voice, (4) from Oct. 8, 2020 through April 4, 2025." -- The Court appoints Plaintiff as the representative for the settlement class, and appoints Aaron D. Radbil of Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC as class counsel for the settlement class. -- The Court will conduct a final fairness hearing at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, Jan. 14, 2026. The Plaintiff alleges that, from October 7, 2020 through March 31, 2025, Defendant delivered artificial or prerecorded voice messages to 2,691 telephone numbers assigned to a cellular telephone service, where the recipients of Defendant’s artificial or prerecorded voice messages pressed "2" in response to an automated prompt stating: "If we have reached the incorrect household . . . please press 2 now!" The Defendant is a member-owned, not-for-profit financial cooperative. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MYblTN at no extra charge.[CC] OSHKOSH CORP: Faces Augusta Suit Over Fire Trucks' Inflated Prices ------------------------------------------------------------------ CITY OF AUGUSTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OSHKOSH CORPORATION, PIERCE MANUFACTURING, INC., REV GROUP, INC., ROSENBAUER AMERICA LLC, and FIRE APPARATUS MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-01543-BBC (E.D. Wisc., Oct. 7, 2025) contends that beginning in or about January 2016, Manufacturing Defendants entered into an agreement, combination or conspiracy to limit the supply, and to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of Fire Trucks sold in the United States at supra-competitive levels. In the related Congressional investigation of collusion of the Fire Truck industry, the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs Subcommittee on Disaster Management, District of Columbia, and Census has commenced hearings on "Sounding the Alarm: America's Fire Apparatus Crisis" and a bipartisan group of lawmakers is now demanding information from the manufacturers and asking for input from fire departments. As a result of high prices and long order backlogs, Fire Trucks that should have been retired after 15 or 20 years are now celebrating their 30th "birthdays" on the front lines. These older trucks break down more frequently and are more difficult to repair than new trucks, leaving gaps in communities' fire protection systems and putting the public in danger. Three Fire Truck manufacturers, REV Group, Inc., Oshkosh Corporation, and Rosenbauer America LLC, are responsible for increasing Fire Truck prices and perpetuating lengthy backlogs. Together, these three manufacturers control between 70 and 80 percent of the U.S. Fire Truck market, and they have unlawfully conspired to use their collective market power to suppress the Fire Truck supply and raise prices. As a result of the unlawful conduct of Defendants, the Plaintiff and Class members paid artificially inflated prices for Fire Trucks and as a result have suffered antitrust injury to their business or property in violation of the federal antitrust laws, says the suit. Manufacturing Defendants manufacture and supply Fire Trucks that are sold throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory P. Hansel, Esq. Michael S. Smith, Esq. Elizabeth F. Quinby, Esq. Michael D. Hanify, Esq. PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU & PACHIOS, LLP One City Center P.O. Box 9546 Portland, ME 04112 Telephone: (207)791-3000 E-mail: ghansel@preti.com msmith@preti.com equinby@preti.com mhanify@preti.com - and - Joseph C. Kohn, Esq. William E. Hoese, Esq. Zahra R. Dean, Esq. KOHN SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 238-1700 E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com whoese@kohnswift.com zdean@kohnswift.com - and - Christopher E. Avallone, Esq. Beth Kushner, Esq. Christopher E. Avallone, Esq. von BRIESEN & ROPER, s.c. 411 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1000 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 276-1122 E-mail: beth.kushner@vonbriesen.com christopher.avallone@vonbriesen.com - and - William G. Caldes, Esq. Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C. 2001 Market Street, Suite 3420 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 Facsimile: (215) 496-6611 E-mail: BCaldes@srkattorneys.com JSpector@srkattorneys.com PHARMACARE US: Sunderland Appeals Class Cert. Order to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ LINDA SUNDERLAND, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part their motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Linda Sunderland, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PharmaCare U.S., Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01318-JES, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this class action is brought by the Plaintiffs to halt Defendant's alleged unlawful sales and marketing of its Elderberry Products, and for damages they sustained as a result of the illegal sales and false and misleading marketing. On Sept. 19, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge James E. Simmons, Jr. granted in part and denied in part. After due consideration, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion for class certification and denied the respective Daubert motion. Only the New York class is certified. Certification of the proposed California class is denied because those claims are barred. The Plaintiffs' motion to file documents under seal is granted. The appellate case is entitled Linda Sunderland, et al. v. PharmaCare U.S., Inc., Case No. 25-6088, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on September 26, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners LINDA SUNDERLAND, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (212) 946-9389 Email: tkashima@blrysonp11c.com - and - Martha Geer, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Email: mgeer@brysonp11c.com Defendant-Respondent PHARMACARE U.S., INC. is represented by: Lawrence E. Butler, Esq. Giovanna A. Ferrari, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 Email: lbutler@seyarth.com gferrari@seyfarth.com - and - Aaron Belzeir, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 Email: abelzelr@seyfalrth.com - and - Joseph J. Oirzano, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Seaport East, Suite 300 Two Seaport Lane Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 946-4800 Facsimile: (617) 946-4801 Email: jolrzano@seyfalrth.com PIKASSO EMPANADAS: Faces Parrales Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- JEAN CARLOS MATAMOROS PARRALES and LISMERLI MERCEDES TAVARES SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PIKASSO EMPANADAS Y MAS INC. and PIKASSO E. TREMONT LLC, RONALD ESPINAL and RAFAELINA FERMIN, Defendants, Case No. 7:25-cv-08009 (S.D.N.Y., September 26, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiffs Parrales and Sanchez were employed by the Defendants as a cook, food preparer and cleaner from October 2024 until April 2025 and as a cashier and cleaner from February 2024 until April 2025, respectively. Pikasso Empanadas Y Mas Inc. is a restaurant owner and operator in Bronx, New York. Pikasso E. Tremont LLC is a restaurant owner and operator in Bronx, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 PPG INDUSTRIES: Munoz Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case MANUEL MUNOZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PPG INDUSTRIES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV20763, was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on September 26, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-09235 to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code. PPG Industries, Inc. is a global supplier of paints, coatings, and specialty materials, headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Shiva S. Davoudian, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 553-0308 Facsimile: (800) 715-1330 Email: sdavoudian@littler.com - and - Hider J. Al-Mashat, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4300 Facsimile: (800) 715-1330 Email: halmashat@littler.com PRECISION HEATING: Picon Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Breach of Contract ------------------------------------------------------------------- MARVIN PICON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRECISION HEATING & AIR, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05507-AT (N.D. Ga., September 26, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, breach of contract, and retaliation under the Georgia Workers' Compensation Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an install technician from around August 1, 2023, through July 16, 2024. Precision Heating & Air, Inc. is a provider of residential and commercial cooling, heating and plumbing service, repair, maintenance and installations in Dallas, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dane Steffenson, Esq. DANE LAW LLC 3575 Piedmont Rd., Suite L120 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 919-9719 Email: Dane@TheDaneLawFirm.com QUAKER OATS: Amjad Appeals Class Cert. and Attorney Fees Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- BILAL AMJAD is taking an appeal from court orders granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class and motion for attorneys' fees, cost, and service awards in the lawsuit entitled Raymond Kessler, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. The Quaker Oats Company, Defendant, Case No. 7:24-cv-00526-KMK, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint is brought against the Defendant for violations of New York General Business Law's Sections 349 and 350. On July 14, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class and a motion for attorney fees, which Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted on Aug. 7, 2025. The Court awards $2,250,000 in attorneys' fees and costs to Class Counsel. The Court finds the requested amount of attorneys' fees to be fair, reasonable, and appropriate. The Court also finds that Class Counsel have incurred $72,003.41 in litigation costs. All of these costs were reasonably incurred in the ordinary course of prosecuting this case and were necessary given the complex nature and scope of this case. The Court rules that the Class Counsel is entitled to reimbursement for these costs. The appellate case is entitled Kessler v. The Quaker Oats Company, Case No. 25-2377, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on September 30, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees RAYMOND KESSLER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Defendant-Appellee THE QUAKER OATS COMPANY is represented by: Benjamin Fleming, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 390 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10017 Objector-Appellant BILAL AMJAD appears pro se. RADIO SYSTEMS: $1.9-Mil. Class Suit Settlement Gets Prelim. OK -------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocherof ClassAction.org reports that a $1.9 million class action settlement will resolve litigation that alleged manufacturer Radio Systems falsely advertised its PetSafe shock-collar products as "safe" and "harmless." The PetSafe class action settlement received preliminary court approval on August 25, 2025 and covers anyone who bought one of the following PetSafe e-collar products in California between October 1, 2018 and October 31, 2022: -- Classic Bark Collar; -- Basic Bark Control Collar; -- Lite Rechargeable Bark Collar; -- Rechargeable Bark Control Collar; -- Pawz Away Mini, Indoor and Outdoor Pet Barrier products; -- PetSafe, Basic, Classic, Rechargeable, Stubborn Dog, Elite Little Dog, YardMax Rechargeable and YardMax Cordless In-Ground Fence products; -- Deluxe In-Ground Cat Fence; -- Wireless Pet Containment System; -- Stay & Play Compact Wireless Fence; -- Stay & Play Wireless Fence for Stubborn Dogs; and -- Stay & Play Wireless Fence with Replaceable Battery. The court-approved website for the PetSafe settlement can be found at PetSafeSettlement.com. PetSafe settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form will be able to receive a pro rata, or equal share, payment from the $1,900,000 settlement fund. The amount each PetSafe settlement class member may receive through the deal depends on which and how many PetSafe e-collar products they purchased. According to the class action settlement website, class members who bought Bark Collar products can receive a cash payout of $30 for each item, while those who purchased Barrier products can receive $35 for each item. Consumers who bought PetSafe In-Ground Fence products can receive $90 for each eligible product, while those who bought Wireless Fence products can receive $140 for each item, the settlement website relays. Additionally, per the website, a class member may submit a claim for up to three eligible PetSafe products with no proof of purchase. Should a class member submit a claim form for more than three products, they will need to provide proof of purchase. To submit a claim form online, class members can visit this page of the class action settlement website and log in with the unique notice ID and confirmation code found in their copy of the settlement notice. Consumers who did not receive a personalized settlement notice by mail or email can still file a claim, and should select the appropriate option on the right side of the Submit Claim page. Alternatively, a PDF of the claim form is available to print, fill out and mail back to the address listed on the second page of the form. All PetSafe claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by December 2, 2025. A hearing is scheduled for January 26, 2026 to determine whether the settlement will receive final approval from the court. Payments will begin to be distributed only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The PetSafe class action lawsuit claimed that the company's shock collar products caused serious physical and psychological injury to pets—including skin burns, infections, skin ruptures, bruising and inflammation—despite being advertised as "harmless" and "safe" products whose shocks would not be painful. [GN] RALPH LAUREN: Fact Discovery in Merrell Due Oct. 14 --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD PAUL MERRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 4:23-cv-06669-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order continuing the Plaintiff's class certification fact discovery cutoff: Event Deadline Close of fact discovery related to class Oct. 14, 2025 certification: The Parties request the Court continue the class certification discovery cutoff to October 14, 2025, for the sole purpose of allowing Defendant additional time to produce documents. On Dec. 28, 2023, prior named class representative, Vivian Salazar, filed her class action complaint against the Defendant. On May 12, 2025, due to Salazar wishing to withdraw as named class representative, the Parties submitted a joint statement regarding extending scheduling deadlines and leave to file a proposed amended complaint. On Aug. 13, 2025, the Court granted the Parties' prior stipulation extending the class certification discovery deadline as well as extending the class certification briefing schedule. Ralph markets products in apparel, home, accessories, and fragrances A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XGQgm4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Chumahan B. Bowen, Esq. Jennifer M. Leinbach, Esq. Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq. Jesse S. Chen, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 9701 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90212 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com chumahan.bowen@wilshirelawfirm.com jleinbach@wilshirelawfirm.com reuben.aguirre@wilshirelawfirm.com jesenia.martinez@wilshirelawfirm.com jesse.chen@wilshirelawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael J. Chilleen, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993 Telephone: (714) 513-5100 Facsimile: (714) 513-5130 E-mail: mchilleen@sheppardmullin.com RCI HOSPITALITY: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ Robbins LLP reminds stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: RICK) securities between December 15, 2021 and September 16, 2025. RCI owns and operates strip clubs around the United States. For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. (RICK) Committed Bribery to Cover Up Tax Fraud According to the complaint, defendants failed to disclose that: (1) defendants engaged in tax fraud; (2) defendants committed bribery to cover up the fact that they committed tax fraud; and (3) as a result, defendants understated the legal risk facing the Company. On September 16, 2025, Letitia James, the New York State Attorney General, posted an announcement entitled "Attorney General James Indicts Strip Club Company Executives for Multimillion Dollar Tax Fraud Scheme and Bribery of State Tax Auditor." On this news, the price of RCI stock fell $5.53 per share, or 16%, to close at $28.79 on September 16, 2025. The next day, it fell a further $2.99, or 10.38%, to close at $25.80 per share on September 17, 2025. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. Shareholders who wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must submit their papers to the court by November 20, 2025. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, visit link https://robbinsllp.com/rci-hospitality-holdings-inc/ All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action against RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN] REPUBLIC SERVICES: Appeals Class Certification Order to 8th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Pietoso, Inc., d/b/a Cafe Napoli, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00397-JAR, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Pietoso brought this action as a putative nationwide class action for breach of contract and declaratory judgment. On April 26, 2011, the Defendants entered into a contract ("Service Agreement") with Pietoso. The service charges were increased by Republic on a regular basis. The increases in Service Charges were presented on the invoice as authorized service charge increases. Pietoso argues that the Defendants improperly increased the service charges without contractual authorization. On Jan. 15, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which Judge John A. Ross granted on Sept. 15, 2025. The Court concludes that the Defendants failed to comply with the Rate Adjustment clause of all Class members' contracts during the Class Period. The Court finds that questions of law and fact common to the proposed class predominate over any individual matters, that Pietoso's claims are typical for the Defendants' customers such that it can adequately represent them, and that a class action is the superior method to resolve their common claims. The appellate case is entitled Pietoso, Inc., d/b/a Cafe Napoli v. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-8009, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on September 29, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent PIETOSO, INC., D/B/A CAFE NAPOLI, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Ryan A. Keane, Esq. Tanner A. Kirksey, Esq. 7711 Bonhomme Ave, Suite 600 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 391-4700 Facsimile: (314) 244-3778 Email: ryan@keanelawllc.com tanner@keanelawllc.com - and - Michael C. Seamands, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL C. SEAMANDS, LLC 1401 S. Brentwood Blvd., Suite 825 St. Louis, MO 63144 Telephone: (314) 802-7730 Facsimile: (314) 260-9645 Email: mcs@mcs-legal.com Defendants-Petitioners REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., et al. are represented by: Jonathan B. Potts, Esq. Barbara A. Smith, Esq. One Metropolitan Square 211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 259-2000 Email: Jonathan.potts@bclplaw.com Barbara.smith@bclplaw.com - and - Meridyth M. Andresen, Esq. Matthew J. Stanford, Esq. 2 N. Central Ave., Suite 2100 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 364-7000 Email: mmandresen@bclplaw.com Matt.stanford@bclplaw.com RICHLAND COUNTY, SC: Plaintiff's Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DISABILITY RIGHTS SOUTH CAROLINA, individually; and C.D., J.O., J.H., W.M., T.D., L.D., A.S., F.J., T.J., T.F., and K.B., as Class Representatives on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. RICHLAND COUNTY, Case No. 8:22-cv-01358-MGL (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Mary Geiger Lewis entered an order: -- adopting the reports and recommendations, -- granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, -- Denying plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and -- granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Relative to the class claims, the Court appoints the Plaintiffs C.D., J.O., J.H., W.M., T.D., L.D., A.S., F.J., T.J., T.F., and K.B. as class representatives. The Court also appoints the attorneys of Burnette Shutt and McDaniel PA, who have already appeared in this action, as class counsel. Finally, the Court defines the class as all individuals: 1) Who were, are, or will be detained at ASDGC on or after April 28, 2022; and 2) Who were, are, or will be before their discharge from ASGDC: Richland is a county located in the U.S. state of South Carolina. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DWZzCc at no extra charge.[CC] RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Standing Order Entered in Ortega Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIANA ORTEGA, v. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, et al. Case No. 5:25-cv-02238-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered a standing order as follows: The Plaintiff shall serve the Complaint promptly in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to L.R. 5−3.1. Any answers filed in state court must be re−filed in this Court (separately) as a supplement to the petition. Any pending motions must be re−noticed in accordance with L.R. 6−1 All discovery matters have been referred to a United States Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge's initials follow the District Judge's initials in the case number assigned to the matter. Not withstanding Local Rule 23−3, the deadline for the filing of a motion for class certification will be set during the Scheduling Conference and/or in a Scheduling Order. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Zr2ARp at no extra charge.[CC] RUGSUSA LLC: Court Narrows Claims in Hong Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNA HONG, v. RUGSUSA, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-08799-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an order granting in part and denying in part RugsUSA's motion to dismiss. The Court dismisses the first cause of action for violation of the FAL and the sixth cause of action for unjust enrichment, both with leave to amend. The Court denies the motion to strike class allegations. Hong may file an amended complaint within 28 days from the date of this Order. No additional parties or claims may be added without leave of Court or stipulation of Defendant. RugsUSA argues that Hong cannot establish unjust enrichment because she "fails to allege how the product she received was of lesser value than the one for which she paid." The Court agrees. Hong's allegations regarding the creation of a price premium through the use of price discounts require unreasonable logical leaps about the value of the purchased rug, leaps that the Court need not accept. The Court therefore grants the motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim. This is a putative consumer class action involving allegations of fake price discounts on the Defendant's website. Here, RugsUSA challenges as overbroad the proposed class that includes "all persons who, while in the state of California and within the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased one or more RugsUSA Product advertised at a discount on Defendant's website on or after Oct. 13, 2023." The Plaintiff Anna Hong is a California resident who purchased a RugsUSA "Chaya Persian Medallion Rug" from RugsUSA on Sept. 2, 2024. RugsUSA sells rugs and home accessory product. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6K7RDw at no extra charge.[CC] RYVYL INC: Monteverde & Associates Investigates Sale to RTB Digital ------------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2024 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. The firm is headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and is investigating Ryvyl Inc. (NASDAQ: RVYL) related to its sale to RTB Digital, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, all classes of RTB stock will be converted into Ryvyl common stock based on a calculated exchange ratio. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/ryvyl-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] SALESFORCE INC: Fails to Protect Clients' PII, Swearingen Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- QUINN SWEARINGEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SALESFORCE, INC., and SOCIETE AIR FRANCE, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-08412 (N.D. Cal., October 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach in or around May 2025. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Salesforce is a cloud-based software company based in San Francisco, California. Societe Air France is an international airline company in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Robert Ahdoot, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Bradley K. King, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (917) 336-0171 Facsimile: (917) 336-0177 Email: bking@ahdootwolfson.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 280 South Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 SECURLY INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Bate Due March 20, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERI BATE, et al., v. SECURLY, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-01304-AGS-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Butcher entered a scheduling order regulating discovery and class certification motion filing deadline: 1. Any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings must be filed on or before Nov. 10, 2025. 2. A telephonic Status Conference to discuss the status of the case and discovery will be held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher on Dec. 5, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. 3. Merit and class discovery are not bifurcated; however, all discovery for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification must be completed on or before Feb. 20, 2026. 4. A motion for class certification must be filed no later than March 20, 2026. Before filing the motion, movant's counsel must contact Judge Schopler's chambers for a hearing date. 5. Counsel must contact Judge Butcher's chambers at 619-446-3704 regarding setting all remaining case management dates within three (3) days of the Court's ruling on the motion for class certification. Securly provides software solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UadpiW at no extra charge.[CC] SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Farney Seeks to Certify Rule 23 class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADAM C. FARNEY v. SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01354-MW-ZCB (N.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying Rule 23 class. Securus is a technology communications firm serving prisons across the United States. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2hn0uF at no extra charge.[CC] SG PIZZA: Aragon Class Action Referred to Magistrate Judge ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BAUDELIO ARAGON and JOAN ANAYA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. SG PIZZA, INC., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-08072-JHR-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer Rearden entered an order referring action to the designated Magistrate Judge for the following purpose(s): General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non- dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement) Dispositive Motion (i.e., motion requiring a Report and Recommendation) Particular Motion: ECF No. 62 Specific Non-Dispositive Motion/Dispute: Class certification (if any) Inquest After Default/Damages Hearing SG PIZZA is a Singapore-based pizza restaurant and delivery service. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a37cFZ at no extra charge.[CC] SHEHEEN HANCOCK: Fails to Protect Private Info, Hinson Says ----------------------------------------------------------- ALBERT HINSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHEHEEN, HANCOCK & GODWIN, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-12774-SAL (D.S.C., October 1, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and/or Class Members' protected health information and personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network, including, without limitation, names, Social Security Numbers, and Health Insurance Information pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. The complaint relates that while the Defendant claims to have discovered the breach as early as May 19, 2025, the Defendant did not begin informing victims of the Data Breach until September 25, 2025, and failed to inform victims when or how long the Data Breach occurred. The complaint alleges that the Representative Plaintiff suffered actual injury in the form of damages to and diminution in the value of his Private Information. He suffered lost time, annoyance, interference and inconvenience as a result of the Data Breach and has anxiety and increased concerns for the loss of privacy, as well as anxiety over the impact of cybercriminals accessing, using and selling his Private Information. He also suffered imminent and impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of fraud, identity theft and misuse resulting from his Private Information being placed in the hands of unauthorized third parties/criminals, asserts the complaint. The Representative Plaintiff was a resident and citizen of the State of South Carolina. Sheheen, Hancock & Godwin, LLP is a tax, audit, and accounting firm. It is a for-profit enterprise with a principal place of business located in Camden South Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (843) 834-4712 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com - and - Laura Van Note, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 E-mail: lvn@colevannote.com SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Agrees to Settle Military Leave Suit for $18.5M ------------------------------------------------------------------- Hilka Birns, writing for CH Aviation, reports that Southwest Airlines Company (WN, Dallas Love Field) has agreed to pay USD18.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit filed by employees who accused the carrier of failing to provide proper military leave benefits. The suit was filed by Jayson Huntsman, a Southwest Airlines pilot and a former US Air Force Reserve officer who served as lead plaintiff in the case filed in 2019 at the California Northern District Court (case number 3:19-cv-00083) in San Francisco. It followed a similar class action suit Huntsman filed in 2017 (case number: 3:17-cv-03972) on behalf of 1,999 Southwest Airlines' pilots, which resulted in a USD18.8 million settlement in 2018, finalised in 2019. The second case expanded the scope to include all Southwest employees, not just pilots. Huntsman alleged that Southwest Airlines violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) by denying certain pay differentials, benefits, and promotions to employees called to military duty. The case was granted class-action status in 2021. Under the latest settlement, 2,791 current and former non-pilot employees will receive roughly USD4,421 each after legal fees, and Southwest Airlines will provide up to 10 days of paid short-term military leave from 2026 to 2030. The carrier admitted no wrongdoing but said the agreements aim to resolve disputes and avoid litigation costs. Asked for comment, a spokesperson for Southwest Airlines said the carrier had nothing to add beyond what is contained in the court filing. [GN] SPECIALTYCARE INC: Barta Bid for Issuance of Notice Partly OK'd --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAYLEY BARTA, ET AL., v. SPECIALTYCARE, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-01335 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge William Campbell, Jr. will grant in part and deny in part the Plaintiffs' motion for issuance of court-authorized notice. The Plaintiffs have demonstrated that putative collective members are similarly situated to the named Plaintiffs for purposes of the FLSA, and accordingly, notice to putative collective members is appropriate. The Court approves notice via mail and email, as well as a reminder notice via mail and email 21 days before the close of the notice period. However, any reminder notice shall plainly state that the Court takes no position regarding the merits of the claims or defenses at issue, that whether to join this case is an individual decision, and that the reminder notice shall not be interpreted as the Court encouraging or discouraging any individual from joining the lawsuit. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a collective consisting of "All persons who worked for Defendant as salaried Surgical Neurophysiologists ("SNs") and were treated by the Defendants as exempt within the United States at any time during the last three (3) years prior to the filing of this Complaint." The Plaintiffs contend that all putative collective members are not paid for hours worked in excess of 40 in a work week because the Defendant uniformly classifies its salaried SNs as exempt from overtime under the FLSA. The Plaintiff Hayley Barta worked as an SN for Defendant from February or March 2017 to April 2024 in Tennessee and Kansas. The Defendant provides intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring ("IONM) services to hospitals across the county, which involves monitoring and observing patients in operating rooms and communicating with doctors regarding changes in the nerve system function. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated Sept. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rQWTDb at no extra charge.[CC] ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Faces Richard Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------ SEAN RICHARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ST. JUDE MEDICAL, CARDIOLOGY DIVISION, INC., ABBOTT LABORATORIES, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV28908 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., September 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to provide rest breaks, wages not timely paid during employment, untimely final wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to keep requisite payroll records, failure to reimburse necessary business expenses, and unfair business practices. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an hourly-paid, nonexempt employee from approximately July 2024 to approximately December 2024. St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc. is a global medical device company doing business in California. Abbott Laboratories is an American multinational healthcare company, headquartered in Abbott Park, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arby Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 450 North Brand Blvd., Suite 900 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 Email: aa@calljustice.com STAKE CENTER: Holtsclaw Seeks to Certify Utility Locator Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN HOLTSCLAW, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. STAKE CENTER LOCATING, LLC, a Utah limited liability company, Case No. 1:24-cv-00490-RMR-SBP (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to certify a class similar to those certified in Wolfe, Loonsfoot, Monroe, and Kinsey, albeit for Colorado (instead of Pennsylvania, New York, Virginia, and Illinois) workers. Specifically, Holtsclaw seeks an Order: -- certifying a class action on behalf of a class defined as: "All hourly Utility Locators who worked for SCL in Colorado and received: (1) a bonus; and/or (2) a vehicle allowance; at any time since Dec. 13, 2020 (Class Members)." -- appointing Holsclaw, as representative for the Class; -- appointing Michael Josephson, Andrew Dunlap, Richard Schreiber, Richard (Rex) Burch, and Brian Gonzales, as Class Counsel; -- authorizing Holtsclaw to send the Proposed Notice to Class Members; and -- directing SCL to furnish to Holtsclaw in electronically readable form the names, telephone numbers, last known addresses, and email addresses of all members of the Class for all Class Members whose Notice is returned as undeliverable without a forwarding addressing, so Holtsclaw can issue class notice. Stake Center Locating ("SCL") admittedly failed to include Utility Locators non-discretionary bonuses and vehicle allowances in their regular rate of pay when calculating overtime. This uniform and systematic pay practice violates Colorado law. Although SCL does not dispute its pay practices, it nevertheless opposes certification. SCL is engaged in high-risk infrastructure and fiber optic network locating. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sfCL0a at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Brian D. Gonzales, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES 2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201 Fort Collins, CO 80528 Telephone: (970) 214-0562 E-mail: bgonzales@coloradowagelaw.com STATE FARM: Bid to Certify State Farm Insured Class Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA ELLIS, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 6:22-cv-01005-RBD-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Roy Dalton, Jr. entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied. 2. The Plaintiff's initial motion for certification is denied as moot. Because the central inquiry is highly fact-specific and significant individual questions go to liability, common questions do not predominate. So the putative class does not pass Rule 23(b)(3) muster. This breach of contract case is a putative class action against the Defendant for its car insurance claims handling practices, the suit says. The Plaintiff Andrea Ellis was insured by State Farm when her car was totaled. State Farm paid her the Autosource valuation amount, which included a typical negotiation adjustment (TNA). Ellis later brought this suit on behalf of a putative class of insureds who received a total-loss valuation and payment that included a TNA. The proposed class is defined as: "All Florida State Farm insureds, from the earliest allowable time through the date of resolution of this action, who received a first-party total-loss valuation and payment on an automobile total-loss claim that included a 'Typical Negotiation Adjustment.'" State is a provider of general and life insurance, banking products, and mutual funds. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SADTJk at no extra charge.[CC] STEUBEN COUNTY, NY: Keeps Property's Surplus Proceeds, Simpson Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- REBECCA SIMPSON, in her capacity as the Administrator of the ESTATE OF DAVID SIMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STEUBEN COUNTY, NEW YORK, Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-06525 (W.D.N.Y., September 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the United States Constitution's Fifth Amendment and Eighth Amendment and the New York Constitution, unjust enrichment, money had and received, equitable accounting, and inverse condemnation. The class action complaint seeks relief from the Defendant's practice of unconstitutionally taking the Plaintiff's and similarly situated residents' property for public use without providing just compensation. According to the complaint, after the Defendant foreclosed on a property for taxes owed, it sold, retained, or transferred the property. However, the Defendant unconstitutionally took all the property, meaning the full amount of the sale proceeds including the full equity of the property above and beyond what was owed in taxes and associated fees rather than keep only the amount owed in taxes and reimburse the taxpayer the remaining balance. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered losses. Steuben County is a government entity in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: George F. Carpinello, Esq. Jenna C. Smith, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 30 South Pearl Street, 12th Floor Albany, NY 12207 Telephone: (518) 434-0600 Facsimile: (518) 434-0665 Email: gcarpinello@bsfllp.com jsmith@bsfllp.com STEVEN SANDERS: Must Oppose George Class Cert Bid by Oct. 14 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LATORIA GEORGE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STEVEN E. SANDERS, in his official capacity as East Baton Rouge Parish Ward 3 District 2 Justice of the Peace, Case No. 3:25-cv-00168 (M.D. La., Filed Feb. 25, 2025), the Hon. Judge John W. Degravelles entered an order granting motion for extension of time to file response to motion for class certification. -- Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification be due on or before Oct. 14, 2025. -- Any replies will due 14 days thereafter. The nature of suit states Civil Rights.[CC] SYNERGY COMPANY: Henry Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- CONSTANCE HENRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE SYNERGY COMPANY OF UTAH, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-11966 (N.D. Il., October 1, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https:thesynergycompany.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. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a dietary supplement on Thesynergycompany.com. Despite her efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the Website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges she was denied the full enjoyment of the facilities, goods and services of Thesynergycompany.com as a result of accessibility barriers. She was disoriented when the automatic pop-up window appeared on the web page. She was also unable to browse the website effectively using her screen reader software and was ultimately prevented from completing her purchase of the desired product. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Synergy Company of Utah operates the website Thesynergycompany.com that provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other program.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law TD BANK: Faces Trisal Suit Over Failure to Refund Overdraft Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- SANDEEP TRISAL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TD BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-16196 (D.N.J., October 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to comply with its agreement to personal deposit account holders to refund any overdraft fees assessed to an overdrawn account if the account is brought into a positive available balance within the "grace period" specified by the Defendant. As a result of the Defendant's breach of its contractual obligations, the Plaintiff and similarly situated account holders, suffered economic damages. TD Bank, NA is a banking services company headquartered in Mount Laurel, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 50 Main Street Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0710 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Ave, Suite 610 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 Email: fhedin@hedinllp.com TEKNI-PLEX INC: C.H. Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Clients' Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- C.H., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, by his parent and guardian BRITTNY KEENE, Plaintiff v. TEKNI-PLEX, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-05621 (E.D. Pa., September 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between October 25, 2024, and December 7, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Tekni-Plex, Inc. is a packaging and material solutions provider for healthcare and consumer products, headquartered in Wayne, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 65 Overhill Rd. Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: grunfeld@kolawyers.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: mweekes@milberg.com TERRAPIN RIDGE: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Hampton Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- PHYLLIS HAMPTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TERRAPIN RIDGE FARMS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12072 (N.D. Ill., October 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, declaratory relief, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://terrapinridge.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, inaccessible contact information, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Terrapin Ridge Farms, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law TORO COMPANY: Martinez Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case FRANCISCO MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE TORO COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV467011, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on September 26, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-08212 to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code. The Toro Company is a landscaping equipment company based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Thomas M. McInerney, Esq. Carolyn B. Hall, 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: thomas.mcinerney@ogletree.com carolyn.hall@ogletree.com TOYOTA ARENA: Phoenix Seeks to Continue Class Cert Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY ROBERT PHOENIX and ADRIENNE GENE VINENT PHOENIX, et al., v. TOYOTA ARENA, LLC, CITY OF ONTARIO, and DOES 1-10, Inclusive, et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-02403-JWH-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Oct. 24, 2025, will move the Court for an Order granting their request to continue deadlines related to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, presently due on Oct. 3, 2025. Contemporaneously with this filing, Plaintiffs are also filing a Notice of Ex Parte an Ex Parte Application to Advance the Hearing Date of the Joint Motion Requesting Continuance of Class Certification Briefing Schedule. The Plaintiffs make this request because the Defendants recently and unilaterally canceled important depositions that the Plaintiffs had scheduled prior to the class certification deadline, and which the Plaintiffs had planned to use in their class certification motion. The Plaintiff Anthony Robert Phoenix is a mobility disabled wheelchair user. On Dec. 3, 2022, Mr. Phoenix and his wife, Plaintiff Adrienne Gene Vincent Phoenix, attended a concert at Toyota Arena in Ontario, California with their three sons. The Plaintiffs allege they encountered numerous physical and policy barriers that impeded Mr. Phoenix's ability to access the Arena and forced Ms. Phoenix to help her husband navigate around these barriers. Toyota operates the Toyota Arena in Ontario, California, a multi-purpose venue that hosts sports events, concerts, and other indoor event. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0nnpgt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Catherine Cabalo, Esq. Khushpreet Mehton, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 766-3592 Facsimile: (415) 840-9435 E-mail: ccabalo@peifferwolf.com kmehton@peifferwolf.com - and - Irakli Karbelashvili, Esq. ALLACCESS LAW GROUP 1400 Coleman Avenue, Suite F28 Santa Clara, CA 95050 Telephone: (408) 295-0137 Facsimile: (408) 295-0142 E-mail: irakli@allaccesslawgroup.com - and - Adam B. Wolf, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 866-9662 Facsimile: (415) 840-9435 E-mail: awolf@peifferwolf.com - and - Aaron Clefton, Esq. CLEFTON DISABILITY LAW 2601 Blanding Ave., Suite C #336 Alameda, CA 94501 Telephone: (510) 832-5001 E-mail: aaron@cleftonlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Frank J. Lizarraga Jr., Esq. LIZARRAGA LAW FIRM APC 3401 Centre Lake Drive, Ste. 600 Ontario, CA 91761 E-mail: frank@lizarragalaw.com - and - Stephen G. Larson, Esq. Steven E. Bledsoe, Esq. Paul A. Rigali, Esq. Andrew E. Calderón, Esq. Anahit Sargsyan, Esq. LARSON LLP 555 South Flower Street, 30th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 E-mail: slarson@larsonllp.com prigali@larsonllp.com sbledsoe@larsonllp.com acalderon@larsonllp.com asargsyan@larsonllp.com ULTIMATE CARE: Cruz Mus File Class Cert. Bid by Jan. 20. 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cruz v. Ultimate Care, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07520 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 12, 2022), the Hon. Judge Ann M. Donnelly entered an order on motion for extension of time to file: The Plaintiffs shall file their Rule 23 motion for class certification on or before Jan. 20. 2026. The Defendant shall file its opposition on or before Feb. 17, 2026. The Plaintiffs shall file their reply on or before March 2, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Ultimate is a long-term care provider.[CC] UNION HOME: Faces Kinney Suit Over FTCA Violation ------------------------------------------------- KAREN KINNEY, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNION HOME MORTGAGE CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02089-CAB (N.D. Ohio, October 1, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals ("Class Members") personally identifying information, including individual names, birth dates, identification numbers including employer identification numbers, driver's license numbers, Social Security numbers, and loan numbers (collectively "PII" or "Private Information") that violates the Federal Trade Commission Act. On August 26, 2025, Union determined that a criminal actor had obtained the PII of Plaintiff and individuals who were an applicant or co-applicant for a loan or related service it provided directly or indirectly from another originator. While Union claims to have discovered the breach as early as June 25, 2025, it did not inform victims of the Data Breach until mid-September of 2025. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information is now in the hands of cybercriminals. The complaint alleges that the Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that her and Class Members' PII 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. The Plaintiff has suffered actual injury from having her Private Information exposed and/or stolen as a result of the Data Breach, including: (a) required mitigation efforts, including researching the Data Breach and needing to monitor her financial statements to ensure her information is not used for identity theft and fraud; (b) damages to and diminution of the value of her Private Information, a form of intangible property that loses value when it falls into the hands of criminals; (c) loss of privacy; and (d) continuous imminent and impending injury raising from increased risk of financial identity theft and fraud, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff Kinney was a resident and citizen of the state of Michigan. Union Home Mortgage Corp. is a private company that offers a variety of mortgage and home loan services to homeowners, with its principal place of business located in Strongsville, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor Pittsburgh PA, 15222 Telephone: 412.322.9243 E-mail: Gary@lcllp.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Stephen E. Connolly, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 609-6910 Facsimile: (267) 609-6955 E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com steve@lcllp.com UNITED STATES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 18 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHASE BOURQUE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated¸ v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Case No. 3:24-cv-06994-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward Chen entered an order modifying case schedule as follows: Event Proposed Deadline Case Management Conference: Sept. 16, 2025 Settlement Conference: Nov. 7, 2025 Last day to raise discovery disputes Nov. 18, 2025 related to class certification: The Plaintiff's class cert motion: Dec. 18, 2025 The Defendant's opposition: Jan. 29, 32026 The Plaintiff's reply: Feb. 19, 2026 Class certification hearing: March 19, 2026 Hearing on dispositive motions and/or July 30, 2026 Daubert briefing: United States is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0YXgMs at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Geoffrey Graber, Esq. Madelyn Petersen, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC  1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005  Telephone: (202) 408-4600  Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: ggraber@cohenmilstein.com  mpetersen@cohenmilstein.com  - and - Charles Reichmann, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES REICHMANN  16 Yale Circle  Kensington, CA 94708-1015  Telephone: (415) 373-8849  E-mail: charles.reichmann@gmail.com  UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Must File Reply by Oct. 17 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS et al., v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00802-RBW (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Reggie B. Walton entered an order directing the Defendants to file their response to the plaintiffs' motion for class certification on or before Oct. 10, 2025. The Court further entered an order that: -- The plaintiffs shall file their reply to the defendants' response to the plaintiffs' motion for class certification on or before Oct. 17, 2025. -- The defendants' deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint is stayed pending resolution of the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. -- During the motion hearing on Oct. 31, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., the parties shall be prepared to address the Court regarding the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction as well as the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. United States Department of Education is a cabinet-level department of the United States government, originating in 1980. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=39gIaJ at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Venegas Sues Over Unlawful Searches and Seizures --------------------------------------------------------------- LEONARDO GARCIA VENEGAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOM HOMAN, White House Border Czar, in his official capacity; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS); U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the DHS, in her official capacity PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, in her official capacity; STEVE SCHRANK, Special Agent in Charge of HIS's Atlanta Field Office, in his official capacity; SARA JONES, Special Agent in Charge of FBI's Mobile Office, in her official capacity; BRIAN ACUNA, Acting Director of ICE's New Orleans Field Office, in his official capacity; ADAM M. CALDERON, Chief Patrol Agent for CBP's New Orleans Sector, in his official capacity; JAMEY VANVLIET, Special Agent in Charge of ATF's Nashville Field Division, in his official capacity; MARK F. SLOKE, U.S. Marshal for the Southern District of Alabama, in his official capacity; FIVE UNKNOWN FEDERAL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS; THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00397 (S.D. Ala., September 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fourth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act, assault, battery, false arrest, and false imprisonment. The case arises from the policies adopted by the Department of Homeland Security that grant federal immigration officers to perform unlawful raids and detentions. The policies authorize immigration officers to (1) raid the non-public areas of private construction sites without consent or a warrant, (2) preemptively detain workers on those sites without reasonable suspicion that they are undocumented, and (3) continue detaining those workers even after they have produced evidence of their citizenship or lawful presence. As a result of the Defendants' actions, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered tortious and unconstitutional searches and seizures. United States Department of Homeland Security is a cabinet-level agency of the United States. United States Department of Justice is a cabinet-level agency of the United States. United States of America is the government of the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jared McClain, Esq. Jaba Tsitsuashvili, Esq. Joshua Windham, Esq. INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE 901 N. Glebe Road, Suite 900 Arlington, VA 22203 Telephone: (703) 682-9320 Email: jmcclain@ij.org UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE: Fails to Accredit Degrees, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Conor Duffy, writing for ABC News, reports that The University of Newcastle and Western Sydney University are being sued in the Supreme Court for failing to accredit their degrees. Students say they have racked up HECS debts of around $50,000 for courses that leave them unable to pursue their dreams in health and engineering. What's next? The ABC can reveal a third Australian university recently reached a settlement with 27 students who accused the university of running an unaccredited financial advice major. Two top Australian public universities have been accused in the New South Wales Supreme Court of misleading and deceptive conduct for running unaccredited degrees in health and engineering. Students who graduated from the University of Newcastle and Western Sydney University spent tens of thousands of dollars and years of their lives studying only to find their qualifications were not recognised. The two degrees involve students who commenced the University of Newcastle's Bachelor of Medical Engineering (honours) in 2018 and 2019 and Western Sydney University's Master of Advanced Imaging (MRI) course. Do you have a story to share? Email Specialist.Team@abc.net.au Vera Lawless, a litigant in the class action against the University of Newcastle, broke down in tears as she described the years of stress and "missed opportunities" since graduating. "There's a black cloud over my passion and it's disappointing," Ms Lawless said. "I finished all of my coursework back in 2020. It's now 2025 and it's five years down the line and I'm still experiencing all this emotion and I just want it done." 'I just wanted to help people' Ms Lawless looked at enrolling in the University of Newcastle's new medical engineering course back in 2017. At the time, she was filled with hope for her future career prospects. She already had a patent to her name for a sleep aid device and was excited to be pursuing the career she had dreamt of since she took her Walkman apart as a nine-year-old. "Wanting to know how things work is a space that I was always interested in but there was always a passion to help people," Ms Lawless said. "It was a perfect fit. Engineering crossed with medicine, and you can help people." Ms Lawless was enrolled in a similar accredited course at an Adelaide university but needed to move to Newcastle to follow her partner, who works in the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). At the time, the university's website told prospective students the degree would help them "travel the world with international recognition through Engineers Australia". If a degree is accredited with Engineers Australia, the qualification is recognised around the world under an international agreement called the Washington Accord. Ms Lawless said she was also told verbally the course was accredited with Engineers Australia. "I walked away from that meeting, going back to my fiance, going, 'This is great. Everything I could have asked for,'" Ms Lawless said. "The University of Newcastle are offering a brand new medical engineering degree, it's accredited." But by her second year of study, Ms Lawless and other students became increasingly concerned the course was not accredited. 'An error was made' In December 2020, the university sent an email to students confirming the course was not accredited, saying: "An error was made in the information posted on the website about professional recognition." "To find out that it wasn't accredited after I've already made the change, after I've uprooted my life to follow my fiance and transferring from an already accredited degree that I felt comfortable in, was just heartbreaking," Ms Lawless said. She said the lack of accreditation meant she could not work when she again followed her now-husband for an air force deployment -- this time to California. "Lost opportunity is probably the best way that I can sum it up, especially in America," she said. "Like, we lived in California. Silicon Valley is right at your doorstep. It's the pinnacle of engineering." As well as a $45,000 HECS debt, Ms Lawless said the uncertainty caused her significant mental distress and limited her options in Australia as well. University of Newcastle denies published statements were misleading In December 2023, the University of Newcastle did receive provisional accreditation with Engineers Australia, but only for students who commenced from 2020 onwards. The university is defending the class action and says additional material that was published on the course website spelled out that it was "seeking" accreditation. "The university denies that its published statements regarding accreditation, read in context, were misleading or deceptive and it denies that its representations were published in trade or commerce," general counsel Daniel Bell said. "It also denies that it was negligent toward, or entered a contract with, group members, in relation to the BME [Bachelor of Medical Engineering]." The university also disputes that students have had their careers in Australia impacted by the lack of accreditation. "It denies that group members have suffered loss and damage because [accreditation] . . . is not a requirement to practice as an engineer in Australia." That is contested by the lead plaintiff in the class action, Andreas Sklavos, who started the court action in February. He said his career options were severely limited without accreditation. Mr Sklavos completed an extra year of study, which the university declined to pay for, to ensure he had accreditation, taking his HECS debt to $55,000. "If accreditation wasn't a big deal, there would be no point in getting it in the first place, but it's one of those ones where you can work without it but your career path stops," Mr Sklavos said. "There's a finite limit to where you can get to, as well as your ability to work overseas can be hindered." He said unaccredited engineers might need to be supervised and have difficulty obtaining indemnity insurance. "It was advertised on the page," Mr Sklavos said. "It's the reason why you would study at a reputable university like Newcastle: You assume everything that comes across is fully accredited and reliable and will get you places in life." Mr Sklavos said the stress had impacted his mental health and left him with sleepless nights and headaches. 'I didn't know what to believe' Othniel Antwi is the lead plaintiff in the second class action against Western Sydney University, which was filed in court in June this year. Mr Antwi was initially thrilled to be enrolling in the Master of Advanced Imaging (MRI) at his local university, where he completed his undergraduate and met his wife. "Being an immigrant family in Australia, education was pretty much everything," Mr Antwi said. "You know it was a way to get a career, a way to have a better life than the one we had in Ghana, and it was actually a way to help others." The Ghanaian-Australian dual citizen wanted to work in health to spare others the health problems he suffered in his childhood. "I had yellow fever growing up. I had malaria. I was quite sick a lot in high school. Half of it I missed because I was sick," Mr Antwi said. It was not until he had finished his masters and was looking for work that a recruiter raised a red flag -- his degree was not accredited with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA). "Oh man, it was very difficult. It was just life-shattering. I didn't know what to believe," Mr Antwi said. "I was in so much pain, honestly." Mr Antwi said he had been assured by the university the course was accredited and completing it would set him up for a lucrative and rewarding career. But when he followed up on the concerns from the recruiter, the university told him in February this year that the course was not accredited and there was no way he would be registered with APHRA. A week later, the university told him the course had been suspended for new students. Completing the course had left this unemployed 25-year-old with a $55,000 debt. "That was heartbreaking but that's not even the hardest bit about it. I think the hardest bit was the emotional and mental toll it's taken on me," Mr Antwi said. "Just the pain of realising that my future career is pretty much non-existent. I just feel so much helplessness." Western Sydney University declined to comment. University regulator under review The two class actions are being run by Australian Law Partners. Its solicitor, Peter Fagan, said the firm also achieved a settlement for 27 students from James Cook University (JCU) who took Supreme Court action in 2023 alleging their financial services major was unaccredited. "There were 27 students involved in that litigation. I can't speak about the terms of the settlement but, broadly speaking, a litigation of this kind, you'd like to think about the message, about the importance to universities of clarity and completeness of information that they publish," Mr Fagan said. JCU declined to comment. Legally in Australia, under what are called "threshold standards", universities are required to have their courses accredited where it is necessary for graduates to be able to work. "The impact can be very severe. Firstly, we're talking about thousands of dollars that can be wasted in tuition fees. There's also psychological injury that can flow from the setbacks that come to pass when accreditation isn't in place," Mr Fagan said. "In some instances, I don't think that students will be the same again because of these issues." In its defence filed in court, the University of Newcastle denied it had breached the threshold standards. The government recently announced a review of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), which is responsible for ensuring compliance with the law. "There is a good argument that TEQSA needs better tools to be able to step in and act when it's justified in the public interest," Education Minister Jason Clare said last month when announcing the review. "And to be able to respond to systemic risks, not just the compliance of individual providers." [GN] UPONOR INC: Class Certification Bid Filing Due April 17, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK HARWOOD AND ASHLEY HARWOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UPONOR INC., Case No. 6:25-cv-00090-GLJ (E.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Gerald L. Jackson entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. Motions for leave to amend or add additional parties: Dec. 5, 2025 2. Exchange of preliminary witness lists and proposed exhibits (Not Filed of Record): Feb. 6, 2026 3. Class Certification Motion filed with all supporting evidence: April 17, 2026 4. Class Certification response filed with all supporting evidence: May 15, 2026 5. Class certification reply filed with any rebuttal evidence: June 5, 2026 6. Evidentiary hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class Certification: June 24, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. Uponor provides plumbing, indoor climate, and infrastructure systems. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gZE4Nb at no extra charge.[CC] VESYNC CORP: Court Narrows Claims in Menter Suit ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Menter v. Vesync Corp., Case No. 3:24-cv-12786 (D. Mass., Filed Nov. 5, 2024), the Hon. Judge Mark G. Mastroianni entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief and the unjust enrichment claims. The suit alleges violation of the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Acts. The court concludes Plaintiff has adequately alleged a common law fraud claim, but the unjust enrichment claim fails as a matter of law. The court, however, agrees with Plaintiff that the amended complaint sufficiently alleges an economic injury based on a "price premium" or overpayment theory due to the alleged false representation that the air purifier she purchased was HEPA-grade. The Plaintiff alleges the HEPA designation commands a 40% price premium over non-HEPA air purifiers; Defendant marketed certain air purifiers and replacement filters, including the purifier Plaintiff purchased, as HEPA-grade; those products were not actually HEPA-grade; as a result, Defendant overcharged Plaintiff by the amount of the HEPA-related price premium; and but-for Defendant's false HEPA representation, Plaintiff would not have purchased her air purifier at the inflated price she did. The Defendant attacks the foundation of Plaintiff's claims by arguing Plaintiff failed to adequately allege the air purifier she purchased was not HEPA-grade. But the court finds the facts alleged in the amended complaint, viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, raise at least a plausible inference that Plaintiff's air purifier did not meet the stringent HEPA standards. Moreover, the court agrees with Plaintiff that Defendant's arguments in this regard -- challenging the sufficiency of Plaintiff's counsels independent testing and the inferences to be drawn from the NAD proceeding brought by one of Defendant's competitors -- stray into fact-based merits arguments which are inappropriate for resolution at this early stage of the proceedings. Vesync develops smart home platform.[CC] VISITING NURSE: Faces Simpson Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ TAMRA SIMPSON and JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VISITING NURSE SERVICE OF NEW YORK d/b/a VNS HEALTH, and NEW PARTNERS, INC. d/b/a VNS HEALTH PERSONAL CARE, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-08184 (S.D.N.Y., October 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to properly pay wages, including overtime; failure to furnish proper wage statements; and failure to furnish proper wage notice. Plaintiff Simpson worked for the Defendants as a Certified Home Health Aide from in or around December 2022 until she left employment in or around May 2025. Visiting Nurse Service of New York, doing business as VNS Health, is a home care service provider based in New York, New York. New Partners, Inc., doing business as VNS Health Personal Care, is a home care service provider based in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 W.W. GRAINGER: Navarro Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------- The case STEVEN NAVARRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. W.W. GRAINGER, INC., and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. C25-02397, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Contra Costa to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on September 26, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-08230 to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of California Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law. W.W. Grainger, Inc. is an industrial supply company based in Illinois. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Michael J. Nader, Esq. Spencer S. Turpen, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 840-3150 Facsimile: (916) 840-3159 Email: michael.nader@ogletree.com spencer.turpen@ogletree.com WALMART INC: Devane Class Cert Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMMY DEVANE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. WALMART INC. f/k/a WAL-MART STORES, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00709-ECM-SMD (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Emily C. Marks entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, and denying without prejudice the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. On Aug. 5, 2025, the Court granted the parties' joint motion to stay pending finalization of a settlement agreement. Because all deadlines are stayed, neither pending motion is ripe for ruling. Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xSOGM0 at no extra charge.[CC] WITRON INTEGRATED: Fails to Properly Pay Workers, Thornton Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- SHAWN THORNTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WITRON INTEGRATED LOGISTICS, INC. and WIOSS EAST, LP, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-12057 (N.D. Ill., October 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly employee from approximately December 2022 through May 2025. Witron Integrated Logistics, Inc. is a system integrator, operator, and logistics service provider, headquartered in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Wioss East, LP is a logistics company, headquartered in Arlington Heights, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew L. Turner, Esq. Ethan C. Goemann, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, PC One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Email: mturner@sommerspc.com egoemann@sommerspc.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***